Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

I think he's talking about that verse in Isaiah that says, "And the LORD stretches the heavens like a tent, and fills it with microwave radiation that has the spectrum of a blackbody of 4 Kelvins."

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

I dunno. Without faith, how do we know anything is here? Without faith, how do I know that you are there?Sounds to me like you're using the word faith in an inappropriate manner.I think we need a program that buys religious people dictionaries and explains to them why the different definitions are separated by numbers.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

Very interesting, Modulous. Thanks for the contribution.A few points, though. Most of the calculations for the temperature seemed to rely on Stefan's law:energy density = sT⁴. However, this is not the only characteristic of black body radiation. Black body radiation also has a spectrum that depends on the temperature, notably the peak of the spectrum is what really distinguishes the temperature of the body.For example, if the sun were the only thing that existed in a static universe, then one could be far enough that one would measure that the energy density would be consistent with a temperature of about 3 K; however, a more careful measurement of the spectrum of the sunlight would still reveal a peak in the visible portion of the EM spectrum, indicating that the source really has a temperature of 5000 K.So it is important to note that the spectrum of the CMB is consistent with a black body of 3 K (or so). It is not enough to say that the total energy we get from the stars is consistent with a black body spectrum of 3 K; one also needs a means by which the radiation can come to equilibrium with a medium of 3 K.The source that you cite does mention some early hypotheses for this: "tired light" interacting with the interstellar medium, and interaction with the aether. But both of these mechanisms have been discounted on observational grounds.So, the source does make some delicious reading in the history of science, which is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to learn how science really works. We have several competing theories that predict a certain phenomenon, and additional observations of the phenomena predicted by each model can rule out particular models to leave, in this case, one possibility.The earlier models are not to be laughed at though. They were good explanations/predictions based on the science at the time. It is only through continual observation that we learn when to discard a model; it is not by saying, "Oh, we don't understand a particular point, so we don't really understand anything, so it's all just a matter of faith!"Anyway, thanks for the link. It is interesting to see yet another model, like calculating the Schwarzschild radius using Newton's law of gravity, that gave a correct answer although based on an incorrect view of the universe.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

Okay. So you have nothing to say that addresses any of the points that I wrote. You found, I guess, a source that may or may not address any of the points I meant, but you don't offer an explanation since you probably don't understand any of it.Why bother even posting at all if you're not going to say anything?

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

First, I'm not sure why you keep typing the letter O instead of the numeral 0. Is this part of the learning disorder that you continue to exhibit?At any rate, you are correct. So far there is no evidence that anything existed at t=0. As far as we know, the universe may have began at t=2.3 x 10^-50. Or the universe may have began precisely at t=10^-43, although it would be a remarkable coincidence of the universe began at the precise moment when our current understanding of the laws of physics begin to be valid. In fact, so remarkable a coincidence that I think that it would be a matter of faith in its commonly accepted sense to believe that this is when the universe began.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

That's funny. I actually don't believe that anything exists at t=0 or before t=0. Since we don't have a theory that explains what may have been happening at these alleged points in time, I honestly don't know what was happening.I guess that's the difference between the faith-based approach you use and the more pragmatic empirical approach that certain others have.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

The reason is that the Big Bang theory is a direct consequence of General Relativity, and General Relativity has been confirmed. It was confirmed when Eddington measured starlight bending passed the sun almost 100 years ago, and is confirmed when examples of gravitational lensing are discovered. GR is confirmed in experiments in satellites sent into orbit. It is confirmed when we see the orbits of pulsars decay. GR is a very well confirmed theory, so it makes sense to believe it when it says that once the universe was very much smaller than it is today.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

No, Guillaume predicted a certain energy density -- he did not predict a Cosmic Microwave Background, at least not according to Modulous' source. Guillaume did nothing to predict the correct spectrum, nor the isotopic nature of the radiation.Conceivably, one could perhaps say that Herzberg did predict an isotopic blackbody spectrum that is roughly correct. But the mechanism he proposed for this has been shown to be incorrect.If your point is that people can get correct answers with incorrect theories, then, sure, but we already knew that: crystalline spheres around the earth (with the various corrections added to it by the Middle Ages) gave pretty impressive results regarding the motion of the planets in the night sky.I suggest reading Kuhn in this regard. I think he's simple enough yet deep enough to lend himself to your brand of misreading and stubborn misinterpretation.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

No skin off my teeth. You are useful in that it seems to inspire other people to post some interesting material.I am a little puzzled at what you get out of this, though.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry