|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation cosmology and the Big Bang | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
NoNukes my friend
There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old. quote: Physicists say that they are drawing close to solving a mystery about the sun that has stumped them for more than 20 years. Is this the proof you are talking about (MSW theory) or is there something else? I believe this is not quite proof yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Dr. Adequate my friend
Good luck with the long shot I will go with the higher probability every time. From December of last year
quote: I am sorry but the inevitable announcement of the missing Higgs is just around the corner. These masses were well covered by Tevatron years ago and only showed some interesting activity. Fermi lab does great science and they would never have missed the signal. Tevatron reached 3 sigma RSONAANCES: Higgs won't come out of the closet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Welcome Briterican
It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a stretch to accept the notion that, in the vastness of space, there would me matter which is not visible to us. If matter does not emit radiation (visible or not) of its own accord, and has no nearby light source to illuminate it (which would describe the vast majority of the universe), then it would be for all intents and purposes undetectable to us... EXCEPT by observing its gravitational influence on other matter that is observed. If one limits oneself to accepting only that which is directly observed, one must throw out a great deal of subsequently firmly established science. I agree the possibilities are vast. When science gets involved, one would like a bit more evidence that just possibility. A few years ago, science discovered an actual acceleration of the universe at very great distances (according to redshifts of type 1a supernova). At that moment in time Big Bang failed the empirical evidence as it failed to even speculate at that kind of possibility. Since the occurrence, scientists have added things to balance the universe density to fix the problem; a kind of AD-Hoc fix. I believe as a Creationist that if God wanted to use a Big Bang to create the universe so be it. However, the evidence is mounting that the Big Bang is total nonsense including all the contrivances of that theory. That is just an uneducated opinion on my part so some one here needs to convince me otherwise using the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So, you're told that the data in favor of the existence of the Higgs does not "quite yet" constitute an "ironclad discovery", and you conclude that it's a "long shot" that it exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old. Physicists say that they are drawing close to solving a mystery about the sun that has stumped them for more than 20 years. Let me get this straight. Someone points out that your understanding is ten years out of date and you're trying to rebut that with a 21 year old article? That's the stupidest argument I've ever seen. Oh, BTW, your understanding is ten years out of date and your reference is too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
zaius137 writes:
"Never let ignorance get in the way of having an opinion." However, the evidence is mounting that the Big Bang is total nonsense including all the contrivances of that theory. That is just an uneducated opinion on my part so some one here needs to convince me otherwise using the science. CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
As JonF pointed out, your references dates from a time when neutrinos were thought to be massless. A good summary of the current state of the art can be found in the wikipedia article entitled "Solar neutrino problem".
I find your stubborn insistence on adhering to error quite refreshing. It's quite unusual for a creationist.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
That is just an uneducated opinion on my part so some one here needs to convince me otherwise using the science. Surely there is a less hubris laden way to express ignorance.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There's also a good article at Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Hi JonF...
Let me get this straight. Someone points out that your understanding is ten years out of date and you're trying to rebut that with a 21 year old article? Unless you are just taking the participants word for it? Does an argument automatically win in this forum Ad Novitam? Interesting article you cited thanks. Tried to open your citation and got a security update for .NET framework, could you try again please Edited by zaius137, : correction... Edited by zaius137, : Bad citation...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Creation Ministries International, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:
quote: Even other creationists know that your claim is out-of-date and no longer usable. Edited by dwise1, : bbcode clean-up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
My friend NoNukesThere is no fault in ignorance just willful ignorance.
Surely there is a less hubris laden way to express ignorance. Why I started this post in the first place was to increase my own understanding of cosmology physics. The missing neutrino thing was a good example, I enjoy that kind of input. It has been my experience that if you look hard enough there is always an answer be it hypothesis or not. Cutting to the chase here are my major objections for BB, please if you find one or two we can talk about please inform me. Horizon problem for CMBFlatness problem Where is all the Antimatter? Energy polarization of Quasars Quantized Red shifts Type III stars are missing in early universe Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe Galaxy evolution does not match predictions. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections) The Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics. CMB fails the shadow test for background radiation Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. (Cosmological Principle is wrong). Computational models applying Jeans length have failed to produce the more massive stars, which are more numerous than our sun. Edited by zaius137, : correction...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3437 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Dr. Adequate my friend
So, you're told that the data in favor of the existence of the Higgs does not "quite yet" constitute an "ironclad discovery", and you conclude that it's a "long shot" that it exists? I do not usually impart a probability of zero, except in the case of evolution. However, the Higgs is very close; I do believe that Stephen Hawking will win his hundred-dollar bet on this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi zaius,
Good luck with the long shot I will go with the higher probability every time. *Ahem!*
quote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Timeline_of_experimental_evidence Go on then. Go with the higher probability. You do realise that 250 is a little bit higher than 1, right? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Every single one of your objections is false:
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
The issue over the quadrupole moment is how large it is (the measurements have large errors and there are data analysis issues) and what exactly it implies about the long term development of the universe and early development of matter. However it has nothing to do with the occurrence of the Big Bang, since the Cosmic Microwave Background, in which the quadrupole anomaly exists is a prediction of the Big Bang.
Flatness problem
Again nothing to do with the Big Bang itself, rather why do certain parameters have values that result in a flat universe. It's still a flat Big Bang universe though, as the parameters are the parameters of the Big Bang model.
Where is all the Antimatter?
Explained a while ago now. It is due to CP violation, symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The laws of physics do treat matter and antimatter differently. Currently however that would leave us with a galaxy worth of matter rather than the vast amount of matter we see today. So we know there are probably particle physics effects which increase this asymmetry. A major issue of course, but one for particle physics and not the Big Bang.
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light
The expansion of space has no speed, this is a nonsensical objection. It is best to think of the expansion of space as the creation of new empty space, so for every meter cubed, a new micrometer cubed is produced. This can cause the whole universe to inflate in size "faster than light", but nothing is actually moving.
The Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics.
It's silly to say it is missing when the experiments to detect it have just begun. If if it is missing isn't this a particle physics issue and not cosmological? You can't list everything physicists don't know as somehow being evidence against the Big Bang.
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
I don't know what you have been reading, but those are two of the best matches between experiment and theory that the Big Bang possesses.
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Again, how is this a problem. We've detected dark matter indirectly by measuring how much it distorts spacetime and the measurements match the theory exactly. Dark Energy is not a thing, but only a name for a non-zero cosmological constant. This is not an issue for the Big Bang, the Big Bang can have a non-zero cosmological constant. Anyway I'm not going to go through your whole list. If you choose to respond to this, please use papers citing evidence against the claims above, not an opinion piece in the Detroit Metro or something similar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024