Summations Only

Typical creationist diversionary tactic. You try to change the subject with a challenge that is at best vaguely related to the discussion. Though the challenge doesn't need to be at all related to the discussion. A local creationist activist refers to it as "rabbit trailing", alluding to a tracking dog being thrown off the scent he's following by a passing rabbit that he then chases, losing the trail he was following. That creationist warns his followers to not let "evolutionists" pull that trick on them, denouncing it as thoroughly dishonest, and yet in reality it is a favorite creationist trick; in repeated attempts to discuss his claims with him, that activist would invariably and hypocritically "respond" with nothing but yet another "impossible question" rabbit-trail challenge.Rabbit-trailing is thoroughly dishonest and sadly typical of creationists, practically archetypical of them. Why do creationists wonder that they have such a bad reputation?The subject was Zaius' failed attempts to prove that the Big Bang violates physics; it's even the subtitle of this thread in the topic. Now that discussion has started winding down with observations that Zaius' objections have been answered and shown to be wrong and that he has not responded to those criticisms, but rather just continues to make his assertions which have been shown to be wrong. Now to NoNuke's Message 187, which states: , you respond with a "rabbit trail" challenge, an attempt to divert attention away from the actual discussion, which is Zaius' misunderstanding of physics and his reasons for rejecting the evidence.Here are two questions:

quote:

---

1. What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
and
2. What is wrong with this claim that attempts to disprove the Big Bang?

---

Those are two very different questions that call for two very different responses. In responding to the first question, the respondent would be expected to provide evidence in support of the Big Bang. But in responding to the second question, the respondent would be expected to address the claim in question and to show what is wrong with it and why it fails in its attempt. For example, if the claim were that if the Big Bang were true, then there should be herds of purple unicorns on all the earth's continents, but purple unicorns don't exist so the Big Bang is false. The proper response is to demonstrate that that claim's assertion about the necessary existence of purple unicorns is wrong.To put it in a different setting, consider a murder trial in which John is the defendant. The prosecution claims that John committed the murder. How should the defense respond? Obviously, the defense should respond by demonstrating that the prosecution's claim is wrong, that John did not commit the murder. However, you would demand that the defense abandon that approach and instead find the real murderer and prove that murderer's guilt. The approach that you would demand is clearly wrong.Now, if you really want to know what the evidence for the Big Bang is, then research it. A particularly useful approach would be to trace the history of its development. What observations led to its formulation and guided its development. What other theories were proposed to explain those observations and why did they fail? Work through that process so that you can understand where the current conclusions came from.And I would strongly suggest that you do not use creationist sources in your research, because creationist sources will only lie to you, as they always have in the past.Edited by dwise1, : removed vestigial last line

I believe that the link that Panda provided serves as an excellent response to you question regarding evidence for the big bang.I'll also note that a few of the items raised by zaius137 are attempts to refute that evidence. For example zaius cites quantized red shifts to refute some of the evidence that the universe is currently expanding. But he gives extremely short shrift to the evidence that quantized red shifts are not real. In particular, he has made specific, and facially bogus attacks on evidence and analysis producing contrary results and has not responded to showings that his attacks are off base. What theory or theories did you have in mind? What meaning are you attaching to the word "theory"?

I think he is referring to the Steady State hypothesis in which matter is continually created and destroyed.

(frako) my friendDo you have any articles criticizing Plasma redshift? So says Prof. Brian Greene You must watch the same Nova programs I do.You know Mr. Greene never addresses an exact solution to the dark energy by quantum field theory. About the probability that we only receive a certain measure of that dark energy in this very lucky universe we occupy defies common sense (and many scientists agree).

And yet I will wager that the phrase: "About the probability that we only receive a certain measure of that dark energy in this very lucky universe we occupy defies common sense" is not a quotation from an actual scientist.Maybe they're agreeing with something else, possibly something written in English.

Oni my friend... When scientists find that type 1A supernova are accelerating what exactly does that mean? Does it conform to any of the following?1. Increase in speed: the rate at which something increases in velocity
2. Act of accelerating: the act of accelerating, or the process of being accelerated
3. Physics measure of increase in velocity: a measure of the rate of increase in the velocity of something per unit of time.What about the local observer principle, one in our galaxy and one in a distant galaxy moving apart at or near the speed of light. Does the measurement of the speed of light stay consistent with SR? This given, is our length of measure contracted as described by Lorentz—Fitzgerald? And the galaxy that is traveling faster than light have a length of zero?Length contraction - Wikipedia

(frako) my friend... You raise a question about the Carmeli 5d cosmology here is the link.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407083
The major difference in the cosmologies are highlighted by the differences in the line elements.

quote:

---

For FLRW metric:
Cosmological relativity’s line element for an expanding Universe in negligible gravity is:

​

ds2 = τ2dν2 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 )
τ = H0-1 = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
o H0 = Hubble’s constant.
ν = Is the space velocity at a given point in space.
x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.

​

For the Carmeli 5d cosmology:
ds2 = τ2dν2 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 ) + c2dt2
τ = H0-1 = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
o H0 = Hubble’s constant.
ν = Is the space velocity at a given point in space.
t = time.
c = the speed of light.
x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.

​

The result is a theory of 5 dimensions.

---

Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Sorry vimesey what are the specifics about your statement?

Hi there zaius137,It's simply this - back in message 57, you provided a list of your objections to the big bang. Son Goku responded to that in message 60 with the opening words: and proceeded to address the majority of your objections in the list. (I suspect he didn't address every single one of them as a result of time constraints, or that he did address them all, but my understanding of the inter-connections between the points is inadequate).Anyway, in message 137, you listed the same points again as "the problems with the Big Bang" - this is a list of objections which one of our resident physicists has informed you is false.I think that I am much in the same boat as you, zaius137, in that I am not a physicist, and am not able to do any of the maths that you need to do to be a physicist. What I am hoping for, by reading some of the posts here and some of the papers referred to, is to be able to get some better level of understanding of the workings of science than I have - I find it incredibly fascinating, and am grateful for everyone's help in that regard.But here's the thing - unless I learn the maths (a process which would take me years), I will only ever be able to approximate an understanding of this level of physics. English (or any other spoken language) can't convey the physics properly - it can only ever approximate it. The language of physics is maths.So if I read something which appears to contradict the only scientific theory to do with the origin of the universe (there you go, there's an expression ("the origin of the universe") which does a dreadful job of it in English) which has consistent tested and peer-reviewed experimental results supporting it, then my first assumption is not going to be that I have found something which disproves the BBT.And if Son Goku, a jobbing physicist who lives, breathes and speaks the maths (as well, I am sure, as many other things in a full and eclectic life), tells me that everything I have listed is false, then my knee jerk reaction is going to be that my approximated understanding is off the mark.In trying to get to understand all of this stuff, I am only coming at it with one preconception - it is that if an established physicist, who has spent his adult life studying these things, explains to me that I am wrong, then the chances are astronomically high that I am, indeed, wrong.

Wowee kerzowie, you're pretending to participate in a discussion of cosmology and you are asking those questions?The answers are yes, yes (well, sort of), and there are no galaxies traveling faster than light through space.

Zaius, my friend, is it always your custom to avoid the questions asked to you? I asked you specific questions, my friend. Why did you avoid them and ask me a whole set of new questions? Is your goal here to learn, my friend?I'll ask you again: Is it your belief or understanding that the galaxies themselves are moving? Or do you get that the space between them is expanding?Please answer... friend. Can you provide an actual quote? I need to understand the context. Yes I don't really understand that question the way you're asking it, could mean a few things. Can you clarify what you mean? There are NO galaxies traveling at faster than the speed of light. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light. The SPACE between the galaxies is expand at a rate FASTER THAN LIGHT CAN TRAVEL. That does NOT mean the galaxy is traveling faster than the speedof light. Maybe this is where you're finding the confusion?- Oni

It might help Zaius if you explained how far apart galaxies must be before this is true.

That would be the way you would proceed if you did not have an inviolable belief that the our galaxy, if not the earth itself, must be at the center of the universe, with said universe's creation being in some way consistent with Genesis. In such a case, you might not trust anything Son Goku had to say to the contrary as long as you could muster any resistance.

Here is a link to a reasonably accessible paper discussing expansion and special relativity. I think it addresses all of the questions you asked.http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/...ey/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdfEdited by NoNukes, : Replace "topic" with something more descriptive

There is so much wrong with this model that it is difficult to know where to start.First of all, let me explain something about General Relativity. The main equation for the General Relativity is Einstein's Field Equations: The term is purely geometric, by which I mean it tells you about the geometry of spacetime. Specifically it tells you how much a ball of particles will shrink as time (time being measured by the centre of the ball) passes due to the curvature of spacetime. is measure of the energy and pressure of matter. It's basically the energy density of the matter added to the total amount of momentum flowing through a point in each of the three directions.So Einstein's equation basically says that at every point in spacetime the part of the curvature of spacetime which will cause a ball of matter to shrink over time is equal to times the sum of energy density at that point and the amount of momentum flowing through that point.So basically you figure out for a piece of matter, how much energy density and momentum flow a piece of matter causes at a point and this (through Einstein's equations) gives you the volume shrinking part of the curvature of spacetime.
Once you now that you basically know what the spacetime is like.For example put in for a homogeneous gas of particles (basically like the universe on the largest scales) and the spacetime you get out is an expanding universe.Now the equations are normally used with the assumption that spacetime is four-dimensional, three space and one time, although technically they can be used in general, but the results have no relation to reality. Carmeli uses them with five dimensions, one time, three space and one velocity. He uses velocity as a dimension and then applies the equations.What is wrong with this? Velocity is not a dimension! Even if you pretend the idea makes sense the equations have no sensible solutions, they feature 5D universes being blown apart by gravitational radiation.