Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 4:09 PM
27 online now:
Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,369 Year: 15,405/19,786 Month: 2,128/3,058 Week: 502/404 Day: 17/89 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 19 of 305 (663607)
05-25-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by zaius137
05-25-2012 1:52 AM


The Big Bang theory has truly become a case of the tail wagging the dog. The invention of dark energy and dark matter relies on human imagination.

Like others have mentioned, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Dark matter and dark energy are names given to observations. They are definitely not inventions.

Let's start with dark matter. It was observed that that the motion of galaxies didn't match up with the estimated visible mass. Therefore, there had to be mass that wasn't luminous. Further observations have have used gravitational lensing to detect this matter that does not absorb or emit light, and apparently does not interact that much with luminous matter. One of the more observations was a collision between between two star clusters seen below:


http://home.slac.stanford.edu/...sreleases/2006/20060821.htm

The red represents the luminous matter and the blue represents the dark matter. They were able to show how the luminous matter interacts while the dark matter continues along the same path without interacting with the luminous matter.

So to sum it up, we are now able to map dark matter in the universe so I would hardly call it an invention.

As for dark energy, it is much like gravity. Gravity is the name of a force. Dark energy is no different. It is the name of the force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. This acceleration is an observation, not something that is made up. Dark energy is not an invention either.

By far these are two of the most unlikely and bazaar things ever conceived of by science.

I would vote for Quantum Mechanics as the most bazaar, but to each their own.

In addition, there is a suggestion that the “Cosmological Principle” may be incorrect, remember it states that the universe has no center or no edge.

When you blow up a balloon, where is the center of expansion on the surface of the balloon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:52 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-25-2012 5:02 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 21 of 305 (663633)
05-25-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ProtoTypical
05-25-2012 5:02 PM


I realize that this is an analogy but the center is the same place it was before you inflated it.

There is no center on the surface of the balloon, or rather there is no point that is more of the center than anywhere else. You may be mistakenly using the point in the center of the balloon instead of limiting yourself to the surface of the balloon.

If I understand it correctly, if you travel in a straight line in this universe you will end up where you started just as you would if you were walking on the surface of a sphere. Our universe has no center, just as the surface of a sphere has no center.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-25-2012 5:02 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-25-2012 6:15 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 62 of 305 (664242)
05-30-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by zaius137
05-30-2012 1:05 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Why I started this post in the first place was to increase my own understanding of cosmology physics.

Then the last thing you should be doing is finding creationist objections to the Big Bang model. Creationists are more interested in reducing our knowledge, not increasing it. For example:

Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center.

This isn't true. Never has been. How does one seek knowledge by being wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:05 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 96 of 305 (664732)
06-04-2012 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by foreveryoung
06-04-2012 12:08 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
So how in the world does that make you KNOW there was an electroweak epoch?

Because we can recreate that epoch in high energy collisions here on Earth. Physicists observe the merging of electromagnetism and the weak force in high energy colliders. We know how much energy is needed to unify these forces. We also know that this energy density was present after the start of the Universe:

quote:
In physical cosmology the electroweak epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when the temperature of the universe was high enough to merge electromagnetism and the weak interaction into a single electroweak interaction (> 100 GeV). The electroweak epoch began when the strong force separated from the electroweak interaction. Some cosmologists place this event at the start of the inflationary epoch, approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang.[1][2][3] Others place it at approximately 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang when the potential energy of the inflaton field that had driven the inflation of the universe during the inflationary epoch was released, filling the universe with a dense, hot quark–gluon plasma.[4] Particle interactions in this phase were energetic enough to create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. As the universe expanded and cooled, interactions became less energetic and when the universe was about 10−12 seconds old, W and Z bosons ceased to be created. The remaining W and Z bosons decayed quickly,[citation needed] and the weak interaction became a short-range force in the following quark epoch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_epoch

I sincerely doubt that unless you have defined "observed" in a way that differs from what "observed" has traditionally been understood to mean.

Dark matter observed here:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/...sreleases/2006/20060821.htm

Dark energy observed here:

quote:
By studying the spectra of supernovae or of the galaxies in which they explode, we can infer the redshift due to the expansion. Comparing the redshift with the distance for a large number of supernovae, we can derive the history of the cosmic expansion rate. In 1998, such measurements were first reported for supernovae at large distances, those which exploded when the universe was only two-thirds its present size. These supernovae appeared about 25% fainter, that is, farther away, than expected, an effect attributed to the speed-up of cosmic expansion over the last several billion years.
http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/science/SN1A.shtml

The acceleration of expansion IS dark energy. That is the name given to it. It is what we observe.

I didn't make anything up.

Sure you did. You made up a fantasy where the Big Bang was a myth. It isn't. It is an extremely well supported scientific theory that explains the evidence we have.

Until you can demonstrate that the electroweak force is a reality, and that dark matter and dark matter are indeed realities, then the real possibility of their non existence would throw the theory into serious danger.

quote:
For contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

Do you think Nobel Prizes are awarded for imaginary particle interactions? Really?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by foreveryoung, posted 06-04-2012 12:08 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by zaius137, posted 06-07-2012 2:38 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 97 of 305 (664733)
06-04-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Chuck77
06-04-2012 2:54 AM


Re: dark matter
Astronomers explained this curious phenomenon with an invisible mass that became known as dark matter. Even though it cannot be seen, dark matter has mass, so researchers infer its presence based on the gravitational pull it exerts on regular matter.

They can go one step farther now. They can diretly observe gravitationaly lensing caused by dark matter. This is as much a direct observation as matter absorbing and emitting light. Not only have astronomers observed dark matter, but they are able to map where it is and its density:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Chuck77, posted 06-04-2012 2:54 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by godsriddle, posted 06-07-2012 11:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 100 of 305 (665073)
06-07-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by zaius137
06-07-2012 2:38 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip of the problem.
Interesting that the Bullet Cluster and similar observations are the latest augments against CDM…

Can you please cite a peer reviewed article that demonstrates this?

From the observations as such only more problems arise for BB.

How so?

Actually there are several better explanations for the 1A supernova redshifts one of them being the “Carmeli 5d Cosmology”.

Why is it a better explanation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by zaius137, posted 06-07-2012 2:38 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 135 of 305 (665288)
06-11-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zaius137
06-10-2012 5:06 PM


Re: W and Z
As I had mentioned before the smaller accelerators already covered the lower energies (114Gev-150GeV), there was a little excitement around (145GeV). That one never panned out; telling me that the boson will never be found.

Isn't that a wonderful double standard. We DO have results demonstrating the W and Z boson and the electroweak interaction, and yet you deny that as well. I don't see how you can complain about a lack of results at a given energy when you ignore those same results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 5:06 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 211 of 305 (666288)
06-25-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
If you are truly a rationalist, you cannot embrace a philosophical principle. Any accepted principle that violates basic laws of physics is not scientific and must be considered philosophical (if not religious). Cosmology of the Big Bang lacks the well-known basics of the conservation of energy so it is not materialistic.

This seems to be an interesting intersection of a religionist mindset and the real world of science. The laws of physics are not dogmatic tenets of belief. Never have been, never will be. Science has thrown out plenty of laws over the last few centuries. When observation contradicts a law it is the law that we throw out, not the observations. Reality trumps Scientific Law. Please remember that.

We are not talking about principles here. We are talking about OBSERVATIONS. The survey of type Ia supernovae demonstrated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Period. The observations demonstrate that over a long enough distance that the cumulative expansion will be greater than the speed of light resulting in a de Sitter Universe. This universe is a valide solution to General Relativity, but that hardly matters. What matters is that if a "law" is contradicted by observations of reality then it is the law that is wrong, not reality. This is a lesson that no creationists seems capable of learning.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 260 of 305 (666447)
06-27-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 7:52 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
No, I am not excluding anything. I would not be certain that gravity exists as a separate phenomenon. If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion. The rest being its different manifestations on different scales.

So how does motion transfer from one body to the next? For example, why doesn't a baseball go right through the baseball bat? Why does it rebound and go flying in the other direction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 7:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 263 of 305 (666469)
06-27-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
It assumes that space grows from 0D point that was infinitely hot and dense into an ever widening slice as the universal time progresses.

It does? I was under the impression that this coordinate system works just fine for a static and infinite universe.

No such phenomenon has ever been observed.

But we do have evidence that it occurred in the past. We observe the evidence of this event.

Things on larger scales are rather observed to rotate, not run away from each other.

So you are completely unaware that distant galaxies are red shifted due to them speeding away from us?

What are those confirmed predictions of the big bunk cosmogony you are boasting about?

Red shifted galaxies, cosmic microwave background, evolution of galaxies, abundance of light elements, and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect to name a few. Read more here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 1:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 3:55 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 266 of 305 (666479)
06-27-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 3:55 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Yes, at a stretch it could be used for infinite universe models. FLWR metric was indeed used by Hoyle in his steady state hypothesis but that was a grave mistake and the reason for the undoing of Hoyle's ideas.

The metric was not Hoyle's undoing, it was the evidence.

Of course I am well aware of the redshift and its conventional interpretation.
The problem is that any one observing the Doppler effect in real life may be aware that moving objects do not recede in their uniform multitudes. Some recede and others approach. That alone should have raised red flags for the theorists. For every observer registering a redshifted signal from a receding object there could always be someone to whom the same object is approaching and who is therefore registering a blueshifted one. That's how it goes in real life.

And there are indeed galaxies that are blue shifted, such as Andromeda which is hurtling towards us. Of course, I was referring to the galaxies which are not bound by gravity to our own galaxy. Those are red shifted, and I see nothing in your post that argues against this as an indication that they are receding from us.

Expanding into itself is an oxymoron. Expanding into nothing should be tried by the morons who persist with the nonsense. Therefore another, a rational this time around explanation of the redshift phenomenon had to be looked for. Jumping to cretinous conclusions is not science. It's faith.

The conclusions follow from the evidence. Calling something ridiculous does not make it so. You are going to have to try harder than just calling people morons. Actually dealing with the evidence would be a good first step.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 3:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 5:29 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 291 of 305 (666523)
06-28-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 5:29 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
Well, Taq, if the redshift is the evidence that the Universe has been expanding from 0D point of singularity to reach the huge proportions currently measured, then could you be so kind as to inform the cat where could it have possibly been expanding into, according to your lights?

Not knowing what the universe is expanding into in no way puts the evidence of expansion in doubt. The universe IS expanding. That is what evidence points to. The cosmic microwave background evidences the fact that the univese was once opaque to light, but then became transparent about 14 billion years ago in our frame of reference (the frame of reference in which the CMB was measured). The abundance of light elements (H, He, and Li) also supports a starting point for our universe in past. A universe with an infinite past would have long ago ran out of hydrogen to fuse and would be in entropy death.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 5:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:22 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 293 of 305 (666525)
06-28-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, all points only to the observation that light is redshifted in a certain relation to the assumed cosmological distances. That is all. That distances are actually growing of themselves is an unsupported tall claim. Have you been there with a ruler to measure that? And how would you tell a chunk of space growing fast from another one with stunted growth?

That's just it, we have been measuring it with rulers. Our rulers are standard candles such as type Ia supernovae. These give us accurate distances to other galaxies. We find a correlation between redshift and distance as measured by these standard candles. We also see time dilation effects in distant supernovae. This can only occur if they are indeed moving away from us at high speed.

Perhaps you should justify your denial. Afterall, shouldn't we expect to see a redshift if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see time dilation effects in distant supernovae if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see a cosmic microwave backgroud radiation with specific characteristics if the universe had a beginning from a dense area of energy? You discount this evidence only because it is inconvenient for your beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 10:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 295 of 305 (666527)
06-28-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
No, since the nature of the claim is most fantastic and the explanation offered is the least plausible one, any proper science must have had all other possible explanations of the phenomenon thoroughly exhausted before rushing into accepting such a proposition as gospel truth.

The evidence makes it very plausible. Also, a static universe was the original cosmological model. The BB theory had a really tough time garnering support early in its life. However, as the evidence piled up it continued to support the BB theory and contradict a static universe.

If you want to claim that the universe is static then you have to explain the evidence in terms of a static universe. First, there is Olber's Paradox. If the universe is infinite with infinite mass and energy then the night sky should be completely lit up by distant stars. It isn't. The night sky is quite dark. Why is that? You also need to explain why the universe has not reached entropy death. You need to explain why we observe a cosmic microwave background that exactly fits the predictions made by the BB theory. You need to explain why distant supernovae display time dilation effects. You need to explain the redshift.

Instead, all I see is denial. You simply don't want the BB theory to be true, evidence be damned. That is simply not a rational way to approach reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:41 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7997
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 297 of 305 (666532)
06-28-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, that's a very poor argument since that is taking for granted that the process called the universe is a synchronous closed system that can run out of something all at once.

You have never heard of entropy? You are unaware that hydrogen fuses into heavier elements in stars? Nothing is being taken for granted. I am going with OBSERVATIONS. If the universe has an infinite past then there would be no energy available for work. None. That is what thermodynamics shows us.

The Universe is nether closed nor open.

Evidence please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:22 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019