Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,227 Year: 22,263/19,786 Month: 826/1,834 Week: 326/500 Day: 25/64 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


(1)
Message 31 of 170 (674472)
09-29-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
09-29-2012 9:09 AM


Different things, The cosmological statements have been signed by people who oppose the Big Bang model. It was not a creationist document in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2012 9:09 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 10:00 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 32 of 170 (674474)
09-29-2012 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 9:18 AM


LimpSpider writes:

No, I don't really want to talk about that, not now.

Okay.

By the way, in response to your avatar I thought I'd mention that I am following my dream of an eventual reconciliation between science and religion as each side learns more about the other.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:18 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 33 of 170 (674478)
09-29-2012 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 9:20 AM


Cosmological Statement
I don't understand why your message received a jeer and I felt obligated to give you an offsetting cheer. Nothing wrong with citing the Cosmological Statement IMO.

But it isn't a convincing argument in my opinion. There are of course scientists, engineers and physicists even who reject the Big Bang Theory, but I don't find it all that impressive to list them. I'll also note that the list includes a number of people known to be cranks, some of whom cling to ideas related to cosmology or relativity that can easily be demonstrated to be wrong. I don't much care about what anyone on the list other than the physicists and some of the mathematicians think anyway.

Known cranks that I recognize from a quick perusal of the list and have discussed here in previous threads.

Halton Arp
Paul Marmet
Tom Flandern
John Hartnett
Paul LaViolette

Of course my argument does not prove that these guys are wrong about the Big Bang theory being wrong, but neither does a relatively short list of objectors provide any argument that they are right. My point is that you cannot add support for a theory by giving a short list of scientists and engineers, but that this particularly list has some issues.


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.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:20 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2012 10:34 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 37 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:34 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6890
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 34 of 170 (674483)
09-29-2012 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 10:00 AM


Re: Cosmological Statement
Here is why he received a jeer.
As Percy mentioned the Cosmological Statement is off-topic. Limp is just continuing the Gish Gallop he is doing on multiple threads. Then when he is asked to clarify and explain what he is talking about he conveniently refuses.

Some people around here think it is ok to just post random assertions and crap without anything to back it up. That isn't debating. That is throwing random crap against the wall to see what sticks.

He seems to be like the classical fundie/creo that finds stuff on the web and just throws it up for any old discussion.

A couple things people should try to do.
If you can't support what your posting, don't post it.
If you don't understand what your posting don't post it.
If it is off topic don't post it.
I like others are guilty of following others down off-topic rabbit holes, but evidenceless assertions need to be pointed out

I find it difficult to see how you can cheer off-topic gish gallop.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 10:00 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17676
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 35 of 170 (674489)
09-29-2012 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 7:08 AM


LimpSpider writes:

But from something we can observe, yeah? Have you seen the cosmological statement?


The Big Bang itself is based on observations. Anybody trying to understand the Big Bang must necessarily propose hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses is an ongoing challenge for physics. What should we observe if the hypothesis is true?

But you were talking about "many things that we can’t observe, or gather data from" and I said that they are outside the purview of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:08 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:45 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 36 of 170 (674498)
09-29-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
09-29-2012 9:29 AM


There will be. If only we religious people would stop being morons, yeah?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 9:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 37 of 170 (674499)
09-29-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 10:00 AM


Re: Cosmological Statement
I support the statement, not necessarily the cosmologists. I don’t want to start a new topic, not now, anyway. (Too busy with off-forum stuff)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 10:00 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 38 of 170 (674503)
09-29-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
09-29-2012 1:06 PM


Actually, it has a light-travel time problem. Due to the CMB coming from all directions with a characteristic temperature. There's not nearly enough time for radiation to become so....uniform.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 09-29-2012 1:06 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2012 6:58 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 39 of 170 (674508)
09-29-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:45 PM


There's not nearly enough time for radiation to become so....uniform.

Oh! How much time would that take, then? Show us your calculations - or at least show Cavediver and Son Goku.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:45 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:10 PM Coragyps has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 40 of 170 (674512)
09-29-2012 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coragyps
09-29-2012 6:58 PM


It could not have possibly taken 14 billion years. It is known as the horizon problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2012 6:58 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2012 8:14 PM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2012 10:00 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 41 of 170 (674516)
09-29-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 7:10 PM


You seem to have come up with an argument that the universe must be older than cosmologists think, are you sure you want to do that? Most creationists want it to be younger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:10 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 42 of 170 (674520)
09-29-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
09-29-2012 8:14 PM


Actually, I was pointing out the Horizon Problem. Which is basically a light-travel-time problem. It may not necessarily be older, actually. Which brings to mind that creationists have an answer to the light-time-travel problem. In the form of the Carmeli-Hartnett model. I don’t want to go into that now. I’m just noting it here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2012 8:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 9:28 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2012 12:25 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 43 of 170 (674522)
09-29-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 7:10 PM


I don't know where you live, LS, but in the various English-speaking places that I have lived "it could not have possibly" has never meant the same as "I don't know how," except among a few arrogant, ignorant folks. These are the sort of people of whom my mother was known to say, "I'd like to buy him at my price and sell him at his."

Guth's "inflation" is over 30 years old now. WMAP has confirmed its predictions. You might read the rest of your Wikipedia link and some of its links to learn more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:10 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 10:07 PM Coragyps has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 44 of 170 (674523)
09-29-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
09-29-2012 10:00 PM


Are you insinuating that I have not read it? How exciting!

The following is from an article by Danny Faulkner.

“...Being a wave phenomenon, light can be polarized. That is, light can vibrate in preferred directions. Most light is unpolarized, but various mechanisms can introduce some polarization. The matter clumping in the early universe ought to manifest itself to a degree in what physicists call “E-mode polarization”. WMAP has found evidence of this. However, B-mode polarization ought to arise from gravity waves resulting from inflation. Has WMAP found B-mode polarization? So despite the claim made by the press release and the website, there is no evidence of inflation. What is going on then?

Cosmologists now regularly take data from very different experiments and combine them into a single result, though press results rarely discuss the input of the disparate data. An example of this was the February 2003 announcement of the latest 13.7 billion year age estimate of the universe, along with estimates of the percentages of mass distributed amongst lighted and dark matter and “dark energy”. Also left unsaid is how extremely model-dependent the conclusions are. That is, if we change the model slightly, the conclusions change as well. The recent claim of the discovery of evidence for inflation builds upon the earlier WMAP work, among others, and, like the others, is very model-dependent. For instance, how the observed E-mode polarization constrains the amount of inflation energy is model-dependent. The model dependence amounts to a type of circular reasoning—cosmologists interpret the data assuming inflation, and then used the data to support inflation.

It appears that the claim that we have found evidence of inflation is overstated. At best, the evidence is very indirect and to the point of being premature.

So, why all the fanfare now? In a few years, new experiments currently underway ought to measure B-mode polarization directly. However, even if B-mode polarization is found, the conclusion that it must result from inflation will be model-dependent. Inflation is such a foundation for modern big bang cosmogony that it is almost unthinkable among cosmologists that it might not exist. Thus the claim of first discovery of evidence for inflation carries much reward when compared to the risk of eventually being proved wrong.”

Oh, and yes. I do understand what he is saying.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2012 10:00 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 09-30-2012 4:02 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-30-2012 5:29 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7218
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 45 of 170 (674534)
09-30-2012 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 10:07 PM


LimpSpider writes:

So, why all the fanfare now? In a few years, new experiments currently underway ought to measure B-mode polarization directly. However, even if B-mode polarization is found, the conclusion that it must result from inflation will be model-dependent. Inflation is such a foundation for modern big bang cosmogony that it is almost unthinkable among cosmologists that it might not exist. Thus the claim of first discovery of evidence for inflation carries much reward when compared to the risk of eventually being proved wrong.”

Oh, and yes. I do understand what he is saying.

Well I don't understand what he's saying about the physics, but a chimp could understand what he's implying about the politics of science. Inflation is yet another conspiracy theory, just like evolution.

Odd how the entirity of science conspires to come up with the wrong answers time after time, yet still manages to make technologies that work. There must be one hellova super smart committe co-ordinating these things - silencing the politically incorrect and rewarding those on message.

Let's just ignore the fact that there's a Nobel Prize awaiting anyone who demonstrates a better solution to thse things eh?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 10:07 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 4:29 AM Tangle has 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