Summations Only

Original thread proposal has been hidden, please see Message 4 for the revised thread proposal. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide message, direct people to the revised version.

Hi Zaius,Great proposal, all it needs is a link to the source of your quote. You might want to fix the quote's spelling error, too, which comes from the original. I've never seen "wage" used as a verb before, but I'm sure the dog isn't happy about it.

I apologized for the misuse of quotation around a paragraph I had written myself. This was not an attempt on my part to misrepresent the source of the paragraph but only to separate it from the main body of the posting. I see that the attempt was in error, I still have a lot to learn about your forum's protocol.There is one minor concern I have that relates to all the negative response this topic has already generated; is this normal? Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Is the Big Bang the best cosmology? Are there other cosmologies that fit the evidence of what astronomers see in our universe? One article I read proposed the number of new cosmological models to be in the hundreds.There are many problems with the Big Bang I would like to cover in this post. The biggest problems I have with BB are the dark energy dark matter problems consider the following: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. What has happened to observation shaping theory instead of the theory taking on a life of its own? Consider the proposal, we only observe five percent of the universe by telescopes, radio and otherwise. Seventy-two percent is supposedly dark energy and twenty three percent composed of Dark Matter. By far these are two of the most unlikely and bazaar things ever conceived of by science. However, this balance of density parameters must be there to bolster the Big Bang.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. The Cosmological Principle was most appealing in that it provided a simpler solution in General Relativity but quantized redshifts and galaxy orientations seem to suggest a universe center. What could be more logical, if the universe had a beginning then it should have a center.I would like to bring up a particular Christian cosmology the Carmeli 5d cosmology. It predicted the type 1A redshifts at the far reaches of the universe two years before they were discovered.
Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceCarmeli places our Milky Way at or near the center of the universe. The suggestion that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe solves many of the observational problems existing in the Big Bang at the same time maintaining parsimony in the explanation. To date Astronomy has no evidence against the Milky Way being at the center of the universe.
http://creation.com/...the-universe-quantized-redshifts-showAlso dark matter and dark energy are not needed in Carmeli’s model. So, did God place the MilkyWay in a special place in the universe?

Ah, I see. I noticed that the same paragraph had been posted last year over at Error | Christian Forums, but taking a closer look now I see that you were the author. It's regrettable that people jeer a post still in the promotion process instead of waiting for promotion. Many here think I should turn off jeering and only keep cheering enabled, and I agree with them. I only keep jeering enabled because this website also serves as a test platform for the dBoard software.But the jeers do seem well founded to me. It's one thing to be aware of the evidence and have good reasons for questioning it, but quite another to be unaware of the evidence while drawing conclusions anyway. I can't be sure, of course, but your comments associating the origins of theories concerning dark energy and dark matter with the human imagination while not giving any indication of awareness of the evidence behind them could likely be what drew the jeers.

Thread copied here from the Creation cosmology and the Big Bang thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi there zaius137,I think that over the next 48 hours or so, you will be getting a heap load of data and evidence from the scientists around here, addressing your contention that dark energy and dark matter have been "invented".I am not a scientist, and cannot contribute anything in relation to that data and evidence. However, through reading what I can and asking a bunch of questions, one thing I have learned is that it makes not one whit of difference if something is "unlikely and bizarre", as you state above. In fact, the deeper into the quantum world I read, the more it is that "unlikely and bizarre" seem to be precisely how things work on a day to day basis.Everyone else will address this much better than me, but I would urge any engagement with current scientific understanding of cosmology to have absolutely no problems with something seeming "bizarre". Human experience and cosmology are very different spheres.

quote:

---

Is the Big Bang the best cosmology? Are there other cosmologies that fit the evidence of what astronomers see in our universe? One article I read proposed the number of new cosmological models to be in the hundreds.

---

I think you will find that the Big Bang is a feature of many of those - perhaps most of them.

quote:

---

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. What has happened to observation shaping theory instead of the theory taking on a life of its own?

---

This seems very odd. In fact it is observations that are the driving force for these "inventions". And, as I understand it, neither is directly connected to the Big Bang as such. Dark Matter is proposed on the basis of the observed motion of objects in space, and Dark Energy on the acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

quote:

---

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. The Cosmological Principle was most appealing in that it provided a simpler solution in General Relativity but quantized redshifts and galaxy orientations seem to suggest a universe center. What could be more logical, if the universe had a beginning then it should have a center.

---

I'm pretty sure that Quantised Redshifts have turned out to be an artefact (and certainly it is not clear that it actually exists). And if space itself is expanding the idea of a centre is not so obvious since every point is a centre of expansion.

quote:

---

I would like to bring up a particular Christian cosmology the Carmeli 5d cosmology. It predicted the type 1A redshifts at the far reaches of the universe two years before they were discovered.
Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

---

I hope that Cavediver or Son Goku will comment on this but I have to say that it looks rather questionable to me. Especially as there doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation of the alleged predictions. Also what drives the acceleration of the expansion if not dark energy ? The one-way light travel time looks especially dubious with it's unexplained "proportionality constant" (and what observations justify it ?)Edited by PaulK, : Corrected "dark matter" to "dark energy"

What do you think dark matter has to do with the Big Bang?And what in the world is bizarre about it? Is there any reason, a priori why all or most of the matter in the universe should shine so brightly that we can see it billions of light-years away? It would be nice for astronomers if that was true, but why would it be bizarre if it wasn't? There's a suggestion that there are dinosaurs in the Congo. Pffft. Isn't Carmeli Jewish? I thought he was Jewish. It's the whole "being called Moshe and living in Israel" thing that suggested it. I take it you mean "redshifts of type 1a supernovas".Can you quote this prediction?It would not surprise me really if this turned out to be true, since the "theory" looks to me to be the usual creationist thing of "here's a completely unevidenced explanation of why real scientists should look exactly as though they're right while actually being wrong". This makes it easy to make accurate predictions --- you just look at what the real scientists are predicting and then predict that. Namely? Really? Well, tell me this, does astronomy have any evidence against any other galaxy being "the center of the universe" (whatever you mean by that)? If the answer is "no", then this is not a reason to think that the Milky Way is the center of the universe, it's just one more respect in which it is not at all special or remarkable. While I have read this, I think it would be unfair to Carmeli to comment on it. It is not his fault if his ideas have been filtered through the medium of a bunch of liars and fools.

Maybe they are commenting on whether they think the topic is worthy of promotion in its current form.

Saying "center of the universe"is like saying where in the universe is the universe imo.

My comment will be about "invention" as used in science. I'll go with the term "invention" and not worry about whether it is the appropriate term.Newton "invented" a force of gravitational attraction. He was criticized for that (for introducing occult forces) by others, including Descartes. Nevertheless, it was a very useful idea and was one of the basic principles of Newtonian science. It has technically been replaced by GR (general relativity), which invented curvature of space to replace that gravitational force. However Newton's law of gravity is still widely used and is still useful.Dalton "invented" the atom to account for the combinatorial properties observed in chemical reactions. This has since been superseded by a different conception of the atom, but the basic idea of the Dalton atom was an important part of classical physics and chemistry.Mendel "invented" the gene, based only on combinatorial properties of observed inheritance. It has turned out to be the backbone of modern biology.My point: inventing entities to account for evidence has been an important part of science. Sometimes the inventions work out, and sometimes they have to be later changed. But the fact that there appears to be some invention should not by itself be a reason for concern. The very names "dark matter" and "dark energy" already indicate that there is uncertainty about them.

Yeah! I thouht everything is the center of the universe. Actually, my brain is the center of the universe. Is that cool or what?

It's all maya my man.

As has been pointed out, dark matter is introduced for reasons that have nothing to do with the big bang, and dark energy is introduced to explain why the universes rate of expansion appears to be accelerating. I think it would be best to drop or rephrase this argument even if it is one of your personal favorites. Just my impression, but perhaps this was the reason for the jeers your OP received before it was even accepted.I haven't taken a serious look at either of the cosmologies that you reference here. Almost all of the internet references that I find re: quantized red shifts come from a few sources. But I did find that the evidence that there even are such quantizations or periodicities is in dispute, and in fact, most astronomers understand them to be artifacts of an erroneous analysis. I'd like to understand a science based reason to understand otherwise.The other issue for me is that very little, if any, of the evidence that the earth itself is old is cosmological. Accordingly, the consistency of a cosmological model with a young universe is not much of a selling point for me. I also don't understand, at all, the insistence that the milky way is the center of the universe. What possible difference could that make? I believe this to be complete hogwash. There are no observational problems with the Big Bang that are solved by putting the Milky Way at the center of the universe.