Summations Only

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.

Yes. And of course it is exactly that argument that I find unpersuasive. Even given the need to be God's favorite, it does not follow that God created a cosmos that even has a physical center.Why wouldn't that same reasoning require a flat earth with the Middle East in the center?

I think this is just wrong. A 2-sphere is a two dimensional surface. It is mathematically the surface of a sphere, but it represents a curved, 2 dimension space.Let's not buz up the physics.

True, but at some point we must help those people understand that a 2-sphere is not really a ball. Otherwise we are just adding to their difficulty in conceptualizing.In this case, Dogmafood is already dealing with an error in understanding this point, and I didn't want to confirm his misconception.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Looking at invisibility eh? Surely that's an oxymoron.When we "look" at argon gas, are we looking at invisibility? Assuming that such a sentence even makes sense, what is its the significance.And there is no anti-gravity associated with either dark energy or dark matter. I can understand making such a mistake with dark energy...

There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old.You are trying to establish a difference between dark matter/dark energy, and something like the earth's core, solar fusion, and any other thing we know only by indirect evidence, but you are not getting there. In each case we can and have quantified the component and we have only indirect measurements. In some cases we know a lot about the entity, but that "lot" is all determined and verified from indirect measurement.As for no mechanism, can you explain how gravity warps space? Could Newton explain the apparent 'action at a distance?'ABE: Is this a misunderstanding or something more deliberate. You were wrong and are still wrong. And what is the explanation for your error regarding dark matter being having anti-gravity?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Einstein added a cosmological constant because by doing so he was able to generate solutions allowing a static universe. Unfortunately, those solutions were not stable with regard to not expanding/contracting. Even more unfortunate for Albert, it shortly became evident that the universe was expanding, something Einstein would like to have predicted. I'll let you draw your own conclusion about whether Einstein was correct or not. Yikes. Dude... It's more impressive say things like this after you've been right about something.

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.

Surely there is a less hubris laden way to express ignorance.

I don't know all of these answers, but I could discuss the following. I see that one of the resident physicists has given some more answers. Ain't no such thing. I could have sworn that you had gotten some responses to this before. Nonsense. Not a problem. Are black holes directly observable, the suns core, the overwhelming majority of discovered exo-planets? Inflation is not actual movement of objects in space. There is no special relativity objection. Not a big bang issue at all. There may be some problem with particle physics, but not every particle physics problem is a big bang problem. We do know that particles do have mass. It is not as though mass will suddenly disappear if the Higgs Boson is not found.But even beyond that, it is premature to say that the Higgs Boson is missing. Nonsense. No evidence for this at all. Perhaps you should rephrase this a bit. We have only one sun. I assume you mean stars similar in size to our sun.I am curious as to how this is a big bang question at all. Sounds like a solar modeling/computer programming problem.And you are right. There is no fault in ignorance. I never claimed there was any fault. There are, however, faults associated with ignorance.Willfulness is one. Hubris is yet another. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Zaius, I don't believe that pursue this issue any further is doing service to your reputation.The article you cited was indeed old. But even given that, the cited article contained a potential explanation that has since turned out to be exactly correct. The explanation given in the article has since been verified by experiment.You didn't have to take my word for the fact that your information was at least a decade old, but trying to disprove that by citing an even older article was quite obviously not going to work. Even beyond that, there are plenty of accessible sources that contained the truth.We all err. I have found that simply acknowledging an error is the best practice. A distant second best, but more commonly used, is simply not to repeating the error leaving us to guess whether you accept that you were wrong.Bad practice is making posts that appear to defend the error; at least that would be the case if you gave a hoot about how we perceive future posts under your handle. I certainly took this into account when I looked at your list of Big Bang problems in a subsequent post.For what it's worth, I had no trouble following the link that JonF provided to the relevant LA times article. The wikipedia article I referenced includes pointers to primary references backing up the points made in the article.

Actually, I'm the one with egg on my face. Earlier, you give a link to the LA times article, but the link in question does go to a Microsoft site.NoNukes.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You've picked a difficult topic to debunk, at least to the satisfaction of a difficult audience.There are a number of papers written on the subject of red shift quantization/periodicity. The most famous ones are by Napier, Tifff, Arp.Of course there are papers debunking these claims. The debunking papers are far fewer and there simply does not seem to be much interest in debunking the already debunked. Mainstream astronomers are seem about as interested in quantization as they are in astrology.I'd be suspicious of a recent supportive paper that does not address the analysis in contemporary papers debunking the old analyses or that simply repeat the old analyses using those same methods or the same small data sets.An example debunking paper:Tang, S. M.; Zhang, "Critical examination of QSO Redshift periodicities and associations with galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Data"ShieldSquare CaptchaABE:As Jar has pointed out the article is dated 2005.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Show me. This is hilarious. More data causes the results to be lost. A perfect response to claims that the original studies used too little data because that was all that was available.

Nonsense.We can positively rule out your relative motion proposal as a cause for the Tang, Zhang study finding a null result. On page 7-8 of the paper, the authors reproduce the periodicities found using the smaller data set and then show that the periodicities are absent in the larger set.

quote:

---

After smoothing off the sharp edges in the lowest and highest redshifts, a periodicity around ∆z = 0.67 is detected in the full sample of SDSS QSOs, as shown in Fig. 9; however a periodicity of ∆z = 0.67 0.05 or any other frequency is not found in the 2dF QSOs, as shown in Fig. 10. Such a difference between these two surveys is not surprising since the redshift-dependent spectroscopic completeness is relatively flat in 2dF (Croom et al. 2004), while in SDSS the spectroscopic completeness varies drastically at some redshifts (Richards et al. 2002). It is therefore improper to use all QSO redshifts in SDSS to probe any intrinsic periodicity without addressing selection bias.

---

Given the ability of the authors to reproduce the original results, the explanation cannot lie in the kind of methodology mistake that you describe. Selection bias seems to the best explanation for the apparent periodicities in the smaller study.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Remove some snippiness