Summations Only

What is your understanding of the role played by dark matter and dark energy in the big bang theory?My understanding is that dark energy and dark matter are used to explain things that are observed in the universe at the current time. We can add a constant to Einstein's equations to accommodate dark energy, but we can model an expanding universe without said constant.Your question is akin to asking how the theory of evolution would change if it turned out there were no brontosauri.

Indeed. Given the ease with which you dismiss scientific evidence that disagrees with you, I think your "never encountered" claim is easy to understand. If evidence or analysis disagrees with you, it is simply wrong, and then labeled not "real".And of course, the standard for looking to cranks and bad science and giving it weight over non-crank science is whether there is agreement with your favorite interpretation of the Bible. What I see here is no different from any of those people who insist that man has never been to the moon or that general relativity is wrong with motivation identical to yours. I can accept the statement that you are not intentionally making false statements. But my acceptance does not change the truth that your false statements are motivated by your religious view point. And because of that motivation, there is little incentive to point out the weaknesses in your arguments. You can never accept them. If you cannot address those weaknesses you'll simply be silent about any points made against them.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Grammar fixups. Nothing of substance

Then do so. Stop the shucking and jiving.Stop evading questions or points made by others. Continuing to insist that the absence of the Higgs means that the BBT is what I expect you to do. But let's not pretend that you haven't been provided with reasons to the contrary. I have yet to see you address any of those points head on.You made a specific complaint regarding problems with the analyses that do not show quantified red shifts, but I have yet to see you address my posts demonstrating that you were wrong in the only case you have yet identified.

In other words, you have no response ti Son Goku's argument that the Higgs is inessential to Big Bang cosmology. But you are going to pretend not to concede the point by criticizing particle theory.

I did not ask you a question. I made an observation about your participation here. An argument that has been addressed.

"Seems" to whom to violate basic conservation laws? Does it seem that way to you? Are you adopting the "science" promoted at the link you provided? If so, perhaps it would be ontopic and worthwhile to spend some effort debunking it.Otherwise, the author of this paper is a fool. If it turns out that you actually hold views in common with Craig Hanks, and I note that your list of things wrong with the big bang theory includes the expansion of space exceeding the velocity of light, then perhaps it would be on topic to discuss the rather obvious problems with this crank's work.Cosmology cranks are a dime a dozen. Craig D. Hanks, in particular is not a physicist. He's just someone whose understanding of physics is not particularly good, but nontheless deigns to hold an opinon on the subject.As best as I can understand Hanks goofy musing, his claim that conservation of energy is broken is based on the fact that energy calculations made in different frames of reference are not consistent. But this is exactly as it should be.He also has the mistaken impression that the expansion of space is a real velocity. So do you, apparently.

I'm interested.

How many of the things stated as facts in the above are simply made up by you?1. The amount of dark energy is growing?
2. A constant force is maintained by the dark matter?
3. Increasing energy is taking place?An analogous question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

In your haste to be correct, perhaps you neglected this passage from further on in the same article.

quote:

---

Having said all that, it would be irresponsible of me not to mention that plenty of experts in cosmology or GR would not put it in these terms. We all agree on the science; there are just divergent views on what words to attach to the science. In particular, a lot of folks would want to say energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on. Which seems pretty sensible at face value.

​

There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are. I personally think it’s better to forget about the so-called energy of the gravitational field and just admit that energy is not conserved, for two reasons.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You could not possibly have missed the sentence in the quote I provided in which the author says the exact opposite. Note that the author's two reasons for using a definition of energy that is not conserved are directed primarily at keeping explanations simple for lay people. He explicitly says that the scientists who say that energy is conserved are perfectly correct.

Before diving down this rabbit hole, let's remember that your claim is that the Big Bang violates physics. I think Son Goku's responses have shown this to be wrong. Your argument has mutated into "the Big violates physics as Zaius137 would like physics to be". That's a decidedly less interesting proposition.Edited by NoNukes, : Rabbit hole, not whole.

It might be interesting to discuss this "paper". Are you adopting the views in this paper as your own position?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It isn't your self-respect that is in question. Some of us are concerned about your respect for others.I understand your concern about being labeled a fake. I don't believe you are a fake. But consider this. You've been pretty adamant about your disdain for FRW, but your questions here about violations of special relativity suggest that you have reached that conclusion while remaining clueless about cosmology.But I know that you are not a fake, but are simply a motivated reader. You are simply parroting back the crank explanations that your fellow creationists have come up with. Your questions are exactly the same as their questions.Explanations for why expansion of space does not result in violations of special relativity can be found in countless places with a minimal search. Even some of the less technically minded participants here have encountered those explanations. Perhaps if you at least acknowledged what everyone else knows and explain why none of that satisfies you, people won't call you a fake.Or not. It's your call.

Nonsense. You oppose the big bang because you don't like it. You accept contrary crank hypothesis and dismiss criticisms of those hypothesis without regard for the evidence.

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"?