|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: COSMOLOGY | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days)  Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hey Jchardy. Welcome to EvC!
 I feel I should point something out. Cavediver has done this too, but you seem to have missed it.
jchardy writes:
Inflation is NOT the same as expansion, the inflation happened in the past, only a few seconds after the big bang. Expansion is what the universe is doing now.
I now see that when we speak of “the expanding” (or “inflating”) Universe, My understanding is that current theory suggests that the Higgs boson (yet to be demonstrated by the CERN project) is supposed to be the same as vacuum (dark) energy which affects the expansion of the vast spacetime and its general contents, but in most of the universe, has little direct effect on the internal operations of each galaxy except as its more general effect on matter causing its internal mass and thence the more conventional gravitational effects thereof.
I could be wrong here (in which case I expect CD or Son to point this out). But to my understanding the Higgs Boson has NOTHING to do with he expansion of the universe. It is the particle that explains how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass. And in that roll it would have a direct effect on anything in the universe. Hope this helped. Edited by Huntard, : spellings I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Godsriddle, welcome to EvC.
godsriddle writes:
First off, this is an argument from authority. Second, what is the evidence that this is true?
Kuhn claimed that scientists are conservative thinkers. They are in the business of solving problems in the manner they were taught.
If you mean they are using the scientific method, you are correct. Do you know of another method equally adapt at solving problems of the natural world?
Their training informs them about what is a problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gather evidence and how to solve the problem using the techniques and definitions supplied to them by their scientific paradigm.
Replace paradigm with method and I think you're right. What's the problem here?
Biblical physics is not like scientific physics.
What physics? Could you provide am example?
It is simple.
Ah good, no difficult equations to wrap my head around.
It does not use mathematical formulas or symbolical ways of measuring.
No equations at all? I'm beginning to doubt this is physics....
It has only one basic idea
One idea? And you think you can explain the entire natural world with this? Impressive if you can pull it off.
stated in Greek by the Apostle Paul: the whole creation is in bondage to phthora - fundamental change.
Pthora? What's pthora? Is that the fundamental change you're relating to? Could you please give examples that show this to be true?
Biblical physics is confirmed with sight.
Should be easy enough to give examples then.
We see the past all the way back to the creation of the universe.
I certainly don't. Would you mind telling me how you're doing that? And what do you see exactly?
The visible history of the universe fits biblical physics and biblical description of how God created the heavens - visibly.
And your evidence for this would be?
The most powerful evidence for biblical physics is how the galaxies formed.
Really? Well, ok, let's see then.
The earliest ones did not have extensions - arms or diffuse structures. They were naked.
A galaxy can't be naked now can it? It's just a bunch of stars put together, I fail to see how this can ever be considered naked.
They are often seen in equally spaced strings - evidently the beginning of galaxy clusters as they moved out, spread out. When we compare billions of spiral galaxies at many ranges - we see how they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of all matter keep on changing relationally.
Properties of matter changing? Would you mind showing this?
Biblical cosmic history has visible support
I haven't seen any.
unlike the myths of scientific cosmologies that all supported by invisible matter, vacuous processes and the explosion of a tiny bit of vacuum.
Nice straw man, luckily, that's not how it works. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hey DA, just wanted to point out some things, hope you don't mind
I am tired of all this metaphysical crap that you, johnfolton and godsriddle are spewing out.
Then brace yourself, unfortunately you'll probably see a whole lot more of this.
Can you please elaborate and expound on your cosmological hypothesis in scientific terms.
It would surprise me if they could. I mean, just look at the answer I got from V-Bird when I asked for his maths. He claims his maths are SO different, we wouldn't understand them. To me, that translates as "I just made stuff up, so in order to keep at least the appearance that I know something up, I'm going to avoid this question in such a way that it won't be too obvious I don't really have anything". Sorry V-Bird, but until you get down and dirty and show us your actual maths, it just won't do. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hey Jchardy, nice post, I won't reply to it in depth just yet, that'll have to wait till this evening, but here's a little tip for you.
To make your messages easier to read use quoteboxes. When you are replying to someone there will be 2 links to the left of your reply. these are:
dBCodes on (help) and
HTML on (help) Use them and your posts will be even better. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hey onifre,
Hubble observed the redshift indicating expantion, not the BB.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.
I may not be understanding what you wrote here but, the CMBR is explained by the Big Bang theory, it does not confirm the BBT.
Yes. But as Sraggler also wrote, when the CMBR was found, it confirmed a prediction made by the BB theory, that's why I said it confirmed the BB theory.
JF is talking about the same kind of crap he's talked about before, Hubbles (redshift/universe expanding) not being the correct assessment of Hubbles observable work. It's just ramblings though, he will show you absolutely nothing as far as evidence is concerned, he will also mine quote phyicists and take them completely out of context or misunderstand what is being said.
Oh I know. I asked so that it became clear to other people reading that he has nothing to base these assertions on.
I think im going to take cavedivers advise that he gave me on another thread and not engage in talks with these guys, its a word mess that is basically nonsense.
Yeah, this is sometimes the best. Note that I don't respond to every post he makes, as I think dealing with too much of his drivel will hurt my poor little brain. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
