Misconceptions in Relativity

An appreciation of how to use journals and citations to gain an understanding of the acceptability of an idea. Furthermore, Slevesque has provided himself just what we needed: an obvious and critical *layman* error on the part of Hartnett to immediately destroy his credibility. Anyone can go look up CMBR at Wikipedia, and see that it does not correspond in any way to what Hartnett said. It is quite possible that Hartnett has since been corrected of error, but that is immaterial. For someone claiming to be a cosmologist, to be ignorant of this fact is like a chemist thinking molecular bonding has something to do with glue.In the case of Carmeli and the "cosmology", it is very difficult to argue at the layman's level. Similarly with Humphreys' cosmology. Have you ever read the back and forth between Don Page and Humphreys? It was exceptionally painful, because Humphreys knows just enough to be able to sound like he know exactly what he is talking about, and I have read several creationists' posts claiming that he won the exchange. But to those of us who actually understand the subject, the issues are blatently clear, and Humphreys just does not get it (or he does, but is in denial.) But to translate the deeper issues into layman language? *shudder*

More information from The First Six Days of the Universe, this is from the conclusion: And the body of the paper discusses how each day in the Bible is explained cosmologically. The entire paper is pure unadulterated creationism.By the way, you have in other threads advocated a young Earth, yet Carmeli is clearly advocating an old Earth. This is from page 2: Gee, just like paleontology, geology, radiometric dating, cosmology, and all the rest of science tell us!I think it would be widely appreciated if you could resolve the contradiction in your advocacy for young dates in the Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years? thread with the old dates you're advocating here. Maybe you could propose a thread where you could debate this with yourself. --PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Ok, just to make it clear about the difference between a creationist and a theistic evolutionistCreationists believe that the 6 days of creation are actual,literal, 24hour days of earth time. The earth is 6000 years old, etc.Theistic evolutionists see the 6 days of creation as figurative,poetic and metaphoric. Thus, for a theistic evolutionist, the days mentioned in the genesis account of creation are actually millions, or in this case, billions of years. Evolution is simply the way God used to create life, etc.So Carmeli is, as I've said in my previous post, a theistic evolutionist. He probably believes that the Bible is the innerrant word of God, but seeing the difference with the creation account and science (such as anthropology), he advocates that God was actually speaking in metaphors, and that the days in genesis are actually billion of years.Only reading his abstract, it is very creationist-like. But reading the rest of the paper, it is clear that he is a advocating a theistic evolutionist approach of the 6 days of creation.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Hmmm, ever heard of Old Earth Creationist?
Btw I didn't see him talking about biological life (only cosmology I think) so we can't say what he really thinks about evolution.

Ok, I think it would be pointless to discuss the Carmeli cosmology unless you think you can explain in a way I can understand where he goes wrong. I have my CEGEP physics and maths, which is (I think) equivalent to the first year university knowledge in the US. (educationnal system is different here in quebec) It is in his book Cosmological Relativity, page 78, section 4.6.this is the preview()Unfortunately, you don't have page 79 in that preview of his book. I would suspect it would be similar to section 4hereI followed your advice and went on wikipedia to see what they say about the CMB.

quote:

---

In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe.[1] With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is pitch black. But with a radio telescope, there is a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object.

---

This is what Hartnett said:

quote:

---

After all, cosmic microwave radiation is supposed to come from the background of all the galaxies (supposedly containing putative dark matter) in the visible universe

---

Maybe its the language barrier (I speak french), but I don't see where the discrepancy is. What am I missing ?

quote:

---

Notice that neither author ever cites their own paper, even though they both go to work in similar territory, especially Lieu. I think you need to stop listening to Hartnett if you want any hope of credibility

---

Hey, if I'm on these forums discussing this with other people, it is precisely because I do NOT want to solely listen to what Hartnett has to say ...

The difference between old-earth creationism and theistic evolutionism is very small. There are so many names for the different positions (progressive creationism, old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism, theistic evolutionism, gap creationism, evolutionary creationism) I use the term theistic evolutionism because I view it as more general.He mentions anthropology as one of the sciences by which we can know that the earth is old, so I would think he does accept evolution.Anyhow, I think it is way less complicated like this:creationist: Young earth-creationism
evolutionist: atheistic evolutionism
theistic evolutionist: all the othersEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

What you're missing here is that Hartnett says that CMBR comes FROM galaxies, which isn't true, it's leftover radiation from the big bang, and has nothing to do with galaxies.

---

I hunt for the truth

He says it comes from the background of galaxies, not from galaxies. Maybe it is his phrasing, but I understood it as that the CMBR comes from behind the galaxies, and so the galaxies and its dark matter should create gravitationnal lensing on it.

I don't see the relevance of a discussion about who is what kind of evolutionist in a thread about cosmology, but just to correct a severe error: There is a very large group who believe in God and accept evolution while not seeing the need for reconciliation between the two (such as those like Carmeli), including myself.AbE: Just read your Message 53, could you not use the "Gen Reply" button when you're making a reply to a specific message? Thanks! --PercyEdited by Percy, : Add AbE comment.

I need this. I can only rarely just barely find stuff in journals. Help.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.

Background, in this case, does not mean behind as it does in a landscape. The people living in the houses on the hills in the background don't see the hills in the background. "Background" radiation is everywhere. Were it not it would look different from different parts of the Universe.A photon from the background radiation passing a galaxy will be lensed. But CMBR photons are pretty much indistinguishable in energy and direction they come from all directions with near perfect smoothness so one would not know what direction it was "supposed" to be coming from.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.

True, I did think of this earlier today, but even if this was his meaning it still suggests a very loose understanding of the CMBR. The CMBR does not emanate from "behind" the galaxies, whatever the hell that means.Anyway, back to this

quote:

---

After all, cosmic microwave radiation... ...should be lensed by foreground galaxiesbut it isn’t.

---

And your 2005 paper, "Lieu, R, Mittaz, J.P.D., On the absence of gravitational lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background, ApJ 628(2):583—593, 2005", with its total of four cites, is rather negated by the plethora of papers such as "Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, Weak Gravitational Lensing of the CMB, Phys.Rept. 429 (2006) 1-65", with its 70 cites. Consider it answered...

I agree that last group envelops maybe too much people, anyhow its pretty much only semantics as long as we are talking the same thingI try to use the reply button, but I forget sometimes

I agree it makes little sense for those who know exactly what the CMBR really is. But you gotta remember the article was intended for readers who, for the most part, do not have much knowledge in cosmology, and so you can't really go in the details. Its similar to layman's scientific journals calling a gas cloud a ''space blob''. Thanks for taking this a bit more seriously, its appreciated.Now first of all, you'll have to excuse me for my lack of english knowledge, but what do you mean by 'cites' ?I didn't read the whole paper on weak gravitationnal lensing of the CMB, as you might guess it gets complicated for me to read technical papers in English. But skipping threw it I noticed this on page 77: The reference (152) lead to this paper, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0406/0406004v2.pdf, which found no detection of lensing.That paper was written in 2004 (and the first one in 2006), and so I was asking myself if it had been observed since that time.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Off-topic question here I have been asking myself for quite a while, and I would hope you could answer me CD:Are the gravitationnal effects of a body instanteneous, or do they propagate at the speed of light ? (or at some other speed)