Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins

Reposting from the every evolutionist... thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Yes I am aware of that, I should have emphesized, I was making you aware that I am familiar with the red shift as well as the existance of the blue shift.

---

But bud you got the causal relationship round the wrong way. A causes B is a different statement to B causes A.

quote:

---

What would you mean? This was a reference from the bible as it says all through it that when God created the heavens he 'streched' them. I guess a scientific account would be the theory of an expanding universe.

---

Ah so is that where we are to look for scientific accounts of phenomena from a creationist standpoint? A religious tract?You said that the Hubble red shift could be explained (to tie in with a special creation ex nihilo 4,500 years ago presumably) by a stretching of the heavens. Since current cosmological models based on an expanding universe give an age of somewhat more than 4,500 years please explain where I can read about this stretching of the heavens as a scientific theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)I was simply making you aware that I know that there is a 'blue shift' as well as a red shift, as I get very ignorant criticism that somehow that ther is a blue shift is relevant. I was attempting to avoid a pointless argument as it would being about.

​

2)As for the first, The expanding universe's age uses the assumption that the way it is expanding today is how it has always been expanding, similar to the assumption thrown into radioisotope dating. You could assume that it was going much faster earlier and you could figure it fit with 4500 years. Though this would assume an age of 4,500 years, but really how else can you calculate it, without knowing its deceleration rate or even being there when it was going faster. Thus it is widely out of the realm of science.

​

3)For the second part, where can you read about the 'stretching of the heavens as a scientific theory', I am not sure what you mean by 'as a scientific theory' as I have shown you what my reference was for 'the stretching of the heavens' to be throughout the bible.

​

---

1)you said Hubble shift caused a Doppler effect (take another look at your post if you don`t believe me) I corrected you saying that you had the relationship round the wrong way and the Doppler effect caused the Hubble shift. Blue or red it makes no difference to the fact that the Doppler effect causes Hubble shift not vice versa....2)Actually modern cosmological models do contain a rate of deceleration from an early faster than light expansion (allowed by General Relativity due to high gravitational potentials) its using these models that the age of 12-14 billion years was derived, quite different to 4,500 years.... A model that would allow an age of 4,500 years would not work mathmaticaly (added by edit (at least not if General Relativity holds)).So we don`t assume its constant...3)"As a scientific theory" with evidence and potential falsifications (would be nice), presented as a mathematical model (essential).... what did you think?a)Where in the bible? you didn`t give a chapter and verse and I`m not gonna trawl through it to find em...b)Where else but in the bible?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)I see what you are commenting on now, and yes you are right, forgive my incorrect wording.

​

2)Very interesting indeed, do you have a source? I have not encountered it as being anything than a calculation from its present rate, discluding any known deceleration.

​

3)I seem to still be missing what you are asking, I wasn't revering to a scientific theory accept that we know it is evident that the universe is expanding, ie, everything seems to be moving away from us. I would like to give you evidence and potential falsifications, but for what? Emphesize?

---

1)At last .....2)Its called Einsteins theory of general relativity....Basicaly up to a cerain density the gravitational potentials in the early universe permited faster than light expansion of space between galaxies (note galaxies don`t move the space between them stretches) below a certain critical density this faster than light expansion is not possible. You can make a mathmatical model that gives an age of between 8 and 30 billion years for the age of the universe (depending on which starting conditions you use) (note the 90% of the mass is missing argument would be shooting yourself in the foot here as you need more mass to allow faster than light expansion for a longer period). Also note that 8 billion is rather more than 4,500 years....3)Well you assert an age for the universe of 4,500 (or something of that order) years and seem to accept Hubble shift so i guess what i am asking for is a mathmatical model of the expansion of the universe that gives an age of 4,500 years and incorperates the Hubble shift ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Because this tells you how you could bring matter out of nothing, but what is going to cause this to happen? Did nothing all-of-a-sodden feel like it wanted some company and brought about some anti-matter and some matter?

​

--What causes this Quantum fluctuation of nothing, because would it not be logical to say that if it had no cause, that it could happen anywhere, and possibly happing all the time, with no vigilance in time.

---

Um it does happen all the time thats how it was observed....

No actually once again you are gleefully misrepresenting my opinion....I do not want to call imaginary numbers make believe numbers, you already have....But here we go just to clear things up for anyone not following the other thread....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i wasn't criticizing the mathmatics though, i was simply trying to show that an attempt to prove the existence of an actual infinite set of past events depended on imaginary time which in turn depended on imaginary numbers... and if joz prefers 'make believe' to 'imaginary', that's fine with me

---

Once again that sense of surreality creeps in....Of course calling them make believe numbers wouldn`t bother you you have already done it....But how on earth did you manage to twist this post

quote:

---

How about calling them make believe numbers? Sounds like he is taking the use of imaginary to be equivalent to its colloquial form, to me anyway.....

---

replying to Johns skepticism that you had misinterpreted the imaginary in imaginary numbers into a call from me to rename imaginary numbers make believe numbers? You, as you are won`t to do, ignored the context in which I posted....And yes you do seem to have a problem with the use of i in mathmatics otherwise you wouldn`t be asserting that their utilisation makes a work unsatisfying....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
no john, you haven't... your arm traversed a potentially infinite number of points but not an actually infinite number... the fact that it arrived at *this* point proves that

---

A point by definition has no length, breadth or width....So to find the number of points that lie between 2 given points you divide the distance between them by 0 (the spatial length of the point in that direction) and you get......Infinity....So your wrong there bud.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ummmm no actually i'm not wrong... your post concerns actual infinity, and to show i'm wrong you have to show how any one point can be traversed in an actual infinity... i take it you understand hilbert's hotel? if you do, where is it in error?

​

---

The point (no pun intended) of Hilberts hotel is to show that an infinite set can have a one to one correlation with an infinite subset of itself....How do you think this is relevant?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Joz (& John),

​

What I believe forgiven is getting at is that its impossible to traverse an actual infinite rather than a potential one, both of which are defined terms.

---

I can see how it would be impossible to traverse a set of infinite duration, however if each points duration is 0 it doesn`t matter that there are an infinite number, the interval that they occupy can still be finite....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I'm sticking my neck out here but, ∞ / ∞ = 1...

---

Or even that at any particular point in time that dt/dt = 1.....

Look while all this whittering on about infinity is interesting enough why is it relevant given that time started with the big bang?I mean something can hardly infinitely regress if it has a start, and given that before that start there was no time there was no causality....Sure there are an infinite amount of points that have elapsed in time but the time interval is still finite.... (Am I right that this is what is being billed as a potential infinity?)(So does that mean that actual infinty means something of an infinite duration on a given axis?)(If so I think its use in this context is mistaken, time started with the big bang and theoretically could extend over an infinte interval in the positive direction. Ergo it is an actual infinity and it just happens to be possible to go from a given point to another further along the axis because the duration between them is finite (by definition its the difference in their values). Note that I`m fairly sure that you can`t travel from one point in time to an earlier one.)I think I`m going to rename "forgiven" as "Buddy boy the confusion monkey" (no intent to impugn his evolutionary development, friends and I used to jest about having run ins with beer monkeys that stole all your money hit you on the head and left you asleep in ditches, thats where the "monkey" comes from.) as everytime we get into a discussion some sort of surreal positional flip flop seems to take place (i.e the exceptions proving rules exchange over on "knowledge").....Anyhow with no time there can be no cause and effect, not that its valid on the quantum scale that a (cassimir effect style?) singularity exsists on anyway......