Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 46 of 115 (460775)
03-18-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
03-18-2008 6:38 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
ICANT, I just skimmed through the article. I have to question some of the claims. For example, here is something that caught my eyes.
quote:
We also showed that the presence of large amounts of the hard-to-detect molecular hydrogen in interstellar space could provide an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory, by explaining the observed redshift as a result of the delayed propagation of light through space, caused by the collision of photons with interstellar matter.
First of all, what's delayed propagation of light through space? This is just a fancy/deceptive way of saying the light is obscured by space debris. The way this sentence is written is designed to distract us from the fact that such an event doesn't cause a red-shift of the light spectrum.
quote:
Our prediction, based on a critique of many of the commonly held assumptions of cosmology, was the result of a serious study of the molecular structure of hydrogen and of the astronomical observation of atomic hydrogen in space. However, the astrophysicists preferred to ignore H2, and instead to hypothesize the existence of weird objects.
This paragraph is a dead give away of the joking nature of this article. MACHOS and WIMPS are very real objects. We've observed them and their affects in deep space. They're just normal objects that are very large floating up there in space. Jupiter could be seen as a MACHO. There's really nothing special about these things.
With that said, combining all of the visible matter, we're still about 70% short of the necessary mass to account for what we observe. Hence we call the missing mass "dark matter". Dark matter is exactly that, it's stuff that we haven't found yet.
Let me ask you this question. Suppose we just found a body. Autopsy reveals that the person was murdered. The authority wants to call the murderer "dark person" simply because right now they have no idea who the murderer is. The author of that article is using deceptive language to trick the reader into believing the authority is implying that a troll or a leprachan did the murder when in fact all the term "dark person" really means is they don't know who did the murder.
Dark matter is just that, stuff that we haven't found or thought of yet. Nothing "weird" about them.
quote:
It is generally accepted that atomic hydrogen is by far the most abundant particle in the universe. It is also well established that about 10 times as much molecular hydrogen as atomic hydrogen solves the missing mass problem. Finally, Valentijn adds: "The halo culture that has grown up around the dark matter problem might never have arisen if the ISO results had been known earlier."
I tend to suspect an article when it starts with "it is generally accepted..." and also "it is well established that..."
quote:
Molecular hydrogen is rarely looked for in space. In most papers in astrophysics, the word hydrogen is mentioned without distinguishing whether it is atomic or molecular. Yet it is a well-known fact of basic chemistry that atomic hydrogen is extremely unstable, and that it reacts violently to produce molecular hydrogen, which is extremely stable. Given a bottle of pure atomic hydrogen, one would expect an immediate energetic explosion, producing molecular hydrogen at a very high temperature.
This paragraph is simply false. The nebulae clouds that we see are composed almost entirely of hydrogen gas. There's no denying this. The author is using a strawman argument. In fact, now that I think about it, this whole article is based entirely on a strawman argument. Hydrogen gas is the most abundant thing in the universe. Nobody is disputing this. So, what's the argument here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 47 of 115 (460778)
03-18-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
03-18-2008 6:38 PM


Define the OP
This is the second time in this thread that you have put more care into discussing an analogy than the OP.
Could you please define your meaning of: origins, theories and scientific. Especially the last. If the problem isn’t solvable through your understanding of the word “faith” maybe it can be gotten at through your understanding of the word “scientific”. If you’re going to refer me to Webster’s I’m all set, thanks. But I’d like to know your meanings.

Kindly
******
Scared of the dark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 48 of 115 (460780)
03-18-2008 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
03-18-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
ICANT
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Wikipedia: 1.To trust:
Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a
specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
To have faith that one's spouse will keep a promise or commitment.
To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful.
To have faith that a person will pay you back.
To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities.
2. To believe without reason:
Believing impulsively, or believing based upon social traditions or personal hopes.
To me the wiki second meaning is what it appears that most on here are using.
If there are different meanings fir faith in the debate, all you get is "garbage in, garbage out" and no meaningful dialogue.
Edited by bluescat48, : quote fix
Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 8:57 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 49 of 115 (460783)
03-18-2008 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by bluescat48
03-18-2008 7:44 PM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
bluescat48 writes
quote:
To me the wiki second meaning is what it appears that most on here are using.
Actually, I think most people on here are using both of the wiki definitions of faith you cited.
quote:
1.To trust:
Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a
specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
2. To believe without reason:
Believing impulsively, or believing based upon social traditions or personal hopes.
Both describe a system of belief that does not require consistency.
By the way, I've been encountering people's tendency to mix up the words "trust" and "faith" for the last few years. I think there is a quiet movement that is trying to make the two words synonymous in the English language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by bluescat48, posted 03-18-2008 7:44 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 50 of 115 (460806)
03-19-2008 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
03-18-2008 6:10 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Turns out that the dynamical equilibrium model is wrong, though. This is a very old model that had to be abandoned because it could not explain the CMB. More recent data like the time delated decay curves of distant supernovae confirms that the red-shift cannot be explained that way. Moreover, the evidence for dark matter has build up to a level that it is not unreasonable to characterise it as extremely likely.
Edited by fallacycop, : Some typos and clarifications

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 03-19-2008 9:31 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 51 of 115 (460812)
03-19-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by fallacycop
03-19-2008 5:33 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi fallacycop,
fallacycop writes:
Turns out that the dynamical equilibrium model is wrong, though. This is a very old model that had to be abandoned because it could not explain the CMB.
The dynamical equilibrium model predicted the CMB better than the Big Bang Theory, prior to the prediction of the Big Bang Theory.
So it was not abandoned for your stated reason. It was discarded instead for the Big Bang Theory for whatever reason or no reason at all. Unless you have some documentation where it was abandoned.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by fallacycop, posted 03-19-2008 5:33 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Admin, posted 03-19-2008 10:13 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 03-19-2008 11:59 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 55 by teen4christ, posted 03-19-2008 12:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 115 (460813)
03-19-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
03-18-2008 3:54 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Modulous writes:
I'm assuming it is to that that ICANT is referring.
You assumed correctly.
ICANT can you see why the prediction of a specific measurable value for the CMB derived as a logical consequence of BB theory has resulted in BB theory being considered so much more compelling than other possible explanations?
Can you see why the experimental/observational confirmation of a theoretically predicted phenomenon including an actual confirmed specific measurable value puts the theory under cnsideration into the 'almost certainly true' category?
Can you see how unlikely it would be to have just guessed or randomly struck lucky with respect to such a result?
How can you not consider the measured level of CMB as verification of BB theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 3:54 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 115 (460818)
03-19-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
03-19-2008 9:31 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
ICANT writes:
The dynamical equilibrium model predicted the CMB better than the Big Bang Theory, prior to the prediction of the Big Bang Theory.
You're again ignoring responses. Chiroptera explained why this model was incorrect in Message 20. You responded in this way in Message 26:
ICANT in Message 26 writes:
What would happen if we could find something to make Max Born a little more of a prophet?
Discovery of H2, in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000
Which is no response at all. At a minimum this is ignoring rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
You not only provide no words of your own, you don't even make it into a link but just left it as text (for those interested, here's the link: Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift, by Paul Marmet).
If your position is that the "dynamical equilibrium model" is superior to current theory, then you must support your position by rebutting Chiroptera's explanations of its deficiencies.
I'm not going to do your bookkeeping for you. You've had many, many warnings about this practice over time. The next time you repeat an assertion without addressing earlier rebuttals I'll be suspending you.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 03-19-2008 9:31 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 115 (460833)
03-19-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
03-19-2008 9:31 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
It was discarded instead for the Big Bang Theory for whatever reason or no reason at all.
The reason is that the Big Bang theory is a direct consequence of General Relativity, and General Relativity has been confirmed. It was confirmed when Eddington measured starlight bending passed the sun almost 100 years ago, and is confirmed when examples of gravitational lensing are discovered. GR is confirmed in experiments in satellites sent into orbit. It is confirmed when we see the orbits of pulsars decay. GR is a very well confirmed theory, so it makes sense to believe it when it says that once the universe was very much smaller than it is today.

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 03-19-2008 9:31 AM ICANT has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 55 of 115 (460843)
03-19-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
03-19-2008 9:31 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
ICANT writes
quote:
The dynamical equilibrium model predicted the CMB better than the Big Bang Theory, prior to the prediction of the Big Bang Theory.
Could you please add some explanations to your assertions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 03-19-2008 9:31 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 115 (460890)
03-19-2008 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
03-18-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
ICANT writes:
That is a normal assumption. But if you did not examine the tree stump and the burn mark because time was too short or for any other reason and went on your merry way believing it was caused by the lightning the night before you would be accepting that fact on faith.
This is completely wrong: you would be accepting that the tree was struck by lightning on evidence, not on faith. Your evidence is the burn mark on the tree.
You don't have to have all the evidence, nor do you even have to have good evidence, to accept something on evidence. If you say: "because I see A, I conclude B," you are not basing your conclusion on faith, but on "A," which constitutes your evidence. If "A" turns out to be bad or incomplete evidence, or if more evidence could be found, conclusions drawn from "A" do not automatically become faith-based.
Seeing how science does not purport to know or conclude anything about T=0, it's hard to understand what we're supposed to be having faith about, anyway.
The topic title is "Theories of Cosmological Origins..." This is misleading, because without evidence, we do not have any theories about T=0. Without a theory, we don't have any science there, so there is no "scientific belief" about it. Ergo, there is nothing in which we are putting our faith.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:33 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 57 of 115 (460913)
03-20-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
03-18-2008 1:10 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Chiroptera,
This response you made to Modulous in which you stated:
Chiroptera writes:
Very interesting, Modulous. Thanks for the contribution.
Modulous had given a source for my statement in Message 7 to teen4christ where I said: "You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model."
My claim was that somebody had predicted the CMB prior to Gamow.
Also that they had done a better job and had not used the Big Bang Model.
Here I find:
As we have seen in this paper, Gamow and collaborators
obtained from T 5 K to T = 50 K in monotonic
order (5 K, 5 K, 7 K and 50 K)...
These are quite poor predictions compared with Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-
Freundlich and Max Born, who arrived at, respectively: 5
K < T < 6 K, T = 3.1 K, T = 2.8 K, T = 2.3 K, 1.9 K <
T < 6.0 K! All of these authors obtained these values
from measurement and or theoretical calculations, but
none of them utilized the Big Bang.
The conclusions of: A. K. T. Assis M. C. D. Neves
Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by
Penzias and Wilson is a decisive factor in favour of a Universe
in dynamical equilibrium, and against models of an
expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and the
steady-state.
Now it does not make any difference where Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, got their numbers from. It could have been a cracker jack box, or a fortune cookie.
Others did it before and better than Gamow.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 1:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2008 11:39 AM ICANT has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 58 of 115 (460917)
03-20-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
03-20-2008 11:00 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Chiroptera,
This response you made to Modulous in which you stated:
Chiroptera writes:
quote:
Very interesting, Modulous. Thanks for the contribution.
Modulous had given a source for my statement in Re-Taking a Stab (Message 7) to teen4christ where I said: "You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model."
My claim was that somebody had predicted the CMB prior to Gamow.
Also that they had done a better job and had not used the Big Bang Model.
Here I find:
quote:
As we have seen in this paper, Gamow and collaborators
obtained from T 5 K to T = 50 K in monotonic
order (5 K, 5 K, 7 K and 50 K)...
quote:
These are quite poor predictions compared with Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-
Freundlich and Max Born, who arrived at, respectively: 5
K < T < 6 K, T = 3.1 K, T = 2.8 K, T = 2.3 K, 1.9 K <
T < 6.0 K! All of these authors obtained these values
from measurement and or theoretical calculations, but
none of them utilized the Big Bang.
The conclusions of: A. K. T. Assis M. C. D. Neves
quote:
Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by
Penzias and Wilson is a decisive factor in favour of a Universe
in dynamical equilibrium, and against models of an
expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and the
steady-state.
Now it does not make any difference where Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, got their numbers from. It could have been a cracker jack box, or a fortune cookie.
Others did it before and better than Gamow.
It most certainly does matter how they arrived at their numbers. A broken clock is still right twice a day, ICANT. Depending on how one arrives at a conclusion, the model may produce accurate results for one case, and completely inaccurate results for everything else. The mark of a highly accurate model is one that is accurate in accounting for all available evidence.
But perhaps you could enlighten us - how exactly is the dynamical equilibrium model more accurate than the Big Bang model? In your own words please, not cut-n-pastes. See, you don't even understand the Big Bang, or what a singularity is, so I have sever doubts that you comprehend any of the other physics literature that you're reading, either.
While you've not cut-n-pasted a few scant paragraphs of the article you're referring to without putting anything in your own words, I still don't see an explanation of how, exactly, these predictions are more accurate than those of the Big Bang model. Please illuminate us, ICANT. Until you can show, in your own words and with the article as support, that the numbers arrived at by the "dynamical equilibrium" model are more accurate in predicting the CMB than Big Bang cosmology (which would require posting the numbers arrived at by the "DE" supporters, the numbers actually measured for the CMB, and the numbers arrived at using the Big Bang model for comparison), you're just blowing hot air.
And why does nearly every cosmological physicist support the Big Bang model if there is another, more accurate model available? Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy? The peer review process and the scientific method are designed specifically to ensure that inaccurate models are discarded in favor of more accurate models. Why would the overwhelming majority of physicists continue to use a less accurate model when the only result will be ever more inaccurate conclusions in the field of cosmology?
And why would you, of all people, argue against the Big Bang? I thought it was your opinion that the Big Bang model is in perfect agreement with Genesis 1:1, while the dynamical equilibrium model is not.
Methinks that, as t4c said, you're just trying to be difficult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 11:00 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:25 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 59 of 115 (460925)
03-20-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
03-20-2008 11:39 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
Please illuminate us, ICANT. Until you can show
Nobody on this site knew this paper existed until I pointed it out unless Modulous did. I am inclined to believe Mod was smart enough to look it up if he did not know it existed.
Again my statement was:
"My claim was that somebody had predicted the CMB prior to Gamow.
Also that they had done a better job and had not used the Big Bang Model."
According to the article, Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, came up with numbers predicting the CMB. They had their reasons for those numbers.
They came up with their numbers before Gamow and collaborators did.
Eleven years later when the CMB was discovered their numbers matched what was found better than those of Gamow and collaborators.
So I am going to leave the explanations to the experts and I will just take their word for it.
Rahvin writes:
Why would the overwhelming majority of physicists continue to use a less accurate model when the only result will be ever more inaccurate conclusions in the field of cosmology?
When was the first time you heard of this paper and conclusion reached by A. K. T. Assis M. C. D. Neves?
Rahvin writes:
And why would you, of all people, argue against the Big Bang? I thought it was your opinion that the Big Bang model is in perfect agreement with Genesis 1:1, while the dynamical equilibrium model is not.
I am not arguing for or against either. I was pointing out information and it happened to question the Big Bang Theory.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2008 11:39 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2008 1:39 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 62 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2008 1:49 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 115 (460927)
03-20-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
03-20-2008 1:25 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
According to the article, Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, came up with numbers predicting the CMB.
No, Guillaume predicted a certain energy density -- he did not predict a Cosmic Microwave Background, at least not according to Modulous' source. Guillaume did nothing to predict the correct spectrum, nor the isotopic nature of the radiation.
Conceivably, one could perhaps say that Herzberg did predict an isotopic blackbody spectrum that is roughly correct. But the mechanism he proposed for this has been shown to be incorrect.
If your point is that people can get correct answers with incorrect theories, then, sure, but we already knew that: crystalline spheres around the earth (with the various corrections added to it by the Middle Ages) gave pretty impressive results regarding the motion of the planets in the night sky.
I suggest reading Kuhn in this regard. I think he's simple enough yet deep enough to lend himself to your brand of misreading and stubborn misinterpretation.

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024