Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,551 Year: 4,808/9,624 Month: 156/427 Week: 69/85 Day: 6/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 1 of 305 (663504)
05-23-2012 7:09 PM


Original thread proposal has been hidden, please see Message 4 for the revised thread proposal. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide message, direct people to the revised version.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-24-2012 8:21 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 3 of 305 (663506)
05-25-2012 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-24-2012 8:21 AM


I apologized for the misuse of quotation around a paragraph I had written myself. This was not an attempt on my part to misrepresent the source of the paragraph but only to separate it from the main body of the posting. I see that the attempt was in error, I still have a lot to learn about your forum's protocol.
There is one minor concern I have that relates to all the negative response this topic has already generated; is this normal?
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-24-2012 8:21 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 05-25-2012 6:06 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 4 of 305 (663507)
05-25-2012 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-24-2012 8:21 AM


Is the Big Bang the best cosmology? Are there other cosmologies that fit the evidence of what astronomers see in our universe? One article I read proposed the number of new cosmological models to be in the hundreds.
There are many problems with the Big Bang I would like to cover in this post. The biggest problems I have with BB are the dark energy dark matter problems consider the following:
The Big Bang theory has truly become a case of the tail wagging the dog. The invention of dark energy and dark matter relies on human imagination. What has happened to observation shaping theory instead of the theory taking on a life of its own? Consider the proposal, we only observe five percent of the universe by telescopes, radio and otherwise. Seventy-two percent is supposedly dark energy and twenty three percent composed of Dark Matter. By far these are two of the most unlikely and bazaar things ever conceived of by science. However, this balance of density parameters must be there to bolster the Big Bang.
In addition, there is a suggestion that the Cosmological Principle may be incorrect, remember it states that the universe has no center or no edge. The Cosmological Principle was most appealing in that it provided a simpler solution in General Relativity but quantized redshifts and galaxy orientations seem to suggest a universe center. What could be more logical, if the universe had a beginning then it should have a center.
I would like to bring up a particular Christian cosmology the Carmeli 5d cosmology. It predicted the type 1A redshifts at the far reaches of the universe two years before they were discovered.
Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Carmeli places our Milky Way at or near the center of the universe. The suggestion that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe solves many of the observational problems existing in the Big Bang at the same time maintaining parsimony in the explanation. To date Astronomy has no evidence against the Milky Way being at the center of the universe.
http://creation.com/...the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
Also dark matter and dark energy are not needed in Carmeli’s model. So, did God place the MilkyWay in a special place in the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-24-2012 8:21 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by vimesey, posted 05-25-2012 7:13 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2012 7:18 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2012 8:07 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 9:43 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 10:11 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 3:42 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 44 by Briterican, posted 05-28-2012 2:56 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 29 of 305 (663754)
05-26-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by vimesey
05-25-2012 7:13 AM


Let me explain why I am using the term bizarre. If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility. Both of which are admittedly beyond the current ability in science to actually find them (all efforts have failed to date). Only indirect evidence of both is observable but they carry labels of very tangible principles; I refer to mass and energy.
I am open to any deeper understanding; if some one can maybe cast some light on these two proposals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by vimesey, posted 05-25-2012 7:13 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 11:49 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 2:12 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 32 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 3:00 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 3:05 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 34 of 305 (663827)
05-26-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 2:12 PM


Dr. Adequate my friend of many disciplines.
Begin by telling me this. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?
In the case of dark matter a small portion of it is proposed to be baryonic but the lions share of Dark matter is non baryonic with some proposals relying on the spontaneous breaking of symmetry moderated by the Higgs mechanism. Well I think it can be concluded by now that the Higgs Boson is a myth (have not checked recently on this). If Dark matter is a quantum effect, how is it going to be identified by science? I guess you just have to have faithright.
So, like gravity then. Or the Earth's core. Or the year 1000 AD. Or solar fusion. Or magnetic fields.
Gravity is quantifiable in general relativity, the earths core is observable by property of shock waves, solar fusion is re-creatable in nuclear weapons (although solar neutrinos are somewhat missing). Maxwell’s equations and Gauss's law for magnetism cover magnetic and electric fields.
What is a hypothesis that has no mechanism and is largely unquantifiable?
?Science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 2:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 5:02 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 35 of 305 (663832)
05-26-2012 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
05-26-2012 3:05 PM


And there is no anti-gravity associated with either dark energy or dark matter. I can understand making such a mistake with dark energy...
Anti-Gravity/ neg. vacuum energy Potato/ Pota’to
Here is my stab at dark energy.
Here is how I see dark energy as not being the proposed vacuum energy.
Consider a General Relativity field equation.
Is dark energy "neg. vacuum energy or is it expanding space (vacuum energy verses {cosmological constant x space time metric tensor}). When Einstein introduced his cosmological constant, it was on the same side of the field equation as his curvature tensor, which equated it to a property of space. A modern view places dark energy other side of the field equation and multiplied times the space-time metric tensor, which gives it a kind of energy implication. I believe that Einstein was right in the first place by putting it with the curvature tensor. I thought It must be a property of space and therefore not matter energy just my uneducated guess (correction by a real physicist is invited).
As a dark energy, there has also had an attempt at an explanation by quantum fluctuations but the observed dark energy posses far less of a force (~20,000 times less) than quantum physics would suggest.
It must be a property of space expansion thus the hand of God.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 3:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 11:25 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 11:36 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 36 of 305 (663838)
05-26-2012 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by vimesey
05-26-2012 3:00 PM


The scientists are picking up on this one already, but can I just ask you to clarify one thing - when you say:
If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
are you using "invisibility" to mean "does not produce electro magnetic radiation, which is within the small band of the electro magnetic spectrum which the human eye is capable of detecting" ?
I am playing the provocateur.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by vimesey, posted 05-26-2012 3:00 PM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 4:42 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 45 of 305 (664039)
05-28-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
05-27-2012 7:37 AM


NoNukes are good Nukes
Is this a misunderstanding or something more deliberate. You were wrong and are still wrong. And what is the explanation for your error regarding dark matter being having anti-gravity?
I must admit that my intent was not to include dark matter as the anti-gravity association; I associated anti-gravity to dark energy (a misunderstanding I did not pick up on). When I goggled anti-gravity and dark energy, I came up with this article in universetoday.
quote:
Now, a new study reveals an alternative theory: that the expansion of the universe is actually due to the relationship between matter and antimatter. According to this study, matter and antimatter gravitationally repel each other and create a kind of antigravity that could do away with the need for dark energy in the universe.
Antigravity Could Replace Dark Energy as Cause of Universe's Expansion - Universe Today
Go figure for my point of dark energy being anti-gravity, I know that the term anti-gravity is just a colloquialism but just Google anti-gravity and dark energy.
Here is one Scientists Examine ‘Dark Energy’ of Antigravity - The New York Times
What Is Dark Energy? | Space
There are literally hundreds.
Here is a direct reference and in some literature for dark energy, (omega energy is vacuum energy).
Sorry for the misunderstanding but I did learn something.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 46 of 305 (664045)
05-28-2012 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
05-27-2012 7:37 AM


NoNukes my friend
There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old.
quote:
Davis found fewer than half of the neutrinos he should have according to solar theory, indicating that the sun was producing far fewer neutrinos than predicted. At the time, one colleague declared the results "socially unacceptable," Davis said.
This year, the scientists working on SAGE ran their experiment for the first time and found not only a shortage of neutrinos--they found none. Like the dog that didn't bark in a Sherlock Holmes mystery, the lack of signals from neutrinos may point toward a solution to the problem.
If the results from SAGE hold up, they would support a theory that the sun is producing just as many neutrinos as it should, but those neutrinos are changing "flavors" in the intensely energetic interior of the sun, Rosen said. The new flavors would not be detectable by SAGE.
Physicists say that they are drawing close to solving a mystery about the sun that has stumped them for more than 20 years.
Is this the proof you are talking about (MSW theory) or is there something else? I believe this is not quite proof yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2012 7:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by JonF, posted 05-28-2012 9:04 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2012 9:42 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 47 of 305 (664048)
05-28-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 5:02 AM


Dr. Adequate my friend
Good luck with the long shot I will go with the higher probability every time.
From December of last year
quote:
Both experiments are said to have seen evidence of the long-sought Higgs, pointing to a particle mass of around 125 billion electron volts, or 125 GeV. (125 billion electron volts is roughly the mass of 125 hydrogen atoms.)* Such results would not constitute an ironclad discovery quite yet, being below the required "5 sigma," a measure of statistical reliability. But the two experiments are rumored to have seen signals of 2.5 sigma and 3.5 sigma, which together would give a strong hint.
I am sorry but the inevitable announcement of the missing Higgs is just around the corner. These masses were well covered by Tevatron years ago and only showed some interesting activity. Fermi lab does great science and they would never have missed the signal. Tevatron reached 3 sigma
RSONAANCES: Higgs won't come out of the closet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 5:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 8:54 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 59 by Granny Magda, posted 05-30-2012 2:10 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 48 of 305 (664060)
05-28-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Briterican
05-28-2012 2:56 PM


Re: Dark matter isn't much of a stretch
Welcome Briterican
It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a stretch to accept the notion that, in the vastness of space, there would me matter which is not visible to us. If matter does not emit radiation (visible or not) of its own accord, and has no nearby light source to illuminate it (which would describe the vast majority of the universe), then it would be for all intents and purposes undetectable to us... EXCEPT by observing its gravitational influence on other matter that is observed. If one limits oneself to accepting only that which is directly observed, one must throw out a great deal of subsequently firmly established science.
I agree the possibilities are vast. When science gets involved, one would like a bit more evidence that just possibility. A few years ago, science discovered an actual acceleration of the universe at very great distances (according to redshifts of type 1a supernova). At that moment in time Big Bang failed the empirical evidence as it failed to even speculate at that kind of possibility. Since the occurrence, scientists have added things to balance the universe density to fix the problem; a kind of AD-Hoc fix. I believe as a Creationist that if God wanted to use a Big Bang to create the universe so be it. However, the evidence is mounting that the Big Bang is total nonsense including all the contrivances of that theory. That is just an uneducated opinion on my part so some one here needs to convince me otherwise using the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Briterican, posted 05-28-2012 2:56 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 05-28-2012 9:05 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-29-2012 9:37 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 54 by JonF, posted 05-29-2012 10:47 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 55 of 305 (664214)
05-30-2012 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by JonF
05-28-2012 9:04 PM


Re: Far behind the times
Hi JonF...
Let me get this straight. Someone points out that your understanding is ten years out of date and you're trying to rebut that with a 21 year old article?
Unless you are just taking the participants word for it?
Does an argument automatically win in this forum Ad Novitam?
Interesting article you cited thanks.
Tried to open your citation and got a security update for .NET framework, could you try again please
Edited by zaius137, : correction...
Edited by zaius137, : Bad citation...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by JonF, posted 05-28-2012 9:04 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by dwise1, posted 05-30-2012 12:50 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2012 12:06 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 64 by JonF, posted 05-30-2012 12:56 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 57 of 305 (664216)
05-30-2012 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
05-29-2012 9:37 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
My friend NoNukesThere is no fault in ignorance just willful ignorance.
Surely there is a less hubris laden way to express ignorance.
Why I started this post in the first place was to increase my own understanding of cosmology physics. The missing neutrino thing was a good example, I enjoy that kind of input. It has been my experience that if you look hard enough there is always an answer be it hypothesis or not.
Cutting to the chase here are my major objections for BB, please if you find one or two we can talk about please inform me.
Horizon problem for CMB
Flatness problem
Where is all the Antimatter?
Energy polarization of Quasars
Quantized Red shifts
Type III stars are missing in early universe
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections)
The Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics.
CMB fails the shadow test for background radiation
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. (Cosmological Principle is wrong).
Computational models applying Jeans length have failed to produce the more massive stars, which are more numerous than our sun.
Edited by zaius137, : correction...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-29-2012 9:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Son Goku, posted 05-30-2012 5:20 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2012 10:30 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 05-30-2012 11:52 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 58 of 305 (664218)
05-30-2012 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2012 8:54 PM


Dr. Adequate my friend
So, you're told that the data in favor of the existence of the Higgs does not "quite yet" constitute an "ironclad discovery", and you conclude that it's a "long shot" that it exists?
I do not usually impart a probability of zero, except in the case of evolution. However, the Higgs is very close; I do believe that Stephen Hawking will win his hundred-dollar bet on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 68 of 305 (664308)
05-30-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JonF
05-30-2012 1:08 PM


Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
I don't remember. Tom Bridgman has some very informative if somewhat technical blog posts on the subject.
BTW...
I have no problem whatsoever with the evidence of solar neutrinos being accounted for and yes thanks for the correction.
Now let us talk about quantized redshifts.
Here is quote from the abstract by Hartnett and Hirano
quote:
The redshift spacings are confirmed by the mass density fluctuations, the power spectrum P( z) and N pairs calculations. Application of the Hubble law results in galaxies preferentially located on co-moving concentric shells with periodic spacings.
Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N( z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys - NASA/ADS
I skimmed the article you cited and found this:
In the plot above, there is not even the suggestion of alignment of galaxies along these curved lines.
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Search results for quantized redshift
I disagree, I actually did see some periodical distributions although the human eye may not be a satisfactory tool in statistical analysis as those used by Hartnett and Hirano. I find the objection undemanding.
Here is another paper supporting Quantized redshifts.
Rutgers University Department of Physics and Astronomy
I have also found earlier articles claming errors in the statistical analysis but I believe Hartnett addressed all of these issues. I also must say that to criticize a paper is not necessarily to disprove that paper so I take them with a grain of salt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 05-30-2012 1:08 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 10:44 AM zaius137 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