Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3523 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 3523 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
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 3523 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 49 of 305 (664061)
05-28-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by zaius137
05-28-2012 8:15 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:15 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 282 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 50 of 305 (664064)
05-28-2012 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by zaius137
05-28-2012 7:59 PM


Far behind the times
There are no missing solar neutrinos. Your understanding is about ten years old.
Physicists say that they are drawing close to solving a mystery about the sun that has stumped them for more than 20 years.
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?
That's the stupidest argument I've ever seen.
Oh, BTW, your understanding is ten years out of date and your reference is too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 7:59 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 12:36 AM JonF has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 51 of 305 (664065)
05-28-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by zaius137
05-28-2012 8:54 PM


Re: Dark matter isn't much of a stretch
zaius137 writes:
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.
"Never let ignorance get in the way of having an opinion."

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:54 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 52 of 305 (664075)
05-28-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by zaius137
05-28-2012 7:59 PM


No missing neutrinos
As JonF pointed out, your references dates from a time when neutrinos were thought to be massless. A good summary of the current state of the art can be found in the wikipedia article entitled "Solar neutrino problem".
I find your stubborn insistence on adhering to error quite refreshing. It's quite unusual for a creationist.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 7:59 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 53 of 305 (664135)
05-29-2012 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by zaius137
05-28-2012 8:54 PM


Re: Dark matter isn't much of a stretch
That is just an uneducated opinion on my part so some one here needs to convince me otherwise using the science.
Surely there is a less hubris laden way to express ignorance.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:54 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:05 AM NoNukes has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 282 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 54 of 305 (664141)
05-29-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by zaius137
05-28-2012 8:54 PM


Solar Neutrinos
There's also a good article at Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos:
quote:
On June 18, 2001 at 12:15 PM (eastern daylight time) a collaboration of Canadian, American, and British scientists made a dramatic announcement: they had solved the solar neutrino mystery...
Combining the SNO and the Super-Kamiokande measurements, the SNO collaboration determined the total number of solar neutrinos of all types (electron, muon, and tau) as well as the number of just electron neutrinos. The total number of neutrinos of all types agrees with the number predicted by the computer model of the Sun. Electron neutrinos constitute about a third of the total number of neutrinos.
The smoking gun was discovered. The smoking gun is the difference between the total number of neutrinos and the number of only electron neutrinos. The missing neutrinos were actually present, but in the form of the more difficult to detect muon and tau neutrinos.
The epochal results announced in June 2001 were confirmed by subsequent experiments. The SNO collaboration made unique new measurements in which the total number of high energy neutrinos of all types was observed in the heavy water detector. These results from the SNO measurements alone show that most of the neutrinos produced in the interior of the Sun, all of which are electron neutrinos when they are produced, are changed into muon and tau neutrinos by the time they reach the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:54 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3523 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

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 56 of 305 (664215)
05-30-2012 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by zaius137
05-30-2012 12:36 AM


Re: Far behind the times
Creation Ministries International, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:
quote:
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
. . .
‘Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun.’ This is about a formerly vexing problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one ‘flavour’ to another. Therefore, consistent with the data then available, some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far less than 4.5 billion years. {See subsequent article ‘Missing’ neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator Ed}.
However, a new experiment was able to detect the ‘missing’ flavours, which seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after allexperimental data must take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. So it cannot be used as a young-age indicatornor an old-age indicator for that matter. See Newton, R., Missing neutrinos found! No longer an ‘age’ indicator, TJ 16(3):123—125, 2002.
Even other creationists know that your claim is out-of-date and no longer usable.
Edited by dwise1, : bbcode clean-up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 12:36 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3523 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 3523 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

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 59 of 305 (664223)
05-30-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by zaius137
05-28-2012 8:15 PM


Hi zaius,
Good luck with the long shot I will go with the higher probability every time.
*Ahem!*
quote:
7 March 2012 — the D‘ and CDF Collaborations announced that they found excesses that might be interpreted as coming from a Higgs boson with a mass in the region of 115 to 135 GeV/c2 in the full sample of data from Tevatron. The significance of the excesses is quantified as 2.2 standard deviations, corresponding to a 1 in 250 probability of being due to a statistical fluctuation. This is a lower significance, but consistent with and independent of the ATLAS and CMS data at the LHC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Timeline_of_experimental_evidence
Go on then. Go with the higher probability.
You do realise that 250 is a little bit higher than 1, right?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:15 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 60 of 305 (664231)
05-30-2012 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by zaius137
05-30-2012 1:05 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Every single one of your objections is false:
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
The issue over the quadrupole moment is how large it is (the measurements have large errors and there are data analysis issues) and what exactly it implies about the long term development of the universe and early development of matter. However it has nothing to do with the occurrence of the Big Bang, since the Cosmic Microwave Background, in which the quadrupole anomaly exists is a prediction of the Big Bang.
Flatness problem
Again nothing to do with the Big Bang itself, rather why do certain parameters have values that result in a flat universe. It's still a flat Big Bang universe though, as the parameters are the parameters of the Big Bang model.
Where is all the Antimatter?
Explained a while ago now. It is due to CP violation, symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The laws of physics do treat matter and antimatter differently. Currently however that would leave us with a galaxy worth of matter rather than the vast amount of matter we see today. So we know there are probably particle physics effects which increase this asymmetry. A major issue of course, but one for particle physics and not the Big Bang.
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light
The expansion of space has no speed, this is a nonsensical objection. It is best to think of the expansion of space as the creation of new empty space, so for every meter cubed, a new micrometer cubed is produced. This can cause the whole universe to inflate in size "faster than light", but nothing is actually moving.
The Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics.
It's silly to say it is missing when the experiments to detect it have just begun. If if it is missing isn't this a particle physics issue and not cosmological? You can't list everything physicists don't know as somehow being evidence against the Big Bang.
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions.
I don't know what you have been reading, but those are two of the best matches between experiment and theory that the Big Bang possesses.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Again, how is this a problem. We've detected dark matter indirectly by measuring how much it distorts spacetime and the measurements match the theory exactly. Dark Energy is not a thing, but only a name for a non-zero cosmological constant. This is not an issue for the Big Bang, the Big Bang can have a non-zero cosmological constant.
Anyway I'm not going to go through your whole list. If you choose to respond to this, please use papers citing evidence against the claims above, not an opinion piece in the Detroit Metro or something similar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:05 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM Son Goku 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