Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 61 of 305 (664238)
05-30-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by zaius137
05-30-2012 1:05 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
I don't know all of these answers, but I could discuss the following. I see that one of the resident physicists has given some more answers.
Quantized Red shifts
Ain't no such thing. I could have sworn that you had gotten some responses to this before.
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Nonsense.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Not a problem. Are black holes directly observable, the suns core, the overwhelming majority of discovered exo-planets?
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections)
Inflation is not actual movement of objects in space. There is no special relativity objection.
he Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics.
Not a big bang issue at all. There may be some problem with particle physics, but not every particle physics problem is a big bang problem. We do know that particles do have mass. It is not as though mass will suddenly disappear if the Higgs Boson is not found.
But even beyond that, it is premature to say that the Higgs Boson is missing.
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. (Cosmological Principle is wrong).
Nonsense. No evidence for this at all.
Computational models applying Jeans length have failed to produce the more massive stars, which are more numerous than our sun.
Perhaps you should rephrase this a bit. We have only one sun. I assume you mean stars similar in size to our sun.
I am curious as to how this is a big bang question at all. Sounds like a solar modeling/computer programming problem.
And you are right. There is no fault in ignorance. I never claimed there was any fault. There are, however, faults associated with ignorance.
Willfulness is one. Hubris is yet another.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 57 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:05 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 05-30-2012 1:08 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 62 of 305 (664242)
05-30-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by zaius137
05-30-2012 1:05 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Why I started this post in the first place was to increase my own understanding of cosmology physics.
Then the last thing you should be doing is finding creationist objections to the Big Bang model. Creationists are more interested in reducing our knowledge, not increasing it. For example:
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center.
This isn't true. Never has been. How does one seek knowledge by being wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:05 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 63 of 305 (664244)
05-30-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by zaius137
05-30-2012 12:36 AM


Re: Far behind the times
Unless you are just taking the participants word for it?
Does an argument automatically win in this forum Ad Novitam?
Zaius, I don't believe that pursue this issue any further is doing service to your reputation.
The article you cited was indeed old. But even given that, the cited article contained a potential explanation that has since turned out to be exactly correct. The explanation given in the article has since been verified by experiment.
You didn't have to take my word for the fact that your information was at least a decade old, but trying to disprove that by citing an even older article was quite obviously not going to work. Even beyond that, there are plenty of accessible sources that contained the truth.
We all err. I have found that simply acknowledging an error is the best practice. A distant second best, but more commonly used, is simply not to repeating the error leaving us to guess whether you accept that you were wrong.
Bad practice is making posts that appear to defend the error; at least that would be the case if you gave a hoot about how we perceive future posts under your handle. I certainly took this into account when I looked at your list of Big Bang problems in a subsequent post.
For what it's worth, I had no trouble following the link that JonF provided to the relevant LA times article. The wikipedia article I referenced includes pointers to primary references backing up the points made in the article.

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 55 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 12:36 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by JonF, posted 05-30-2012 1:04 PM NoNukes has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 64 of 305 (664248)
05-30-2012 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by zaius137
05-30-2012 12:36 AM


Re: Far behind the times
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?
What participant's word for what? Are you seriously proposing that a newspaper article written in 1991 is evidence for what happened in 2001?
IMHO, the author of the 2001 article did not know at the time what was going to happen in 2001. Do you think he/she did know, in 1991, what was going to haqppen in 2001?
Does an argument automatically win in this forum Ad Novitam?
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. In this forum, presenting sourced and verifiable evidence that the Solar neutrino problem was solved in 2001 proves that your claim of an existing Solar neutrino problem is falsified and that your citation of an irrelevant article written in 1991 as support is incredibly foolish and reflects extremely poorly on your knowledge and capabilities.
Interesting article you cited thanks.
Do you now accept that there has been no Solar neutrino problem since 2001?
Tried to open your citation and got a security update for .NET framework, could you try again please
Sorry, not my problem. That's your problem. I quoted enough of the article to refute your claim that there is a solar neutrino problem now. But you can try this link.

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

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 65 of 305 (664250)
05-30-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
05-30-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Far behind the times
For what it's worth, I had no trouble following the link that JonF provided to the relevant LA times article
Excessively pedantic perhaps, but my link was to the Nobel Prize website, to an article written by physicist John Bahcall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2012 12:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2012 1:19 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 66 of 305 (664251)
05-30-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
05-30-2012 10:30 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Quantized Red shifts
Ain't no such thing. I could have sworn that you had gotten some responses to this before.
I don't remember. Tom Bridgman has some very informative if somewhat technical blog posts on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2012 10:30 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 10:34 PM JonF has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 305 (664252)
05-30-2012 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by JonF
05-30-2012 1:04 PM


Re: Far behind the times
Actually, I'm the one with egg on my face. Earlier, you give a link to the LA times article, but the link in question does go to a Microsoft site.
NoNukes.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 65 by JonF, posted 05-30-2012 1:04 PM JonF has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 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

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 69 of 305 (664346)
05-31-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by zaius137
05-30-2012 10:34 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
You should have done more than skimmed Dr. Bridgman's article, and you should have read the articles to which he linked.
Brief summary: He did get some of Hartnett's claims wrong, and apologized for it, but he demonstrated by Fourier analysis in several ways that there is no quantized redshift.
I actually did see some periodical distributions although the human eye may not be a satisfactory tool in statistical analysis
The human eye is definitely not a useful tool in statistical analyses. Pareidolia and Apophenia are well known phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 10:34 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 12:54 PM JonF has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 70 of 305 (664368)
05-31-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by JonF
05-31-2012 10:44 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
but he demonstrated by Fourier analysis in several ways that there is no quantized redshift.
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
quote:
The redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog, Third Data Release (DR3), is examined. Six peaks that fall within the redshift window below z=4 are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model.
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS
quote:
Using new data for unassociated galaxies with wide H I profiles and values of period and solar motion predicted by Tifft and Cocke (1984), a periodicity has been found which is significant at the conventional 5 percent level. Together with Tifft's work on galaxy pairs and small groups, this result appears to provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis that measured galaxy redshifts occur in steps of a little more than 72 km/s or a simple multiple of this period.
Periodicities in Galaxy Redshifts - NASA/ADS
I do not wish to blitz you with citations but there is actually overwhelming secular research that finds Q-Redshifting to be true. Please forgive the excess of citations but I really wish to put this one to rest.
The Virgo cluster as a test for quantization of extragalactic redshifts. - NASA/ADS
Evidence for redshift periodicity in nearby field galaxies. - NASA/ADS
Additional members of the local group of galaxies and quantized redshifts within the two nearest groups. - NASA/ADS
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r826358852wg46u5/
Redshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster. - NASA/ADS
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t17401650822m547/
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0211/0211091v1.pdf
From
Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
This list is by no means comprehensive. Please cite some peer reviews that might contradict my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 10:44 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Joe T, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 2:27 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 3:25 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 2282 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 71 of 305 (664374)
05-31-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zaius137
05-31-2012 12:54 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
It is very interesting that you cite this discussion: Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
The guy there making the same arguements you are, and using the references you use, was pretty thoroughly spanked. Did you read through the discussion or just Google looking for support?
Joe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 12:54 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 1:44 PM Joe T has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 72 of 305 (664376)
05-31-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Son Goku
05-30-2012 5:20 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Welcome Son Goku I apologize for my late response
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.
I wish I had time to give your statement the attention it needs. In astrophysics today CMBR smoothness relating to the BB is defiantly a real problem. Consider the following about the Ad-Hock inflation explanation about smoothness in the CMBR
quote:
While speculative, there is as yet no other plausible explanation for the smoothness of the CMBR. Unless the CMBR is not really cosmic but local in origin, the distances between regions of similar temperatures are too great for any coordination to have caused them, since any coordination mechanism must travel at the speed of light. Again, particle physics and cosmology are intimately entwined. There is little hope that we may be able to test the inflationary scenario directly, since it occurs at energies near 1014GeV
OpenStax CNX
Lack of shadows in the CMBR are also proving to be a real problem
quote:
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
let us reason on these findings further
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.
as the parameters are the parameters Albeit the excessive additions of dark energy/dark matter. By the way, one of the issues about the flatness of the universe is that flatness over time would tend to disappear (not observed).
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.
Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory. The Higgs is missing (you heard it here first).
quote:
They suggested that all particles had no mass just after the Big Bang. As the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value, an invisible force field called the ‘Higgs field’ was formed together with the associated ‘Higgs boson’. The field prevails throughout the cosmos: any particles that interact with it are given a mass via the Higgs boson. The more they interact, the heavier they become, whereas particles that never interact are left with no mass at all.
If it turns out that we cannot find it, this will leave the field wide open for physicists to develop a completely new theory to explain the origin of particle mass.
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.
Citation please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Son Goku, posted 05-30-2012 5:20 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Son Goku, posted 05-31-2012 2:14 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 73 of 305 (664377)
05-31-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Joe T
05-31-2012 1:30 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
Hey, Joe thanks for responding
It is very interesting that you cite this discussion: Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
The guy there making the same arguements you are, and using the references you use, was pretty thoroughly spanked. Did you read through the discussion or just Google looking for support?
You need to help me out here; I reviewed each citation and found they did indeed support my position. When you say, spanked do you have those objections because I do not wish to read the entire thread? You also need to consider my qualifier for most of the objections namely:
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
Me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Joe T, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM Joe T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 2:43 PM zaius137 has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 305 (664380)
05-31-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by zaius137
05-31-2012 1:30 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory.
That's not remotely true. The Higgs mechanism has no role to play in the formation of mass in the Big Bang theory. It explains how the Electroweak Force became the Electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear Forces. It certainly does not play a primary role in the Big Bang theory as the Higgs was first proposed decades after the Big Bang model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:16 AM Son Goku has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 75 of 305 (664382)
05-31-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zaius137
05-31-2012 12:54 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way
Indeed? Please cite evidence that this is the case.
I do not wish to blitz you with citations but there is actually overwhelming secular research that finds Q-Redshifting to be true.
Boy oh boy, you just love out-of-date information!! Google it up and post it without thinking, that's you. Yes, there used to be some controversy about whether or not redshifts were quantized. That controversy is settled; redshifts are not quantized. A few researchers (mostly creationists) still hold on to the idea but the evidence against it is overwhelming.
Anything published before 2000 (the first data release from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) is definitely out of date. (Wikipedia notes in its list of major papers claiming redshift quantisation that "All of these studies were performed before the tremendous advances in redshift cataloging that would be made at the end of the 1990s. Since that time, the number of galaxies for which astronomers have measured redshifts has increased by several orders of magnitude." Please remove all links to papers published before 2000. It would be best to question papers published before 2007 (the fifth data release of the SDSS) What do you have left?
From No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data (2002):
quote:
We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency.
From Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (2005):
quote:
We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson $\log(1+z)$ model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests respectively. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in $\log(1+z)$, or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find the distribution of projected distance between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.
In On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity (2006) Bajan et. al. found weak indications of quantization but concluded:
quote:
In our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established. The earlier results are based on a very small fraction of objects extracted from the large databases. At the early stage of investigations such approach was the correct one, errors of individual measurements were great. Presently. the radial velocities of galaxies are determined in an industrial manner. The accuracy of radial velocity determination is good enough for considering all galaxies. Therefore, we chose this manner of data treatment. As we considered all galaxies, our samples are greater. Measurements with lower accuracy could smear out the regularities, but regularities are not introduced.
The previous result, based on selected samples showed the existence of the periodicity in the galaxy redshift distribution at a very high significance level. We found that at the 2σ significance level some effect was observed. We think that the solution of this curious phenomenon may be solved in near flame using large database. which together with such correct method as PSA will allow one to estimate the significance of the effect at a sufficiently convincing level. We think also that after clear and convincing demonstrating of the existence of the effect, theoretical explanations of this phenomenon can be performed.
From The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release (2007), section 5 (pg 12):
quote:
Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006).
You really need to read Delusions of Geocentric Quantization...
Edited by JonF, : Fix erroneous date

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 12:54 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:10 PM JonF has replied
 Message 82 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 1:51 AM JonF 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