Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,580 Year: 4,837/9,624 Month: 185/427 Week: 98/85 Day: 3/2 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 9 of 305 (663517)
05-25-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by zaius137
05-25-2012 1:52 AM


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.
What do you think dark matter has to do with the Big Bang?
And what in the world is bizarre about it? Is there any reason, a priori why all or most of the matter in the universe should shine so brightly that we can see it billions of light-years away? It would be nice for astronomers if that was true, but why would it be bizarre if it wasn't?
In addition, there is a suggestion that the Cosmological Principle may be incorrect ...
There's a suggestion that there are dinosaurs in the Congo. Pffft.
I would like to bring up a particular Christian cosmology the Carmeli 5d cosmology.
Isn't Carmeli Jewish? I thought he was Jewish. It's the whole "being called Moshe and living in Israel" thing that suggested it.
It predicted the type 1A redshifts at the far reaches of the universe two years before they were discovered.
I take it you mean "redshifts of type 1a supernovas".
Can you quote this prediction?
It would not surprise me really if this turned out to be true, since the "theory" looks to me to be the usual creationist thing of "here's a completely unevidenced explanation of why real scientists should look exactly as though they're right while actually being wrong". This makes it easy to make accurate predictions --- you just look at what the real scientists are predicting and then predict that.
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 ...
Namely?
To date Astronomy has no evidence against the Milky Way being at the center of the universe.
Really? Well, tell me this, does astronomy have any evidence against any other galaxy being "the center of the universe" (whatever you mean by that)? If the answer is "no", then this is not a reason to think that the Milky Way is the center of the universe, it's just one more respect in which it is not at all special or remarkable.
While I have read this, I think it would be unfair to Carmeli to comment on it. It is not his fault if his ideas have been filtered through the medium of a bunch of liars and fools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:52 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 31 of 305 (663760)
05-26-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by zaius137
05-26-2012 11:40 AM


Let me explain why I am using the term bizarre.
Yes, do.
Begin by telling me this. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?
If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility.
No.
Only indirect evidence of both is observable ...
So, like gravity then. Or the Earth's core. Or the year 1000 AD. Or solar fusion. Or magnetic fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 11:40 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 9:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 305 (663852)
05-27-2012 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by zaius137
05-26-2012 10:58 PM


I am playing the provocateur.
Is that creationese for "deliberately being wrong"? Only there's another name for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:58 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 38 of 305 (663854)
05-27-2012 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
05-26-2012 9:59 PM


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 ...
Not all of them, then.
... 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).
Then I should check again if I were you.
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.
And dark matter is quantifiable, which is why we know how much of it there is. Like the Earth's core, it is necessary to predict our observations.
---
How about you answer my question. Why should it be "bizarre" if most of the universe is not luminous?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 9:59 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by zaius137, posted 05-28-2012 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 42 of 305 (663879)
05-27-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-27-2012 11:36 AM


Re: the hand of God
You have evidence I suppose of this "hand of God"?
Well, we've found one of his gloves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 05-27-2012 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 94 of 305 (664681)
06-04-2012 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by foreveryoung
06-03-2012 9:30 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
What if there is no such thing as an electroweak force?, only electromagnetic forces and weak nuclear forces? What would happen to the big bang theory then? For that matter, what would happen to the big bang theory if dark matter and dark energy were myths as well?
Nothing and nothing, respectively.
Bear in mind that the Big Bang was discovered before dark energy, dark matter, or the electroweak unification, so it can hardly depend on them as premises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 9:30 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 124 of 305 (665254)
06-10-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
Except that the Higgs is missing, (I have very good reasons to say this).
We've seen your reasons. They involved quoting someone saying that the data in favor of the existence of the Higgs does not "quite yet" constitute an "ironclad discovery".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 5:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 305 (665265)
06-10-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zaius137
06-10-2012 5:06 PM


Re: W and Z
As I had mentioned before the smaller accelerators already covered the lower energies (114Gev-150GeV), there was a little excitement around (145GeV). That one never panned out; telling me that the boson will never be found.
I believe that tigers don't exist. I've already looked under my bed.
Does this have any relevance to the topic, by the way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 5:06 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 141 of 305 (665481)
06-13-2012 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by zaius137
06-13-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
The Big Bang seems to violate the basic conservation laws of physics ...
... but for some reason this has gone unnoticed by physicists. What a good thing they have cranks on the internet to set them straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by zaius137, posted 06-13-2012 8:32 PM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2012 6:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(11)
Message 143 of 305 (665495)
06-14-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2012 10:02 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
To expand on my point.
Whenever anyone comes to you explaining that the world's top scientists are wrong about something --- the Big Bang, evolution, continental drift, whatever --- on the grounds that it contradicts something that everyone learned in science class in high school ... then they are always wrong. Because the best physicists in the world know everything that you learned about physics in high school. The best biologists in the world know everything that you learned about biology in high school. The best chemists in the world ... well, I needn't belabor the point.
Things like evolution or the Big Bang could in principle be overturned by some new observation. But they can't conceivably be overturned by appeal to some scientific principle that everyone knows and is taught in their teenage years, because if they really contradicted such a principle then actual scientists would already know that, having been taught that principle when they were teenagers; it wouldn't fall to a layman to point it out.
Here's a famous example. An editorial in the New York Times attacked Professor Goddard for not understanding that rockets wouldn't work in outer space:
That Professor Goddard with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to reactto say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
It did not occur to this writer that Goddard, with his professorial chair and the endorsement of the Smithsonian, did in fact know things that were taught in high schools. But of course he did. How could he not? His idea of sending rockets into space might have failed, it might have been wrong, he might have blundered. But is it even humanly possible that the physics professor might have blundered by not knowing Newton's laws of motion, which we all learned in high school? And if he did make such a colossal blunder, would it fall to a journalist working for the New York Times to be the first person to discover his mistake, rather than one of Goddard's scientific peers?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2012 10:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 7:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 147 of 305 (665503)
06-14-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dogmafood
06-14-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Well, what about it?
This smart kid figured something out. Hooray!
What he did not do is on a purely theoretical basis refute the most basic concepts in physics just by writing some words. What he actually did was assume that physicists were absolutely right and figure out the consequences of that assumption.
If you think I'm putting him down then you've misunderstood my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 7:24 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 305 (665991)
06-20-2012 2:40 PM



  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 175 of 305 (665992)
06-20-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by zaius137
06-20-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I was hoping that you might treat conservation of momentum with Noether’s theorem ...
Then provide the proper mathematics, if you must, because a Newtonian treatment is simply insufficient.
Isn't it time that you admitted to yourself that you are too fucking stupid to understand not only the content but also the nature of the things that are posted here, and take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving?
You make me want to puke. You go about throwing out technical terms that you hope will make you look smart --- God help you, perhaps you're so stupid you think that you really are smart --- and you're such a drooling moron that you don't have the faintest idea what these terms mean. If you can't tell Newton from Einstein or Emmy Noether from a hole in the ground, then isn't it about time you shut the fuck up? Does not decency, honesty, integrity demand this?
If I had not already encountered creationists, I would find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to pose and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about. As it is, I find it par for the course. This is creationism. And may God have mercy on your soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 2:33 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by zaius137, posted 06-20-2012 4:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 179 by Admin, posted 06-20-2012 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 200 of 305 (666243)
06-25-2012 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by zaius137
06-25-2012 1:00 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
About the probability that we only receive a certain measure of that dark energy in this very lucky universe we occupy defies common sense (and many scientists agree).
And yet I will wager that the phrase: "About the probability that we only receive a certain measure of that dark energy in this very lucky universe we occupy defies common sense" is not a quotation from an actual scientist.
Maybe they're agreeing with something else, possibly something written in English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by zaius137, posted 06-25-2012 1:00 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024