Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 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
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 168 of 305 (665893)
06-19-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Just to be clear here - It is your contention that the Big Bang theory accepted by physicists obviously violates a fundamental law of physics as described by physicists - But that no actual physicist has noticed this blatant contradiction.
Is this your position here?
Without going into the technical details here - Don't you think this a rather unlikely oversight on the part of physicists?
Are you suggesting physicists are idiots or engaged in some sort of wild cover-up conspiracy type thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 224 of 305 (666342)
06-26-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
AM writes:
How do you mean there is no universal time in the Big Bunk cosmology?
There is no absolute (aka 'universal') time in relativity. Relativity tells us that time intervals are not universal but instead depend entirely on the frame of reference.
That is kinda the whole point. That is where relativity gets it's name from. And, unlike the confused babble you are spouting, relativity has been repeatedly confirmed by means of verified predictions.
So what is this 'universal' time you speak of?
And what predictions does whatever it is you are putting forward as an alternative hypothesis to relativity make?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 9:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 305 (666372)
06-26-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 9:25 AM


Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:
Can you read?
I can. Can you grasp unintuitive physics concepts that seem at odds with common experience?
AM writes:
If there is no absolute time in big bunk cosmology what then the figure 13.7 billion years of the universal age means?
When we talk about "age" we are talking about the proper time along an object's world line. Please note this is not in any sense a form of absolute time. It is the coordinate time in the objects rest frame. Similarly, in the case of the universe as a whole, the "rest frame" would be any point at rest with respect to the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric coordinates. An observer moving relative to those coordinates since the beginning of the universe would have aged less than the universe.
In essence this is no different to the twins paradox except we are trying to treat the universe as an object in a way that defies common sense even more than most relativity "paradoxes".
AM writes:
So the big bunk cosmology has got nothing to do with relativity.
Except that it can be directly derived as a logical consequence of general relativity and then corresponding observations made to verify the theory as in accordance with reality. Which is of course how we test a theories accuracy as a descriptions of reality when applying the scientific method.......
Verifiable predictions. The measure of a theory to which no creationist ever has any answer.
AM writes:
It is a pre-copernican geocentric type of cosmogony in pseudo-modern disguise.
Tell us what your alternative hypothesis is and what verifiable predictions you are able to make using your hypothesis.
Tell us what exactly you mean by "universal time" in terms of different frames of reference and the FLRW metric.
Let's see what you have here......?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 9:25 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 248 of 305 (666406)
06-26-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:
No possible observer is at rest to the Friedmann's co-ordinates.
So what do you think the age of the universe is and what frame of reference are you using to come to this conclusion?
What predictions does your model make? Is it even testable?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:06 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 256 of 305 (666430)
06-27-2012 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 8:07 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:
My firm conviction is that the Universe as a whole has no possible age.
Conviction based on what exactly?
AM writes:
Time measurements are relative to every relative location. Time measurement on the large scales is a relative distance measurement. Far, far away is equivalent to long, long ago. Time is therefore local while the Universe has no possible location being everywhere at once so it is timeless.
Can this hypothesis of yours be expressed mathematically? What are the testable logical consequences of this (i.e. what verifiable predictions does it result in)?
AM writes:
Every finite object has a measurable age while the Universe being not a finite bounded object in relative motion has none.
Why cannot the age of the universe be considered from the frame of reference that corresponds to it's rest frame? That is what we mean when we talk about the "age" of an object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:07 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 11:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 259 of 305 (666442)
06-27-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 11:43 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:
What the rest frame of the Universe is supposed to mean exactly?
The "rest frame" in question would be any point at rest with respect to the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric coordinates.
What frame of reference are you applying? The whole point of relativity is that there is no preferred frame of reference. But I don't see how you can get very far without any frame of reference at all.
AM writes:
The conviction is based on very careful examination of the alternatives to that proposition. Those are found to be based on obvious fallacies and impossible to support without invoking magic and using sloppy definitions of the terms.
So your "hypothesis" simply amounts to a series of objections to Big Bang cosmology. You are not actually putting forward any alternative that can remotely match the predictive power of the existing theory and you have no supporting evidence for your claims aside from your own personal interpretations of existing data.
AM writes:
I am afraid English is the main language of science, not maths.
Except that most of the discoveries of modern physics have come about as a result of mathematical extrapolations which have then been verified as being in accordance with observable physical reality. I’m afraid that you can object to Big Bang cosmology, GR and the role of mathematics in scientific discoveries on personal and philosophical grounds until you are blue in the face, but as long as predictions keep being verified and discoveries being made that are in accordance with those predictions these will remain the dominant theories and practises. Because that is how science works.
If you want to overthrow a scientific theory it is no good waffling, hand waving and objecting on principle. You need to come up with a superior theory which explains all the existing physical evidence AND which can be verified/tested by predicting new discoverable phenomena that the old theory is unable to predict.
You obviously are not able to do this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 11:43 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 1:26 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 270 of 305 (666485)
06-27-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:
Sorry, but why I or anybody else should choose Friedmann's co-ordinates for my arbitrary frame of reference?
For the same reason that when talking about your age we choose your rest frame rather than that of your hypothetical twin who shot off into space at 1/2 C speed. Either frame of reference would provide a valid measurement of time. But only one would correspond to what is generally known as your "age". Likewise the age of the universe.
AM writes:
What are those confirmed predictions of the big bunk cosmogony you are boasting about?
Taq has provided a reasonable enough outline. Frankly anyone with the ability to type the phrase "big bang predictions" into Google can find the answer to this question. The really relevant question here is what do we need to look for in order to find a single verifiable prediction for the alternative hypothesis you propose?
I don't think you have anything to offer on this front at all....
AM writes:
All the waffling and handwaving is entirely yours here, not mine.
Tell us a single discovery that your alternative hypothesis (whatever that may be) has led to.
If you can't provide a single example of such a discovery then don't be surprised when nobody takes whatever theory it is you personally and subjectively want to impose particularly seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 1:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 7:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 278 of 305 (666505)
06-28-2012 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 7:29 PM


Predictions and the Scientific Method
AM writes:
Therefore your analogy is somewhat lame.
I haven't really made an analogy. I have simply pointed out that when talking about the age of an object we are talking about the coordinate time in the object's rest frame. You still haven't said which frame of reference you are using....?
AM writes:
Therefore my criteria is not the predictions but rather an absence or presence of plausible, rational explanations of the causal universal process offered by rivalling presentations.
In short you have abandoned the scientific method, abandoned any hope of reaching a remotely objective conclusion, and are just going with whatever seems subjectively plausible to you personally.
The reason testable predictions are used in science is because whilst it is very easy to conjure up fantastical explanations to fit the facts one cannot easily force reality to conform to the logical consequences of one's theory. So when we have a theory that successfully leads to the discovery of new facts it is deemed a superior model of reality to one that doesn't.
No doubt you feel that this is deeply unfair and intrinsically biased against your subjectively preferred descriptions. But that is kinda the point. The very purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate such biases as much as possible.
So do you have anything other than subjectively derived notions of plausibility or is that the sum total of your argument here?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 7:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 290 of 305 (666522)
06-28-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 9:56 AM


Predictions (Again....)
Predictably you are missing the point regarding the power of prediction in assessing the worth of a theory. BB theory doesn't just provide a post-hoc explanation of the CMBR in the way that you are seeking to do. The logical consequence of BB theory is that the CMBR both must exist and that it must have certain very specific characteristics.
The reason that the Cosmic Microwave Background is deemed to be a verification of the Big Bang theory is because the theory exactly predicts (demands even) the observations that have subsequently been made. Have a look at this NASA page: NASA Link
Link writes:
According to the Big Bang theory, the frequency spectrum of the CMB should have this blackbody form. This was indeed measured with tremendous accuracy by the FIRAS experiment on NASA's COBE satellite.
This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve. The error bars on the data points are so small that they can not be seen under the predicted curve in the figure! There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum.
The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory and only a fool would deny this. This is because it is relatively easy to construct theories that explain and interpret known observations. But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality.
So my question to those who want to insist that we adopt some alternative hypothesis is simple. What have you ever discovered? Not what have they concluded. But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions?
And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 9:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 303 of 305 (666663)
06-29-2012 12:35 PM


Summary
There are some really good technical posts on relativity from one of our resident physicists in this thread. Anyone interested in this subject who missed these should take a look at SonnyG’s contributions.
As for creationist cosmology — There isn’t much to say. As usual creationist theories amount to little more than incredulity towards evidenced scientific explanations, a complete disregard for the role of prediction in the scientific method, an abandonment of any notion of objectivity in assessing the relative merits of competing theories and some rather fantastical and ill conceived post hoc explanations and interpretations.
The premise of every creationist theory I have encountered is that a scientific theory is simply an interpretation of data and that because they find their own interpretation subjectively more plausible than any other it should be considered at least equal to, if not superior to, what they perceive to be the God-denying innately-biased scientific consensus. Each pet theory invariably contains a whole raft of unique contradictions, misapprehensions and conflations of terminology which result in the proponent of said theory thinking that they have come across something genuinely novel and uniquely insightful that the scientific community has somehow failed to spot. But once these specific flaws are unravelled and the foundations laid bare all these pet theories essentially boil down to the same thing. A deep-seated ignorance of the methods science applies to distinguish between fact and fiction and a desire to insert some form un-evidenced mysticism/magic.
This thread has followed the same trend.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024