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
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 7 of 305 (663513)
05-25-2012 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by zaius137
05-25-2012 1:52 AM


Hi there zaius137,
I think that over the next 48 hours or so, you will be getting a heap load of data and evidence from the scientists around here, addressing your contention that dark energy and dark matter have been "invented".
I am not a scientist, and cannot contribute anything in relation to that data and evidence. However, through reading what I can and asking a bunch of questions, one thing I have learned is that it makes not one whit of difference if something is "unlikely and bizarre", as you state above. In fact, the deeper into the quantum world I read, the more it is that "unlikely and bizarre" seem to be precisely how things work on a day to day basis.
Everyone else will address this much better than me, but I would urge any engagement with current scientific understanding of cosmology to have absolutely no problems with something seeming "bizarre". Human experience and cosmology are very different spheres.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:52 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 11:40 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 32 of 305 (663762)
05-26-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by zaius137
05-26-2012 11:40 AM


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" ?

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 36 by zaius137, posted 05-26-2012 10:58 PM vimesey has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 129 of 305 (665264)
06-10-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity
zaius137 - can you please point me in the direction of where the Standard model, as you describe it (or indeed any science) ever promised you simplicity ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 157 of 305 (665703)
06-15-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by zaius137
06-15-2012 7:00 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I still hope Son is busily applying Noether’s theorems We wait in great anticipation.
We can be patient Trying to translate the sort of maths that is Son Goku's day job into language that people like me can have even a ghost of a chance of understanding must not be at the top of his list of priorities, and I am really grateful to him for doing so when he can.
(And there's a big soccer tournament in Europe at the moment, and with Ireland fighting a valiant battle last night against a superb Spanish team, I guess that a Guinness or two might have been consumed)
Edited by vimesey, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by zaius137, posted 06-15-2012 7:00 PM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Son Goku, posted 06-19-2012 12:47 PM vimesey has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 186 of 305 (666171)
06-23-2012 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by zaius137
06-23-2012 3:17 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Horizon problem for CMB
Flatness problem
Where is all the Antimatter?
Energy polarization of Quasars
Quantized Red shifts
General orientation of Galaxies implies a universe center
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
Delayed stellar synthesis from new Vacuum energy addition (inflation on Jean’s diameter)
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections)
The Higgs Boson is missing, mass can not be imparted to matter.
Big Bang CMB failed the shadow test for background radiation
Expansion of the universe seems to have a preferred direction. (Cosmological Principle is wrong).
You produced pretty much the same list back in Message 57. Son Goku responded in message 60, and NoNukes in message 61. I tracked your replies to Son Goku, and by my reckoning, you've addressed one of his refutations (and Son Goku has diligently come back to you on your subsequent responses on that).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by zaius137, posted 06-23-2012 3:17 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by zaius137, posted 06-25-2012 2:05 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(7)
Message 204 of 305 (666253)
06-25-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by zaius137
06-25-2012 2:05 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Hi there zaius137,
It's simply this - back in message 57, you provided a list of your objections to the big bang. Son Goku responded to that in message 60 with the opening words:
Every single one of your objections is false
and proceeded to address the majority of your objections in the list. (I suspect he didn't address every single one of them as a result of time constraints, or that he did address them all, but my understanding of the inter-connections between the points is inadequate).
Anyway, in message 137, you listed the same points again as "the problems with the Big Bang" - this is a list of objections which one of our resident physicists has informed you is false.
I think that I am much in the same boat as you, zaius137, in that I am not a physicist, and am not able to do any of the maths that you need to do to be a physicist. What I am hoping for, by reading some of the posts here and some of the papers referred to, is to be able to get some better level of understanding of the workings of science than I have - I find it incredibly fascinating, and am grateful for everyone's help in that regard.
But here's the thing - unless I learn the maths (a process which would take me years), I will only ever be able to approximate an understanding of this level of physics. English (or any other spoken language) can't convey the physics properly - it can only ever approximate it. The language of physics is maths.
So if I read something which appears to contradict the only scientific theory to do with the origin of the universe (there you go, there's an expression ("the origin of the universe") which does a dreadful job of it in English) which has consistent tested and peer-reviewed experimental results supporting it, then my first assumption is not going to be that I have found something which disproves the BBT.
And if Son Goku, a jobbing physicist who lives, breathes and speaks the maths (as well, I am sure, as many other things in a full and eclectic life), tells me that everything I have listed is false, then my knee jerk reaction is going to be that my approximated understanding is off the mark.
In trying to get to understand all of this stuff, I am only coming at it with one preconception - it is that if an established physicist, who has spent his adult life studying these things, explains to me that I am wrong, then the chances are astronomically high that I am, indeed, wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by zaius137, posted 06-25-2012 2:05 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2012 11:04 AM vimesey has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 234 of 305 (666367)
06-26-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 1:08 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
To be such it may need to have shape and surface.
Shape, perhaps in a sense, but why surface ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:35 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 240 of 305 (666377)
06-26-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 1:35 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Physical objects are strictly 3D. Those have surface.
So, drilling down a little, we know from some very superficial physics that physical objects are made up of molecules, which are in turn made up of atoms. Looking at one of the most basic molecules, oxygen, there are countless numbers of pairs of oxygen atoms floating around us at the moment. Do those atoms have a surface ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:35 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:41 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 247 of 305 (666402)
06-26-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 3:41 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
No motion, no causality.
Presumably you're excluding gravity from this statement ? The earth and I aren't moving in relation to each other, but we're still exerting a force on each other - "causing" an effect on each other, if you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 7:52 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 253 of 305 (666421)
06-27-2012 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 7:52 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion. The rest being its different manifestations on different scales. That is because there can't be any negative motion as that only means moving in the opposite direction which is a relative thing.
I'm having some difficulty following some of the consequences of your thinking here.
Just as a thought experiment, (although we could carry it out for real), imagine an empty drinks can on a flat table. You have got two magnets, either side of it. If you move the magnet on the right close enough to the can, then the can will move across the table to the magnet. Now, as I understand it, you are saying that all of this can be explained through the one and only force of motion - all of the motion in the atoms and sub-atomic particles forming the can starts, on average, to move in the direction of the magnet.
But what is it that makes them decide to do that ? How do they all know that the magnet is nearby. if the only force in question is motion ? We know that they can't all have a predisposition to be moving to the right, because they can instead move to the left, if we choose to move the left hand magnet. They must somehow know, and adjust their motion, based on the proximity of the magnet. What's your mechanism for that phenomenon ?
In fact, we can pop back and have a look at gravity again. What's the mechanism whereby all of the atoms and sub-atomic particles in the earth manage to combine to average a force of motion in the direction of the sun (cancelled out, of course, by centripetal force in the opposite direction) ? And what is the mechanism whereby the atoms and sub-atomic particles in, say, the sea, change their average momentum on an 8 hourly basis or so, to create the tides in response to the moon's orbit around the earth ?
I don't see the mechanism which you are proposing for these changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 7:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 2:25 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 269 of 305 (666484)
06-27-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 2:25 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
You probably misunderstood my meaning.
There's more than a fair chance of this.
a change in the balance of power
Ok, I'll admit to struggling a little here - to me, "power" means the magnitude of a force. But according to your earlier post "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion." So when it comes to a magnet, what is the change in the "balance of power" (ie a change in the magnitude of the only force which you acknowledge, ie motion), which is being effected ? (please bear in mind that I acknowledge that there is a change in the effect of the force on the tin can - it moves - but when you talk of a change in the balance of power, you are talking in terms of a change in the force acting on it, and accroding to your ealier post ( "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion."), that means a change in the motion acting on the can).
all matter is interconnected through radiation
I am again a little confused here - by "radiation", do you mean the dissemintation of energy ? If that's the case, then what is your mechanism for the dissemination of that energy ? Is it a different mechanism than motion ? (Bearing in mind that in your notion, "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion.") If the dissemintation of energy is purely through motion, then fair enough, but please confirm this, because I suspect that there may be some evidence to the contrary.
This is the invisible touch of all matter on all other matter.
We may well be ad idem on this one - as I understand it, the standard model includes precisely such an invisible force - gravitation, as one of the four fundamental interactions.
electromagnetic ropes with torque
This is where I am having real difficulty. If, as you stated, "If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion.". then where does electromagnetism fit into this ? Is it not a force ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 2:25 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 283 of 305 (666513)
06-28-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 9:04 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
What do you mean by saying the four forces are separated? Are they divorced like husband and wife and live in different countries or what?
Well, I've been trying to look this up, but do I recall that the forces separated in seriously small fractions of a second after the singularity ? It would make Britney Spears' marriage to Jason Allen Alexander seem like the very model of commitment !
(In all seriousness, and genuinely, I do enjoy your analogies - we've had ghosts through walls, marriages, raisin muffins and laundered knickers - they do add some great colour to these boards)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 9:04 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 286 of 305 (666517)
06-28-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 9:56 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
That is an unsupported claim.
That is not correct. There have been hundreds of experiments to measure and characterize the signatures of CMBR, all of which support the theory that it is a remnant of the big bang.
It would be more accurate for you to say that whilst the claim is supported, you happen to disagree with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 9:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:00 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 294 of 305 (666526)
06-28-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:00 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
and the explanation offered is the least plausible one
That is not correct. Let me repeat: "There have been hundreds of experiments to measure and characterize the signatures of CMBR, all of which support the theory that it is a remnant of the big bang."
In contrast, neither I nor anyone else here is aware of any experiments which support any competing theory.
This makes it the most plausible explanation, not the least plausible one.
Have a look at the link which Straggler provided. In fact, look at his last post and his previous one. They set out precisely what it is that makes a scientific theory plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein 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