Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 17/10 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
Message 176 of 305 (666000)
06-20-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Someone needs a Hug.
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 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2012 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 178 of 305 (666009)
06-20-2012 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by frako
06-20-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
(frako) my friend
quote:
But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)
— – Loan Portal28
I read the article and concede the explanation sounds reasonable except that the magnitude of energy from quantum fluctuation is greater than the dark energy proposal. As we understand it, quantum fluctuations are not a reasonable explanation for the vacuum energy. Account for that vacuum energy in real numbers by established quantum predictions and your nomination for the next Nobel Prize in physics is assured.
Total energy conservation in the Big Bang is a myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by frako, posted 06-20-2012 4:24 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by frako, posted 06-21-2012 6:29 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 181 of 305 (666019)
06-20-2012 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by onifre
06-20-2012 9:19 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Welcome to the conversation Oni
Well I prefer the term ignorant over fake. You will find I have no self-respect when it comes to learning something.
I suppose I could have chosen velocity speed of light velocity of light.
Potato/Potatoes
What is wrong with acceleration?
And about my sentence Is it the relative speed between the galaxies?
I could use (uniform translatory motion relative to each other).
What do you think of a possible violation of STR?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by onifre, posted 06-20-2012 9:19 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 06-21-2012 10:18 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 06-21-2012 11:52 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
Message 185 of 305 (666170)
06-23-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by frako
06-21-2012 6:29 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
(frako) my friend
Well i call on the anthropic principle, there are 10 to the 500 power of possible universes and each can have a different value for dark energy if the value of ours was grater it would overpower gravity and we would not be here to talk about how it all began.
You are now talking about a hypothesis that can never be falsified or even remotely shown to be true. For those who are not up on such things, it is the Mutiverse. Because the Mutiverse does not meet Popper’s falsifiability criterion it is not science, it is philosophy at best or a false religion at worst.
But the thing is if you dont like the big bang theory because it offends your bible then you have to find a noter explanation for what we observe.
God could have caused creation via a Big Bang. I oppose the Big Bang because it is wrong.
Like the expansion of the universe
Cosmic microwave background radiation
The abundance of light elements
Here are problems with the Big Bang
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).
This is what the big bang theory explains and there is no contesting theory well except magic man dun it.
Incorrect Carmeli’s 5d model or even Plasma Red Shift cosmology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by frako, posted 06-21-2012 6:29 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by vimesey, posted 06-23-2012 4:05 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 187 by NoNukes, posted 06-23-2012 11:34 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 188 by frako, posted 06-23-2012 2:26 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 199 of 305 (666242)
06-25-2012 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by frako
06-23-2012 2:26 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
(frako) my friend
Do you have any articles criticizing Plasma redshift?
As for the Mutiverse hypothesis yes it cant be tested but 3 independent fields point to it and usually when that happens something about the hypothesis must be right.
So says Prof. Brian Greene You must watch the same Nova programs I do.
You know Mr. Greene never addresses an exact solution to the dark energy by quantum field theory. 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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by frako, posted 06-23-2012 2:26 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2012 1:07 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 201 of 305 (666244)
06-25-2012 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by onifre
06-21-2012 11:52 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Oni my friend...
Furthermore as the space between them expands, the galaxies are further from each other. The spece between the galaxies is exapnding at a rate faster than light can travel. That does not violate the SoL.
When scientists find that type 1A supernova are accelerating what exactly does that mean? Does it conform to any of the following?
1. Increase in speed: the rate at which something increases in velocity
2. Act of accelerating: the act of accelerating, or the process of being accelerated
3. Physics measure of increase in velocity: a measure of the rate of increase in the velocity of something per unit of time.
What about the local observer principle, one in our galaxy and one in a distant galaxy moving apart at or near the speed of light. Does the measurement of the speed of light stay consistent with SR? This given, is our length of measure contracted as described by Lorentz—Fitzgerald? And the galaxy that is traveling faster than light have a length of zero?
Length contraction - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 06-21-2012 11:52 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by JonF, posted 06-25-2012 10:13 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 206 by onifre, posted 06-25-2012 10:57 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2012 11:19 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 202 of 305 (666245)
06-25-2012 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by frako
06-23-2012 2:26 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
(frako) my friend...
Never heard of the 5d model and google cant find anything on it, and plasma red shift has been known to be wrong for decades just like creationism. The problems you posted about big bang have already been addressed.
You raise a question about the Carmeli 5d cosmology here is the link.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407083
The major difference in the cosmologies are highlighted by the differences in the line elements.
quote:
For FLRW metric:
Cosmological relativity’s line element for an expanding Universe in negligible gravity is:
ds2 = τ2dν2 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 )
τ = H0-1 = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
o H0 = Hubble’s constant.
ν = Is the space velocity at a given point in space.
x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.
For the Carmeli 5d cosmology:
ds2 = τ2dν2 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 ) + c2dt2
τ = H0-1 = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
o H0 = Hubble’s constant.
ν = Is the space velocity at a given point in space.
t = time.
c = the speed of light.
x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.
The result is a theory of 5 dimensions.
Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by frako, posted 06-23-2012 2:26 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Son Goku, posted 06-25-2012 1:22 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 226 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 9:58 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 203 of 305 (666246)
06-25-2012 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by vimesey
06-23-2012 4:05 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Sorry vimesey what are the specifics about your statement?
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 186 by vimesey, posted 06-23-2012 4:05 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by vimesey, posted 06-25-2012 8:50 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 304 of 305 (666898)
07-01-2012 2:29 AM


Conclusion...
I want to thank everyone for there thoughtful participation.
First off I want to apologize because I have been preoccupied else ware. I did make efforts to return here but something has always side tracked my effort.
What is wrong with this? Velocity is not a dimension! Even if you pretend the idea makes sense the equations have no sensible solutions, they feature 5D universes being blown apart by gravitational radiation.
I appreciate Son Goku’s bloviation but if you look at Carmeli’s treatments, they are unique. A model devoid of the necessity for the poison pill of dark matter is innovative. Son presented the field equation devoid of the dark energy component, which is necessitated by quantum theory. Namely p(vac)*(space-time metric tensor) being multiplied to the (stress energy tensor). I call attention to the inability by quantum physics to explain the tiny value of the calculated term for omega energy. Therefore, if there is any nonsense put forth it is current paradigm of the FLRW metric. By the way, if velocity can be excluded as a dimension (not sure, if the term is correctly applied here) then you might want to exclude time as a dimension also (even less descriptive as a dimension).
As for the list I gave for the BB problems, most of which have no reasonable explanation, I did not originate them. Except maybe the inflation on Jean’s length or Jean’s diameter (just now observed by astrophysicists as delayed star formation).
By only protesting that the list is incorrect does not make it so.
I look forward to continuing some of these discussions in future posts
Thanks again Zaius137
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024