Big Bang - Big Dud

Arkathon doesn't have a chance of understanding anything about cosmology. That is why I suggested he move to something that he just might be able to wrap his head around. That is, dating the earth itself.Of course, I'm also sure he's just smart enough to know that he can't play the bafflegab game so well there and hasn't a chance so he stays away.

I've opened a topic on your "collapse" video. Since you posted it is there any chance you want to defend it?I know you posted it as an example of "others" attacking evolution but maybe you actually think it has something to say.Also I'm not sure how it is an example of 'others' though I agree that non fundamentalist Christians do exist which want to attack evolution. Perhaps you could clarify. This looks like a literalist creationist Christian site.

Which two? Uranus "spins" on it's side.There is an explanation for the mechanics of various rotational axis tilts. This site does point out that the Uranus system is a "difficult problem". What is your point exactly?CANOPUS 03/11 - The Minor Planets

Eta happens to be an astrophysisist. He has taken the time to help out when we get over our heads in relativity theory or other rather difficult areas.It would be nice if he could take the time to deal with everyone's questions but I think it's better if others answered simpler questions from the limited knowledge we do have and leave Eta free for the tougher ones.If Eta suggests that something is just utter nonsense then it's probably easiest to take that as most likely right. If you want to know more you could do a bit of reseaching around and then ask specific questions here for anyone to try and answer.Some people think that they have a right to voice any opinion on these topics without having a freaking clue what it is about. Unfortunately quantum mechanics and general relativity which are at issue for some of this require a bit of advanced mathematics. When someone has that under their belt they might be ready to make some new conjectures in cosmology.Eta has, in the past, been very patient and explained errors and helped us. That doesn't mean he has to respond in detail to someone who isn't really trying to learn anything.

I think that all the points in the OP were discussed my many others. Can you back up and ask about something you think needs extra work?If you wish to learn you may ask some questions and we'll see what we can do. The OP material is so bad that it doesn't take any PhD to see what's wrong. I've lost track of what else may be here that needs answering.Anything by Humphreys probably has material on talkorgins (but I haven't checked).Generally once you have some understanding of the science you begin to recognize things which are made up to sound like they are scientific but are really just mumbo jumbo. They are simply more sophisticated blatherings of the same kind that 'whatever' has been doing on the topic of navel engineering in the ark thread.In any case, take some control of the thread yourself and ask questions that you think will help you learn what you want. When someone really wants to learn then there are a number of people here willing to help.

What would this model predict that is different from the current consensus model? That's one thing you need to make it worth digging into.What is this central point fixed in? Is it in a higher dimensional space?

Well, putting the BB aside for the moment: you are wrong. It is possible for something to come from "nothing". It happens all the time.Try a google on virtual particles or the casimir effect. It won't be changed because it has a nice ring to it. Changing the name would not help save the "petty arguments" since they arise out of ignorance of the subject. Changing the name won't suddenly enlighten those who know nothing about the topic.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2005 02:50 AM

The answer was given: we don't know.Another point: there is reason to think the total energy of the universe is very near zero in which case the "enough energy" isn't what you imagine. I'm not a cosmologist who understands the calculations however.

Did you actually read any material you googled?You will find that the effect was predicted decades before it could be measured. The very well tested math of quantum mechanics says it should be there. The measurements confirmed it.

Actually, I don' know what virtual particles and thermodynamics mean taken together? Can Eta or Sylas help here? I have some guesses but they are so flaky that I won't even try.

How is anything else "shakey" if the answer to this particular question is "We don't know."?The origin of the universe is about 14 billion years ago. To notknow the details at that instant does not mean that we can't know a lot about everything after that.If you wish to have God there, then, for now, you may. I don't see what that accomplishes though.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-01-2005 11:48 PM

Aside from your 10 billion year error which we can skip for now, you seem to think that the dating is wrong.If so, why don't you drop in on the more recent "dates and dating" threads? If you want to dispute these, even by implication, you should be prepared to discuss what is wrong with them.

I'll have a go, without the expertise of Sylas.There are some misconceptions here. The hydrogen and helium were not "shot outtward". They were carried with the general expanstion of space.The question isn't how did they "turn" but what allowed them to form clumps. Obviously the answer is gravity.However, I don't know the details. It has been a difficult question in cosmology for some years as to what allowed the clumps to form. It seems there is now good evidence that the distribution of matter after the first few 100,000's of years was very uniform but not completely so. Once you have an uneven distribution of matter then you get a chance for gravity to draw the hydrogen and helium together.