Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#35 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:38 AM

Gosh, maybe you could start your own science forum and be the mod for it! What a thought! :cheer:

 

Unfortunately in the real world, you get treated the way you treat others. I'm only a mirror for you. That's kind of what mods do.

No dear. I present reasonable arguments and you resort to name calling and innuendos.

 

That's cuz it is sweetie pie. what you ignore here (and again below) is the notion of directionality. The Cosmological Principle is an incredibly inconvenient thing for most of what you argue. The Cosmological Principle of course started out as an assumption, and mighty difficult assumption to deny: either the universe is expanding roughly uniformly, or we're at the *exact* center of the place in the universe where steady state matter is being created and is moving away from.

Ah bless, I can see that you're trying sweetie pie but you're really struggling to grasp certain concepts, that's okay dear. No uniform expansion does not imply that we're at the centre of the universe. You see, if the light were in fact being red-shifted during the journey then objects would appear to be more red-shift the further away they are, do you see sugar plum?

 

So when we get tired and call you "crackpots," you scream "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of quotation marks sweety. They're for quoting people (the clue is in the name dear), not for putting words in peoples mouths or describing what 'you' think they mean or trying to discredit them by making out that they're behaving how you would prefer them to be to make your position seem more tenable.

 

And that's just one item. There are dozens at many levels of specificity, and the "crackpots" keep bringing up the same simplistic arguments and we explain them again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again...

:)



#36 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:50 AM

No dear. I present reasonable arguments and you resort to name calling and innuendos.

 

...says the guy who just spent a dozen posts screaming that all (oh wait, except for 10 "good" ones) scientists are Idiotic Slaves to Dogma.

 

No you're right, you *never* resort to name calling and innuendos!

 

 

Ah bless, I can see that you're trying sweetie pie but you're really struggling to grasp certain concepts, that's okay dear. No uniform expansion does not imply that we're at the centre of the universe. You see, if the light were in fact being red-shifted during the journey then objects would appear to be more red-shift the further away they are, do you see sugar plum?

 

So you're claiming that all the red shift data is constant over distance? Really?

 

Did the Sugar Plum Fairy provide that data?

 

 

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of quotation marks sweety. They're for quoting people (the clue is in the name dear), not for putting words in peoples mouths or describing what 'you' think they mean or trying to discredit them by making out that they're behaving how you would prefer them to be to make your position seem more tenable.

 

Oh dear, the Minister of Truth insists that all quotes only contain His words.

 

As to putting words in His mouth well, there's no need for that. They're right there for everyone to read! :cheer:

 

 

"When I use a word," said the Caterpillar, "it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more, and no less," :phones:

Buffy 



#37 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:59 AM

Oops, hit post by mistake.

 

But no, it's has nothing to do with your unwillingness to listen to the answers and understand them, it's that we're all in a grand conspiracy against you.

 

So when we get tired and call you "crackpots," you scream "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

What are you talking about? You keep saying I'm claiming a conspiracy or that I'm claiming that I'm being repressed. I never claimed anything of the sort.

 

To clarify your misunderstanding, Science doesn't say, all hypotheses should be considered equal, even if one is not supported by the data. It says if the data doesn't support the claims of the hypothesis, it's best to ignore that hypothesis.

 

What's going wrong here is that no, you don't really know how science works, and you're making claim after claim about what science is an what it stands for and how it operates that just aren't true.

No sweety pie, I'm afraid the misunderstanding here is thinking that how science should word is how it actually works. Hypotheses that are refuted by data aren't thrown out, the data is made to fit the model. If in doubt, invent something new that covers the holes and move on as if everything is okay. Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, inflation.

 

That's misinformation from someone who finds the data inconvenient: COBE didn't have to be very far away because even *with* all the noise from the sun, it would still detect directionality. It didn't. WMAP provided more sensitivity at a further distance and it confirmed the same data.

 

It's notable that the disproven argument you've chosen to "believe in" takes a few "facts" jumbles them up, ignores the objections and to close warns you that you can't trust the others.

 

Very conspiratorial.

 

Now the defense to being bamboozled is to educate yourself and question. That's science!

 

What will get you far is in asking the question "what about the fact that the Sun is a huge source of microwaves? What is done in the experiment to account for it?" Heck even Wilson and Penzias had to account for and adjust for the microwaves coming from the tower that their antenna was *intended* to be listening to!

 

So you notice that that question is interesting and relevant to natural doubts about the subject at hand?

 

That it does NOT instantly focus on "OMG! They *adjusted* their data! THERE'S A CONSPIRACY TO STIFLE MY QUESTION BECAUSE I ALONE THREATEN THE HEGEMONY OF SCIENTISTS WHO ARE OUT TO SQUASH THE TRULY INTELLIGENT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL IDIOTS!!!!"

 

Do you notice a difference in those two approaches?

 

No, really, think about it.

 

I'll wait.

I think you;re the one who needs to learn how to think sugar lumps. They can account for known data in the solar system. How the smeg could they account for all possible sources of radiation when we're talking about intergalactic distances? :) Oh my, you're really having trouble with this aren't you dear.

 

They actually don't need to know the exact distribution before hand, they can....look and measure it! Spectrographs tell us all sorts of things about the composition of gasses floating around in the middle of nowhere. Observation of movement indicates density. Physics and chemistry can predict how it's distributed and moves. Counterintuitively stellar nebulae actually obey fluid dynamics.

 

Now the fact is that science rarely requires exact knowledge of everything going on in a system in order to make useful predictions. You don't need to know the exact location of each water molecule in a tornado to be able to make rough predictions about which neighborhoods ought to duck and cover immediately and save lives. Does the fact that we can't predict in advance exactly which houses will be hit prove that everything we know about weather and fluid dynamics is "on it's last legs" and will be replaced by something completely different that no one who is in the weather business agrees with?

 

:umno:

 

The fact is that approximations get us really, really close to knowing exactly how these systems operate, at a level that allows us to make predictions that are so close to what we'd know if we had perfect information that the difference is meaningless.

 

And that's the problem with most of your arguments here: you're picking one little inconsistency and then screaming that it proves that all that is known is wrong.

This is how flimsy the foundations of the big bang model really are.

First, Hubble discovers that most galaxies are red-shifted. Instead of thinking, hmm, maybe something about light moving through space or something in it causes light's wavelength to stretch, it was assumed that it must mean that most galaxies are moving away from us and so started from a single point, something that Hubble ironically disagreed with. This was the first silly mistake.

Second, it's found that the further away galaxies are, the higher their red-shift tends to be, confirming that it's travelling through space that red-shifts the light because the more space the light travels through, the higher the redshift. At this point you would think that the silly assumption would seen for what it was, but no. Instead they carried on with silliness and took it to a whole new level of stupid. Now the further away the galaxy is, the faster it's moving away from us.

Finally, and now we're going beyond ridiculous, it was discovered that the amount of red-shift in distant galaxies would mean that if it were caused by them moving away from us, they would be moving away faster than the speed of light, well and truly destroying any notion that red-shift is caused by recession, or so you would think. But, now venturing beyond any residual sanity, it's okay for the galaxies to be moving away faster than the speed of light because they're not really moving, it's the space that's expanding! WFT! You couldn't make this **** up. An expansion of the space between objects IS movement away from us!

You could view yourself as moving away from the object instead of the object moving away from you because it's the same thing and all you can really say is that the objects are moving away from each other, all you can really say is that the space between them is increasing. It's absurd to claim that there's a difference between the objects moving and the amount of space between them changing in the same way it's absurd to claim that one inertial object is moving relative to another but not the other way round.

Then we have microwave background radiation and the hammering of round data into a square model continues. First, the static picked up by radio antennas is the sound of the big bang. What? Based on some static, it must be the sound of a primordial explosion? Then we get the w-map that fails to detect any meaningful signal beyond what could be attributed to noise but is data fudged and presented as evidence of the model. Now we have COBE that actually manages to detect some radiation but has no way of knowing how far away that radiation is coming from.

This is well beyond junk science, it's joke science. I think it must be a sociological experiment to see just how much of a lack of critical thinking people will show when BS information is given to them, because the alternative is that the people who's job it is to investigate this stuff really are that inept and stupid.

 

So dear, I don't really hear you proposing anything useful here. M-theory is pretty radical. If you don't understand that you're really missing all the fun. And go tell the M-theory folks that they're just a part of the scientific hegemony and the theory is "status quo."

 

They'll get a pretty big laugh out of that!

M-theory, that's the eleven dimensional version of string theory with multiple higher dimensional membranes that collide and provide the catalyst for big bangs with nothing even remotely resembling empirical evidence right? Fairytale physics, so funny. Try to imagine if that was posted here for the first time and what reaction it would get,



#38 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:04 AM

Oops, hit post by mistake.

 

Gosh you could save us all a lot of trouble and not hit Post at all! :cheer:

 

 

What are you talking about? You keep saying I'm claiming a conspiracy or that I'm claiming that I'm being repressed. I never claimed anything of the sort.

 

There's your problem! You fail to do any *research*! Did you bother to put the quote teh Google and look it up?

 

It wasn't *you* I was quoting.

 

Honestly, it's not all about you.

 

 

No sweety pie, I'm afraid the misunderstanding here is thinking that how science should word is how it actually works. Hypotheses that are refuted by data aren't thrown out, the data is made to fit the model. If in doubt, invent something new that covers the holes and move on as if everything is okay. Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, inflation.

 

No sweety pie, your delusions about the data make you think that hypotheses should be thrown out based on your own, gee *self admitted*, lack of knowledge.

 

If you're gonna go around saying science keeps on thinking the same thing no matter what and then say there's data that falsifies everything and only point to long discredited complaints, well, you're just being silly. 

 

No one is taking you seriously at this point. It's mostly just Breakfast with the Bickersons at this point. Which is itself quite entertaining: I highly recommend it (even though a lot of the humor is dated and sexist!).

 

 

I think you;re the one who needs to learn how to think sugar lumps. They can account for known data in the solar system. How the smeg could they account for all possible sources of radiation when we're talking about intergalactic distances?  :) Oh my, you're really having trouble with this aren't you dear.

 

"Oooh, I can see the notion that we can figure out about stuff waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there where we can't even go, well, that's *impossible*. How could we do that? That just doesn't make any sense! So therefore we can't *possibly* say with any assurance whatsoever that we know where stuff way out there causes microwave radiation. So therefore if I say it's Unicorn Pony Farts, and you say even one word disagreeing with me, I am completely and totally justified in saying that you are an Idiot Scientist Slave to Dogma, and if you disagree you're No True Mod."

 

Now that's in quote marks and I'll freely admit that you did not say that.

 

But honest, its pretty much exactly your argument.

 

 

But not a total waste because finally you get around to some cosmology! Oh goody! Let's dish!

 

First, Hubble discovers that most galaxies are red-shifted. Instead of thinking, hmm, maybe something about light moving through space or something in it causes light's wavelength to stretch, it was assumed that it must mean that most galaxies are moving away from us and so started from a single point, something that Hubble ironically disagreed with. This was the first silly mistake.

 

Gosh, let's see. How would he know that? Were there any experiments before Hubble on propagation of electromagnetic waves? Would that research have possibly indicated that if a source of a wave is moving that it's redshifted? No, no, nothing like that happened.

 

Oh and light getting tired would have been the first thing I would have thought of too. Maybe experiments could be performed that looked into what might cause light to spontaneously slow down, But that would have been offensive to the dogma, so no one would bother to try anything like that. I mean Hubble knew that space wasn't expanding and certainly didn't come from a single point explosion! Silly mistake of him to stick to the dogma that space is static, deny the data he was seeing and bury it forever.

 

Oh, wait.

 

 

Second, it's found that the further away galaxies are, the higher their red-shift tends to be, confirming that it's travelling through space that red-shifts the light because the more space the light travels through, the higher the redshift. At this point you would think that the silly assumption would seen for what it was, but no. Instead they carried on with silliness and took it to a whole new level of stupid. Now the further away the galaxy is, the faster it's moving away from us.

 

Gosh it works for train whistles, but that Einstein is like the biggest idiot in the whole dang universe! What does he know?

 

Einstein was the biggest Idiot Slave To Dogma EVAH!!!!

 

Finally, and now we're going beyond ridiculous, it was discovered that the amount of red-shift in distant galaxies would mean that if it were caused by them moving away from us, they would be moving away faster than the speed of light, well and truly destroying any notion that red-shift is caused by recession, or so you would think. But, now venturing beyond any residual sanity, it's okay for the galaxies to be moving away faster than the speed of light because they're not really moving, it's the space that's expanding! WFT! You couldn't make this shit up. An expansion of the space between objects IS movement away from us!

 

I mean, Einstein *himself* insisted that nothing could travel faster than light, and here he is contradicting himself. This is beyond Stupid. So stupid that....oh wait, I know, it's the Dogma, gotta stick to the dogma no matter *how* much data there is.

 

*Checks General Relativity*

*Finds Einstein sticking in an illogical Cosmological Constant to keep the universe static*

*Sees Einstein sweep it under the rug*

 

Dogma wins again.

 

You could view yourself as moving away from the object instead of the object moving away from you because it's the same thing and all you can really say is that the objects are moving away from each other, all you can really say is that the space between them is increasing. It's absurd to claim that there's a difference between the objects moving and the amount of space between them changing in the same way it's absurd to claim that one inertial object is moving relative to another but not the other way round.

 

I mean, if *I* were moving, I'd *feel* it! Isn't that obvious?!? That stupid Einstein and his Special Relativity Dogma that he insisted on sticking with because it's always been accepted since the beginning of history! I mean Plato agreed with Special Relativity!

 

 

Then we have microwave background radiation and the hammering of round data into a square model continues. First, the static picked up by radio antennas is the sound of the big bang. What? Based on some static, it must be the sound of a primordial explosion? Then we get the w-map that fails to detect any meaningful signal beyond what could be attributed to noise but is data fudged and presented as evidence of the model. Now we have COBE that actually manages to detect some radiation but has no way of knowing how far away that radiation is coming from.

 

I mean, static is static, right? Just like the Buusssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssch teevee ad. I mean it could be *anything*. And that stuff about Wilson and Penzias going around and trying to eliminate and block all the sources of the static, who would believe that? We all KNOW that they went down to the local bar every day for beer and just made all that stuff up.

 

WMAP? Oh man, what idiot wants to *amplify* static? I mean crap, that's like amplifying Philip Glass or NWA. And of course my uncle heard from a guy at his bar who has a cousin who works for the Daily Mail that they made a big deal about adjusting the static by like TURNING THE VOLUME ALL THE WAY DOWN, and these idiots--can you believe it?--they were surprised when they couldn't hear the static any more! HAHAHAHAHahahahahah!

 

This is well beyond junk science, it's joke science. I think it must be a sociological experiment to see just how much of a lack of critical thinking people will show when BS information is given to them, because the alternative is that the people who's job it is to investigate this stuff really are that inept and stupid.

 

So let that be a lesson to you folks, if you don't just stick to your uninformed common sense, listen to your uncle, and most importantly assume if a scientist says it its got to be dogma and therefore is not only wrong, it's a joke too, and you're gonna not only be a sucker, you won't be *in the know* with the cool people.

 

M-theory, that's the eleven dimensional version of string theory with multiple higher dimensional membranes that collide and provide the catalyst for big bangs with nothing even remotely resembling empirical evidence right? Fairytale physics, so funny. Try to imagine if that was posted here for the first time and what reaction it would get,

 

Oh gosh, didja hear about M-theory? ELEVEN dimensions! Hah! That's so stupid I forgot to laugh! I mean we all know there are only 2 dimensions in Flatland!

 

Oh but wait, my uncle told me it's NOT DOGMA, so maybe we believe it? ....No, I heard this guy on the internet say that that M-Theory thing still talks about that silly expansion stuff which we KNOW doesn't happen so....DOGMA!!!

 

 

 

So if she weighs the same as a duck....She's made of wood! And therefore.............................................she's a witch. A witch!! :phones:

Buffy 


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#39 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1077 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:32 AM

Gosh you could save us all a lot of trouble and not hit Post at all! :cheer:

 

 

Where have you been all my life, Buffy? :bouquet:



#40 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 21 May 2017 - 05:21 PM

...says the guy who just spent a dozen posts screaming that all (oh wait, except for 10 "good" ones) scientists are Idiotic Slaves to Dogma.

 

No you're right, you *never* resort to name calling and innuendos!

It's out of the smugness of my heart when I do it, not desperation because I've got nothing else to support my views. :P

 

So you're claiming that all the red shift data is constant over distance? Really?

 

Did the Sugar Plum Fairy provide that data?

No shnookipoos.

That's cuz it is sweetie pie. what you ignore here (and again below) is the notion of directionality. The Cosmological Principle is an incredibly inconvenient thing for most of what you argue. The Cosmological Principle of course started out as an assumption, and mighty difficult assumption to deny: either the universe is expanding roughly uniformly, or we're at the *exact* center of the place in the universe where steady state matter is being created and is moving away from.

You're asserting that either the universe is expanding or we're at the centre of the universe. If the stretching of the wavelength of light were being caused in the journey rather than by recession of the source then objects would appear more red-shifted the further away they are (exactly what's observed) from the perspective of observers anywhere in the universe.

 

Oh dear, the Minister of Truth insists that all quotes only contain His words.

No, I insist then when you're quoting me it would be nice if you quoted my words. That's what's generally accepted as a quote.

 

As to putting words in His mouth well, there's no need for that. They're right there for everyone to read! :cheer:

Then quote those!

 

Gosh you could save us all a lot of trouble and not hit Post at all! :cheer:

You'd like that wouldn't you.

 

There's your problem! You fail to do any *research*! Did you bother to put the quote teh Google and look it up?

 

It wasn't *you* I was quoting.

 

Honestly, it's not all about you.

Huh?
"But no, it's has nothing to do with your unwillingness to listen to the answers and understand them, it's that we're all in a grand conspiracy against you.

So when we get tired and call you "crackpots," you scream "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Who were you talking about then?

 

No sweety pie, your delusions about the data make you think that hypotheses should be thrown out based on your own, gee *self admitted*, lack of knowledge.

 

If you're gonna go around saying science keeps on thinking the same thing no matter what and then say there's data that falsifies everything and only point to long discredited complaints, well, you're just being silly. 

 

No one is taking you seriously at this point. It's mostly just Breakfast with the Bickersons at this point. Which is itself quite entertaining: I highly recommend it (even though a lot of the humor is dated and sexist!).

Lack of formal education does not = lack of knowledge. This stuff works the same regardless of official pieces of paper. It's as if the universe doesn't care how people learn it.

If my complaints were "long discredited" (you see how quotation marks work now?) then you'd have no trouble refuting them, so why have you been unable to?

 

"Oooh, I can see the notion that we can figure out about stuff waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there where we can't even go, well, that's *impossible*. How could we do that? That just doesn't make any sense! So therefore we can't *possibly* say with any assurance whatsoever that we know where stuff way out there causes microwave radiation. So therefore if I say it's Unicorn Pony Farts, and you say even one word disagreeing with me, I am completely and totally justified in saying that you are an Idiot Scientist Slave to Dogma, and if you disagree you're No True Mod."

 

Now that's in quote marks and I'll freely admit that you did not say that.

 

But honest, its pretty much exactly your argument.

We're talking about light that's traveled across intergalactic space and you think that all possible sources of radiation can be accurately accounted for?

 

Gosh, let's see. How would he know that? Were there any experiments before Hubble on propagation of electromagnetic waves? Would that research have possibly indicated that if a source of a wave is moving that it's redshifted? No, no, nothing like that happened.

I know that the light from objects that are moving away gets stretched/red-shifted. That doesn't mean that all red-shift is caused by objects moving away.

 

Oh and light getting tired would have been the first thing I would have thought of too. Maybe experiments could be performed that looked into what might cause light to spontaneously slow down, But that would have been offensive to the dogma, so no one would bother to try anything like that. I mean Hubble knew that space wasn't expanding and certainly didn't come from a single point explosion! Silly mistake of him to stick to the dogma that space is static, deny the data he was seeing and bury it forever.

 

Oh, wait.

Intergalactic distances! Even if we were to assume we knew everything the light was passing through during the journey, which we don't, what possible test could we do to show that light doesn't get stretched over those distances?

 

Gosh it works for train whistles, but that Einstein is like the biggest idiot in the whole dang universe! What does he know?

 

Einstein was the biggest Idiot Slave To Dogma EVAH!!!!

 

 

I mean, Einstein *himself* insisted that nothing could travel faster than light, and here he is contradicting himself. This is beyond Stupid. So stupid that....oh wait, I know, it's the Dogma, gotta stick to the dogma no matter *how* much data there is.

 

*Checks General Relativity*

*Finds Einstein sticking in an illogical Cosmological Constant to keep the universe static*

*Sees Einstein sweep it under the rug*

 

Dogma wins again.

 

 

I mean, if *I* were moving, I'd *feel* it! Isn't that obvious?!? That stupid Einstein and his Special Relativity Dogma that he insisted on sticking with because it's always been accepted since the beginning of history! I mean Plato agreed with Special Relativity!

 

 

 

I mean, static is static, right? Just like the Buusssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssch teevee ad. I mean it could be *anything*. And that stuff about Wilson and Penzias going around and trying to eliminate and block all the sources of the static, who would believe that? We all KNOW that they went down to the local bar every day for beer and just made all that stuff up.

 

WMAP? Oh man, what idiot wants to *amplify* static? I mean crap, that's like amplifying Philip Glass or NWA. And of course my uncle heard from a guy at his bar who has a cousin who works for the Daily Mail that they made a big deal about adjusting the static by like TURNING THE VOLUME ALL THE WAY DOWN, and these idiots--can you believe it?--they were surprised when they couldn't hear the static any more! HAHAHAHAHahahahahah!

 

 

So let that be a lesson to you folks, if you don't just stick to your uninformed common sense, listen to your uncle, and most importantly assume if a scientist says it its got to be dogma and therefore is not only wrong, it's a joke too, and you're gonna not only be a sucker, you won't be *in the know* with the cool people.

 

 

Oh gosh, didja hear about M-theory? ELEVEN dimensions! Hah! That's so stupid I forgot to laugh! I mean we all know there are only 2 dimensions in Flatland!

 

Oh but wait, my uncle told me it's NOT DOGMA, so maybe we believe it? ....No, I heard this guy on the internet say that that M-Theory thing still talks about that silly expansion stuff which we KNOW doesn't happen so....DOGMA!!!

This is what your arguments have come to. :)
 

Your position is based on nothing but light that reaches us and can only have two variables, wavelength and intensity and this BS creationism fairytale is the best that science can come up with. First, nothing exploded, then it (now something) suddenly exploded faster for some reason, now it's exploding faster again but not like before, no no. This time it's not the objects in the universe moving away from each other, it's the space between them expanding, because that's completely different. :crazy:

First it was found that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted. The cause wasn't know but science has to come to a consensus and then present it as fact. It was decided that since we know that light is red-shifed if it's coming from an object that's moving away from us, that MUST be the cause. Of course it could be red-shifted during the journey and that interpretation makes a definite prediction that the recession of galaxies certainly doesn't make, that the red-shift is proportional to distance.

Then it's found that red-shift is proportional to distance. The evidence is now strongly against an expanding universe, but too late, we'd have to backtrack and admit we were wrong. Much better to interpret the data to fit the model. Distant galaxies are moving away faster then more nearby galaxies, despite the red-shift matching the prediction of no expansion.

Then it's found that if red-shift is caused by the recession of distant galaxies, they've be moving away faster than the speed of light, utterly destroying the idea that it's caused by galaxies moving away from us. But that would mean backtracking even further now, much better to interpret the data to fit the model. How? They're not moving away from us, the space between them and us is increasing. But that's the same thiSILENCE!

The fact that the red-shift increases with distance makes it obviously that the light is being stretched during the journey, longer journey = more red-shift. The fact that they would have to be moving away faster than the speed of light conforms it. To claim otherwise is sheer lunacy. Do you have any real data to support your crackpotary?

One more thing. If the further away we look, the higher the red-shift that means the further back in time we look, the faster the supposed expansion. If the universe expands faster the further back in time we look then the expansion would be slowing down.

 

So if she weighs the same as a duck....She's made of wood! And therefore.............................................she's a witch. A witch!! :phones:

...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.



#41 AmishFighterPilot

AmishFighterPilot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 07:45 AM

The notion of the Big Bang in it's entirety is in some ways unscientific and always will be, even if it is actually correct(which I personally believe it is not). The main reason is because it's not reproducible. Its offered as a unique, one-time-only event that had nothing to work with to start with, which then exploded for no reason because reasons didn't exist yet. Its horrible pseudo-science in many ways. That doesn't invalidate the decades of great work done on cosmology by any means, but it certainly is a basic assumption that I believe is seriously undermining the credibility of much of their other work. We complain so much about religious people hijacking science, but Big Bang worshipers are so dogmatic about telling everyone they know how the universe began that they don't even see the irony in that. Halton Arp may have had wrong ideas, but he was a brilliant man and his objections to Big Bang Cosmology were met with an irrational and very religious type of reaction. Tom Van Flandern is another good example of a brilliant mind that may have had some wrong thoughts but was overly ignored. No scientist is always right, and we're supposed to build off the progress of others, but so often there is a uncalled for hostility toward those who try harder to push the limits. Dogma is a very real and insidious problem in the sciences.
  • current likes this

#42 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 09:16 AM

The notion of the Big Bang in it's entirety is in some ways unscientific and always will be, even if it is actually correct(which I personally believe it is not). The main reason is because it's not reproducible. Its offered as a unique, one-time-only event that had nothing to work with to start with, which then exploded for no reason because reasons didn't exist yet. Its horrible pseudo-science in many ways. That doesn't invalidate the decades of great work done on cosmology by any means, but it certainly is a basic assumption that I believe is seriously undermining the credibility of much of their other work. We complain so much about religious people hijacking science, but Big Bang worshipers are so dogmatic about telling everyone they know how the universe began that they don't even see the irony in that. Halton Arp may have had wrong ideas, but he was a brilliant man and his objections to Big Bang Cosmology were met with an irrational and very religious type of reaction. Tom Van Flandern is another good example of a brilliant mind that may have had some wrong thoughts but was overly ignored. No scientist is always right, and we're supposed to build off the progress of others, but so often there is a uncalled for hostility toward those who try harder to push the limits. Dogma is a very real and insidious problem in the sciences.

The big bang itself does not need to be reproduced for it to be a theory of science. We don't need to reproduce a dinosaur  - or William the Conqueror - to have confidence that they existed, after all. What we need, in both cases, is evidence of their past occurence. Which we have.

 

Although I would accept that the evidence for the big bang is rather less easy for laypeople to be convinced by than is the case for dinosaurs or William.  



#43 mrg

mrg

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 09:20 AM

Paragraph breaks are your friend, XPS13.

 
  • exchemist and AmishFighterPilot like this

#44 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 10:57 AM

the big bang theory is not a scientific theory and belongs to pseudoscience because it cannot be disproved, soon it will be entirely replaced by the realistic cosmology

#45 mrg

mrg

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 10:59 AM

> the big bang theory is not a scientific theory and belongs to pseudoscience

> because it cannot be disproved, soon it will be entirely replaced by the realistic cosmology

 

Could you translate this into English, please?   I don't speak gibberish.



#46 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:05 AM

The big bang itself does not need to be reproduced for it to be a theory of science. We don't need to reproduce a dinosaur  - or William the Conqueror - to have confidence that they existed, after all. What we need, in both cases, is evidence of their past occurence. Which we have.

 

Although I would accept that the evidence for the big bang is rather less easy for laypeople to be convinced by than is the case for dinosaurs or William.  

What evidence are you referring to exactly?

That red-shift is proportional to distance, exactly as you would expect if it were being stretched during the journey and certainly wouldn't expect if it were caused by galaxies moving away from us?

That they would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light (that you don't get away with by saying the space is increasing because it's obviously the same bloody thing) if that were the cause?

The microwave radiation that could be coming from any distance away and didn't match the predictions of the big bang because of the lack of uniformity?

That there should be as much anti-matter as matter?

That there should be 66% more lithium in the universe according to the big bang model?

That the further back in time we look, the greater the red-shift, suggesting that if anything the expansion would be slowing down?

That nothing somehow became something that could explode?

That it needs an inexplicable inflationary phase?

How many nails does this stupid coffin need? :hammer2:


We are the Knights who say Ni.


Edited by A-wal, 22 May 2017 - 11:05 AM.


#47 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:14 AM

> the big bang theory is not a scientific theory and belongs to pseudoscience

> because it cannot be disproved, soon it will be entirely replaced by the realistic cosmology

 

Could you translate this into English, please?   I don't speak gibberish.

Actually I think he raises an interesting point. What test could one hypothetically devise which, if a certain result were obtained, would show the big bang hypothesis false?

 

What he is effectively challenging is whether or not the big bang hypothesis makes falsifiable predictions of future observations that should be expected if it is correct. If it makes no falsifiable predictions, then it does not meet Karl Popper's test for a scientific theory. 

 

But does not the observed CMBR spectrum provide exactly such a test, in fact? See here: https://map.gsfc.nas..._tests_cmb.html  If the spectrum were different, that would put the big bang hypothesis in trouble, presumably. 


Edited by exchemist, 22 May 2017 - 11:16 AM.


#48 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:21 AM

Actually I think he raises an interesting point. What test could one hypothetically devise which, if a certain result were obtained, would show the big bang hypothesis false?

 

What he is effectively challenging is whether or not the big bang hypothesis makes falsifiable predictions of future observations that should be expected if it is correct. If it makes no falsifiable predictions, then it does not meet Karl Popper's test for a scientific theory. 

 

But does not the observed CMBR spectrum provide exactly such a test, in fact? See here: https://map.gsfc.nas..._tests_cmb.html  If the spectrum were different, that would put the big bang hypothesis in trouble, presumably. 

It was refuted with discovery of red-shift being proportional to distance. That was a prediction of the stretched during the journey explanation that would definitely not be expected with the galaxy recession explanation. It was well and truly falsified by the discovery that they would have to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light.



#49 AmishFighterPilot

AmishFighterPilot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:26 AM

 

The big bang itself does not need to be reproduced for it to be a theory of science. We don't need to reproduce a dinosaur  - or William the Conqueror - to have confidence that they existed, after all. What we need, in both cases, is evidence of their past occurence. Which we have.
 
Although I would accept that the evidence for the big bang is rather less easy for laypeople to be convinced by than is the case for dinosaurs or William.  

 

Actually, it would be pretty neat to create either of those things in a lab. Still, you can define, with access to all data(omnipotence) that a series of interconnected proximate causes lead to the existence of that specific dinosaur or human. You cannot do the same with the Big Bang.

If you could recreate all conditions that lead to anything happening, you will create that thing. All aggregates exist by way of a series of proximate causes.

#50 mrg

mrg

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:30 AM

>  then it does not meet Karl Popper's test for a scientific theory.

 

The Big Bang simply says that the Universe is now in a state of expansion, and tracing it back to time-zero indicates it began in high density and high energy levels.  As for the future, it could decelerate, accelerate, or remain at the same velocity of expansion.  Evidence currently suggests it is accelerating.

 

No, XPS13 is not asking an interesting question.  



#51 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 11:37 AM

   

Actually, it would be pretty neat to create either of those things in a lab. Still, you can define, with access to all data(omnipotence) that a series of interconnected proximate causes lead to the existence of that specific dinosaur or human. You cannot do the same with the Big Bang.

If you could recreate all conditions that lead to anything happening, you will create that thing. All aggregates exist by way of a series of proximate causes.

But we can't do any of these things. For any of the three.