RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Objections to the big bang, anti-evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,15:26   

i was going to post this in Gary's "breakthrough in physics" thread or has this topic been covered before ??? Anyway, I thought it deserved a thread of it's own.

Having successfully completed OU course S281 a few years ago I thought I knew a little bit about basic cosmology.

However, over on Premier Radio's discussion forum YEC poster "ploughboy" (Martin) has reminded me of this letter/ad which appeared some 5 years ago in New scientist:

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptic....ty.html

† † † †
Quote
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20) †http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:

(Institutions for identification only)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) / Earthtech.org

www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Universitť Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of MaringŠ (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)


I am well aware of the concepts of inflation and dark matter which were covered in S281. The BBC discusses them in an episode of Sky at night in May 2008 entitled "what we just don't know" where the guests were Dr. Chris Lintot (co presenter), Dr. Kate Land, and Professor Gerry Gilmore.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/skyatnight/proginfo.shtml

AiG have also picked up on big bang dissenters

"A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....smology

I have learned that the cosmic microwave background radiation put paid to Fred Hoyle's steady state cosmology, undeniable proof of the Big Bang theory.or so I thought. I notice AiG highlight Halton Arp, who you'll notice is a signatory of the letter above and who it seems, has observed quasers with large redshifts close to normal galaxies with low redshifts. He thus concludes that redshift might not be proof the universe is expanding. He also rejects big bang cosmology and as a result has been isolated within the astronomical community. Arp is seen as a modern day Galileo in some circles.

So, a couple of questions. How well known and how respected is Halton Arp in cosmology circles ? Are his ideas seen as completely wacky or do they command a certain amount of respect ? Are they based on old observations ? Ploughboy (Martin) claims a lot of cosmologists don't support the big bang. How representitive are the signatories of the letter to New Scientist ? I suspect Martin's claim (and AiG's) are similar to the "more and more scientists are abandoning evolution" one (project Steve springs to mind of course). However, since I haven't done any cosmology for a few years (I'm thinking of having a go at the OU again) I'd like a little feed back.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,15:37   

Arps observations of quasars being related to other nearby galaxies has essentially been refuted by more detailed redshift surveys and deeper observations, though he continues to stick to his theory, his defenses essentially amount to hand waving. He is not taken seriously in cosmology.

Its not an academic source, but the wikipedia summary isn't too bad, and at least gives a starting point:

Quote
Arp's hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained any significant support in the astronomy research community. Arp's work is based on a limited number of specific quasar-galaxy associations. Most astronomers believe these associations are simply the result of chance and point to the hundreds of thousands of quasars documented in more recent redshift surveys. These surveys show quasars to be distributed randomly over the sky, rather than associated with radio galaxies[citation needed]. Furthermore, there is now a detailed model of quasars as the ultraluminous cores of active galactic nuclei, effectively the centers of Seyfert galaxies. This model is consistent with the results of more sensitive observations which have been able to resolve host galaxies around quasars with the same redshift as the quasar. The consistency of the standard quasar model with the assumption that all quasars are at cosmological distances leads most astronomers to apply an Ockham's razor conclusion that intrinsic redshifts do not exist.

Arp still believes that quasars nevertheless have a high intrinsic redshift[1]. To explain the fact that essentially all quasars are associated with host galaxies, he proposes that whatever results in the intrinsic redshift for the quasars also affects the redshift of the galaxy in the same way. He explains the angular size of the host galaxies, which is typical of that expected at cosmological distances, by proposing that the galaxies are ejected with the quasars from active galactic nuclei and only evolve into normal-sized galaxies over time, by a process different from the standard models of galaxy evolution.


--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,16:07   

I can't speak for anyone else but I've never had an objection.

Uh, what's the subject again?

  
k.e..



Posts: 3746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,16:20   

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 13 2009,00:07)
I can't speak for anyone else but I've never had an objection.

Uh, what's the subject again?

OBSERVERS please note,

hyper-don't-give-a-rats-ass-ism soaked in neo-who-really-gives-a-fuckism.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,18:37   

I thought dark matter was hypothesized to explain the orbital velocities of stars within galaxies? It seems like that issue would be there regardless of where the galaxy came from in the first place.

Henry

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,19:23   

Quote (Henry J @ April 12 2009,16:37)
I thought dark matter was hypothesized to explain the orbital velocities of stars within galaxies? It seems like that issue would be there regardless of where the galaxy came from in the first place.

Henry

That's my understanding as well. Furthermore, the effects have of dark matter been observed pretty directly:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html
http://www.astronomynow.com/080723G....er.html

The history of dark matter also touches on the claim (in the statement Peter Henderson quoted) that dissent isn't tolerated. From what I recall taking intro astronomy in the late 90s, there was still quite a bit of resistance to the idea. Observation showed that something wasn't right, but there was still hope that it could be resolved in some way that didn't require inventing a whole new weird class of matter. Dark matter survived because it fit the evidence better than the alternatives, not because it's gospel of the big-bangist conspiracy.

edit:
typos!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,20:32   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 12 2009,16:20)
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 13 2009,00:07)
I can't speak for anyone else but I've never had an objection.

Uh, what's the subject again?

OBSERVERS please note,

hyper-don't-give-a-rats-ass-ism soaked in neo-who-really-gives-a-fuckism.

I object to many things I have never even heard of.  

always latched, implicitly linked

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Quack



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,04:30   

I once had the opportunity to ask †this guy his opinion about Chip Arp's theory, and his reply was that the results from the COBE project had falsified it.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2009,08:13   

Big Bang DISPROVED!

NASA shows "Hand of God" with his Crown!

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/04/14/space.hand/index.html

Take that all you heretics!  Proof I tell you, direct PROOF of God's handiwork in everything!

You're burning in hell and I'll bring the marshmellows!

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2009,20:44   

Can haz Waterloo?

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,09:52   

The latest tactic by the creos on Premier is to highlight the work of this maverick cosmologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo

Quote
Jo„o Magueijo

Jo„o Magueijo at the journťe de la Science at the EPFL, 11 November 2005.Jo„o Magueijo (born …vora, 1967) is a Portuguese cosmologist and professor in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London. He is a pioneer of the varying speed of light (VSL) theory.

Career
Jo„o Magueijo studied physics at the University of Lisbon. He undertook graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge University. He was awarded a research fellowship at St John's College, Cambridge, the same fellowship previously held by Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam. He has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College London where he teaches undergraduates "General Relativity" and postgraduates "Advanced General Relativity".

In 1998, Magueijo teamed with Andreas Albrecht to work on the varying speed of light (VSL) theory of cosmology, which proposes that the speed of light was much higher in the early universe, of 60 orders of magnitude faster than its present value. This would to explain the horizon problem (since distant regions of the expanding universe would have had time to interact and homogenize their properties), and is presented as an alternative to the more mainstream theory of cosmic inflation.

Magueijo discusses his personal struggles pursuing VSL in his 2003 book, Faster Than The Speed of Light, The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He is also the host of the Science Channel series, Jo„o Magueijo's Big Bang, which premiered on May 13, 2008.


The fact that his variable speed of light hypothisis as an alternative to inflation hasn't been accepted is supposedly an example of the scientific community's entransigence towards new and ground breaking ideas.

Two points

(1) I assume he isn't proposing a 6,000 year old Universe ?

(2) He hasn't actually offered any evidence to support his theory, other than to claim it as an alternative to inflation ?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,17:39   

What I have to wonder is if the speed of light did vary, against what would the variation be measured? AFAIK, electromagnectic (and therefore chemical) reactions are dependent on swapping of photons, and therefore proportional to the speed of light. Is there some other standard of speed that isn't itself dependent on the speed of light?

Henry

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,18:13   

Naw. speed of light is it.

The speed of light (well, c) can described as being a product of the geometry of spacetime*. If you're in an environment where c is changing; well, spacetime is changing too** so good luck with those measuring devices anchored outside spacetime!

R

* - It can. A physicist once described it thus, to me. Do I have the maths to back that up? Pshaw. Such a question.

** - Which we are and it is, thanks to gravity.

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,19:22   

Oh, so if it did vary relative to the speed of orbits, or the speed of falling*, that might be measurable.

*Whether it's "natural" falling or intelligent falling.

Henry

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1995
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,00:54   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ April 19 2009,09:52)
The fact that his variable speed of light hypothisis as an alternative to inflation hasn't been accepted is supposedly an example of the scientific community's entransigence towards new and ground breaking ideas.

What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past? †I'm thinking of things like E=MC2. †If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

But not to worry, since the nuclear reactions at the center of the sun would have already incinerated the galaxy.

This was brought up years ago when Barry Setterfield first brought up his CDK (c decay) theory. †I believe the phrase back then was "nuclear campfires".

As a final comment on the soundness of this science, Salvador Cordova loves the C decay idea. †Nuff said!

* I am not a nuclear physicist nor do I play one on TV, but from what I've heard from those who are nuclear physicists, when a chemical reaction gives off heat, the heat ultimately comes from some atomic bonds being formed or broken. †This gives the resultant atoms a very tiny bit less mass than the ones that went into the reaction and this tiny mass provides the heat and flames at the rate of E=MC2. †So if C increases by 60 magnitudes, don't scratch that match! †Or metabolize, for that matter.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I‚Äôm inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE‚Äôs bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
Marion Delgado



Posts: 89
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,12:06   

I think the Big Bang is a terrible idea - it'd be the biggest detonation in history, the radiation would be unparalleled, no one knows the consequences, and much of what you read about it is hype, not hard facts.

We need to organize in our neighborhoods against this crazy scheme! If we speak up, our voices shall be heard!

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,12:43   

You're absolutely right. They don't even have the decency to have their bang in private!

Stop the Big Bang NOW!

And as every fiscal conservative knows, inflation is a liberal tactic to destroy the hard-won savings of honest church-going famblies.

So let's get back to the spirit of the Ford presidency:


Whip Inflation Now!

And that cosmic expansion can only be another case of the goddam Demon-crats overreaching, (universal health-care, universal declaration on goat-lovers' rights, yadda yadda) and shoving the guvmint into every nook, cranny and orifice it don't belong in:

Stop this wanton expansion!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,13:12   

Apparently there are eight different interpretations of redshift. When I receive the evidence for this I'll post it here.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,18:01   

The long awaited reply:

Quote
The main fact that we know about red-shift is that it is a decrease in the energy of light.

J.B Tatum says that the pattern of red-shift we see can be the result of objects in space moving towards us if they also have a transverse motion.

Mark DeGroot says that red-shift can be caused if galaxies are spiralling towards us.

Einstein believed that light could be stretched by gravity, which would therefore give a red-shift.

P.C. Davies, in Nature magazine 1978, says that if we were at the geometrical centre of a rotating universe then that would explain the pattern of red-shift that we see.

Another possibility is that dust in interstellar space affects light, in the same way that we see red sunsets as the atmosphere scatters sunlight.

There is also the problem of discordant red-shifts, where stellar objects joined together have extremely different red-shifts, meaning that they cannot be millions of years old, or that red-shift is not what big-bang'ers think it is !

Holton Arp studied a number of quasars; he compiled a catalogue of 'peculiar quasars', many of which are at that centres of chains of elliptical galaxies - they emit parallel jets of material from their centres, meaning that they must have been formed together but have very different red-shift 'speeds' !

(check out www.holtonarp.com )

This led him to reject the traditionally-accepted 'interpretation' of red-shift, in turn for which he was refused telescope space to continue his research.

In March 1990 New Scientist ran an article called 'What If The Big Bang Never Happened?', citing the problems of red-shift.


I don't think he quite knows what he's talking about.

Never heard of J.B.Tatum.

Mark Degroot worked at the Armagh Observatory and wrote a weekly astronomical column in the Belfast Telegraph for many years. He's a young Earth creationist though,and a member of the Seventh day Adventist church. Not sure where he's got the information from as he doesn't provide any links.

Are these, along with the Einstein quote and light scattering by intersteller dust, standard YEC claims ? Certainly new ones for me.

Still, hardly eight different interpretations of redshift.

Holton Arp has been covered before, however, I wonder if he's aware that he's being widely quoted †by the YECs ?

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,19:38   

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2009,22:54)
<snip>
What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past? †I'm thinking of things like E=MC2. †If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

<snip>
* I am not a nuclear physicist nor do I play one on TV, but from what I've heard from those who are nuclear physicists, when a chemical reaction gives off heat, the heat ultimately comes from some atomic bonds being formed or broken. †This gives the resultant atoms a very tiny bit less mass than the ones that went into the reaction and this tiny mass provides the heat and flames at the rate of E=MC2. †So if C increases by 60 magnitudes, don't scratch that match! †Or metabolize, for that matter.

Yes E=mc^2, but just as valid, m=E/c^2, so the energy release could be the same, but the mass change be smaller. †Only the ratio E/m must necessarily change (by 10^120!), if Mageijo's VSL theory is correct.
Wherefore art thou, Higgs Field?

But what's really puzzling is why the YECs are Big Bang Deniers. †Wasn't that their big chance to insert Godness into cosmology?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
AmandaHuginKiss



Posts: 150
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,21:07   

Quote (sledgehammer @ May 06 2009,12:38)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2009,22:54)
<snip>
What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past? †I'm thinking of things like E=MC2. †If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

<snip>
* I am not a nuclear physicist nor do I play one on TV, but from what I've heard from those who are nuclear physicists, when a chemical reaction gives off heat, the heat ultimately comes from some atomic bonds being formed or broken. †This gives the resultant atoms a very tiny bit less mass than the ones that went into the reaction and this tiny mass provides the heat and flames at the rate of E=MC2. †So if C increases by 60 magnitudes, don't scratch that match! †Or metabolize, for that matter.

Yes E=mc^2, but just as valid, m=E/c^2, so the energy release could be the same, but the mass change be smaller. †Only the ratio E/m must necessarily change (by 10^120!), if Mageijo's VSL theory is correct.
Wherefore art thou, Higgs Field?

But what's really puzzling is why the YECs are Big Bang Deniers. †Wasn't that their big chance to insert Godness into cosmology?

I think it is the problem that the big bang implies deep time

  
k.e..



Posts: 3746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2009,06:21   

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 06 2009,05:07)
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 06 2009,12:38)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2009,22:54)
<snip>
What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past? †I'm thinking of things like E=MC2. †If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

<snip>
* I am not a nuclear physicist nor do I play one on TV, but from what I've heard from those who are nuclear physicists, when a chemical reaction gives off heat, the heat ultimately comes from some atomic bonds being formed or broken. †This gives the resultant atoms a very tiny bit less mass than the ones that went into the reaction and this tiny mass provides the heat and flames at the rate of E=MC2. †So if C increases by 60 magnitudes, don't scratch that match! †Or metabolize, for that matter.

Yes E=mc^2, but just as valid, m=E/c^2, so the energy release could be the same, but the mass change be smaller. †Only the ratio E/m must necessarily change (by 10^120!), if Mageijo's VSL theory is correct.
Wherefore art thou, Higgs Field?

But what's really puzzling is why the YECs are Big Bang Deniers. †Wasn't that their big chance to insert Godness into cosmology?

I think it is the problem that the big bang implies deep time

And it's based on observable "facts" which as we all know is anti god, which somehow suggests waiting for him to return might be a total waste of Yank Imperialism.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2009,11:19   

Quote
J.B Tatum says that the pattern of red-shift we see can be the result of objects in space moving towards us if they also have a transverse motion.

The transverse motion would have to be phenomenal - for distant objects it would need to be many, many times the speed of light.

Quote
Mark DeGroot says that red-shift can be caused if galaxies are spiralling towards us.

Sounds like a variant of "transverse motion" Same objection.

Quote
Einstein believed that light could be stretched by gravity, which would therefore give a red-shift.

Light can be red-shifted by gravity. †So all we need is for galaxies to be orders of magnitude more massive than the evidence indicates, and for their masses to be proportional to their apparent distance, and we've got ourselves a theory.

Quote
P.C. Davies, in Nature magazine 1978, says that if we were at the geometrical centre of a rotating universe then that would explain the pattern of red-shift that we see.

Transverse motion again.

Quote
Another possibility is that dust in interstellar space affects light, in the same way that we see red sunsets as the atmosphere scatters sunlight.

How does scattering shift the spectral lines?

Quote
There is also the problem of discordant red-shifts, where stellar objects joined together have extremely different red-shifts, meaning that they cannot be millions of years old, or that red-shift is not what big-bang'ers think it is !

Holton Arp studied a number of quasars; he compiled a catalogue of 'peculiar quasars', many of which are at that centres of chains of elliptical galaxies - they emit parallel jets of material from their centres, meaning that they must have been formed together but have very different red-shift 'speeds' !

Looks like the same issue stated twice.  I haven't seen anything suggesting this is anything more than closer objects and more distant objects lying on the same line of sight.  

Quote (Peter Henderson @ May 05 2009,16:01)
I don't think he quite knows what he's talking about.

I think you're right.  Looks like four alternative interpretations, not eight, running the gamut from "almost certainly bogus" to "very, very probably bogus".

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2009,12:31   

Quote (Marion Delgado @ May 04 2009,12:06)
I think the Big Bang is a terrible idea - it'd be the biggest detonation in history, the radiation would be unparalleled, no one knows the consequences, and much of what you read about it is hype, not hard facts.

We need to organize in our neighborhoods against this crazy scheme! If we speak up, our voices shall be heard!

If you allow big bangs, next thing you know you are pregnant with universes!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
  23 replies since April 12 2009,15:26 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]