|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 06/23/2006 : 19:26:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Can anyone shed a light on the subject of the beginnings of the Big Bang? It is my understanding that the theory states that all matter existed in a single point. What I cannot understand is how this can be? Is there math that suggests this? Is there any evidence that all the matter in the universe can actually exists as a single point, or is this what the math is telling us? I cannot wrap my head around it.
Can anybody explain in laymens terms? Thanks.
Well, Robb, I hope this has cleared things up for you. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 13:06:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It would only be inconsistent if the gas model predicted two different outcomes from the same data. It doesn't.
Sure it does. It predicted an open convection zone between .985R and .995R, but now we find that reqion blocks mass flow in both directions. Now the gas model is going to get "modified" *someday* (no ones done so yet) to explain that flattened out mass flow .993R. Right now we're in limbo of course, because no one has a clue what to do with the mass flow data and how that relates back to contemporary gas model theory. Instead, the work for Stanford is just sitting there being ignored altogether, and colleges still teach kids that mass is flowing through an open convection zone in this region.
quote:
You know as well as I do that there is no consensus on coronal heating, so its mechanism is hardly a part of the model right now.
You mean to tell me that gas model theory can't even explain why light plasmas get heated by electricity flowing through the plasma and electrically active coronal loops? Why do you put faith in this theory? What good it is if it can't explain something as important and as basic as this?
quote:
Secondly, the gas model predicts that elements are being mass separated due to gravity, it's just that the process is extremely slow and is countered by the massive amount of physical mixing due to convection and huge magnetic loops.
Except we already know that mass isn't flowing up and down in the region between .985 and .995R. Rather the plasma flow all goes horizontal both on the top side and the bottom side in this region. We also know that the sun has not just a "large" gravitational field but rather a "huge" gravitational field. It also has a strong magnetic field as well. We use strong magnetic fields to separate isotopes here on earth. Gas model theory is predicated on the "faith" the somehow all these powerful forces are overcome mearly by "movements" that aren't even occuring in the stratification subsurface. It's one big fat fairytale Dave. You have magically "assumed" that every thing is going to stay almost "perfectly" mixed and no separation into "layers" is likely to occur. This is pure pseudo-scientific mythology because astronomers want everything to stay "simple" and easy. The moment you complicate their world with little facts like gravity and magnetic fields separate plasma, the simply "dream up" an "answer" that has already been falsified by Kosovichev's work.
The other "major" bit of inconsistancies is these "magnetic fields" you have coming from the core, that only magically become visible once the reach the corona. Suddenly, quite magically they all finally start to appear, but not a sign of them exists between the stratification subsurface and the lower corona. Somehow this "corona" that no one knows the heat source for is magically heating the loops. Never mind the fact that the loops are far *brighter* than the surrounding corona. I tell you Dave the rationalization that hold the gas model together are unbelievably convoluted when you get right down to it.
quote:
Of course, whether the gas model is inconsistent or not doesn't matter one whit to whether or not your statements are inconsistent.
But Dave, my statements are not inconsistent. You may percieve them to be that way for some reason, but that isn't the case.
quote:
Can you support that claim with data from Kosovichev's own work?
I see no evidence to demonstrate that anyone (not just Kosovichev) ever directly "measured" the density of the photosphere. The same kinds of math formulas were used to calculate the density and temperature of the atmosphere of Jupiter. It's outer atmosphere was "predicted" to be a specific density and temperature. It turns out however that when we actually "meausured" it directly (by dropping a device into the atmosphere), that it was actually *hotter* and *more dense* than predicted. If you wan't me to believe that *any* (not just Kosovichev) heliosiesmology data is based on direct "measurement", your going to have to demonstrate it. To my knowledge we've never dropped anything into the photosphere. We've never "measured" it at all. It's desnity is "assumed" and all density measurements are relative to this assumed value.
If you believe that anyone actually "measured" the density of the photosphere directly, then you must provide evidence to substanciate it.
I'll be happy to discuss the rest of the heliosiesmology data, the moment you show me how the density of the photosphere was "meausured" and how the instruments to measure them were "calibrated" in the first place. I can undertand how the instruments we dropped into Jupiters atmosphere were "calibrated" to earth's sense of "density", but since we didn't drop anything into the photosphere, I have no idea how anything might possibly have been "calibrated" to earthly standards.
When you show me how the photosphere density was "measured", I'll be happy to get into the rest of the heliosiesmology arguements with you Dave in it's own thread and we'll leave poor Robb alone.
quote:
You're missing what I'm saying is inconsistent. You claim that satellite images show "arcs" extending up from your allegedly solid surface. But, since they're two-dimensional images, you also claim we've got no "altitude" information that would show that there are arcs extending up from a surface.
Dave, any high energy satellite image that is taken along the "horizon" (of the stratification subsurface), shows taht coronal loops arch up from the surface and come back down to the surface. By virtue of the horizon, we can determine the loops are three dimensional.
In fact in close up images, we can see that the loops typically pick up material at one side of the surface and move it to the other, only after the materials have traveled up and through the arc. The two dimensional problem is related to the positioning of the "surface" from which they rise in relationship to the photosophere. Even Lockheed Martin admits that coronal loops are three dimensional and traverse the solar atmosphere. Where we differ is not in their three dimensional nature, but rather in the positioning of the "surface" from which they rise in relationship to the surface of photosphere. I believe they rise from the "subsurface stratification" at about .993R. Lockheed Martin believes they originate in the lower corona, far above the surface of the photosphere. This is a very "testable" difference between our two different "interpretations". The STEREO program s |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 13:22:52 [Permalink]
|
Guys, it's time to start posting the Solid-Surface-of-the-Sun stuff in the appropriate thread.
Michael, would you please consider reposting the previous post over there, and we can continue from there.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 15:20:21 [Permalink]
|
So Robb, getting back to your original questions, I would personally (and do personally) treat the BB theory (like many theories) with a great deal of skepticism. Astronomers like to have "tidy" and "simple" answers, but there is no guarantee the universe is 'simple' to begin with.
IMO, BB theory is mostly semi-scientific (not to be confused with psuedo-scientific) "mythology" IMO. Most of how the universe got here remains a mystery in spite of the miopic viewpoint of some in the astronomy community. The reason I'd refer to it as semi-scientific is that few if any folks are attempting to "falsify" the BB model. Those like Arp that have legitimate concerns are "ushered out" of the "in group" and their reputations are typically trashed. There is not much "open minded" debate on the topic, when there really should be.
"Maybe" a refined BB theory will one day be demonstrated. Until then, I choose to keep all options on the table. A "big slam" and electromagnetic acceleration is still a viable option to any BB "inflation" theory. In fact, you might ask how "inflation" is presumably occuring in the earliest stages of the BB and make sure folks like Guth aren't violating known laws of physics. Often when you look at the "cause" of "inflation" promoted in some people's inflation theories, it amounts to mere "magic" as is the case with Guth. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/24/2006 15:26:15 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 16:54:45 [Permalink]
|
| I think when we figure out the universal theory of matter and energy (big scale/small scale) the BB theory will be revised out of necessity, be it a tweek or complete revision. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 19:53:15 [Permalink]
|
Yes, Robb, every claim in every branch of science should be examined critically, with a great deal of skepticism. It's the only way science gets done. Even claims which are only implied should be examined, like Michael's claim that the Big Bang seeks to explain "how the universe got here." It doesn't. Or that Arp and others have had their careers "trashed" simply because they dared disagree with the "mainstream." That's just a romantic vision of underdog-versus-the-establishment conspiracy theories, based upon cheesy movies and crappy science journalism, and not likely to be factual.
Questions you might want to ask, Robb, are "how does 'electromagnetic acceleration' and a 'Big Slam' explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?" Demand to see the equations of such a model which result in the correct temperature of the CMBR today. Also, you can ask how 'electromagnetic acceleration' can explain the horizon and flatness problems. Again, ask for the equations. And when asking for those equations, also ask for the laws on which they're based, and then find out for yourself how well-established those laws are in the appropriate field of science. And it's pretty easy to find out whether a particular field has a healthy research program with current-day experimentation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 11:12:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, Robb, every claim in every branch of science should be examined critically, with a great deal of skepticism.
Well, Robb, astronomy as an area of science is unlike most areas of science that are quite "hands on". I come from a computer science background, where microprocessors are continually improved year after year. It's a very "hands on" area of science.
Astronomy on the other hand is a "distant" science. Most things are millions of miles away from us. Only in the past 15 years or so have we begun to put up satellites that might help us to understand that branch of "science". IMO, astronomy as a field of science is still very much in its infancy compared to other branches of science.
quote:
It's the only way science gets done. Even claims which are only implied should be examined, like Michael's claim that the Big Bang seeks to explain "how the universe got here." It doesn't.
Dave has a way of nitpicking individual sentences and ignoring the main points. There are *many* ways we might explain our physical existence. The BB theory is only one of many competing theories. All I'm suggesting is that we should not be miopic in our focus.
quote:
Or that Arp and others have had their careers "trashed" simply because they dared disagree with the "mainstream." That's just a romantic vision of underdog-versus-the-establishment conspiracy theories, based upon cheesy movies and crappy science journalism, and not likely to be factual.
Of course when you look at the factual evidence, his access to his telescope was taken away from him, and his work was ostricized the by "establishment". Again, it's this miopic little view of life foisted at us by the astonomical community that I resent.
quote:
Questions you might want to ask, Robb, are "how does 'electromagnetic acceleration' and a 'Big Slam' explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?"
The slam released the cosmic microwave radiation.
quote:
Demand to see the equations of such a model which result in the correct temperature of the CMBR today.
This is another of those astronomy mythologies that would suggest that all "knowledge" is derived *only* from math. That's backwards. What you see in many bad theories is what I would call "bubble gum concepts" wrapped up in bailing wire math formulas to dress it up. Guth for instance posited that at the moment of inflation, the singularity's density remained constant, even while the volume increased. The "concept" violates the laws of conservation of energy. It is a bubble gum concept. Since that time, the "concept" has been wrapped up with plenty of bailing wire math formulas, but the notion that density remains constant while volume increases is still a bubble gum concept. The "myth" is a "simple" idea, with some math support is by defintion "better" than a complex idea where the math has yet to be fully understood.
quote:
Also, you can ask how 'electromagnetic acceleration' can explain the horizon and flatness problems.
It would depend entirely on the force angle of the electromagetic acceleration. Since we really don't know exactly how all the matter of the unviverse is is arranged at the moment, it's a bit premature to slap bailing wire math formulas around simplified ideas, not that some won't try to do it anyway.
quote:
Again, ask for the equations. And when asking for those equations, also ask for the laws on which they're based, and then find out for yourself how well-established those laws are in the appropriate field of science. And it's pretty easy to find out whether a particular field has a healthy research program with current-day experimentation.
And pay careful attention to the "concepts" that are at the heart of the idea. As with Guth, you can start with a "concept" that violates the laws of physics and you can dress it up real nice with math, but unless the idea was sound to begin with, what you end up with are worthless but elegant looking mathematical presentations of pseudoscientific ideas. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 21:25:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Astronomy on the other hand is a "distant" science. Most things are millions of miles away from us. Only in the past 15 years or so have we begun to put up satellites that might help us to understand that branch of "science". IMO, astronomy as a field of science is still very much in its infancy compared to other branches of science.
Yes, and since in the other thread, you've eliminated inferences as a method of gaining knowledge, those satellites aren't going to help, either. The only things we know for sure, according to you, are those things we can touch "directly." That includes electron theory, the basis for computers, since the existence of electrons is only inferred from observed behaviour.quote:
Dave has a way of nitpicking individual sentences and ignoring the main points. There are *many* ways we might explain our physical existence. The BB theory is only one of many competing theories. All I'm suggesting is that we should not be miopic in our focus.
And you've got a way of missing my point. The Big Bang doesn't seek to explain anything at time zero or "before" then.quote:
Of course when you look at the factual evidence, his access to his telescope was taken away from him, and his work was ostricized the by "establishment".
Where is the evidence for these claims?quote:
Again, it's this miopic little view of life foisted at us by the astonomical community that I resent.
Those of us with myopia might be insulted by your repeated misuse of the term. Besides, nearsightedness has suited all of science just fine, by avoiding sweeping conclusions which would termintate the process of discovery.quote:
The slam released the cosmic microwave radiation.
Where is your evidence for that claim, and how is that even possible, since the CMBR is characteristic of "microscopic" matter and energy, and the absence of anything atom-sized or larger?quote:
This is another of those astronomy mythologies that would suggest that all "knowledge" is derived *only* from math. That's backwards. What you see in many bad theories is what I would call "bubble gum concepts" wrapped up in bailing wire math formulas to dress it up.
Yeah, "bad theories" like Gravitation and Relativity and Electron Theory and Atomic Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Every last theory in physics is a set of equations which show the interrelationships of the measurable attributes of the systems to which the theories apply. Show me a single physics theory which is not a bunch of equations.quote:
Guth for instance posited that at the moment of inflation, the singularity's density remained constant, even while the volume increased. The "concept" violates the laws of conservation of energy.
How so? Explain the math.quote:
It is a bubble gum concept. Since that time, the "concept" has been wrapped up with plenty of bailing wire math formulas, but the notion that density remains constant while volume increases is still a bubble gum concept.
Is that "concept" in use today, or are you just attacking 20-year-old physics which nobody uses anymore, anyway?quote:
The "myth" is a "simple" idea, with some math support is by defintion "better" than a complex idea where the math has yet to be fully understood.
You've got that backwards.quote:
quote:
Also, you can ask how 'electromagnetic acceleration' can explain the horizon and flatness problems.
It would depend entirely on the force angle of the electromagetic acceleration. Since we really don't know exactly how all the matter of the unviverse is is arranged at the moment, it's a bit premature to slap bailing wire math formulas around simplified ideas, not that some won't try to do it anyway.
So you've got a "simplified idea" ("Big Slam") and just refuse to try to reconile it with observations. Got it.quote:
And pay careful attention to the "concepts" that are at the heart of the idea. As with Guth, you can start with a "concept" that violates the laws of physics and you can dress it up real nice with math, but unless the idea was sound to begin with, what you end up with are worthless but elegant looking mathematical presentations of pseudoscientific ideas.
Where is any of Guth's math in current-day Big Bang cosmology? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 06:12:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Done.
Thank you! |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 09:12:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and since in the other thread, you've eliminated inferences as a method of gaining knowledge,
Strawman. I did not.
quote:
those satellites aren't going to help, either.
They certain can help Dave, and they have helped, from Hubble through the upcomming STEREO, each of the satellites have helped us start to piece together a cosmic scale puzzle. We must be careful however as we put the puzzle together that we don't miopically choose only one way of looking at the data when many possibilities can be derived from the same data.
quote:
The only things we know for sure, according to you, are those things we can touch "directly."
No, I didn't say that, so I'm going to ignore your grandstanding.
quote:
And you've got a way of missing my point. The Big Bang doesn't seek to explain anything at time zero or "before" then.
Let's just focus on the core issue. The BB insists that all the matter of our universe was "subatomic soup" at one time, shortly after the bang. There is no data that confirms this theory directly to the exclusion of a "big slam" where matter predated the event and was at no time "subatomic" energy, but bather the matter passed on through a "slam" event, analogous to a galaxy collision.
quote:
Besides, nearsightedness has suited all of science just fine, by avoiding sweeping conclusions which would termintate the process of discovery.
Nobody is suggesting we should "terminate" the process of discovery. I'm simply concerned that the "discoveries" could be missed because we're too busy trying to make the data fit a specific outcome.
quote:
Where is your evidence for that claim,
In the presense of the background radiation itself Dave.
quote:
and how is that even possible, since the CMBR is characteristic of "microscopic" matter and energy, and the absence of anything atom-sized or larger?
Some of the material that slammed together at the center was turned into "quark soup".
quote:
Yeah, "bad theories" like Gravitation
No, we had observational data to support that concept Dave.
quote:
and Relativity and Electron Theory and Atomic Theory and Quantum Mechanics.
You are trying to acquire credibility from fields of science that are far better understood than cosmology.
quote:
Every last theory in physics is a set of equations which show the interrelationships of the measurable attributes of the systems to which the theories apply. Show me a single physics theory which is not a bunch of equations.
How about the theory of evolution?
quote:
How so? Explain the math.
Explain "what" math? Guth didn't posit a lot of math when he claimed that the volume increased while the density remained constant.
quote:
Is that "concept" in use today, or are you just attacking 20-year-old physics which nobody uses anymore, anyway?
Let's find out Dave. Explain to me why the universe is "expanding".
quote:
So you've got a "simplified idea" ("Big Slam") and just refuse to try to reconile it with observations. Got it.
No Dave, I'm entertaining *many* possible explanations for the data, including a slam theory and a bang theory and whatever other theories might account for the same set of data. I'm not holding the BB theory on any pedestals, nor discounting it's potential.
quote:
Where is any of Guth's math in current-day Big Bang cosmology?
I have no idea. How is expansion explained these days? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/26/2006 09:19:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 09:51:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and since in the other thread, you've eliminated inferences as a method of gaining knowledge,
Strawman. I did not.
How else should I interpret your insistence that "theories" fail all the time, and only "direct measurement" can be trusted?quote:
quote:
those satellites aren't going to help, either.
They certain can help Dave, and they have helped, from Hubble through the upcomming STEREO, each of the satellites have helped us start to piece together a cosmic scale puzzle.
Not if inferences about the data are out-of-bounds, they haven't. STEREO will determine nothing because it doesn't "directly measure" anything but the frequencies and abundance of photons. Everything you wish to determine about the Sun (for example) is infered from those photons, and not a "direct measurement."quote:
We must be careful however as we put the puzzle together that we don't miopically choose only one way of looking at the data when many possibilities can be derived from the same data.
An infinite number of possibilities exist with any particular data set. Scientists understand this, and myopically focus on those explanations which appear to best match the data at any given time, until better theories come along which allow for even more myopia.quote:
quote:
The only things we know for sure, according to you, are those things we can touch "directly."
No, I didn't say that, so I'm going to ignore your grandstanding.
What grandstanding? Your statements have clearly described your opinion that inference is unreliable and should be avoided in favor of "direct measurement." If that's not what you meant, you should try to restate your position, instead of simply denying it.quote:
Let's just focus on the core issue. The BB insists that all the matter of our universe was "subatomic soup" at one time, shortly after the bang. There is no data that confirms this theory directly to the exclusion of a "big slam" where matter predated the event and was at no time "subatomic" energy, but bather the matter passed on through a "slam" event, analogous to a galaxy collision.
And still, the Big Bang Theory doesn't say, one way or the other, whether matter "predated the event," so once again you're just bashing a strawman of the theory.quote:
Nobody is suggesting we should "terminate" the process of discovery. I'm simply concerned that the "discoveries" could be missed because we're too busy trying to make the data fit a specific outcome.
Nobody is doing that, as the history of science shows.quote:
quote:
Where is your evidence for that claim,
In the presense of the background radiation itself Dave.
How is the existence of the CMBR evidence that a "Big Slam" released the CMBR? You're assuming the consequent of your argument.quote:
Some of the material that slammed together at the center was turned into "quark soup".
Why do we see the CMBR, then? The radiation would have been absorbed by the "material" not in the "center."quote:
No, we had observational data to support that concept Dave.
There's observational data to support the Big Bang, too, you just refuse to examine it.quote:
You are trying to acquire credibility from fields of science that are far better understood than cosmology.
You're blowing smoke, now, because my mention of those sciences has nothing to do with BBT's "credibility." That's just a tremendous red herring.quote:
quote:
Every last theory in physics is a set of equations which show the interrelationships of the measurable attributes of the systems to which the theories apply. Show me a single physics theory which is not a bunch of equations.
How about the theory of evolution?
Well, aside from all the math which goes into population dynamics, since when is evolution a physics theory? Yes, biology is an emergent property of the physical laws which govern chemistry, but we're not talking about biology, but instead physics. As I said, "Show me a single physics theory which is not a bunch of equations." Astronomy, solar science and especially cosmology are all theories of physics, and they're all based on sets of equations.quote:
quote:
How so? Explain the math.
Explain "what" math? Guth didn't posit a lot of math when he claimed that the volume increased while the density remained constant.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 09:58:53 [Permalink]
|
Man, I'm really getting lost in all this stuff. What would help me better follow this debate/shouting match a bit would be if Michael could explain in some detail his competing idea for the origin of the universe. Let's say that on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is like a description you might read in a Newsweek article, and 10 might be what's used in a presentation for The Astrophysics Group
at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, then perhaps I'm talking about a level 3-4 range.
I've read enough at school and (since it's been awhile since I took college-level science classes) on my own about the Big Bang, but I know nothing about that you are saying. So some background would help. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 12:45:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How else should I interpret your insistence that "theories" fail all the time, and only "direct measurement" can be trusted?
Exactly as it sounds. A theory is only viable if we can directly observe what we *predict* with the theory, otherwise it's just a useless theory.
quote:
Not if inferences about the data are out-of-bounds, they haven't. STEREO will determine nothing because it doesn't "directly measure" anything but the frequencies and abundance of photons. Everything you wish to determine about the Sun (for example) is infered from those photons, and not a "direct measurement."
I have no problem with "inferences" about the data. I only have problems (actually just different requirements) when folks start trying to miopically claim the data supports only one theory.
quote:
An infinite number of possibilities exist with any particular data set. Scientists understand this, and myopically focus on those explanations which appear to best match the data at any given time, until better theories come along which allow for even more myopia.
But what specific evidence is there to exclude a "slam" from a "bang"?
quote:
What grandstanding? Your statements have clearly described your opinion that inference is unreliable and should be avoided in favor of "direct measurement."
No, I showed you two examples where the "infered" method doesn't work right. It then becomes prudent to "directly measure" something when possible. We infered from these mathematical models that the larger brown dwarf should be hotter than the smaller one. Evidenly we infered their temperature from these models incorrectly. Therefore the models need to be "modified" in some way.
quote:
And still, the Big Bang Theory doesn't say, one way or the other, whether matter "predated the event," so once again you're just bashing a strawman of the theory.
You keep ingoring the key points of what I say, even when I'm careful about how I phrase things. The BB insists that no atoms existed in the moments (years) following the BB. It insists that hydrogen atoms formed first from the "quark soup". It does not suggest that heavy atoms like iron predated the event and survived the event intact. In other words, it suggests that even if "matter" existed prior to the BB, it was "broken down" into pure energy by the forces of the BB.
This is the "myth" part IMO. The maturity of the earliest galaxies suggests that such concepts need to be reexamined.
quote:
Nobody is doing that, as the history of science shows.
No, the history of science *does* show this tendency of shoehorning the data to fit the model in some way. When the BB was first proposed the theory suggested galaxies wouldn't form for "billions" (plural) of years after the BB. Once they started finding mature galaxies in the early universe, they didn't discard the BB theory, instead they "rolled back the timeframes" of when they claimed that suns and galaxies first formed, *without* even explaining how the first theories were flawed and how they were chagned to fit the data. Everytime Spitzer or Hubble returns a new "early" image, everyone is still always "surprised" at how "mature" the galaxies look at this early age.
quote:
How is the existence of the CMBR evidence that a "Big Slam" released the CMBR? You're assuming the consequent of your argument.
That's exactly how it's done in BB theory too.
quote:
Why do we see the CMBR, then? The radiation would have been absorbed by the "material" not in the "center."
Not all of it Dave. Not every photon from a galaxy collision is absorbed by the material that is not at the center of a galaxy collision. I have no reason to believe a larger collision would be any different.
quote:
There's observational data to support the Big Bang, too, you just refuse to examine it.
Actually, that's not the case. I will grant you that there is "some" evidence to support the BB concept, but there is no data that supports a BB concept to the exclusion of all other possible scenarios including a slam concept.
quote:
You're blowing smoke, now, because my mention of those sciences has nothing to do with BBT's "credibility." That's just a tremendous red herring.
The red herring was tossing in these theories as though they somehow lend credibility to BB theory.
quote:
Well, aside from all the math which goes into population dynamics, since when is evolution a physics theory?
Are you claiming that physics isn't involved?
quote:
Yes, biology is an emergent property of the physical laws which govern chemistry, but we're not talking about biology, but instead physics.
Biology is simply a manifestation of physics.
quote:
As I said, "Show me a single physics theory which is not a bunch of equations."
You're assuming that every theory that has physics related to it must have math to describe the physics. That is false and the theory of evolution demonstates. We don't fully understand all the math the dictates the physics that leads atoms to become "aware". We simply take it all for granted and move on, with our without mathematical models to explain it.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/26/2006 13:00:20 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 13:45:41 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: quote:
I think when we figure out the universal theory of matter and energy (big scale/small scale) the BB theory will be revised out of necessity, be it a tweek or complete revision.
I totally agree. There is really no way to perfectly answer Robb's initial question that started this thread because as far as I've read, the scientists don't have the answers yet. A few years ago I read a book by Steven Weinberg about the big bang. Just to add some credibility, Weinberg is the physicist who won the '79 Nobel Prize in Physics for contributing to the solution bekskeptical is talking about: he found a way to combine electromagnatism and the weak force into the electroweak force. So, the guy knows his shit. Anyway, in the book The First Three Minutes, he attempts to describe in layman's terms what the math and observational evidence says about the big bang thus far. He admits that the theory has not been proven and he also states clearly that because of the lack of a Grand Unified Theory in physics, they are unable to even come up with the math to describe the very very beginning - and that is the theory's major flaw. So it seems to me that the proper answer to Robb's question is: nobody knows.
I strongly recommend Weinberg's book. It is really short and easy for the layman to read. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/26/2006 13:47:47 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
