[_ Old Earth _] Fizzling the Big Bang/Deflating Expanding Universe Theories

[ThinkerMan]

I don't want to discuss anything with you, now that I see your style.

No sweat off my back. You began a thread that (in my opinion) was nonsensical and lacking in supporting data.

Nevertheless, I engaged (albeit with a bit of sarcasm). If I offended you, I apologize.

Dr Van Flandern has a message board at metaresearch.org for know it alls to challenge him.

As a distinct minority within his field (in terms of his opinion) the onus is on him to demonstrate his alternative theories, not the other way around.

Even more so, as Asimov stated, demonstration of his theory must have data, not just catch-phrases and broad statements....I saw neither at his site, and have no reason to go looking for it if he didn't supply it in the first place.

I started the article saying that. I'm not qualified to adequately defend his positions, so take your distortions to him, and stop chasing me to give me a hard time unfairly

I'm sorry you think this unfair, but if you lack the knowledge and data to support his theories, then I wonder how you are qualified to say they are valid.

Also, they are just that....positions. It's like saying the moon is made of green cheese. It sounds nice, (and people have believed it) but there is no data to back it up.

I see the multiverse as part of God, perhaps the body of God, or an expression of God.

A perfectly valid position. I have no qualms with that.

However...

I don't buy into the big bang or expanding universe,

Why does the BB run so counter to your previous sentence? Is God incapable of having a big bang? Particularly if there is a multiuniverse, it seems to make more sense that he would use something like the BB to kick-start this one.

and I don't expect we can convert each other.

For my part, I can tell you that I will never be converted from my point of view without more evidence, data and a reasonable explanation of it.

.....

By the way, I don't think Asimov nor I have been overly rude or obnoxious.

Perhaps I've been a bit sarcastic, but you have done nothing to support your opinions except encourage us to go debate someone else!

If you cannot defend your position (or even entertain a discussion of the revelent parts of your position) then you shouldn't have started the thread.

Sorry if you feel this is harsh, but it is my opinion.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Apparently Dr Van wossname has decided that all early(high redshift) galaxies, quasars and such are high in metal content. :roll:
Based on what?

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Dr Van Flandern message board

The metaresearch.org MESSAGE BOARD is for asking and debating this very subject, and all the flaws. I'm not qualified to answer adequately, so why try?.........................................................................................................The message board team is ready to elaborate and humiliate you, as they have many before you........................................................................................................I've had problems with people saying things as fact that are false. That's another reason you can go humiliate Dr Van Flandern with your "truths", not me. I'm just letting y'all know some experts are standing tall for the challenge to theories considered confirmed fact by most all....................................So they shoot the messenger, as usual.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Dr Van Flandern message board

The metaresearch.org MESSAGE BOARD is for asking and debating this very subject, and all the flaws. I'm not qualified to answer adequately, so why try?.........................................................................................................The message board team is ready to elaborate and humiliate you, as they have many before you........................................................................................................I've had problems with people saying things as fact that are false. That's another reason you can go humiliate Dr Van Flandern with your "truths", not me. I'm just letting y'all know some experts are standing tall for the challenge to theories considered confirmed fact by most all....................................So they shoot the messenger, as usual.

Such confidence for one so admittedly incapable of discussing these things.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Re: Dr Van Flandern message board

The metaresearch.org MESSAGE BOARD is for asking and debating this very subject, and all the flaws. I'm not qualified to answer adequately, so why try?.........................................................................................................The message board team is ready to elaborate and humiliate you, as they have many before you........................................................................................................I've had problems with people saying things as fact that are false. That's another reason you can go humiliate Dr Van Flandern with your "truths", not me. I'm just letting y'all know some experts are standing tall for the challenge to theories considered confirmed fact by most all....................................So they shoot the messenger, as usual.

Unless he put you up to it, you're not relaying a message, you're just saying "here I don't understand the subject, but there's this guy who's convinced he does and says the opposite of you, and since I don't want to agree with you, I agree with him."

 

[keebs]

2. Come on keebs, a telescope won't tell you (or show you) that the universe is expanding....otherwise somebody between the 1600's and 1929 would have seen it.

Not true at all...it's called redshifting for a reason. Now, I admit, you wouldn't be able to observe this with a walmart telescope, as they aren't quite powerful enough :wink:...but that comment was meant to be taken seriously. 'Twas a joke.

Is all infinity full of galaxies? I doubt it.

Is the universe infinite? I doubt it.

Did all matter pop out of nowhere and fill infinity, as the bangers suggest? That would be a miracle, surely..................................................................

Yes, that would be considered a miracle. However, that's not the big bang theory at all.

The replier hasn't read the 10 flaws of Big Bang at metaresearch.org, obviously, nor the flawed interpretation of red shift data with the expanding universe theory.

Do you want me to write up a little refutation on why it's wrong? Because I'd love to do that...

And, I didn't know the universe is expanding so wildly that a toy telescope can easily observe it! I still don't!

Garsh, you people don't get jokes.

Is your enter key broken or something. Seriously, learn to use paragraphs or figure out a way around it or figure out how to fix your keyboard.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Thank you.

Don't strawman this. Keebs was making a sarcastic point, that's all. Science does not claim you can witness universe expansion via a $50 Wal-Mart telescope....

Ahhh, thank you.

I'm not qualified to adequately defend his positions, so take your distortions to him, and stop chasing me to give me a hard time unfairly................................................................

Don't go around saying things are wrong if you don't understand them.

I see the multiverse as part of God, perhaps the body of God, or an expression of God.

Really? Do you even understand the concept of the multiverse? If so, what is it? Oh, and I hope you know that the multiverse theory is a conjecture too, don't you? The only way we know of now to test the multiverse theory is with a thought-capable quantum computer...and that technology isn't currently available (nor will it be for a quite some time).

I don't buy into the big bang or expanding universe, and I don't expect we can convert each other.

I don't see how you can not acknowledge that the universe is expanding. I understand you not buying into the big bang conjecture, but the expanding universe? Coooome on.

Based on what? I'll tell you. .....................................I don't see anyone here with better credentials than having spent 20 years with the US Naval Observatory, and as USNO Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch....................................................................................................Character assassinations and distortions of statements aren't scientific debates. Start a thread about the 10 flaws & expanding universe flaws so you can scientifically debunk him ON EVERY POINT, and humiliate me. (As if). You owe it to him for slandering his professional reputation with name calling now. And you are in what position to judge him?

You do know that this guy thinks aliens live on mars, right? Wack jobs are quite capable of getting a Ph.D.

So let's see....does he explain a static Universe? How does it operate?

Better yet...how does particle physics work with his obviously non-zero cosmological constant.

The metaresearch.org MESSAGE BOARD is for asking and debating this very subject, and all the flaws. I'm not qualified to answer adequately, so why try?.........................................................................................................

Don't post stuff if you don't know anything about it. I'm not going to go to register on some other stupid message board to debate with a loon...

 

[Sara929]

:roll: oh boy....

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

"Experts" Without Credentials

:roll: oh boy....

.............................................................................................................................................."avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science FALSELY so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith"-1 Timothy 6:20-21. (Grace be with thee, Amen)

 

[Asimov]

Re: "Experts" Without Credentials

:roll: oh boy....

.............................................................................................................................................."avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science FALSELY so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith"-1 Timothy 6:20-21. (Grace be with thee, Amen)

You seem to not pay attention to this passage, duder. You also don't seem to think that it might apply to yourself.

 

[ThinkerMan]

[quote:29d89]Quote:

2. Come on keebs, a telescope won't tell you (or show you) that the universe is expanding....otherwise somebody between the 1600's and 1929 would have seen it.

Not true at all...it's called redshifting for a reason. Now, I admit, you wouldn't be able to observe this with a walmart telescope, as they aren't quite powerful enough ...but that comment was meant to be taken seriously. 'Twas a joke. [/quote:29d89]

LOL...I know keebs....believe me, I hold you in much higher esteem then to presume you didn't know that.

I just wanted to show our friends here "peer review" in action...haha

See....science is fine at self-regulating!

 

[keebs]

I just wanted to show our friends here "peer review" in action...haha

See....science is fine at self-regulating!

Haha, I guess I'm not to quick on these subtleties either...

 

[shernren]

oog. everybody here seems to be arguing like kids. firstly, the nanoscopic structure of the atom can in no way whatsoever resemble the large-scale structure of the universe - for the simple reason that on atomic scale Planck's constant (quantum indeterminability) is proportionally large, therefore implicating probability clouds and the strong force interactions, whereas anything even remotely approaching the size of a speck of dust is out of the reach of quantum nonsense. Don't be kidded by the elementary school models of electrons spinning like little round balls in obedient orbits around the nucleus. (If they did that by classical mechanics everything would collapse together - that's why quantum nonsense was invented in the first place; along with the fact that by scale, if the nucleus was a pea on the floor of a cathedral the nearest electron would most likely be around the roof. Mostly empty space the atom is; only Pauli exclusion gives the illusion of solidity.)

Secondly, the Multiverse is not even a theory. It's an interpretation of a theory (Bell's theorem, superluminal correlation vs. non-local-causality); it's even less of a theory than the Big Bang, seeing as it probably makes no predictions we can test with any currently conceivable technology. Go look it up online under its proper name, the Many Worlds Interpretation. Furthermore, using the Multiverse as a construct for God quite frankly feels to me like either zany sci-fi or a dangerous pseudo-scientific justification for pan-theism or monism, both of which I consider completely unChristian.

And have you considered an expanding alternative to BB? BB is only necessary because of the Copernican relativity conjecture (no matter where I am in the universe I will observe the same thing on a macro scale; therefore since all the stars are expanding away from the Earth they are also expanding away from every other point in the universe simultaneously). Try Dr. Humphrey's "white-hole cosmology"; I'm not mathematically skilled enough to follow his arguments rigorously but I think they make sense.

 

[Asimov]

oog. everybody here seems to be arguing like kids.

Are we? Funny...most adults argue this way. :D

firstly, the nanoscopic structure of the atom can in no way whatsoever resemble the large-scale structure of the universe

I think only the OP was stating that...because I agree with you.

Secondly, the Multiverse is not even a theory.

I would never have guessed. :D

And have you considered an expanding alternative to BB? BB is only necessary because of the Copernican relativity conjecture (no matter where I am in the universe I will observe the same thing on a macro scale; therefore since all the stars are expanding away from the Earth they are also expanding away from every other point in the universe simultaneously). Try Dr. Humphrey's "white-hole cosmology"; I'm not mathematically skilled enough to follow his arguments rigorously but I think they make sense.

Ooh, some new information, thanks shernren! I'm always interested in cosmology, and any new ideas about it...have you read "faster than the speed of light"? I thought that book was really good, you should check it out, it's interesting, though it may not be scientifically good. Is there a website I could go to check out white-hole cosmology? I'll do a google...but if you have a good one I'll use that.

 

[cubedbee]

I've not heard great things about Humphrey's theory. He hasn't published it in any sort of peer-reviewed journal, but instead has a book called Starlight and Time. I'm in no way qualified to decide whether he is right or wrong, but muliple Christian scientists whom I respect have spoken against him.

Here's some links to critisms:

Overview
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ling.shtml?

First technical rebuttal
http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage1.pdf

Humphrey's response
http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf

Later response/counterresponse
http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage3.pdf

Another technical critism
http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

If you have the desire and the ability to go through the physics, please let me know who you agree with.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Yet Questions Remain

I'm not saying that star systems are atoms, but that the relatively uniform visible universe is a structure of matter. .........................................................................metaresearch.org presents an arguement to the expanding universe theory on a number of points from the former Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory. He's qualified to debate, and ready at his message board to debate. ..........................................................................BB says basically the visible cosmos spewed from nowhere into nothingness, creating a time space continuum full of galaxies, without an actual center of the bang to find. IT'S A MIRACLE IF SO! ..........................................................................God takes credit for creation in the Bible, so I don't dispute that it may be a miracle of physical nature, or a natural process of creating multiple universes in infinity. Some consider the cosmos very finite, only 100 billion or so light years across. ...........................................................................IF presumtions about red shift data are erroneous, as Dr Van Flanderns' site claims, the Hubble should be seeing the BB 15 billion light years ago. Another site posted red shift estimates of 15B light years=only 480 million light years, after expansion calculations. That's either wild expansion, or wrong guess. ..........................................................................."Tired light" is the term used for alternate explanation, I believe, regarding red shift interpretation. ............................................................................IF not expanding, the cosmos is a structure of sorts. I'm not one of those who believe that a ship at a billion light years per day would ever find itself back near home. It may reach the boundary of presense of galaxies, and keep going. Yea, I know, that speed is impossible, but that expanse is there, now, is the point. Infinity is there, now, also. Hubble doesn't see to infinity, and our cosmos may not be all there is to infinity. ...............................................................................mkaku.org, mkaku.com about multi-verse and "string theory", which does account for dark matter in other dimensions. Surely the matter in black holes isn't visible, so is extradimensional. .............................................................................With BB and expanding universe theories in question, we can dare to consider anything. The illuminated jets seen coming from black holes sometimes, and stars forming out of nebula, suggest a possible recycling universe here. ..............................................................................."And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall FALL DOWN, as the leaf falleth"-Isaiah 34:4.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Yet Questions Remain

BB says basically the visible cosmos spewed from nowhere into nothingness

Nope...

, creating a time space continuum full of galaxies, without an actual center of the bang to find.

Uh...actually that matter collapses to form stars which clumped into galaxies...

Infinity is there, now, also. Hubble doesn't see to infinity, and our cosmos may not be all there is to infinity.

Or maybe the Universe has no boundaries, but is finite.

 

[shernren]

I'm not saying that star systems are atoms, but that the relatively uniform visible universe is a structure of matter.

No, I'm saying that the universe is not created out of matter, but from the negative zero-point energies emanating from the evaporation of holes in the primal Swiss Cheese. ... :roll:

BB says basically the visible cosmos spewed from nowhere into nothingness, creating a time space continuum full of galaxies, without an actual center of the bang to find. IT'S A MIRACLE IF SO!

God is a God of miracles, no? ^!^V

The illuminated jets seen coming from black holes sometimes, and stars forming out of nebula, suggest a possible recycling universe here.

Stars don't form out of a nebula by magic. Gravitational condensation compresses nebular hydrogen to the critical point where fusion can begin and the expansion force created by the resultant heat (I think? correct me?) balances the gravitational inward collapse in metastable equilibrium. No extra matter required; a star is just a different (and very, very active) arrangement of the same matter. Black hole jets have nothing to do with BB theories. They happen in systems where a black hole and a visible partner are doing their gravity thing. No technical terms because I don't know any.

I've not heard great things about Humphrey's theory. He hasn't published it in any sort of peer-reviewed journal, but instead has a book called Starlight and Time. I'm in no way qualified to decide whether he is right or wrong, but muliple Christian scientists whom I respect have spoken against him.

I have the book and corresponding "scientific papers" which apparently were published to the International Creationists' Conference. Anyway I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm not very qualified to judge the validity of his theories either. But, I don't think a young-universe cosmology is strictly necessary for a young-earth creationist interpretation of the data at hand (including Genesis 1) - comments? Sorry 'mov but I don't have any specifically bookmarked.

Ephesians, I hate to say this in such a condescending manner but you really need to get a grasp on science before firing off such statements. Don't leave your scientific education to Chief whoever; read such books as A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking; A Brief History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson; The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Gary Zukav. There's a flood of layman quantum physics introduction books in the market now, and you can't possibly do worse getting one of them. And scifi stays strictly in the "entertainment" dept. XD

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Deliberate Confusion

I've never even heard of "Humphreys' theories" before now, and don't know where you got that quote, but I didn't write it. I'm not trying to be the grand authority on cosmology and physics here. ........................................................................................The jets occasionally seen from black holes imply ejection of matter recycled from falling in. Nebula is known to be fine matter and gas, and perhaps some nebulas originate as ejections. .................................................................................That being the case means the cosmos can and does recycle the matter, and doesn't require a big bang to have galaxies, just nebula to start stars burning, and black holes to eject nebulas. I let go of the BB easily. ..................................................................................Why the cosmos is relatively uniformly full of galaxies in all directions is because it is a structure of matter, in this neighborhood of infinity. ..................................................................................."Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and like a molten looking glass?"-Job 37-18.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Deliberate Confusion

"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and like a molten looking glass?"-Job 37-18.

That would be more in reference to the sky being a dome, and the earth a disc.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Re: Deliberate Confusion

"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and like a molten looking glass?"-Job 37-18.

That would be more in reference to the sky being a dome, and the earth a disc.

......................................................................................So you say, but Job knows better. Tell me then what's this next quote about? ......................................................................................"or who can stay the bottles of heaven, when the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?"-Job 38:37-38.