[_ Old Earth _] What Set Off The Big Bang?

[BobRyan]

.....If you will check "carefully" -- not once have I argued "the big bang did not happen".

What I argue is in reference to the first reason this was brought up - which is it's connection to ID and the argument that ID is every bit as scientific as the Big Bang -- in fact ID has even MORE CONFIRMED science behind it than the big bang (EM wave forms showing ID for example).

I then go to the heart of the "predictive" nature of the Big Bang argument showing that the CMB is itself NOT a triumph for the science of Big Bang since the ACTUAL predictions CONFIRMED as matching the ACTUAL measurements were non-Big Bang predictions!....

I am puzzled as to why you regard estimates of the background temperature of the Universe as part of the confirming "predictive" (your quotation marks) nature of Big Bang theory.

Because of the obvious. Every presentation on the subject of the Big Bang known to mankind ALWAYS refers to the experiment of Penzias and Wilson as CONFIRMING the Big Ping for finding the CMB as "predicted".

YET they did not "predict" the isotrophic nature of the CMB and they did not "predict" the temperature -- in fact there WAS A PREDICTED temperature that MATCHEd -- and that is being "conveniently ignored".

So -- not as "good science" in terms of politics and objectivity as one might have hoped for.

HOWEVER - as I stated above - I am equally as happy with the "God said and it was" form of the Big Bang story as I am with ID ...

Neither of them gets to a complete YEC stage - but they both contribute to key points.

Recall that "Big Bang" was "increasingly refined from 5K to 50K"

It is rather the case, surely, that increasingly refined and more reliable measurements of the CMB support the validity of the theory,

Because they "hone in" on the NON-Big Bang estimates so perfectly?

That 'non-Big Bang predictions' of the background temperature of the Universe were more (or less) accurate than 'Big Bang predictions' is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not the CMB is a triumph for any sort of science at all.

That is almost a "religious" statement.

SCIENCE would say "IF theory-A PREDICTS this value and theory-B does NOT -- then this is NOT a AFFIRMING point for B".

You argue "all news is good news for theory-B".

As I said -- you have framed it as more of a religious argument.

Despite their strong words of affirmation declaring to the world that they now had “proof,†Big Bang supporters have had to admit that their theories about the CMB radiation are not really as concrete as they would like us to believe. Karen Fox confessed: “This radiation in and of itself doesn’t require the big bang theory per se be correct†(2002, p. 134). Fox, Karen (2002), The Big Bang Theoryâ€â€What It Is, Where It Came from, and Why It Works (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Hoyle, et al., were a little more blunt: “...[T]he existence of the microwave radiation does not necessarily have anything to do with a big bang†(2000, p. 313). Hoyle, Fred, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar (2000), A Different Approach to Cosmology (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).

In fact, while the Big Bang Theory predicts that cosmic background radiation should exist, it does not necessarily predict that it should exist in thermal equilibrium. As Berlinski went on to note: “Although Big Bang cosmology does predict that the universe should be bathed in a milky film of radiation, it makes no predictions about the uniformity of its temperature†(1998, p. 30). Berlinski, David (1998), “Was There a Big Bang?,†Commentary, pp. 28-38, February.

From the Wiki article on Cosmic microwave background radiation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation:
[quote:3de04]Although there were several previous estimates of the temperature of space...., these suffered from two flaws. First, they were measurements of the effective temperature of space, and did not suggest that space was filled with a thermal Planck spectrum; second, they are dependent on our special place at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy and did not suggest the radiation is isotropic. Moreover, they would yield very different predictions if Earth happened to be located elsewhere in the universe.

[/quote:3de04]

Your argument is that when "observations" fit another theory-A rather than B -- the story telling behind B needs to be adjusted so that it is still true - and it fits with observations as does A.

Again - one begins to wonder what kind of theory "could not survive" a continual morphing against the background of repeated failures to predict.

Having said that -- I find ID to be "better science" by far (in comparison) and I still find many things inthe Big Bang story to fit the Big-Bang Bible story.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Stop skipping around the main points. My whole point with saying "Gamow is wrong and thus the Big Bang did not occur" is that you frequently make points that are irrelevant

Step 1. Follow the points of the argument.

Let me know when you have caught up.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Stop skipping around the main points. My whole point with saying "Gamow is wrong and thus the Big Bang did not occur" is that you frequently make points that are irrelevant

Step 1. Follow the points of the argument.

Let me know when you have caught up.

Bob

Can you even make one useful post? You quoted my last post MINUS the point that I said is important. WHY IS THE UNIVERSE COOLING DOWN

 

[Snidey]

Also, Bob, you are confusing different types of predictions. Not all predictions are essential to what's being tested. Some are, and their failure would provide the theory with a serious hurdle. For example, find some modern fauna in strata with Cambrian fossils. That would at the least be a reason for evolutionists to do some serious explaining. Coincidentally, this is one of the ways in which evolution is falsifiable.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Also, Bob, you are confusing different types of predictions. Not all predictions are essential to what's being tested. Some are, and their failure would provide the theory with a serious hurdle. For example, find some modern fauna in strata with Cambrian fossils. That would at the least be a reason for evolutionists to do some serious explaining. Coincidentally, this is one of the ways in which evolution is falsifiable.

Aw come on, everyone knows the flood some how burried the fossils in layers in such a perfect way to not mix species that ToE shows us are millions of years apart.

Dinos aren't mixed in with cavemen because the dinos were heavier. They sank further down in the mud.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it your claim that the Big Bang proponents do NOT point to the findings of the CMB as confirmation of the Big Bang?

Are you aware of the debate between Big Bang and Steady State -- and "how it was popularly resolved among scientists in favor of the Big Bang"???

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I am puzzled as to why you regard estimates of the background temperature of the Universe as part of the confirming "predictive" (your quotation marks) nature of Big Bang theory.

Because of the obvious. Every presentation on the subject of the Big Bang known to mankind ALWAYS refers to the experiment of Penzias and Wilson as CONFIRMING the Big Ping for finding the CMB as "predicted".

The CMB was indeed predicted. The temperature of the CMB, however, was estimated by many cosmologists based on a number of variables and uncertainties that were reduced as more refined measuring and observation techniques became available.

YET they did not "predict" the isotrophic nature of the CMB and they did not "predict" the temperature -- in fact there WAS A PREDICTED temperature that MATCHEd -- and that is being "conveniently ignored".

That certain things later observed and measured were not originally predicted implies what? That science is not immediately omniscient? That an apparently more accurate temperature was predicted but in support of theories that have been pretty much overwhelmed by observations that tend to reinforce Big Bang theory implies what?

So -- not as "good science" in terms of politics and objectivity as one might have hoped for.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your complaint.

[quote:06eca]It is rather the case, surely, that increasingly refined and more reliable measurements of the CMB support the validity of the theory,

Because they "hone in" on the NON-Big Bang estimates so perfectly?[/quote:06eca]
Irrelevant. It is entirely possible to come up with the 'right' answer for the 'wrong' reasons. It is also entirely possible to come up with the 'right' answer as a result of nothimng more than coincidence.

[quote:06eca]That 'non-Big Bang predictions' of the background temperature of the Universe were more (or less) accurate than 'Big Bang predictions' is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not the CMB is a triumph for any sort of science at all.

That is almost a "religious" statement. [/quote:06eca]
No, I am only disagreeing with your argument that errors in the predicted temperature of the CMB in some way lessen the understanding of our Universe furthered by the predicted existence of CMB and its implications.

SCIENCE would say "IF theory-A PREDICTS this value and theory-B does NOT -- then this is NOT a AFFIRMING point for B".

And my point is that there is a qualitative difference between a confirming prediction and a qualified estimate.

You argue "all news is good news for theory-B".

No, this is your misinterpretation of the argument I have tried to make. Estimates of the likely CMB temperature were not confirming predictions of the existence of CMB and its significance.

As I said -- you have framed it as more of a religious argument.

No. See above.

Despite their strong words of affirmation declaring to the world that they now had “proof,†Big Bang supporters have had to admit that their theories about the CMB radiation are not really as concrete as they would like us to believe. Karen Fox confessed: “This radiation in and of itself doesn’t require the big bang theory per se be correct†(2002, p. 134). Fox, Karen (2002), The Big Bang Theoryâ€â€What It Is, Where It Came from, and Why It Works (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Why would I disagree with this qualification? Why would I not expect science to advance understanding? I haven't read Fox's book; does she elaborate at all on why (or why not) Big Bang theory is more or less likely to be correct? In other words, is this sentence merely a rhetorical device used by the author to introduce further discusssion of why, indeed, Big Bang theory appears to be correct after all?

Hoyle, et al., were a little more blunt: “...[T]he existence of the microwave radiation does not necessarily have anything to do with a big bang†(2000, p. 313). Hoyle, Fred, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar (2000), A Different Approach to Cosmology (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).

Likewise.

In fact, while the Big Bang Theory predicts that cosmic background radiation should exist, it does not necessarily predict that it should exist in thermal equilibrium. As Berlinski went on to note: “Although Big Bang cosmology does predict that the universe should be bathed in a milky film of radiation, it makes no predictions about the uniformity of its temperature†(1998, p. 30). Berlinski, David (1998), “Was There a Big Bang?,†Commentary, pp. 28-38, February.

I am uncertain as to Berlinski's credentials as a cosmologist or physicist. I am also uncertain what I am supposed to conclude from this comment.

Your argument is that when "observations" fit another theory-A rather than B -- the story telling behind B needs to be adjusted so that it is still true - and it fits with observations as does A.

You assume that theories A and B are mutually exclusive in terms of one given set of observations. I say that the process of refining observations and developing theory leads scientists to conclude whether theory A or theory B is the better supported explanation for observed phenomena.

Again - one begins to wonder what kind of theory "could not survive" a continual morphing against the background of repeated failures to predict.

Repeated failures to predict? So far all I have seen is estimates for the temperature of CMB that were not precisely correct. Again I stress that these were not confirming predictions but estimates.

Having said that -- I find ID to be "better science" by far (in comparison) and I still find many things inthe Big Bang story to fit the Big-Bang Bible story.

Fair enough.

 

[Snidey]

Is it your claim that the Big Bang proponents do NOT point to the findings of the CMB as confirmation of the Big Bang?

Are you aware of the debate between Big Bang and Steady State -- and "how it was popularly resolved among scientists in favor of the Big Bang"???

Bob

Is that last sentence serious? For several posts I've been trying to get you to address the fact that the universe is cooling down, which happens to be the primary reason the steady state theory was "defeated," and you ask me how the debate was resolved?

 

[BobRyan]

Snidey - I am sorry to have to continually point to "wrong - again" as the answer to your posts because I don't want you to feel discouraged...

“With neither theory fully acceptable to astronomers before the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the scientific credibility of the competing hypotheses was the determining factorâ€â€not the prevailing cultural climate among astronomers. In the light of the new discovery, the Big Bang theory was the clear winner for the simple reason that the steady-state model did not predict and could not reasonably account for the presence of the cosmic background radiation. On the other side, the Big Bang theory not only predicted the background radiation but required it.â€Â

 John C. Mather, John Boslough, The Very First Light, New York: Basic Books, 1996, pp. 51-52.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_bigbang.html

Bob

 

[Snidey]

What about my post was incorrect? And what in yours actually addresses the evidence for hte Big Bang? Your posts are loaded with quotes, usually lacking context, and devoid of anything resembling original thought.

 

[BobRyan]

Snidey -

excellent ad hominem -- and good pretending not to see the point. (since you seem to be striving to excell in both of those areas)

Other than that -- I am not sure what the purpose is for your response above.

The previous post of mine therefore "stands".

Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

Snidey -

excellent ad hominem -- and good pretending not to see the point. (since you seem to be striving to excell in both of those areas)

Other than that -- I am not sure what the purpose is for your response above.

The previous post of mine therefore "stands".

Bob

:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:
:o :o :o :o :o

Pot, may i introduce you to the black kettle.

 

[Snidey]

Bob, I asked what about my prior post was incorrect, and point out that you don't actually address evidence for the Big Bang (aside from denying that CMB is evidence at all lolz).

I try not to engage with you because you lack the ability to address the arguments of others, and 90% of your posts are either contextually flawed quotes of people far more intelligent than yourself, or declaring that your opponent just doesn't get it.

You have not made a single post with any content that I find even remotely interesting, ever. Patterson quotes are not only not interesting, but have been addressed over and over (even by Patterson). But because you are incapable of recognizing where you are wrong, you stand by your interpretation of Patterson's statements. Not only that, but you deem them an enormous amount of importance. This, from what I can tell, is partially because when correctly decontextualized, some of those quotes basically support the highly uninformed idea that evolution is a "story," and in part because quoting is how you avoid having to actually think about the topics at hand.

I recall hearing that you are actually a middle aged man, but correct me if I'm wrong. That someone your age can't see the enormous logical fallacies he repeatedly makes, refuses to admit ever being incorrect, and can't simply stand back and acknowledge that perhaps it is the leading experts in geology, biology, cosmology, etc. that are correct about the history of the world, is quite a sad tale.

 

[Dante-Alighieri]

I thought I'd share my 2 cents.

One of the most common flaws (and subsequently difficult phenomena to comprehend) about people's understanding (or lack thereof) of the big bang, is the questioning of 'what caused the big bang.'

To this I must respond with the only rational response, What makes you think the Big Bang needed a cause?

There are a couple of logical fallacies in the questioning of what caused the Big Bang, I'll explain:

Causality, though common in human experience, is not universal. Indeed, there may be many things in the universe that occur without cause (and a few things have been observed to occur without known cause; molecular decay for example).
Furthermore, "prior" to the big bang ('prior' being a bit of a misnomer), neither space nor time occurred (time cannot exist without space or light) and ergo, causality was no factor (as a cause always comes before an event). Ergo, there's no reason to think the big bang had a cause.
Furthermore,
This universe is governed by laws, however, the universe itself did not come about BY these laws, but rather, this universe is the origin of these laws. Space, time, the four universal forces, etc. are all products of the universe. It's an absurd notion to think that the singularity was under the influence of causality as causality only existed AFTER the big bang occurred.

Outside of this universe (and "before" the formation of the universe) there is no reason to think causality is a factor, so the universe does not need a cause and most likely simply occurred without a cause.



Dante

 

[platos_cave]

Not only do I disbelieve that there ever was a Big Bang, but I question that the Universe is even expanding. I think that conclusion has come from a misunderstanding of the behaviour of light.

Interesting how you provide absolutely no explanation.

 

[Crying Rock]

To this I must respond with the only rational response, What makes you think the Big Bang needed a cause?

Did the Big Bang and it's results begin to exist?

A little bird told me what ever begins to exist has a cause. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosm ... l_argument

 

[Barbarian]

Does anyone know the cause for the decay of a polonium atom at a specific moment in time?

If so, I'd like to know what it is. All the evidence indicates it's a totally random process.

 

[Rick W]

I'm still trying to get past gravity.
If all the matter in the universe was condensed to a relatively tiny volume wouldn't the gravity be so intense that it couldn't explode?

Why don't black holes explode?

 

[Barbarian]

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There was no explosion. Just an expansion of space.

 

[Rick W]

I don't know... That's not the way it's depicted on Discovery or anywhere else for that matter.
And those advocating the idea really need to choose a better word other than "Exploded".


Anyway it still leaves me wondering...
If all the matter in the universe was condensed to a relatively tiny volume wouldn't the gravity be so intense that it couldn't expand?