Quote:
Quote by: Pale RIder  The fact that you are unaware that the acceptance of the big bang theory requires the acceptance of miracles surprises me. |
Perhaps the miracles are required only to fill in the void of ignorance.
Quote:
|
So, the miracles you must accept in order to accept the religion of the big bang.
|
It only seems like a religion if you don't understand it.
Quote:
|
As you are suirely aware, modern science theorizes that the universe as we see it is the debris of a fabulous explosion with the fragments of that explosion still flying away in every direction.
|
Actually, I am aware that what you describe is not the big bang theory.
Quote:
|
Lift up the corner and look underneath (so to speak) and there are some terrible problems with the big bang theory that no one in the scientific community (to my knowledge) even wants to begin to try to answer.
|
Actually, reputable scientists want very much to solve the problems associated with the big bang theory. The reason that you are unaware of it is that you are not associated with the scientific community. In fact, you aren't even aware of the problems.
Quote:
|
Imagine that we are seeing the universe as it exists today as a film.
|
A simple analogy sometimes used to illustrate a complex idea. However, your use of it as if it were real only displays how little you know.
Quote:
|
It is an infinitely hot, and infinitely small (zero diameter) and infinitely curved (round) pointlike dimension and it contains all of the matter and energy in the universe.
|
Nope. Not according to the big bang theory. Actually, the initial state of the big bang isn't known. The best that cosmology has been able to do is to describe what it may have been like at about 10E-43 seconds. There was no matter, just energy and a plasma of quarks, electrons and other elementary particles. At about 10E-14 seconds, the strong force decoupled and became distinct, followed by the decoupling of the electromagnetic and weak forces at about 10E-10 seconds. After this point actual matter could form as protons. The residual radiation from this period can still be seen in the cosmic background radiation. After about 3 minutes protons and neutrons were able to bind to form the first nuclei of atoms.
Quote:
|
This part should be easy. What is a trillion bazillion times zero? The answer is zero no matter how many times you figure it.
|
What a laughable display of a lack of knowledge.
Quote:
|
I have recieved responses that suggest that the question has no meaning.
|
Apparently you didn't listen and didn't bother to learn enough to realize that they were right. It is apparent from your discussion of time that you don't know anything about relativity either.
Essentially, your argument is that because you don't understand the modern theories of science, they must be wrong. Not that you have made any effort to learn - obviously you haven't.
Quote:
|
As our instruments grow more sensitive, we can see more, and see further than we have ever been able to before and the more we see, the less likely the big bang becomes.
|
Just not true. There have been other theories developed, but none is as accepted as the big bang theory.
Quote:
|
We have known for some time about the existence of background radiation in the universe.
|
Indeed we have.
Quote:
|
...this background radiation was absolutely uniform in every direction. No matter which direction one looks in space, there it was and it was exactly the same. A dead flat, constant 3 degree Kelvin cold.
|
Actually, it is the same in every direction but it is not uniform. It is almost uniform. COBE and WMAP have found irregularities.
Quote:
|
It was then determined, and reported by the faithful, that the fact that the radiation was uneven and variable was the final nail in the creationist coffin and was the ultimate proof of the big bang.
|
That's comical. Science couldn't care less what you want to believe. You can believe in your 6 days and magical being if you want. The many scientists involved in the big bang research made no statements about creationism. To make such a claim is either ignorance or a lie.
Quote:
Quote by: Pale RIder In 1995, or maybe 1996 some findings were made with the Hubble telescope that if they are accepted as being correct, deal a major blow to the big bang theory. The pathetic state of the religion of the big bang scientific community was pretty well summed up in a single paragraph from the report.
“The basic theory of cosmology,that the universe burst forth in a big bang from a tiny volume long ago remains intact. But the details must be revised, or explanations of stallar physics changed, to get stars older than the universe” |
Did you happen to notice that it says that the big bang theory still holds? My be is that you didn't read that report, especially since you don't tell us what report it is and where it was published. My be is you pulled that quote off of some creationist site. I suspect that it wasn't from peer reviewed literature anyway.
Quote:
|
In short, with the Hubble telescope, the astronomers were finding 16 billion year old globular clusters in an 8 billion year old universe. Miraculous is it not?
|
No. Why should it be? Do you know what globular clusters are? Are you not aware that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old? Are you not aware that about 150 globular clusters that are associated with the Milky Way have been observed?
Quote:
|
In order to maintain the big bang theory, scientists theorized inflation. They claim that if they could ignore the laws of physics (your subject!) for a millionth of a millionth, of a millionth of a second
|
You reveal yourself as a liar since I very clearly stated that I am not a physicist. However, I certainly know more than you. Your representation of the inflation period is grossly in error. It does not violate the laws of physics but actually arises out of the consequences of the laws of physics (that of course are far beyond your ability to grasp.)
Quote:
|
Now we have the scientific community claiming two miracles in the process of the big bang.
|
Actually, you haven't pointed out a single miracle, only scientific theory that you don't understand and that you haven't bothered to try to learn. Even if you were to point out something of which science is ignorant, that doesn't make it a miracle. To postulate a magical being that poofed everything into existance from nothing is magic.
Quote:
|
I am all for science, but the claim of two miracles is just one two many for any scientific theory to hold water with me.
|
But you don't seem to understand science, so what holds water with you is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
No, you made a fallacious circumstantial ad hominem attack upon him. Suggesting that since he is not a professional physicist, he simply can't speak on the matter
|
Nope. He touted his own qualifications and therefore the correctness of his views by claiming to be a amateur physicist. I merely asked him to substantiate that claim.
Quote:
|
He stated that the theory was weak. You attacked him rather than demonstrating the strenght of the theory to him.
|
Actually I asked him to substantiate his claimed expertise to make such claims. Since he didn't give any reasons why the theory is weak, how could I prove him wrong?
Quote:
|
Here, you make the same logical mistake again. Suggesting that my scientific credentials have anything at all to do with the accuracy, or inaccuracy of the information that I presented.
|
But it does. Obviously, you have no credentials because much of what you presented is based on your complete lack of understanding of cosmology.
Quote:
|
While I do hold two advanced degrees (in hard sciences) they are irrelavent to the discussion.
|
I doubt it. However, if you actually had studied cosmology or physics, what you had to say would be relevant.
Quote:
|
I have either exposed the inherent weaknesses in the theory or I have not.
|
You have not.
Quote:
|
The onus...babble-babble-babble...rebuttal.
|
You didn't point out any miracles associated with the big bang. Do you know what a miracle is?
Quote:
|
I suppose there are also the options of holding to your logical fallacy and impotently demanding some irrelavent scientific credentials,
|
Better than impotently claiming credentials that you don't have.
Quote:
|
or slinking away from the discussion all together. Or you might edit my spelling (I deliberately misspelled a few words to give you ammo if you need it) or correct my grammar or syntax and simply complain about that.
|
Actually, you are afraid that you misspelled some words (you did) and want to pretend that it was intentional.
Please try to educate yourself before you speak. You are making yourself look foolish. Try reading these:
Ferris, Timothy. 1977
The Red Limit. Harper Collins Publishers. New York.
____. 1997.
The Whole Shebang. Simon & Schuster. New York.
____. 1988.
Coming of Age in the Milky Way. Harper Collins Publishers. New York.
Greene, Brian. 1999.
The Elegant Universe. W.W. Norton & Company. New York
____. 2004.
The Fabric of the Cosmos. Random House. New York
Silk, Joseph. 2001.
The Big Bang. Henry Holt and Company. New York.
Smoot, George and Davidson, Keay. 1993.
Wrinkles in Time. Avon Books. New York.
Tyson, Neil deGrasse and Goldsmith, Donald. 2004.
Origins. W.W. Norton & Company. New York.
Ferris writes quite well and is easy to understand, while Greene and Silk may be a bit beyond your apparent understanding. Smoot and Tyson are also quite good. While some of these books are old, they still go far beyond explaining your objections, and may even lead to an understanding on your part.
Nov 30, 2007, 06:21 pm
.
