Big Bang in Trouble

[blü 2]

So there is no God, and science is our friend. Got it.

Well, in your view, God has laid on this Covid pandemic ─ it can't have happened if [he] didn't want it to ─ and in my view, wherever it came from, science will do what's necessary to counter it.

One of the nice things about science is that it actually does things. It ain't always perfect, but it's a very long way ahead of whatever's in second place.

 

[dad]

Well, in your view, God has laid on this Covid pandemic ─ it can't have happened if [he] didn't want it to ─ and in my view, wherever it came from, science will do what's necessary to counter it.

One of the nice things about science is that it actually does things. It ain't always perfect, but it's a very long way ahead of whatever's in second place.

Off topic.

Guess it is embarrassing to address the topic eh? Ha

 

[blü 2]

Off topic.

You made it the topic in your OP when you declared that "creation" was a better explanation.

So I've addressed the topic and you're now aware that magic explains nothing and that 'creation' is a creation myth from an old book.

So we've traveled and arrived, and I can leave you to it. I recall you like to have the last word, so it's yours.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would I care about an imaginary timeline?? Seriously?
The issue here is that science admits knowing almost nothing about a very important part of the BB theory.

So what, if you don't believe anything it says anyway?

Either you care what the science says and what evidence it has or you don't. Nobody is claiming science knows everything or has all the answers, so making a fuss about it when you find articles that explore those unknowns is rather silly. Doubly so as you simply ignore the solid evidence it does have when it doesn't match your literal reading of an old myth.

We have very solid evidence for the 13 billion year history of the universe but there are some unknowns, mostly about the very first fractions of a second.

 

[dad]

You made it the topic in your OP when you declared that "creation" was a better explanation.

That has nothing to do with your covid 19 and blasphemy and other diversions.

So I've addressed the topic and you're now aware that magic explains nothing and that 'creation' is a creation myth from an old book.

Did you dispute that science knows almost nothing at all about the claimed phase of the BB theory? If so, I must have missed it. If not then happy ignorance!

 

[dad]

So what, if you don't believe anything it says anyway?

Try to realize science should not be about belief!

Either you care what the science says and what evidence it has or you don't.

I care enough to know, and they have almost nothing at all for the key phase of the BB that they claim happened, and upon which the other phases depend totally!

Nobody is claiming science knows everything or has all the answers, so making a fuss about it when you find articles that explore those unknowns is rather silly.

I do not argue with them when they claim to know nothing! I do reject their claims when they are based on what they themselves admit are based on almost nothing at all!

Doubly so as you simply ignore the solid evidence it does have when it doesn't match your literal reading of an old myth.

Why type silly words with no meaning? There IS no solid evidence or ANY evidence for the key phase of the BB fable that they not only still claim, but base the rest of the fable on!!

We have very solid evidence for the 13 billion year history of the universe but there are some unknowns,

Boy did someone sell you a cheap bridge!

mostly about the very first fractions of a second.

False. That is what they admit to! The rest is unknown also and a result of ignorance and misunderstanding and pure belief.

I kid you not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is one way to describe a little hot soup speck burping out the universe. However, since they do claim that the observable universe originated in that once small soup, that is all about origin.

1. the big bang is not a theory of origins. I can only repeat myself.
2. the big bang doesn't mention any "soup"

You might want to read up a bit, from a proper source. It will help you prevent saying stupid things.

Or, if you misread what red-shifted light is really all about, the so called expanding would be viewed another way.

First of all, red-shifting is a well demonstrated phenomenon.
Second, you think that red-shifting is the only evidence for expanding space? That's cute.

Might want to read up on Einstein's theories and how these predicted that the universe is expanding (about 15 years before Hubble confirmed this independently).

Remember dark stuff is an invention to explain what we see out in unknown space, so any problem involved with it is really just a problem in your comprehension.

Might want to read up on why the dark stuff placeholders are used as well.

No

Yes.

The prediction depends on a series of things a pile of beliefs that cannot be proven.

The predictions are the things that makes theories testable.

Basically the so called prediction is just a crass attempt to claim credit for creation background radiation for your fable.

No.

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

The predictions preceeded the measurements.
First prediction dates to 1948. This prediction was refined further during the 50's.
In the early 60s, several other scientists independently concluded the same prediction.
Later in that decade, the predictions were confirmed with actual measurements.

This wasn't a post hoc thing. First there was the discovery of expanding space. Then LeMaitre (a christian) formulated the big bang theory hypothesis. Then, by working out the theoretical math model of the big bang, the prediction of CMB was made for the first time. 20 years after that, it was measured in reality and the prediction was confirmed.

Again, you should really inform yourself on the subject matter instead of pretending to be an expert who knows better then the actual experts.

True. The ignorance runs deep and has been here awhile.

And will remain there for the time being.

That never stopped them from making stuff up based on what they admit not knowing!

That's self-contradictory. When you admit to be ignorant, then one isn't making up stuff.

You're the one that is making up stuff, off course.

 

[dad]

1. the big bang is not a theory of origins. I can only repeat myself.
2. the big bang doesn't mention any "soup"

"For the first split second after the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but an extremely hot "soup" of quarks and gluons"
Early Universe 'Soup' Cooked Up in Weird Plasma Blobs | Space


You might want to read up a bit, from a proper source. It will help you prevent saying stupid things.

First of all, red-shifting is a well demonstrated phenomenon.

On earth and in the area..yes. Of course. We also get a similar shifting of light the universe, but why is a matter of speculation.

Second, you think that red-shifting is the only evidence for expanding space? That's cute.

No, but if you dare, please mention others!

Might want to read up on Einstein's theories and how these predicted that the universe is expanding (about 15 years before Hubble confirmed this independently).

You might want to offer a source.

Might want to read up on why the dark stuff placeholders are used as well.

You can provide a source and explain what you think you are trying to say. Ha.

The predictions are the things that makes theories testable.

Failed predictions then mean..? You would test the far universe...how? Ha.

The predictions preceeded the measurements.

The pile of fables that cannot be proved are the basis for predictions. We could also predict that a creation background radiation would exist. Yawn.

This wasn't a post hoc thing. First there was the discovery of expanding space.

No. There was a belief. You attributed certain things to earth centred reasons.

Then LeMaitre (a christian) formulated the big bang theory hypothesis. Then, by working out the theoretical math model of the big bang, the prediction of CMB was made for the first time. 20 years after that, it was measured in reality and the prediction was confirmed.

The Catholic proposed a "primeval atom"! Ha. Go ahead and show the original prediction and the events that followed (time for cooling etc) Ha. I dare you.

That's self-contradictory. When you admit to be ignorant, then one isn't making up stuff.

Fact, actually. The BB theory rests on the early stages. Without that, there could be nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

I care enough to know, and they have almost nothing at all for the key phase of the BB that they claim happened, and upon which the other phases depend totally!

The evidence for the other phases does not depend on how it started. I don't need to know anything about when and where somebody was born in order to see the evidence that they can write nonsense on a message board.

 

[ChristineM]

Then you were not telling the truth. Thanks for that. The only thing I said in the OP was this -

"Creation is a better explanation."

I quoted an article in a science news site.

You provided the OP, i im assuming that you actually know what you posted.

Also when i commented on the error you replied and have done several times since. Both defending the 50 trillionth claim and mocking my attempts to show the error. So i think your post 126 is as far from the truth as the rest of your bogus claims

 

[dad]

The evidence for the other phases does not depend on how it started.

The evidence is belief tainted, and belief based. The methodical misrepresentation of the distant universe and it's origins and make up. The interpretation of what shifts light in the far universe for example. They assumed it would be the same thing that affected light here. However time is involved and is all important in determining what shifted light is all about out there.
Just because you write on a message board that time must exist uniformly in the universe and base distances and sizes of objects out there on that assumption does not mean it is correct.
No part of the pile of beliefs that comprise the BB theory can be proven or supported. It is a pile of fables stacked on fables.

 

[dad]

You provided the OP, i im assuming that you actually know what you posted.

I assume if you object to a scientific article that you would cite the relevant sentence or whatever, and give a source to support your case against it.

 

[ChristineM]

I assume if you object to a scientific article that you would cite the relevant sentence or whatever, and give a source to support your case against it.

I did, and you know it, its what we are discussing, so wriggle all you want, once again it makes no difference to your failure.

 

[ratiocinator]

No part of the pile of beliefs that comprise the BB theory can be proven or supported. It is a pile of fables stacked on fables.

As usual your total lack of any grasp of science whatsoever is showing. Science is about building models, making predictions using them, and seeing if they match observations and experiments. The BB model does very well in that regard.

You're forever claiming that time or whatever may have been different in the past or is different at large distances, but none of that explains how we can build a model that makes successful predictions by assuming that it's the same. There is no reason to think that any such model would be possible unless it had been deliberately set up like that (there is a god who is out to deceive us, for example).

When you consider that we've made multiple models of different aspects of the world (cosmology to evolution and geology) and that they also fit with each other as well as with observations and experiments, then to deny that it is evidence or characterise it as fables, is totally absurd, and becomes rolling on the floor comical from somebody who believes in a literal interpretation of entirely evidence-free, actual fables.

 

[dad]

I did, and you know it, its what we are discussing, so wriggle all you want, once again it makes no difference to your failure.

If you don't want to quote the relevant part of the article you have a gripe with, or post a link to where you did quote it, you are not being honest. I see you avoid the crux of the matter, which is how they admit knowing almost nothing. If you did that you might be considered wise.

 

[ChristineM]

If you don't want to quote the relevant part of the article you have a gripe with, or post a link to where you did quote it, you are not being honest. I see you avoid the crux of the matter, which is how they admit knowing almost nothing. If you did that you might be considered wise.

I have, i am not wasting my time repeating myself just because you want to play stupid games.

 

[dad]

As usual your total lack of any grasp of science whatsoever is showing. Science is about building models, making predictions using them, and seeing if they match observations and experiments. The BB model does very well in that regard.

Building beliefs onto beliefs is nothing like that. So called science is not science, in case you missed that. So called science is fable mongering and belief based. Real science deals with reality and actual present nature forces and laws etc.

Now if only science would actually be honest and seek truth, we might have gotten somewhere.

An example of wondrous possibilities that science may have missed is easy to find.
There is a mysterious magnetic field anomaly apparently.

"Unexplained anomaly weakening Earth’s magnetic field is EVOLVING and SPLITTING in two, warn scientists

...The unexplained force, referred to as the South Atlantic Anomaly, is an area of reduced magnetic intensity that extends from South America to southwest Africa.
...the latest readings from the agency’s Data, Innovation and Science Cluster show a second anomaly is forming off West Africa. Researchers still don’t understand the risks associated with this more recent development."

Unexplained anomaly weakening Earth’s magnetic field is EVOLVING and SPLITTING in two, warn scientists

Knowing real history and timing and predictions of the future from the bible, one could look at this as a potentially interesting development. Why?

The magnetic reversals were rapid and occurred at the time when the rapid separation of continents occurred. (science doesn't know this and goes by beliefs on old ages)
In the future, it is likely that the continents will again rapidly move, this time back together, in a time when all islands move away and all mountains are levelled to the ground and all tall buildings fall. It seems logical to assume that when that time comes rapid magnetic reversals will also occur. So, using real fact and knowledge, the anomaly gets interesting.

Real science is interesting!

You're forever claiming that time or whatever may have been different in the past or is different at large distances,

No. Not on earth. We know what time was like here, at least to a large degree. In deep space even now, we do NOT. What was likely different on EARTH in the far past was nature. Forces, laws etc.

but none of that explains how we can build a model that makes successful predictions by assuming that it's the same.

That depends on what you think success is.

When cosmology failed to predict the rings and etc from sn1987a, was that success? When they do expect things due to predictions, and it turns out wrong, is that success? When a pile of beliefs are added together, and none of them can stand on their own, any prediction that results is a joke. Even if some demon inspired some people to realize that any creation event such as the BB would leave a residual temperature, they forget that so would creation by God!

 

[dad]

I have, i am not wasting my time repeating myself just because you want to play stupid games.

You cannot produce the quote or link to it then that you are griping about.

Let's have honest debate in this thread. Bye bye.

 

[Mike.Hester]

The big bang was coined as a joke.What truly happened was a rapid expansion of the universe and time was set. Scientist can measure up until 300,000 after the start of the expansion. Two American scientist working for Bell Laboratories confirmed the cosmic radiation background noise.

 

[dad]

The big bang was coined as a joke.What truly happened was a rapid expansion of the universe and time was set.

Nice story. Too bad you don't even know what time is though eh? How can you prove time was set in the unknown past?

Scientist can measure up until 300,000 after the start of the expansion.

By using a set of beliefs. That is not measuring, that is applying beliefs to observations.

Two American scientist working for Bell Laboratories confirmed the cosmic radiation background noise.

Better called creation remnant noise. Big deal.

The original estimations/predictions were 5k and 28k! You think a guess spread of over 500% error margin is a prediction!!?

I could probably hire a corner psychic with a success rate ten times better than that!

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

"As the universe expanded and cooled there came a point when the radiation (photons) decoupled from the matter. The radiation cooled and is now at 2.73 Kelvin. The fact that the spectrum (see figure) of the radiation is almost exactly that of a black body implies that it could not have had its origin through any prosaic means."
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

So a prediction of 5K seems a little off? Then there is the claimed cooling over billions of years! Prove it!

As the OP says, a creation belief fits. We do not need your pile of beliefs at all.