1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured CMB Electro Magnetic waves only seen on earth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by dad, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. dad

    dad Undefeated

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    christian
    Much meaning is attached to electromagnetic waves that stream into earth (and the solar system area). Among the meanings is that these waves represent heat in the CMB. There is good reason for this, because we know that these waves (at least where we observe them here on earth and area) do represent heat.

    However, since we have only seen the quanta (photons) in our time and space here, it would be wrong to assume that this represents the same thing far out in unknown space and time.

    After all they calculate radiant energy using time.


    "radiant energy may be calculated by integrating radiant flux (or power) with respect to time"

    Radiant energy - Wikipedia

    Additionally we have only seen these oscillations of electric and magnetic fields here at our point of observation (The fishbowl of earth and solar system area).

    Light has only bee seen here, so the speed that it moves here in our time and space is all we know. If space and/or time were different in far space then these oscillations and fields and etc could not be assumed to represent the universe at large. We may better think of it as representing how light and waves and fields operate/exist HERE in the fishbowl.

    Therefore the cosmic microwave background might not exist as we thought, but could just be how we see light and fields and waves in time and space here.

    In this case it cannot be used as evidence for any big bang. The only question is therefore...do we KNOW that time exists the same out there (and space) or not?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  2. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,401
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    This is the same point we were discussing in another thread. You are quite right that in science there is often an implicit assumption of uniformitarianism - the working assumption that conditions here and now are not "special" in some way, in other words, the laws of nature work the same here and now as at other times and places. (Perhaps in science we do not often enough remember that this is an assumption we make without thinking.)

    However, as I explained on that other thread, what science does is to make predictive models of reality. In doing so we apply Ockham's Razor. In other words, we do not introduce more hypotheses than are required to account for the observations. If the model works, i.e. successfully predicts observations that corroborate it, why would we add extra ideas?

    The fact is that the observed radiation we call the CMBR and the observed cosmological red shift are both consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis, without the need to suggest that the laws of physics are or were different elsewhere.

    Your demand that we "KNOW" these things is actually an unscientific way of looking at it. In science, the only things we "KNOW" (i.e. are real "facts") are suitably confirmed observations of nature. The theories are not facts but models, and the knowledge they represent is strictly speaking only provisional, pending the possible arrival of new data that does not fit. I would agree that in popular explanations of modern science, this point is almost never made and consequently non-scientists (and I regret to say even scientists, sometimes) can fall into the trap of treating the theories as "facts" in some way. They aren't: they are provisional models.

    It follows, therefore, that it is wrong to claim the Big Bang theory is invalid, just because we cannot "KNOW", for sure, the laws of physics are uniform in time and space. It is a model and for now it works, i.e. there is no evidence to suggest the laws of physics differ across time and space. So, in line with Ockham's Razor, we do not add this complicating hypothesis to our model.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,059
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Pi π
    As I have repeatedly explain to you, dad, if any of your claim different to the current observed scientific theories, then as a claimant of different view, then you are the one who must present evidence to back up your own claims.

    If you are saying that the law of physics, which include space and time, were different in the past, then where are your evidence to support your claim?

    You tends to ignore this simple request, or try to shift the burden of proof upon others.

    That’s not how it work. If you make a positive claim or positive assertion that differ from the current knowledge of science, then you must show evidence to back up your assertion/claim.

    Without the supporting evidences, then you are either don’t have evidence or you are making things up.

    If you don’t have evidence, then it would be wiser for you to stopping making claims that you cannot support.

    But I know you, dad, you would just make more claims that you cannot back up.
     
    #3 gnostic, Nov 8, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,604
    Ratings:
    +202
    Religion:
    Animism
    If so, this must also goes for "the laws of nature" BEFORE the time schedule of a Big Bang and the assumption of a beginning of time and a creation of the fundamental forces.
    I suggest you to revise this "provisional model" as it simply contradict your quoted sentense.
    No there is NO evidence to "suggest the laws of physics differ across time and space" but there is evidently all reasons for INCLUDING other forces but the weakest of them all, namely "gravity", which cannot be explained scientifically.
    I´m not sure it is in the line of Ochams Razor to assume that everything stems from almost nothing in a Big Bang. And adding different unseen "dark this and that" in a cosmological model most certainly aren´t in the line of Ochams Razor.
     
  5. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,604
    Ratings:
    +202
    Religion:
    Animism
    In my opinion the Electromagnetic Forces (different frequencies of “light”) governs everything in the Universe.

    Watch this video: “Electric Currents Create Cosmic Magnetic Fields” -
     
  6. 'mud

    'mud ~~ Life is Stuff ~~
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,533
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Religion:
    ~~ LIFE ~~
    Beyond inflation of the Cosmos,
    our imagination is left behind,
    we are invisible to the Cosmos.
    And we think we can figure it out.

    The inflation of the Cosmos,
    amongst an absolute void ?
    No energy to start with,
    no inertia to borrow,
    no ether to manipulate,
    no existence to collide with..,


    Fill in the empty spaces, or, are they `voids` ?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,059
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Pi π
    This above was followed by this below:
    I see no contradictions with exchemist‘s post, which I reposted what you quote below.

    Note that what I highlighted in blue, exchemist is talking about science behind the Big Bang, and what i highlighted in red is him talking about dad’s claim
    So the part where “there is no evidence to suggest the laws of physics differ across time and space.” exchemist is talking about dad having “no evidence” that “the laws of physics differ across time and space”.

    So exchemist is comparing what the Big Bang have to say about the laws of physics on the one hand, “being uniform”, but on the hand, he is pointing out where dad is wrong about the laws of physics “not being uniform”.

    Do you get what I am saying?

    There are no contradiction in that paragraph you quoted from exchemist. The problem is that you have misunderstood what exchemist is saying.
     
    #7 gnostic, Nov 8, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,059
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Who said anything about there being “nothing”?

    I think creationists have the tendencies to misunderstand the Big Bang, confusing the beginning with “nothingness”.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,401
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Thanks for this. I see, from the copy beamed to my email Inbox, you are responding to a poster I have had on Ignore for many months. I just got fed up with the half-arsed woo, I'm afraid. :D

    Dad, on the other hand, is at least drawing attention to some of the fundamental assumptions we make in the scientific method, which I think is a worthwhile exercise.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,059
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Woo or not, I have empty ignore list.

    I do have my bellyful of woo at times, but I just refused to respond to that thread, instead of ignoring all replies.
     
  11. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,401
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Good for you. You may be blessed with a more equable temperament than mine. I have a gene for red hair and freckles so, like my Celtic forbears, I find can get riled by persistent idiocy. Liberal use of the Ignore feature improves my mood and helps me avoid trouble with the moderators. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. dad

    dad Undefeated

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    christian
    I think it would be better to admit one doesn't really know either way.

    To say something is consistent with a belief has little to no meaning. You could say that if magic custard..spaghetti monster..a magic turtle..fairies..made the universe, they would have left it was we see it. Careful about trying to fit observations INTO a belief system and calling that science. The issue in this thread is whether the slight differences observed from earth of the universe at large are even really heat at all. As the OP mentioned, yes, when light or other waves GET here, they oscillate and exist in a certain predictable way. That is connected to time, as the OP also points out. It is fine to talk about how fast light can and does move HERE, or how waves behave HERE, and etc etc. But science has not done that, they have projected this to infinity and beyond. Here, in this thread people can make a case for how it is not projection or belief, but knowledge and fact..if they can.
    Nature is just something that exists at the moment on earth and area (solar system and area). Yes it is facts when talking about HERE. But if you are claiming that we must apply our space and time to all of the unknown expanses of the universe for no reason, that is NOT knowing of course.


    Right, to the point of governments requiring the beliefs (such as TOE) in schools. To the point that claims are made ceaselessly in science articles, encyclopedias, magazines, documentaries etc etc etc etc etc.
    It follows that since you cannot claim it right, and God says otherwise, that people should believe whatever they like. If time is different way out there, praytell, how could the forces of nature be the same, because all are time dependent?!
    Sitting in the fishbowl with colored glasses will make things far away look a certain way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. dad

    dad Undefeated

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    christian
    Rather than offer some vague so called explanation that was supposedly offered somewhere, try to address the topic.
    This thread is not about the past on earth or what nature may or may not have been like. It is about nature here now and how we live here and only see light from distant stars HERE. Would you at least admit that if time or/and space were not the same in the far universe, that the time dependent things we see here (like speed of light etc) would lose meaning? (that would include the CMB)
    So I can turn around what you said..

    Without the supporting evidences, then you are either don’t have evidence or you are making things up.

    If you don’t have evidence, then it would be wiser for you to stopping making claims that you cannot support.


    Be reasonable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. dad

    dad Undefeated

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    christian
    Your video seems to be preaching rather than on point here. Show us a quote from the video that even addresses time in the far universe?
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,037
    Ratings:
    +16,265
    Religion:
    Atheist
  16. dad

    dad Undefeated

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    christian
    Nice try. So we need to know the distance to said SN. We also need to know what time there is like. You canot do that by sitting here in OUR time and space watching how long things take HERE! Here is a gift for you...man has been no where else ever. Light and waves are only seen here. The time anything takes in light ot in info in the light etc is ONLY observed here. In other words of necessity we see things in our time! That can't tell us how much time was/is involved in some unknown part of the universe.

    Oh, and to know distances we also require time to exist uniformly all along the way. We can't and do not know that this is the case for the distant universe.
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,037
    Ratings:
    +16,265
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Since it is a supernova we can know that it is not very close to us. They sort of go "BOOM!!" very loudly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,059
    Ratings:
    +4,136
    Religion:
    Pi π
    There you go, the famous, or more precisely your signature move:
    1. make some illogical and bogus claims,
    2. followed by some clumsy dodging and evading any responsibility of backing up your claim with evidence.
    You are so transparent, dad.

    The problem is that you are still stubbornly claiming the notion that time and space were different, then so must be the laws of physics be different today.

    So unless you can evidence that past and present laws of physics were different, then all of your claims are unsubstantiated irrational claims.

    It isn’t just your claim that today’s physics don’t the cosmology of the universe, you have also said the same thing about physics on Earth were different with pre-flood and post flood. You couldn’t back up your claim with evidence too, about physics operating differently before the Genesis Flood.

    But this thread isn’t about the Genesis Flood. But you are still making tenuous claims about science you understand, and your infamous evasiveness of putting up evidence to back up your claim. You are infamous for running away.

    You are doing this same lies again, but this time in regarding to the Big Bang, a model of physical cosmology that you have no understanding of.

    If you REALLY don’t people continuously requesting that you bring some evidence to support your claims, THEN STOP MAKING POSITIVE ASSERTIONS OR POSITIVE CLAIMS!

    You say that the today’s laws of physics don’t apply in the past, then YOU MUST BE THE ONE TO SHOW EVIDENCE that they were indeed “different”.

    Just because you don’t understand the evidence and science behind the Big Bang, or behind nature, it doesn’t mean that all scientists, researchers and engineers have their heads buried in the same sand and same beach where you have buried your head in.

    @Subduction Zone have been trying to get creationists, like yourself, to learn what scientific evidence is or isn’t, but every single ones of you, refused to learn the basic.

    His willingness to help all you creationists, is that so you (all) will stop repeating the same mistakes, over and over and over and over again.

    This rejection to learn basic science, is what make you not only ignorant, but repeating the same mistakes in other threads, also make you all look like liars.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,401
    Ratings:
    +3,188
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    What you seem to overlook is my point that theories have to fit observations. Magic custard and spaghetti monsters would not do that.

    So it is not the case that any old rubbish will do, as you seem to be suggesting. The rigour of science consists of insisting that any theory has to be corroborated by observation.

    Clearly the more different sorts of observation are found to fit the theory, the stronger one's confidence in it becomes. For instance, quantum theory was originally able to account for observations ranging from the photo-electric effect, to black body radiation, to atomic spectra. So people were very confident it was on the right track to being a good model.

    So the theories of science are not just another "belief system", like religion, at all. They are founded on, and stand or fall by, reproducible observation of nature. This is a basic distinction that must be taken on board in order to debate or critique science in a serious manner.

    What is written in scripture is not reproducible observation of nature, obviously. It is literature. As such, it is not considered by science.
     
  20. dad

    dad Undefeated

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,909
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    christian
    Very close when talking about thousands of years (light years) means nothing. Man has not even sent a half witted probe even to one light day yet!
     
Loading...