• 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!

gnostic

The Lost One
And what then about the woo of "a primordial atom which created everything in a Big Bang" which even cannot be verificated scientifically? Even the better of ancient Myths of Creation are not that superstitious.
There is nothing woo about the existence of the hydrogen and helium atoms in the early universe.

Stars have been known to form around area of ionized hydrogen known as H II Region, can be found in Giant Molecular Cloud (GMC). GMC that you can find like in nebulas, like Orion Nebula and Eagle Nebula. These clouds act as stellar nurseries.

Are you denying that stars cannot form in H II Region of nebulas, when Orion Nebula is so close to the Earth?

We know that the cloud of hydrogen can coalesce together and become dense enough to gravitationally pull more hydrogen, making it denser. When such such dense cloud forms in space, they often take shape of sphere. But in this proto-star stage of star formation, the sphere would have developed several concentric layers, outer layers and the core.

The core is always denser than the outer layers, as well as having higher temperature than the outer layers.

When the core reach critical temperature, the core will become enough to trigger nuclear fusion, thus fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium atom. This basic fusion is known as proton-proton chain reaction, a type of fusion in the star’s core, generally known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

There are other types of Stellar Nucleosynthesis, that instead of fusing hydrogen, more massive stars can fuse into heavier atoms, eg Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) Cycle, but these stars have to be at least 1.3 mass of our Sun, with even higher core’s temperature than the sun’s core, to trigger such nucleosynthesis.

We known that once there are no hydrogen nuclei left to fuse at the core, if the core hot enough, it could cause helium atoms to fuse into heavier atoms, like carbon atom, or the temperature cause collapse that could trigger supernova.

Explosion, like a supernova, can fuse even heavier atoms, such as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, nickel and iron atoms, which is different type of Nucleosynthesis - Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

Past supernovas are most likely responsible for all the the heavier elements being introduced into this system, before the formation of our Solar System - elements that are found on planets, planetesimals and asteroids.

So yes, lighter elements can form into heavier elements.

You do have some basic understanding of nuclear physics, don’t you?

What I said about Stellar Nucleosynthesis, hydrogen atoms forming into heavier helium atom, when it reach the right temperature, is similar to the explosion of hydrogen bomb or thermonuclear bomb. It is the same hydrogen-into-helium process, requiring very high heat.

The science is there, Native. There is no woo in them. The woo comes from your belief in ancient myths, mixing them with modern science. I am only engineer, not a physicist, but even I can tell you are speaking woo when you talk of the Milky Way, and mixing Hathor or other sky deities.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The only time, when a model is UNFALSIFIABLE, is when there are ZERO EVIDENCE or ZERO OBSERVATION or ZERO TESTS.
An unfalsifiable model is a model THAT IS UNTESTABLE!
I know! Try to test the "Big Bang" itself!

And all you have left is CIRCUMSTANTIAL INDICATIONS which is interpreted to confirm the untestable Big Bang = Ad hoc assumptions, wichfull thinking and hindsight bias and even an invented "dark energy" because the prime prediction of "an expanding universe" failed.
And in the case of the Big Bang theory, it is falsifiable, not unfalsifiable, because there have been testable observation and evidence, for examples, Redshift and CMBR.
STILL: The ASSUMED Big Bang is untestable and therefore unfalsifiable! And all the rest is CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOC ASSUMTIONS.
The only way for you to claim that the Big Bang theory is unfalsifiable is to wish away the decades of evidence and data, as if they don’t exist.
Of course I don´t wish away any astrophysical and cosmological data. I just question if the data is correctly interpreted. And if thinking of a measurement of "a still increasing Big Bang expansion of the Universe" there is obviously something wrong with the scientific measuring method and interpretation. (But then the cosmologists always can invent and add a "dark energy" crutch)

I asked you if you have made some reserach for critical articles of astrophysics and cosmology, which you obviously haven´t. Well let me help you with this:

About Redshift and CMBR
Halton Arp - Halton Arp - Wikipedia

Anomalous Redshift of Some Galactic Objects - Anomalous Redshift of Some Galactic Objects

NASAs Version of Photoshop Generating Anisotropy Maps. -

Full Sky Maps and Point Sources Tall Tales from Planck! -

The Herouni Antenna The Death of the Big Bang! -
Why do you talk of science when you have no idea what you are talking about?
Why do you talk of science without even trying to falsify what you´re talking about?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
There is nothing woo about the existence of the hydrogen and helium atoms in the early universe.
You´re quoting out of context. I was discussing the crazy idea of Big Bang ITSELF and "ONE primordial ATOM".
In several ancient Myths of Creation the helium and hydrogen atoms were/are described as "The Cosmic Ocean" or the "Primordial Waters" which is described as an eternal stage in the Universe.
Past supernovas are most likely responsible for all the the heavier elements being introduced into this system, before the formation of our Solar System - elements that are found on planets, planetesimals and asteroids.
Again, if you´ve done your own critical reseach, you would have found "super-novaes" to "explode several times" which of course debunk the very idea of forming elements, i.e. the "Stellar Nucleosynthesis". Read of the debunking here

I´m afraid you´re just swallowing the consensus ideas raw and take these as the only truth about everyting - and at the same time accusing your fellow debaters for knowing nothing.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I am only engineer, not a physicist, but even I can tell you are speaking woo when you talk of the Milky Way, and mixing Hathor or other sky deities.
I don´t care as you´re not even a skilled comparative mythologist and just wishing mythical data away.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
I know! Try to test the "Big Bang" itself!
What do you think the Redshifts and CMBR are, Native?

Swiss cheese?

Tests are any observations or evidences that can be detected, quantified, measured, compared, verified/refuted.

Mind you, not all the premises in the Big Bang theory have been tested, but since there have already evidence to support the theory, BB is falsifiable, some areas of BB remained theoretical and still hypothetical, but as far as the matter of expanding universe is concerned, that much have been verified and tested.

But let me remind you that it is still active in investigation and in research, and they are still seeking to find answers, which is a hell more than other theoretical models.

And even more so than your interpretations of ancient myths regarding to the Milky Way that are more woo than substances.

For you to say BB theory isn’t falsifiable, show that you don’t know what falsifiable means.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Why do you talk of science without even trying to falsify what you´re talking about?
You still don’t know what you are talking about.

In regarding to the REDSHIFT that were first predicted 1924-25 by Robertson and 1927 by Lemaître, not only it has shown to be “falsifiable” and “testable”, the discoveries in 1929, by Hubble, showed that galaxies are moving away from each other, so it is also “tested”. And they have using Redshifts ever since, at other observatories, both terrestrials and in space, and through both optical and radio telescopes.

To say that it isn’t falsifiable in regarding to the redshift, show that you don’t know what falsifiable means.

Likewise, BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) and CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) were both predicted by the team of Gamow, Alpher and Herman in 1948; both BBN and CMBR related to how matters, the earliest atoms formed (eg hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium), millions of years before the first generation of stars, and millions more before the first planets after the demises of earliest stars. CMBR discovery in 1964, by Penzias and Wilson.

CMBR is the measurements of its temperature of the residual radiation that emitted from start of the Recombination Epoch (377,000 years after the Big Bang), when photons decoupled from electrically neutral atoms, caused by electrons bonding with ionized atoms for the first time.

The mapping of the universe’s CMBR and the temperature difference, provided measurements of what the universe was like at that time. And it is this 1964 discovery that make the model about BBN & CMBR “falsifiable”.

And since then (1964), other observatories have managed to verify the discoveries with their own measurements, including space telescopes that were capable of measuring cosmic background radiation (CBR), including space telescopes, like
  • COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), launched 1989;
  • WMAP (Wilkinson’s Microwave Anisotropy Probe), 2001;
  • and the Planck spacecraft, 2009-2013.
That the observatories and space programs provided observations and data, showed that the Big Bang in regarding to CMBR, is falsifiable. That these evidence and data are available for examination, but you say it isn’t falsifiable, only demonstrated again, that you are not only clueless to what falsifiable means, but that you are misusing the word.

I have already explained to you what it mean, and even provided some examples as to how falsifiable being used, so I am not going to repeat myself 3rd times.

If and when you understand what falsifiable mean, and that you correct your mistakes and learn from it, I am not going to answer the same question again.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
What do you think the Redshifts and CMBR are, Native? Swiss cheese?
Yes :) According to the contexts in the linked videos, (which you of course have watched, haven´t you?) the CMBR hypothesis is as (or more) hollow as a Swiss cheese.
For you to say BB theory isn’t falsifiable, show that you don’t know what falsifiable means.
My point was/is that the very dynamics of a BB is directly UNTESTABLE and therefore a violation of the very scientific method. This ASSUMPTION can only "exist" as a scientific dogma and keept alive via all kinds of observations which is interpreted and added as lots of further ad hoc assumptions.

Besides this, this BB dogma was already falsified when the expanding velocity prediction was contradicted and the assumption of "dark energy" had to be invented. This is the way modern cosmology "works". The BB concept really falsified itself but the cosmologist didn´t care at all and just added another "dark ghost" in the dark cosmology assemble.
But let me remind you that it is still active in investigation and in research, and they are still seeking to find answers, which is a hell more than other theoretical models.
This doesn´t matter at all as the very basic idea already is speculatively far astray and disconnected from all natural sense and logics.
And even more so than your interpretations of ancient myths regarding to the Milky Way that are more woo than substances.
If you´ve payed attention to what ancient informations says of the principles of creation/formation, you would have notised that the most elaborated cultural myths speaks of an eternal Universe in where everything in the Universe changes between creation/formation, dissolution and re-creation/formation. No stupid BB dogma here.

Of course this is woo to you as you simply ignore the informations in the ancient myths even when the Milky Way is specifically notised and referred to in texts.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
In regarding to the REDSHIFT that were first predicted 1924-25 by Robertson and 1927 by Lemaître, not only it has shown to be “falsifiable” and “testable”, the discoveries in 1929, by Hubble, showed that galaxies are moving away from each other, so it is also “tested”. And they have using Redshifts ever since, at other observatories, both terrestrials and in space, and through both optical and radio telescopes.

To say that it isn’t falsifiable in regarding to the redshift, show that you don’t know what falsifiable means.

Likewise, BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) and CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) were both predicted by the team of Gamow, Alpher and Herman in 1948; both BBN and CMBR related to how matters, the earliest atoms formed (eg hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium), millions of years before the first generation of stars, and millions more before the first planets after the demises of earliest stars. CMBR discovery in 1964, by Penzias and Wilson.

CMBR is the measurements of its temperature of the residual radiation that emitted from start of the Recombination Epoch (377,000 years after the Big Bang), when photons decoupled from electrically neutral atoms, caused by electrons bonding with ionized atoms for the first time.

The mapping of the universe’s CMBR and the temperature difference, provided measurements of what the universe was like at that time. And it is this 1964 discovery that make the model about BBN & CMBR “falsifiable”.

And since then (1964), other observatories have managed to verify the discoveries with their own measurements, including space telescopes that were capable of measuring cosmic background radiation (CBR), including space telescopes, like
  • COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), launched 1989;
  • WMAP (Wilkinson’s Microwave Anisotropy Probe), 2001;
  • and the Planck spacecraft, 2009-2013.
That the observatories and space programs provided observations and data, showed that the Big Bang in regarding to CMBR, is falsifiable. That these evidence and data are available for examination, but you say it isn’t falsifiable, only demonstrated again, that you are not only clueless to what falsifiable means, but that you are misusing the word.

I have already explained to you what it mean, and even provided some examples as to how falsifiable being used, so I am not going to repeat myself 3rd times.
I must admit: You´re very strong in your uncritical beliefs on the scientific dogmas which you keep on citing :)

Just think of the predicted expansion velocity which was severely contradicted and make the correct (falsified :)) conclusion of the entire BB dogma, thus setting both you and the standing cosmology free - according to the OP in this thread.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
The Big Bang theory is already falsifiable, long before Dark Energy was introduced in the 1990s, and it is still being investigated, regardless of Dark Energy. So for you to say it isn’t falsifiable, it just you being stubbornly ignorance as to what it mean by falsifiable.

So I refused to continue these lines of arguments with you, @Native , when you completely misuse the word FALSIFIABLE, and while you still continually misunderstand what it means by FALSIFIABLE.

Until you learn from your mistakes, it is pointless for me to address any more questions from you; we cannot move until you do.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The Big Bang theory is already falsifiable, long before Dark Energy was introduced in the 1990s, and it is still being investigated, regardless of Dark Energy. So for you to say it isn’t falsifiable, it just you being stubbornly ignorance as to what it mean by falsifiable.
Apparently you cannot differ between the theoretical "falsifiable" and the factual "falsified" which happend when the prime expanding velocity prediction was contradicted and another "Standard Cosmology" dark thing was invented in order to patch the strange science fiction idea of Big Bang.

The BB theory WAS in fact falsified - but this didn´t bothered the scientists at all. They just keept on adding "stuff" to the Universe instead of "stuffing" their theory.

Here´s a chance for you to free yourself from standing cosmological dogmas and make the logical paradigm shift to an EM Universe:

And listen to the first 8 minutes here:
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Apparently you cannot differ between the theoretical "falsifiable" and the factual "falsified" which happend when the prime expanding velocity prediction was contradicted and another "Standard Cosmology" dark thing was invented in order to patch the strange science fiction idea of Big Bang.

The BB theory WAS in fact falsified - but this didn´t bothered the scientists at all. They just keept on adding "stuff" to the Universe instead of "stuffing" their theory.

:facepalm: Good grief.

You are still misinformed as to what “falsifiable” means, so you are still misusing it with your claim.

But now you are making things up, Native.

The statement or explanation in a model is either "falsifiable" or “unfalsifiable”.

There are no different types of falsifiability.

It is bad enough that you were misinformed and misusing falsifiability in your claims, but now you are just making things up.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Good grief.
You are still misinformed as to what “falsifiable” means, so you are still misusing it with your claim.
Good grief yourself :) The very term "falsify" seems to be only a theory in your mindset.
But now you are making things up, Native.
Of course I´m not at all. Let me help you out on that:
------------------
Definition of "Falsify":

past tense: falsified; past participle: falsified
1. 1.
alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead.
"a laboratory which was alleged to have falsified test results"

2. 2.
prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
"the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence".

-----------------
When the first predicted "steady" BB expansion velocity was contradicted by the later "still increasing expansion velocity", the very BB theory was de facto falsified by the/this evidence!

Do you get it now? When a hypothesis/theory is proven wrong, this is FALSIFIED!


BTW: The Big Bang hypothesis/theory doesn´t even obey the law of scientific methods as it cannot be directly or factually tested or repeated.

In THIS sense, the very idea of a BB is scientifically unfalsifiable. And when later observations contradicts the hypothezised and ASSUMED expansion velocity, it all becomes just pure science fictions and cosmological woo of adding unseen and ASSUMED "DARK ENERGY" which, together with the also ASSUMED "DARK MATTER" leaves modern consensus cosmology in total astrophysical and cosmological darkness.

More BTW: Why don´t you react on the linked video contents?
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It is bad enough that you were misinformed and misusing falsifiability in your claims, but now you are just making things up.

Now here are more falsified "things made up" - not by me but from the BB theoretical perceptions itself.

Issues:
1) Mature long distance galaxies do not have enough time to form via gravity.
2) The Redshift distance method is false as light is dispersed at distances.
3) Gravity is (of course) not the only force of formation in the Universe.

Listen to this video:
Mature Galaxies Defy Big Bang
Note especially the comments on (3:30) about the standing cosmology and it´s attempt to tinkering with the Universe in order to confirm what STILL is contradicted at the first hand.

More informations in these links:
Dark Theories – The Thunderbolts Project™
Blackest Heart? – The Thunderbolts Project™
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
When the first predicted "steady" BB expansion velocity was contradicted by the later "still increasing expansion velocity", the very BB theory was de facto falsified by the/this evidence!


And it was subsequently altered to accomodate for the new evidence.
The new evidence wasn't ignored.


BTW: The Big Bang hypothesis/theory doesn´t even obey the law of scientific methods as it cannot be directly or factually tested or repeated.

Big bang theory makes testable predictions.

In THIS sense, the very idea of a BB is scientifically unfalsifiable.

No, it isn't.


And when later observations contradicts the hypothezised and ASSUMED expansion velocity, it all becomes just pure science fictions and cosmological woo of adding unseen and ASSUMED "DARK ENERGY" which, together with the also ASSUMED "DARK MATTER" leaves modern consensus cosmology in total astrophysical and cosmological darkness.

The theory was expanded to accomodate for new evidence. The new evidence wasn't ignored.
Nore did the new evidence invalidate all the things that big bang theory accurately predicted.


More BTW:
Why don´t you react on the linked video contents?

Likely because "science by youtube video" are poor arguments.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
When the first predicted "steady" BB expansion velocity was contradicted by the later "still increasing expansion velocity", the very BB theory was de facto falsified by the/this evidence!
And it was subsequently altered to accomodate for the new evidence.
The new evidence wasn't ignored.
It was subsequently just altered to contain yet another un-observable "dark thing" namely "dark energy". This is plain tinkering with both the Universe and the BB-theory.

BTW: My reply in this matter was specifically adressed to "gnostic" and not to you.
 
Top