Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Inflation Theory: Not So Much...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inflation Theory: Not So Much...

    It looks like they jumped the gun!

    Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong

    Washington (AFP) - American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong.

    The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.

    If proven to be correctly identified, these waves -- predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.

    The apparent first direct evidence of such so-called cosmic inflation -- a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye -- was announced in March by experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    The detection was made with the help of a telescope called BICEP2, stationed at the South Pole.

    After weeks in which they avoided the media, the team published its work Thursday in the US journal Physical Review Letters.

    In a summary, the team said their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.
    http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-break...114835743.html
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    It looks like they jumped the gun!

    Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong



    http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-break...114835743.html
    OF COURSE they're wrong - Big Bang theories are every bit as wrong as Evolution. Here's the bad part: because observations allow a variety of interpretations, there will always be observations that are interpreted in such a way that they appear to support the theory. This is why every now and then they'll "find" something that "supports" their theories. And when those times occur, they will trumpet it from every street corner. The general population, unable to see through the multiple errors -- and since the words are coming from "prestigious, authoritative sources" -- just swallow it whole.

    I wish there was a way to totally avoid that but there isn't.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      OF COURSE they're wrong - Big Bang theories are every bit as wrong as Evolution. Here's the bad part: because observations allow a variety of interpretations, there will always be observations that are interpreted in such a way that they appear to support the theory. This is why every now and then they'll "find" something that "supports" their theories. And when those times occur, they will trumpet it from every street corner. The general population, unable to see through the multiple errors -- and since the words are coming from "prestigious, authoritative sources" -- just swallow it whole.

      I wish there was a way to totally avoid that but there isn't.

      Jorge
      If I were you, I'd keep my yap shut on anything scientific.

      "Big Bang" = 1) Expansion of spacetime: FACT, 2) Modulo "Dark Matter" the Universe is 99% hydrogen and helium: FACT, 3) Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation: FACT, 4) Distance of over 100s of million of light-years: FACT.

      Those are FACTS. What's YOUR explanation?

      K54

      Comment


      • #4
        Problems with the BICEP data:

        1) Red Flag #1. The paper had not been through ‘peer review’ when the announcement was made. I thought ‘peer review’ was the only way ‘real’ science was done. Don’t the SM guys lambaste anyone who dares to publish a scientific critique, analysis or opinion without ‘peer review’? Double standard of “If you agree with us, we’ll let you do what you want; but if you don’t, we’ll beat you with our own made-up rules.” Scientific truth based on majority opinion.

        2) Red Flag #2. They claim “only” gravity waves during the inflationary period could produce such markers. This assumes absolute knowledge of the universe and is self-refuting. We have been told that 95% of the universe is dark matter/energy of which we know absolutely nothing about, and we’re supposed to believe that based on a max of 5% knowledge that “only gravity waves” can produce the data?

        3) Red Flag #3. Polarization is an EM effect, not a gravity effect. How does gravity create polarization effects in the magnetic field? Wouldn’t you look for an E/M cause for an E/M effect? Where is the data showing that they eliminated all other possible E/M causes? Shouldn’t you have to show variation in the gravity field to show gravitational effects? If your going to propose an EM cause for gravitational effects shouldn’t you have a unified field to show how this can happen? Where does gravity influence the EM field in the current equations?

        4) Red Flag #4.They admit that dust within our own galaxy can create the observed polarization. How exactly did they filter this cause from the gravity wave cause? In fact, they admit that they don’t have a polarized dust map. They don’t know where the dust is or its density, but we’re supposed to believe that they ‘carefully checked the data’ to rule out dust as a possibility?!?

        5) Red Flag #5. The conclusion assumes that the source of the microwaves is the CBR. We know this is false from the PLANCK probe’s CBR from last year that showed obvious fluctuations that showed imprints of our own solar system. This data has since been ignored and buried due the damage it clearly does to the BB model. The BICEP data has been interpreted assuming that the local environment of our solar system and galaxy have had no effect on the incoming microwave radiation. Even assuming that magnetic curls were created by gravity waves, we’re supposed to believe that in all that travel time they weren’t influenced by any other EM fields in that whole trip? How likely is that?

        6) Red Flag #6. The data maps show clear parallel slants of data. Why would the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second have such a structure. Is it just a ‘coincidence’ that this alignment matches the alignment of the galaxy from a south polar orbit where BICEP is located? It doesn’t matter that BICEP wasn’t pointed at the galaxy since the local E and M fields are largely influenced by the galaxy regardless of direction.

        7) Red Flag #7. The interpretation assumes that the Lambda-CDM model is true. Lambda itself is a fudge factor made to fill the hole in the data and is not assigned to anything mechanically. And we have virtually zero information on dark matter as mentioned before; but we’re supposed to believe that their conclusions based on this baseline are solid?

        8) Red Flag #8. The exponential inflationary model that this evidence is supposed to support is itself a physical impossibility. Time and distance can not be in an exponential relationship to each other because time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You can’t measure time without measuring a distance. Do we ever see any direction increase at an exponential rate compared to the other two orthogonal directions? Of course not, the whole idea is a physical and logical non-starter. Space-time as a 4D field does not exist.

        9) Red Flag #9. The main piece of data is from the measured magnetic fields, but they parked the instrument over the south pole where the planetary magnetic fields are high and variable and polarized? Whose bright idea was that? Given that position, we would expect to see polarization variations with no other necessary cause. Since polarization applies all the way down to the level of the individual photon, we would only expect a smooth map at either zero or infinite resolution. At any other resolution level, we shouldn’t expect smoothness because the earth isn’t perfectly spherical, the earth is homogeneous, the extraplanetary field isn’t homogeneous, etc., etc., etc. So our first guess should be that the magnetic curls are due to the geomagnetic field lines.

        10) Red Flag #10. The published E and B field show a close match in the data; given current theory, that should not be possible. Gravity shouldn’t cause equal effects on both the E and B fields because gravity is direction dependent and E & B are orthogonal. It has been
        known since Newton that gravity doesn’t act at the tangent; therefore, the gravity field can’t possibly affect orthogonal fields in the same way.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tharkun View Post
          Problems with the BICEP data:

          1) Red Flag #1. The paper had not been through ‘peer review’ when the announcement was made. I thought ‘peer review’ was the only way ‘real’ science was done. Don’t the SM guys lambaste anyone who dares to publish a scientific critique, analysis or opinion without ‘peer review’? Double standard of “If you agree with us, we’ll let you do what you want; but if you don’t, we’ll beat you with our own made-up rules.” Scientific truth based on majority opinion.

          2) Red Flag #2. They claim “only” gravity waves during the inflationary period could produce such markers. This assumes absolute knowledge of the universe and is self-refuting. We have been told that 95% of the universe is dark matter/energy of which we know absolutely nothing about, and we’re supposed to believe that based on a max of 5% knowledge that “only gravity waves” can produce the data?

          3) Red Flag #3. Polarization is an EM effect, not a gravity effect. How does gravity create polarization effects in the magnetic field? Wouldn’t you look for an E/M cause for an E/M effect? Where is the data showing that they eliminated all other possible E/M causes? Shouldn’t you have to show variation in the gravity field to show gravitational effects? If your going to propose an EM cause for gravitational effects shouldn’t you have a unified field to show how this can happen? Where does gravity influence the EM field in the current equations?

          4) Red Flag #4.They admit that dust within our own galaxy can create the observed polarization. How exactly did they filter this cause from the gravity wave cause? In fact, they admit that they don’t have a polarized dust map. They don’t know where the dust is or its density, but we’re supposed to believe that they ‘carefully checked the data’ to rule out dust as a possibility?!?

          5) Red Flag #5. The conclusion assumes that the source of the microwaves is the CBR. We know this is false from the PLANCK probe’s CBR from last year that showed obvious fluctuations that showed imprints of our own solar system. This data has since been ignored and buried due the damage it clearly does to the BB model. The BICEP data has been interpreted assuming that the local environment of our solar system and galaxy have had no effect on the incoming microwave radiation. Even assuming that magnetic curls were created by gravity waves, we’re supposed to believe that in all that travel time they weren’t influenced by any other EM fields in that whole trip? How likely is that?

          6) Red Flag #6. The data maps show clear parallel slants of data. Why would the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second have such a structure. Is it just a ‘coincidence’ that this alignment matches the alignment of the galaxy from a south polar orbit where BICEP is located? It doesn’t matter that BICEP wasn’t pointed at the galaxy since the local E and M fields are largely influenced by the galaxy regardless of direction.

          7) Red Flag #7. The interpretation assumes that the Lambda-CDM model is true. Lambda itself is a fudge factor made to fill the hole in the data and is not assigned to anything mechanically. And we have virtually zero information on dark matter as mentioned before; but we’re supposed to believe that their conclusions based on this baseline are solid?

          8) Red Flag #8. The exponential inflationary model that this evidence is supposed to support is itself a physical impossibility. Time and distance can not be in an exponential relationship to each other because time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You can’t measure time without measuring a distance. Do we ever see any direction increase at an exponential rate compared to the other two orthogonal directions? Of course not, the whole idea is a physical and logical non-starter. Space-time as a 4D field does not exist.

          9) Red Flag #9. The main piece of data is from the measured magnetic fields, but they parked the instrument over the south pole where the planetary magnetic fields are high and variable and polarized? Whose bright idea was that? Given that position, we would expect to see polarization variations with no other necessary cause. Since polarization applies all the way down to the level of the individual photon, we would only expect a smooth map at either zero or infinite resolution. At any other resolution level, we shouldn’t expect smoothness because the earth isn’t perfectly spherical, the earth is homogeneous, the extraplanetary field isn’t homogeneous, etc., etc., etc. So our first guess should be that the magnetic curls are due to the geomagnetic field lines.

          10) Red Flag #10. The published E and B field show a close match in the data; given current theory, that should not be possible. Gravity shouldn’t cause equal effects on both the E and B fields because gravity is direction dependent and E & B are orthogonal. It has been
          known since Newton that gravity doesn’t act at the tangent; therefore, the gravity field can’t possibly affect orthogonal fields in the same way.
          That was really good - what I understood of it...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks, can't take credit though. Just a summary of another's analysis.

            Comment


            • #7
              Tharkun,

              So what of Jorge's summary dismissal of the "Bang Bang" in light of the four well-established observations?

              Originally posted by K54
              If I were you, I'd keep my yap shut on anything scientific.

              "Big Bang" = 1) Expansion of spacetime: FACT, 2) Modulo "Dark Matter" the Universe is 99% hydrogen and helium: FACT, 3) Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation: FACT, 4) Distance of over 100s of million of light-years: FACT.

              Those are FACTS. What's YOUR explanation?
              How do you explain these observations?

              K54

              P.S. In particular, what's your explanation of 3-5 Kelvins cosmic background?
              Last edited by klaus54; 07-03-2014, 04:14 PM. Reason: p.s.

              Comment


              • #8
                Not sure what Jorge's view has do to with my post; but here goes...

                1) How is the expansion of space-time a 'Fact'? It's a conjecture in the popular theory; but it's far from been shown to be a 'fact'. Minkowski's 4D spacetime was a mathematical manipulation in origin in order to make the math easier and was never intended to be representation of the reality of either space or time. 'Time' does not exist in any real sense, at best it is a concept we place on the universe through the observation of change in real entities; therefore, time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You cannot measure time without comparing an unknown distance against a known one. And any such measurement must necessarily take place within the 3D universe. In no way, is time orthogonal to the other dimensions.

                2) Not sure I understand the point? 99% of light matter is H and He; ok, but dark matter/energy is proposed to fill the giant hole that a gravity-only cosmology creates in which 95% of the universe appears to be unaccounted for.

                3) I agree that the radiation is a fact; the proposed origin of that radiation has not been shown to be fact however. As mentioned above, the Planck probe data strongly indicates that the CMBR is local in origin.

                4) I have no problem with the alleged size of the universe as far as we can currently see. How accurate such measurements are is up for debate, however. A few years ago, there was a press release indicating that cosmic estimates were off by at least 15% I believe. I'd have to go back and try and find it.


                Additionally, there seems to be an equivocation fallacy in claiming that our factual observation of an event is the same as proof that our theory or interpretation of said event is also a fact.

                tharkun

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tharkun View Post
                  Not sure what Jorge's view has do to with my post; but here goes...

                  1) How is the expansion of space-time a 'Fact'? It's a conjecture in the popular theory; but it's far from been shown to be a 'fact'. Minkowski's 4D spacetime was a mathematical manipulation in origin in order to make the math easier and was never intended to be representation of the reality of either space or time. 'Time' does not exist in any real sense, at best it is a concept we place on the universe through the observation of change in real entities; therefore, time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You cannot measure time without comparing an unknown distance against a known one. And any such measurement must necessarily take place within the 3D universe. In no way, is time orthogonal to the other dimensions.

                  2) Not sure I understand the point? 99% of light matter is H and He; ok, but dark matter/energy is proposed to fill the giant hole that a gravity-only cosmology creates in which 95% of the universe appears to be unaccounted for.

                  3) I agree that the radiation is a fact; the proposed origin of that radiation has not been shown to be fact however. As mentioned above, the Planck probe data strongly indicates that the CMBR is local in origin.

                  4) I have no problem with the alleged size of the universe as far as we can currently see. How accurate such measurements are is up for debate, however. A few years ago, there was a press release indicating that cosmic estimates were off by at least 15% I believe. I'd have to go back and try and find it.


                  Additionally, there seems to be an equivocation fallacy in claiming that our factual observation of an event is the same as proof that our theory or interpretation of said event is also a fact.

                  tharkun
                  1) The motion of most galaxies away from Earth is well-established by redshift.

                  2) 99% H and He is consistent with a very high temperature early universe where only the lightest elements could form. Dark matter doesn't consist of elements as we though them, thus is irrelevant to lightest elements data.

                  3) Show me the data that CBR is only local. The WMAP probe shows it to be pervasive in the universe and anisotropic.

                  4) 15% error isn't going to salvage a YEC interpretation. The sheer number of galaxies alone speaks to millions and billions of light years else Earth would be fried by gamma radiation.

                  What is your opinion on the origin and size of the universe?

                  How does any of what you spoke of contradict the general notion of a "Big Bang"?

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not sure why some theists seem so gleeful about possibly losing the best piece of scientific evidence for a creator.
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                      I'm not sure why some theists seem so gleeful about possibly losing the best piece of scientific evidence for a creator.
                      Exactly. I wonder how many YECs realize that "Big Bang" was a pejorative coined by the atheist Sir Fred Hoyle?

                      "Big Bang", "Evolution", and "Darwin" are the top three cuss words in YEC-dominated social groups. You have to spit just a little when you voice them.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Exactly. I wonder how many YECs realize that "Big Bang" was a pejorative coined by the atheist Sir Fred Hoyle?

                        "Big Bang", "Evolution", and "Darwin" are the top three cuss words in YEC-dominated social groups. You have to spit just a little when you voice them.

                        K54
                        And I'll bet many would be surprised to discover that the person who came up with the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaître, was a priest who wrote nine years before publish his theory that it confirmed his belief that the universe had begun in light "as Genesis suggested it."

                        Further, the pope at that time, Pius XII, interpreted the Big Bang as de facto proof of the Biblical creation account. When he opened a conference at the Vatican in 1951 he declared that this scientific theory of cosmic origins bore witness "to that primordial 'Fiat lux' uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation. ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"

                        Such statement makes Christian objections to the Big Bang seem kind of strange as do some of the following

                        George Smoot, astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel laureate, had this to say: "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of a creation. In fact, the Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism, and harmonises with the Bible. This theory takes us back to a time when, at the first moment of creation, the entire universe consisted of a region a trillionth the size of a proton." (which suddenly expanded into a plenum of existence).

                        Smoot also noted after finding evidence to support the Big Bang (the expected “ripples” in the microwave background radiation), called these fluctuations "the fingerprints from the Maker" and said that "if you're religious, it's like looking at God."

                        Robert Wilson, the co-discoverer of the Radiation Afterglow, which earned him a Nobel Prize in Physics, observed, "Certainly there was something that set it off. Certainly, if you're religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis."

                        The late self-proclaimed Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote in his 1978 book "God and the Astronomers":
                        “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. This is the crux of the new story of Genesis.

                        He noted how many cosmologists were repulsed by the idea the universe had a beginning. He found it quizzical that they would have such an emotional reaction. They all realized that a beginning out of nothing was implausible without a Creator.

                        In fact, much of the initial opposition to the Big Bang came from atheists who rejected it precisely because they saw it as being "just a disguised version of the Bible creation, when Jehovah said ‘Fiat Lux’, and the universe was created": Is the Big-Bang a Religious Hoax?

                        According to Wikipedia:

                        Source: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory


                        In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory, who rejected the implication that the universe had a beginning.


                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        The physicist Paul Marmet often railed against the Big Bang complaining that, “The Big Bang is a creationist theory and differs only from another creationist model (for example, the one that claims that creation took place about 4000 years BC) by the number of years since creation. From the Big Bang model, creation happened about 15 billion years ago.”

                        As you already mentioned, Fred Hoyle, who had helped to formulate the steady state model of the universe, gave the name "Big Bang" to Lemaître's ideas in a way of mocking them. According to the "Encyclopædic Dictionary of Astrophysics":
                        While having no argument with Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. An atheist, he found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argue that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see Kalam cosmological argument)

                        Hoyle stated in his 1983 book "The Intelligent Universe" that "The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation."

                        Hermannn Bondi, an atheist and cosmologist who with Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold developed the steady-state theory of the universe as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, likened the Big Bang to "continuous creation."

                        An editorial from August 10, 1989 called "Down With the Big Bang" by John Maddox the self-professed atheist physics editor for "Nature" declared that, "Creationists and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang."

                        "Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."


                        Considering its history and the opposition to it for being too much like the Genesis account, how can anyone claim that the Big Bang theory is "Godless"? And merely finding the mechanism doesn't eliminate God.

                        Last edited by rogue06; 07-04-2014, 01:41 AM.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          1) The motion of most galaxies away from Earth is well-established by redshift.
                          While the redshift is a fact, the assigning of the cause to galactic velocity is up for debate and becomes less tenable the more data comes in. The latest information seems to point to our own solar system and earth as the prime causes for the CMBR. (See here and here.). Never mind that the 3-5K background temp was predicted long before the Big Bang theory was around as the ambient temperature of space; BB just usurped it and spun it into a 'prediction' of their model, when if anything it was a 'post-diction' given that they changed their model to match the data. (See also Eric Lerner for detailed problems with the BB scenario, and Halton Arp for numerous redshift anomalies that cannot be explained in the BB theory.)


                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          2) 99% H and He is consistent with a very high temperature early universe where only the lightest elements could form. Dark matter doesn't consist of elements as we though them, thus is irrelevant to lightest elements data.
                          I didn't bring up the H & He data, I was merely responding to it. I don't understand the relevance of the H & He as it relates to my critique of inflation theory.


                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          3) Show me the data that CBR is only local. The WMAP probe shows it to be pervasive in the universe and anisotropic.
                          See the links above.

                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          4) 15% error isn't going to salvage a YEC interpretation. The sheer number of galaxies alone speaks to millions and billions of light years else Earth would be fried by gamma radiation.
                          Who's trying to salvage the YEC interpretation? The point of the 15% error was to point out how arrogant mainstream science is about how 'factual' their press reports are when, in fact, we know next to nothing about the universe in the grand scheme of things. They admit that 95% of the universe is dark matter/energy that we know almost nothing about; and then we found out that at least some of the 5% of the universe we do know something about is wrong by 15%! My faith in their assurances of 'fact' drops every press release; especially given that the bulk of the press releases always seem to promote how 'this latest finding doesn't fit with anything we know...'! If the latest finding is a complete surprise and doesnt' fit your model - your model is garbage, you should throw it away and start over.

                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          What is your opinion on the origin and size of the universe?

                          How does any of what you spoke of contradict the general notion of a "Big Bang"?

                          K54
                          I don't know how big the universe is, and neither does anyone else. I'm a theist, so I believe a personal God created the universe. My original post was a critique of inflation theory, not of BB as a whole.
                          Last edited by tharkun; 07-07-2014, 03:43 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm critiquing your critique of inflation, I was repeating the well-known data for the general theory known by the inaccurate moniker "Big Bang".

                            I'm curious whether you're a YEC who's trying to dismiss "Big Bang" in favor of a 6Ka cosmos?

                            What's wrong with redshift by motion? Seems pretty solid to most astrophysicists.

                            15% error does not indicate "arrogance" in the least bit. Ten billion percent error as per YEC IS arrogant.

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tharkun View Post
                              While the redshift is a fact, the assigning of the cause to galactic velocity is up for debate and becomes less tenable the more data comes in. The latest information seems to point to our own solar system and earth as the prime causes for the CMBR. (See here and here.).
                              Miles Mathis? You're citing Miles Mathis???

                              I know that technically rejecting an argument because of the author's identity is a fallacy, but there are limits. When your cited authority not only claims that all of calculus is wrong, but also thinks methane should be CH2 and states that when calculating orbital parameters pi = 4,* there really is no point in reading what he thinks of CMBR.

                              Roy

                              *"Not only is π not an interesting piece of esoterica, it is an albatross worn by the mathematically ignorant."
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              35 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              245 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X