PDA

View Full Version : Big Bang didn't need divine origins...



Gerarddm
04-20-2013, 11:56 AM
... so sayeth Stephen Hawking:

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Rich Jones
04-20-2013, 12:09 PM
Well, good for Hawking.

But, as Captain Aubrey said to Maturin, "Not everything is in your books."

George Jung
04-20-2013, 12:09 PM
I dunno. I've watched that show, and if we're being honest - it needs something!

ron ll
04-20-2013, 12:16 PM
Why does it take one of the greatest minds on the planet to tell us something so obvious?

JimD
04-20-2013, 12:17 PM
The 'something from nothing' debate has been going on for quite a while. Many physicists seem to have trouble with the common sense understanding of 'nothingness' that any ordinary rational person is capable of. So when physicists talk about nothing(ness) they are never really taking about nothing, they are talking about as little as possible, or a condition where they can't measure or detect anything. They can talk all they want about quantum fluctuations in ground state vacuums but that isn't something from nothing, its something from something. By definition physics is about the physical, and any person on the street will logically surmise that if its physical it has to be something while nothingness is the absence of something. So without descending into further silly wordplay, Hawkings, who gained considerable notoriety with his claim, isn't making much sense. That doesn't necessarily mean we need to posit a God. But it does mean we need more of an explanation than Hawkings can offer. Generally, in physics any solutions to equations that results in zero or infinity is considered really bad news. And that's a big problem when one it trying to solve for something from nothingness.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2013, 12:21 PM
If God exists, can't he work through the operation of ordinary physical laws? Who are we to tell God what to do?

Seriously, I don't think that's a question the methods of science can answer.

ron ll
04-20-2013, 12:22 PM
If nothingness is absolute, I have a hard time imagining a something in it called a creator, divine or not.

hanleyclifford
04-20-2013, 12:26 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/images/content/84531main_warp19.gif

hanleyclifford
04-20-2013, 12:27 PM
If God exists, can't he work through the operation of ordinary physical laws? Who are we to tell God what to do?

Seriously, I don't think that's a question the methods of science can answer.
He wrote the laws.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2013, 12:27 PM
There are a lot of things I have a hard time imagining. Some of them exist. Some don't. I have about a two-liter brain that that evolved to hunt and forage on the African savanna a while back, and it's pretty limited.

ron ll
04-20-2013, 12:33 PM
It's our concept of linear time that causes the difficulties. Before and after, cause and effect, work fine for our daily lives, but Einstein pretty much debunked it. In the larger space/time picture what happened "before" the Big Bang is meaningless.

George Jung
04-20-2013, 12:50 PM
Puny humans. *sigh* it's exhausting trying to eddycate y'all (a southerner.... who knew?)

Arizona Bay
04-20-2013, 12:52 PM
I like Hawking, though I don't always agree with him.

We can't conceive of 'nothingness'. Something needs to 'be' in order to conceive it, and then it's not 'nothingness' no more ;)


I don't thing there is a Great Boogomby out there creating this 'stuff', more like the Universe it's self is conscious, and creation continually occurs from the still point of 'now' and extends in all directions. "Time' is relative to the view point of the perceiver.


That should reenforce my place on the loony list :D

George Jung
04-20-2013, 01:13 PM
Combine matter and antimatter - and what do you get? (might provide some insights to the BB)

Durnik
04-20-2013, 01:35 PM
"Not everything is in your books."
is most spectacularly true about the book known as 'The Holy Bible' - A book not on "god's laws", but man's laws - ascribed to the nebulous concept of god.

God's laws are 'how things work'.. which seems to very much include evolution.




We can't conceive of 'nothingness'.

Whatever you do, don't think of an elephants big floppy ears..

Spirit doesn't hear 'not'. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Peerie Maa
04-20-2013, 02:36 PM
Combine matter and antimatter - and what do you get? (might provide some insights to the BB)

Lots of energy. E=Mc^2 and all that.

Peach
04-20-2013, 03:12 PM
Heck, why mess with scientific explanations when it's so much easier to invent a divine presence with magical powers. The myth of the divine is neat and tidy, answers all the relevant questions, and provides an effective antidote to existential angst.

What's not to like?

Willin'
04-20-2013, 04:39 PM
Heck, why mess with scientific explanations when it's so much easier to invent a divine presence with magical powers. The myth of the divine is neat and tidy, answers all the relevant questions, and provides an effective antidote to existential angst.

What's not to like?

Exactly, and every few centuries you can revise the divine's writings to better take advantage of the current angst.

Bob Adams
04-20-2013, 04:39 PM
I don't feel science and religion are mutually exclusive. As to Hawking, I admire the man even though I do not agree with him 100%.

hanleyclifford
04-20-2013, 04:40 PM
Heck, why mess with scientific explanations when it's so much easier to invent a divine presence with magical powers. The myth of the divine is neat and tidy, answers all the relevant questions, and provides an effective antidote to existential angst.

What's not to like? Couldn't have said it better myself; like I said on another thread, it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe the Bible.:)

Peerie Maa
04-20-2013, 04:52 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself; like I said on another thread, it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe the Bible.:)

Erm, no again. You don't need Faith to believe what scientists tell you, you just need to lever that chink in your mind wide open and let information flood in.

Durnik
04-20-2013, 04:53 PM
it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe the Bible

well, today _is_ 420.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

skuthorp
04-20-2013, 05:33 PM
Heck, why mess with scientific explanations when it's so much easier to invent a divine presence with magical powers. The myth of the divine is neat and tidy, answers all the relevant questions, and provides an effective antidote to existential angst.

What's not to like?

:d:D

JimD
04-20-2013, 05:35 PM
...The myth of the divine is neat and tidy, answers all the relevant questions, and provides an effective antidote to existential angst.

What's not to like?

What's not to like is that it doesn't answer any questions. It only provides an arbitrary place to stop asking.

bogdog
04-20-2013, 05:46 PM
God certainly didn't write any physical laws, he ain't even got opposable thumbs.

Arizona Bay
04-20-2013, 06:24 PM
Whatever you do, don't think of an elephants big floppy ears..

Spirit doesn't hear 'not'. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Oh yeah.....Let me rephrase that :D




Watch the field, rather than the objects in the field.

JimD
04-20-2013, 06:25 PM
God certainly didn't write any physical laws, he ain't even got opposable thumbs.Not sure about that. Some earlier versions of the Bible included The Book of Thumbs, often just called Fingers. It was the fifth book, before Deuteronomy and following Numbers.

Meli
04-20-2013, 06:51 PM
Erm, no again. You don't need Faith to believe what scientists tell you, you just need to lever that chink in your mind wide open and let information flood in.

As long as it's in SSL* form :D


*Science as a second language

Arizona Bay
04-20-2013, 06:53 PM
Not sure about that. Some earlier versions of the Bible included The Book of Thumbs, often just called Fingers. It was the fifth book, before Deuteronomy and following Numbers.
Is that followed by the book of Ruins, later known as Runes?

Peach
04-20-2013, 07:13 PM
...it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe the Bible.:)

I gotta check out the local Jehovah's Witnesses, 'cuz you guys definitely got some really fine ganja.

BTW hanley, science never requires a leap of faith, that's way it's called science rather than religion.

JimD
04-20-2013, 07:22 PM
Is that followed by the book of Ruins, later known as Runes?
Or Rubes, can't remember which. Maybe it was Clowns.

hanleyclifford
04-20-2013, 07:37 PM
I gotta check out the local Jehovah's Witnesses, 'cuz you guys definitely got some really fine ganja.

BTW hanley, science never requires a leap of faith, that's way it's called science rather than religion. We got sumthin' better than ganja; and you're right about science, real science, that is.:)

Tom Montgomery
04-20-2013, 07:54 PM
well, today _is_ 420.. ;-)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlt80WSidpw

purri
04-20-2013, 08:13 PM
I'm with Topsy on the subject.

Gerarddm
04-20-2013, 08:50 PM
" The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it's queerer than we can imagine".

BrianY
04-20-2013, 10:16 PM
The 'something from nothing' debate has been going on for quite a while. Many physicists seem to have trouble with the common sense understanding of 'nothingness' that any ordinary rational person is capable of.

I think you've got this backwards. The problem is that many non-physicists ( your "ordinary rational person") have trouble with understanding what physicists mean when that talk about "nothingness" . The "common sense understanding" is NOT what physicists are refering to. Consequently the "something from nothing debate" continues because common folks cannot/do not understand that their natural "common sense" conception of "nothingness" that leads them to find the idea absurd, is not actually what is being proposed.

(It is curious that many non-scientists who object to the idea of "something from nothing" have no problem with the idea of a God who came from nothing (the "uncaused cause"))

It's simlar to how non-scientists and scientists use the term "theory" . They're not talking about the same thing, yet the layman's understandng of the word causes some to believe that the word implies uncertainty, lack of proof, etc. ...as in "evolution is only a theory and is therefore not true"

Durnik
04-20-2013, 10:28 PM
" The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it's queerer than we can imagine".

Amen, Brother!.. er, ah, someit like that.. ;-)

In the BBC today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22217334), the horse head nebula, that fantastic cloud of hydrogen & dust which itself is so large,


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67112000/jpg/_67112336_compo_horsehead_04_bis_hst.jpg

is dwarfed by that which it is part of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5261/horsehead_nebula_976.jpg

No matter the scale we choose, there is something 'off it'.




Oh yeah.....Let me rephrase that :D

;-)



& Tom, I am reminded of why I own no t.v. .. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Peach
04-21-2013, 12:33 AM
The color palette selected by the creator for these cosmic events is simply divine.

alvin greenwood
04-21-2013, 12:34 AM
I do not follow his thinking on this.

First of all i cannot program the VCR much less understand the Big Bang Theory..

SH is one smart dude so if he sez so well im not going to argue . However he states this.


SH began the event by reciting an African creation myth, and rapidly moved on to big questions such as, Why are we here?
He noted that many people still seek a divine solution to counter the theories of curious physicists, and at one point, he quipped, “What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?”.

His theory does not answer why we are here..


Then he goes into religion and remember he brings it up.

He refers to God but when he does he gives God the attribute of being vindictive by sending people to hell..

If science is just the rules of nature or mathematics how can he believe in God or lets say he does not but he still gives God a evil nature, How can God be good or evil or how can there be good or evil..

Is a Shark evil and a Whale Good?.

By saying there is evil did he not just break the law of science?

This brings us back to the garden, Adam did not know evil until the woman handed him the apple that the serpent gave her.

So SH {and remember he brought it up not me} only knows God as evil.

If he only knows God as Evil his only motive is to show God as evil so his conclusions are already tainted by a bias.

If he is a pure scientist why is HE preaching ...

Seems to me reading here if one states there is a GOD people will counter any argument with its a fairy tale.

But SH gets a automatic pass.

Robbie 2
04-21-2013, 12:35 AM
In science the answer to a question has generally always been another question.
When asked if I believe in Creation or Evolution.......I always say YES!!!
Creation was started by God and Evolution is how he did it.
The more we learn about the universe the more questions we come up with.

Peach
04-21-2013, 01:18 AM
...Seems to me reading here if one states there is a GOD people will counter any argument with its a fairy tale...

I think calling it a fairy tale gives the god myth a great deal more credibility than it deserves.

Hansel and Gretal is a fairly tale, Rapunzel and Rumpelstiltskin are fairy tales, and each one has a grain of truth at its core. Obviously, they are contrived stories, but they describe events that might actually have happened.

Lew Barrett
04-21-2013, 01:24 AM
Not sure about that. Some earlier versions of the Bible included The Book of Thumbs, often just called Fingers. It was the fifth book, before Deuteronomy and following Numbers.

How do you count to five with only your thumbs?

Lew Barrett
04-21-2013, 01:26 AM
I do not follow his thinking on this.

First of all i cannot program the VCR much less understand the Big Bang Theory..

SH is one smart dude so if he sez so well im not going to argue . However he states this.



I'm two up on you as before they became obsolete, I could actually program a VCR. Moreover, I can operate a TIVO or a DVR player. So that makes two!

The rest? I'm right there with you, buddy.

BrianY
04-21-2013, 02:37 AM
Alvin -

i think you'll understand Hawking's argument better if you insert the phrase "Let's assume that God exists" or "If God exists, then...." before everything he says. I think what he is doing is not professing faith in God, but using the assumption of the existence of God to examine what God's nature might be.

It's a form of logical argument. You start the argument with an assumption (which is not necesarily true or what you believe to be true, athough it could be) and then consider what logically follows from that assumption.

The technique is applicable to all sorts of things. atheists and agnostics often use it to discredit the Biblical version of God but it can also be used to the opposite end. For example, Spinoza and C.S. Lewis employed this technique in their arguments for existence of God and their conclusions about his nature.

downthecreek
04-21-2013, 04:32 AM
like I said on another thread, it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe the Bible.:)

Does it? Why?

Cause and effect is a phenomenon known, at some level, to almost every living creature. It is a central tenet of scientific enquiry. I imagine the idea of a deity, or deities, was early man's best effort to explain phenomena he didn't understand and, at the same time, to identify a means to influence those phenomena (by supplication, sacrifice, ritual etc.)

Not very effective science, but still - it was a start. |;)

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 05:25 AM
How do you count to five with only your thumbs?

Two thumbs + two thumbs+ 1 thumb. The Thumbnary system, an earlier version of Binary. ;)

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 07:39 AM
Does it? Why?

Cause and effect is a phenomenon known, at some level, to almost every living creature. It is a central tenet of scientific enquiry. I imagine the idea of a deity, or deities, was early man's best effort to explain phenomena he didn't understand and, at the same time, to identify a means to influence those phenomena (by supplication, sacrifice, ritual etc.)

Not very effective science, but still - it was a start. |;) Because it is far easier to authenticate statements made in the Bible than those in the theory of evolution. And "imagination" is a poor basis for explaining anything.

Chris Coose
04-21-2013, 07:47 AM
Reading the bible to determine the beginnings of the universe would be like reading the Joy of Cooking as the reference for building a Ford car from scratch.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 07:51 AM
Reading the bible to determine the beginnings of the universe would be like reading the Joy of Cooking as the reference for building a Ford car from scratch. True, actually...

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 07:58 AM
Because it is far easier to authenticate statements made in the Bible than those in the theory of evolution.

That is an interesting statement. There is such a huge body of evidence including artefacts that can be pinned to time and place supporting evolution. What equivalent corroborating evidence have you for the statements in the two testaments? There seems to be little corroborating evidence for the new testament, and far less for the apocryphal stories in the old testament so I am interested in knowing what sort of authentication you are referring to?

P.S. Peach suggested that you belong to the Jehovah Witnesses, which you seem to confirm in #32. Do I have that right?

okawbow
04-21-2013, 08:29 AM
It seems to me that most science is really just theory. We think we know something , and then someone finds an exception to the rule. Every few years, a new theory surfaces that contradicts the old one. We are still in our scientific infancy.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 08:35 AM
It seems to me that most science is really just theory. We think we know something , and then someone finds an exception to the rule. Every few years, a new theory surfaces that contradicts the old one. We are still in our scientific infancy.

That is certainly true of hypotheses, theory are so well authenticated that they tend to be developed/improved with new knowledge, and are over thrown far less frequently.
Perhaps another instance of the layman being unfamiliar with the precise scientific meaning of the word "theory"?

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 08:39 AM
That is an interesting statement. There is such a huge body of evidence including artefacts that can be pinned to time and place supporting evolution. What equivalent corroborating evidence have you for the statements in the two testaments? There seems to be little corroborating evidence for the new testament, and far less for the apocryphal stories in the old testament so I am interested in knowing what sort of authentication you are referring to?

P.S. Peach suggested that you belong to the Jehovah Witnesses, which you seem to confirm in #32. Do I have that right? Excellent questions, Nick; and I will respond possibly with a new thread but right now I'm off to meeting. BTW, the terms "old" and "new" testament are not very useful. The Bible is one unified document written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

bogdog
04-21-2013, 09:16 AM
The Bible is one unified document written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.Hardly unified, it was a committee project and being on the losing side could cost you your life.

okawbow
04-21-2013, 09:25 AM
That is certainly true of hypotheses, theory are so well authenticated that they tend to be developed/improved with new knowledge, and are over thrown far less frequently.
Perhaps another instance of the layman being unfamiliar with the precise scientific meaning of the word "theory"?
An example is the Big Bang Theory. I guess it's really just conjecture, and not theory? I've read many different explanations for the big bang. Lately "dark matter, dark energy" effects are changing the various theories.

Keith Wilson
04-21-2013, 09:34 AM
The Bible is one unified document written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.Eh? It's a unified document now, mainly because of tradition and the early church hierarchy, and because it's bound in one cover. The documents composing it were written over a long period of time, by people of quite different cultures and points of view, and in many respects don't have all that much in common. The decision about what to include was at the time highly political. It was made necessary by the fact that Christianity was becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire, and they had to define orthodoxy to enforce it.

downthecreek
04-21-2013, 09:48 AM
Because it is far easier to authenticate statements made in the Bible than those in the theory of evolution. And "imagination" is a poor basis for explaining anything.

Could you give some examples of these statements and the way in which they are authenticated?

Imagination is, indeed, a poor basis for explanation. That's why we look for evidence. If the existence of "God" - a divine creator - cannot be explained, then that is also a poor basis for explaining anything else.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 10:07 AM
An example is the Big Bang Theory. I guess it's really just conjecture, and not theory? I've read many different explanations for the big bang. Lately "dark matter, dark energy" effects are changing the various theories.


The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis), the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background), large scale structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos), and the Hubble diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_diagram) for Type Ia supernovae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-12) The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density) and temperatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature),[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note-15) and large particle accelerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator) have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_physics). There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
The theory (accepted as true rather than still a hypothesis) does not consider the precursors to the event, but explains what happened from the Bang. Dark matter is being studied as it is a possible explanation for what is happening now. Breaking news is that dark matter may be close to being isolated:

Researchers have revealed the first potential hints of the elusive material called dark matter at an underground laboratory in the US.

Though it is believed to make up a quarter of our Universe, dark matter - true to its name - has never been seen.
Scientists at the American Physical Society meeting (http://www.aps.org/meetings/april/) showed three promising clues to it from the CDMS experiment (http://cdms.berkeley.edu/).
However, they stressed the preliminary nature of the results and that more data are needed to confirm it.
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22155222

LeeG
04-21-2013, 10:18 AM
Amen, Brother!.. er, ah, someit like that.. ;-)

In the BBC today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22217334), the horse head nebula, that fantastic cloud of hydrogen & dust which itself is so large,


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67112000/jpg/_67112336_compo_horsehead_04_bis_hst.jpg

is dwarfed by that which it is part of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5261/horsehead_nebula_976.jpg

No matter the scale we choose, there is something 'off it'.





;-)



& Tom, I am reminded of why I own no t.v. .. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

The scale is awesome, and just a little terrifying if I try to understand it on mine.

okawbow
04-21-2013, 10:50 AM
I think it's nearly impossible to say with certainty what happened over 16 billion years ago. The big bang can never be stated as fact.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 10:55 AM
I think it's nearly impossible to say with certainty what happened over 16 billion years ago. The big bang can never be stated as fact.

Well I cannot state for a fact that you are a human, based on the evidence in front of me. :D
However the maths, corroborated by repeatable observation does tell us that the "Big Bang" Theory is true beyond reasonable doubt.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-21-2013, 11:03 AM
Big Bang - is a lot more than a theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQVn2d-FBE

Bob Adams
04-21-2013, 11:07 AM
The scale is awesome, and just a little terrifying if I try to understand it on mine.

Maybe that's where God comes in.;)

JimD
04-21-2013, 11:49 AM
I think you've got this backwards. The problem is that many non-physicists ( your "ordinary rational person") have trouble with understanding what physicists mean when that talk about "nothingness" . The "common sense understanding" is NOT what physicists are refering to. Consequently the "something from nothing debate" continues because common folks cannot/do not understand that their natural "common sense" conception of "nothingness" that leads them to find the idea absurd, is not actually what is being proposed.

(It is curious that many non-scientists who object to the idea of "something from nothing" have no problem with the idea of a God who came from nothing (the "uncaused cause"))

It's simlar to how non-scientists and scientists use the term "theory" . They're not talking about the same thing, yet the layman's understandng of the word causes some to believe that the word implies uncertainty, lack of proof, etc. ...as in "evolution is only a theory and is therefore not true"
I don't have anything backwards. Its obvious physicists are not talking about the questions philosophers and most of the rest of us would like an answer to. That's exactly what my post was about.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 12:25 PM
I don't have anything backwards. Its obvious physicists are not talking about the questions philosophers and most of the rest of us would like an answer to. That's exactly what my post was about.

There lies your problem.
Physics = answers in the fullness of time.
Philosophy = endless fascinating debate till the end of time. :D

downthecreek
04-21-2013, 12:41 PM
Maybe that's where God comes in.;)

Once again, why?

Does "We can't understand this...we find it awe inspiring.....terrifying......inexplicable....etc." inevitably lead to the conclusion that there must exist a deity of some kind?

JimD
04-21-2013, 12:44 PM
Once again, why?

Does "We can't understand this...we find it awe inspiring.....terrifying......inexplicable....etc." inevitably lead to the conclusion that there must exist a deity of some kind?
Its a possibility, but mostly its just a comforting idea with a great deal of tradition behind it.

Durnik
04-21-2013, 12:52 PM
Its obvious physicists are not talking about the questions philosophers and most of the rest of us would like an answer to.

It's obvious someone is picking & choosing.. I give you (https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein)..




The scale is awesome, and just a little terrifying if I try to understand it on mine.

Wicked Awesome!




Maybe that's where God comes in.;)

Translation - "If I don't understand it & can't comprehend it, God must have done it in Her inexplicableness.. oh, & BTW, let 'me' tell you what the limits of 'God' are.."

Therein lies the real problem -

Those who support a (tiny, little, restricted and oh so paternal & malevolent) version of 'God' as put forth by organized religion (which very much includes organized Christianity) attack those who realize that there can be _no_ limitations on the creating/existing force of the universe..

& therefore the Christians small description of 'God' is in actuality, the description of their phobias & desires. (I hates gays, gawd hates gays! I loves war, gawd loves war! - fill in your own..)

Or, as I like to say to Christians, "Which part of 'God is all things' so confuses you?". Of course, we are then in Buddhist territory.. ;-)

peace
bobby

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 12:54 PM
Its a possibility, but mostly its just a comforting idea with a great deal of tradition behind it.

When you consider the persona's of the God of the three books as he evolved with time, as well as some of the creatures that He "created" I don't see much in the way of comfort.

JimD
04-21-2013, 12:59 PM
When you consider the persona's of the God of the three books as he evolved with time, as well as some of the creatures that He "created" I don't see much in the way of comfort.Yeah, that Yaweh fellow was quite the bloodthirsty bastard alright.

downthecreek
04-21-2013, 01:03 PM
& therefore the Christians small description of 'God' is in actuality, the description of their phobias & desires. (I hates gays, gawd hates gays! I loves war, gawd loves war! - fill in your own..)

peace
bobby

We certainly see that here. There's the loving and compassionate God of Tom F and Nanoose and, there again, there's the rigid and punitive God of Sam F......

If there is a God and the Bible really is Its perfect and seamless Word, I think we could have hoped for something a little less ambiguous. It might have saved an awful lot of grief.

JimD
04-21-2013, 01:09 PM
... I think we could have hoped for something a little less ambiguous...

If we'd just listened up

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/532716_10151536662768908_565742907_n.jpg

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 03:30 PM
Eh? It's a unified document now, mainly because of tradition and the early church hierarchy, and because it's bound in one cover. The documents composing it were written over a long period of time, by people of quite different cultures and points of view, and in many respects don't have all that much in common. The decision about what to include was at the time highly political. It was made necessary by the fact that Christianity was becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire, and they had to define orthodoxy to enforce it. The canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was was closed by the end of the second century, and the Hebrew canon was settled by two Jewish councils at Yavne (or Jamnia) in 90 AD and 118 AD at which time all the so called Apocryphal writings were excluded. This was well before Constantine who ruled 312-337 AD. The first book of the Bible (Genesis) was penned down by Moses in 1513 BCE (using accumulated documents) and the last of the 66 canonical books, John 3 in 98 AD or CE. The Bible was penned down by some 40 different individuals under inspiration so that the Bible as we now have it presents a unified central theme.

bogdog
04-21-2013, 03:35 PM
....40 different individuals under inspiration...I'm sure, got any proof? I've always found Darwin inspiring.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 03:42 PM
I'm sure, got any proof? I've always found Darwin inspiring. I do not find Darwin, a troubled man, to be very inspiring. The number 40 in this case may not be exact, just the best estimate.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 04:17 PM
I do not find Darwin, a troubled man, to be very inspiring. The number 40 in this case may not be exact, just the best estimate.

The fact that Darwin was troubled is an indication of his innate honesty. That bears on his thoroughness but not necessarily on the validity of his work.
One could consider the way that he dealt with issues of "conscience", especially the relationship between his work and the love of his devout Christian wife to be inspiring.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 04:24 PM
The fact that Darwin was troubled is an indication of his innate honesty. That bears on his thoroughness but not necessarily on the validity of his work.
One could consider the way that he dealt with issues of "conscience", especially the relationship between his work and the love of his devout Christian wife to be inspiring. I'm not so sure about the connection between "troubled" and "honesty". However, my comment related to the loss of his mother at age 8 and the later death of a child. I will stipulate that Darwin was a sincere man.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 04:32 PM
I'm not so sure about the connection between "troubled" and "honesty". However, my comment related to the loss of his mother at age 8 and the later death of a child. I will stipulate that Darwin was a sincere man.

OK, I took troubled to infer something other than the grief that he felt at the loss of their child. The issue that I referred to was the impact that his work might have had on his wife's feelings and that he did not let that stand in the way of his science in spite of the love that he felt for her.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 04:45 PM
OK, I took troubled to infer something other than the grief that he felt at the loss of their child. The issue that I referred to was the impact that his work might have had on his wife's feelings and that he did not let that stand in the way of his science in spite of the love that he felt for her. Roger; I think we are on the same page now.

bogdog
04-21-2013, 05:14 PM
I do not find Darwin, a troubled man, to be very inspiring. The number 40 in this case may not be exact, just the best estimate.
Many of the "inspired" writers of the "Bible" should be charged with crimes against humanity. Their behavior condemns them, I would say most were but ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 05:21 PM
Many of the "inspired" writers of the "Bible" should be charged with crimes against humanity. Their behavior condemns them, I would say most were but ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. Would you care to name one?

bogdog
04-21-2013, 05:35 PM
Would you care to name one?I guess we could start with Moses(his body count of children alone will keep us here for days) I guess but I haven't seen anything that proves these "40" were inspired by anything. I think the honest thing would be to provide the same evidence that believers seem to think they owned by the scientific community, which BTW always gladly supplies. So please, let's see the inspirational evidence.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2013, 07:41 PM
Because it is far easier to authenticate statements made in the Bible than those in the theory of evolution. And "imagination" is a poor basis for explaining anything.


That is an interesting statement. There is such a huge body of evidence including artefacts that can be pinned to time and place supporting evolution. What equivalent corroborating evidence have you for the statements in the bible? There seems to be little corroborating evidence for the newer writing, and far less for the apocryphal stories in the older texts so I am interested in knowing what sort of authentication you are referring to?

P.S. Peach suggested that you belong to the Jehovah Witnesses, which you seem to confirm in #32. Do I have that right?

Edited to remove ideas that side tracked you. :D

I'm for bed, which will give you time to gather your thoughts.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 07:46 PM
I guess we could start with Moses(his body count of children alone will keep us here for days) I guess but I haven't seen anything that proves these "40" were inspired by anything. I think the honest thing would be to provide the same evidence that believers seem to think they owned by the scientific community, which BTW always gladly supplies. So please, let's see the inspirational evidence. Please refresh my memory about how Moses is responsible for the death of children.

bogdog
04-21-2013, 08:03 PM
Please refresh my memory about how Moses is responsible for the death of children.Still waiting for that honesty and evidence.

Keith Wilson
04-21-2013, 08:12 PM
I thought Yahweh was the one responsible, not Moses. The OT God is often an ill-tempered vengeful grouch.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 08:13 PM
Edited to remove ideas that side tracked you. :D

I'm for bed, which will give you time to gather your thoughts. Unlike the theory of evolution, the Bible contains statements and predictions which can be tested for accuracy by known events that are often corroborated in secular sources. The Bible answers questions that confoud the scientists. For example: why do we humans grow old and die. Science tells us that the human cells in our bodies are renewed every seven years or so, and we should be able to continue indefinitely, barring traumatic incident. So what gives? The Bible OTOH explains that our continuation depends on an energy/spiritual connection which was severed when Adam elected to rebel and go his own way (actually under Satan's headship). Bible believers thus have a satisfying answer to the question. Of course, that satisfaction depends on having confidence in the authenticity of the Bible itself. What can establish that? There are several lines of reasoning available. My favorite (by no means universally shared by all Bible students) is the Bible's perfect record of predicting actual events before their occurrance (whether distant future or near to hand). The first prophecy uttered in the Bible is a case in point: Genesis 2:17. He said it; Satan contradicted at Genesis 3:4. Judge for yourself who has proved to be the liar. Other examples to follow.

Chris Coose
04-21-2013, 08:20 PM
The OT God is often an ill-tempered vengeful grouch.

Had He invented booze yet? All the characters of that story were running around appearing to be needing a stiff one.

edit: He had invented booze. Noah got all ****faced and naked.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 08:25 PM
Had He invented booze yet? All the characters of that story were running around appearing to be needing a stiff one. It appears that man began the practice of fermenting stuff; but it is noteworthy that Jesus' first miracle was to convert water into wine (so much for the teetotalers).

BrianY
04-21-2013, 09:23 PM
.. Science tells us that the human cells in our bodies are renewed every seven years or so, and we should be able to continue indefinitely, barring traumatic incident.

I don't know what scientists are telling you that, but whoever they are, they sure aren't living in the scientific mainstream. The 7 year thing is a commonly held wive's tale perpetuated by the media and TV shows (i.e House, MD ).Different cells regenerate at differnt rates. Some do it every few days, some every few years. Some never regenerate at all. Science DOES have an answer as to why we age. Cell replication is imperfect and over time imperfections build up. That is observable fact. That, plus the fact that some cells don't regenerate is what causes aging. There's no mystery to it and it certianly does not require any sort of supernatural or spiritual mumbo jumbo to explain it.



So what gives? The Bible OTOH explains that our continuation depends on an energy/spiritual connection which was severed when Adam elected to rebel and go his own way (actually under Satan's headship). Bible believers thus have a satisfying answer to the question.

Yes, that may satisfy bible belivers, but it is not in any way an objective, verifiable answer. It is simply a statement of faith. The answer may satisfy, but it is not an accurate description of the truth of the matter.



Of course, that satisfaction depends on having confidence in the authenticity of the Bible itself.

Aye, there's the rub. The Bible is not proof of anything for those who don't believe it. There is no objective way to measure the veracity of the the metaphysical assertions contained therein, most importantly the fundamemtal assertion that God exists. If that cannot be proven, then the whole thing falls apart.

On the other hand, anyone can test scientific theories and the results of those tests are there for all to see. No faith is required to understand of believe in the data. 2+2=4 is NOT an assertion of faith, whereas "the bible is true" most certainly is.


What can establish that? There are several lines of reasoning available. My favorite (by no means universally shared by all Bible students) is the Bible's perfect record of predicting actual events before their occurrance (whether distant future or near to hand).

perfect? hardly. All of the biblical prophecy I've seen has required a huge amunt of post hoc interpretation to make the orginal prophecy appear to be valid. But I'm no expert on the topic.



The first prophecy uttered in the Bible is a case in point: Genesis 2:17. He said it; Satan contradicted at Genesis 3:4. Judge for yourself who has proved to be the liar. Other examples to follow.

how odd that the bible confirms its own stories, prophecies, assertions etc. ! The entire book is based on the assertion that it is true because it says it's true and everything in it is written in a way to support that assertion. Which is all well and good and exatcly what you'd expect from a bunch of authors who a) believe what they're writing and b) have a very strong interest in making others believe that it is he truth. You'd hardly expect the writers to put stuff in there that undermined their faith.

the fact that the book confirms itself (although there are many significant contradictions in it too) hardly means that the book is true. It only means that whoever put it together did a good job of editing. I'm reading a multi-volume set of mysteries right now and they are remarkably consistent within each volume and between each volume. That does not, however mean that they are anything but fiction.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 09:59 PM
Metaphysical prophecy is not the issue. The Bible contains specific prophecies that can be verified by secular sources. The book of Daniel is a case in point. In the 19th century and continuing to the present socalled "higher critics" have striven mightily to prove the book was written after the facts but to no avail (Dead Sea scrolls shot the critics down).

Peach
04-21-2013, 10:00 PM
Is hanley the new Sam F? I truly hope so because he's a much more likable character. Not a bit more credible, but certainly more socialized.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:08 PM
Is hanley the new Sam F? I truly hope so because he's a much more likable character. Not a bit more credible, but certainly more socialized. Good to see that both you and Brian Y have managed to respond (so far) without name calling. In the Bilge, that's progress.;)

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:11 PM
Is hanley the new Sam F? I truly hope so because he's a much more likable character. Not a bit more credible, but certainly more socialized. But I could never equal his scholarship or loquacity.:)

Peach
04-21-2013, 10:14 PM
But I could never equal his sophistry.:)

ftfy

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:19 PM
The sad part of faith is the blind part of it. I suppose it's necessary, because otherwise you would have to accept the overwhelming evidence that science has provided that totally bring into question that anything out side of the moral behaviour represented in the bible is true.

No burning bush, no coming back from the dead, no choirs of angels, no rapture. You sound like a Sadducee, Pierre; and stop drinking that pseudoscience coolaide which does nothing for "moral behaviour".

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:21 PM
ftfy Ah Peach, quel domage; just when I thought you wanted to discuss like a gentleman...modifying other's quotes is a big no no.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:23 PM
Hanley is a faithful and discreet slave no doubt ;) And you, Pierre are just a....slave?...

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:25 PM
Still waiting for that honesty and evidence. Me too.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:28 PM
No, I have never been a slave. A workaholic maybe, but never a slave. I am a sentient being that by the nature of my species evolution, I possess something we call "free will".
It is an interesting development, but mortality takes it all away, to reason no more. Points for getting the last sentence spot on, Pierre.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:36 PM
The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. The building blocks of the universe are being discovered slowly, and we know a lot about our natural world, and how it have evolved.

Religion will always be present, since it is a tool of power. There are lots of religions, all claiming to be the 'one'. Wonderful, and interesting folktales. That's all. There is no real "evidencer" for evolution, only conjecture and polemic oft repeated until people believe it (remember who made that observation?) More points, though, for understanding that false religion has been allied with the tools of power and oppression.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:37 PM
All of my sentences on this thread are spot on. In the particular sect you are attached to, you are never going to get the point of them anyway. That's okay. The only thing I dislike about the witnesses is the paternal nature of the their government. Women are minimalized, and the idea of banishment is almost weird. It's like burning witches. Anyway, witnesses don't break the law, so their beliefs are generally harmless. You do well on "last sentences".

Ian McColgin
04-21-2013, 10:41 PM
One face of religion is indeed the matrix of power hoarding through superstitions, "god of the gaps", demeaning behavioral demands, and such.

Another face of religion is the sense of wonder with which we explore the universe - universes of interhuman feeling and universes of material events and universes of that oddest thing - self-reflection.

The former quite rightly enjoys the derision of all thinking people whether they are atheists or religious.

Upon the latter one can build any number of coherant theologies, though none of them will satisfy people who still need stories to understand themselves and the world.

WX
04-21-2013, 10:43 PM
All religion is false and few of those that do believe in them actually follow their basic tenets.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:47 PM
False religion is certainly the whole term. Yes, Joseph Rutherford was a particularly good carpet bagger. Usually revivalists get tarred and feathered. He got Cadillacs and a beautiful house.

I am not going to debate over 100 years of scientific discovery on evolution. It isn't a debate. It's fact. The bible is a nice old collection of folktales, but it doesn't have anything to do with the biological or geologic development of species on this planet. The Bible is not a book of science but wherever it touches on the subject it is accurate. And you get a pass for name calling.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:49 PM
All religion is false and few of those that do believe in them actually follow their basic tenets. Now there is a broad brush if ever there was one; it deserves another thread.

Peach
04-21-2013, 10:51 PM
Ah Peach, quel domage; just when I thought you wanted to discuss like a gentleman...modifying other's quotes is a big no no.

Well hanley, it was meant as a compliment, because you seem to argue from conviction. But I am done discussing evolution vs. creationism with you because there is no middle ground where we both can meet. So, no point.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:54 PM
Well hanley, it was meant as a compliment, because you seem to argue from conviction. But I am done discussing evolution vs. creationism with you because there is no middle ground where we both can meet. So, no point. Right you are, Peach; and thanks for the clarification. And there are many other subjects I'm sure where we might find agreement.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 10:58 PM
Did I call you names? If so, forgive me.... but I have looked over my posts and I can't see one??

No, the bible is full of scientific inaccuracies, in fact, it's a book full of them. People rising from the dead, oceans being parted by a guy with a stick, etc. Well now, if you don't believe in God then you certainly won't believe a "miracle". And you did not call me a name.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 11:00 PM
One face of religion is indeed the matrix of power hoarding through superstitions, "god of the gaps", demeaning behavioral demands, and such.

Another face of religion is the sense of wonder with which we explore the universe - universes of interhuman feeling and universes of material events and universes of that oddest thing - self-reflection.

The former quite rightly enjoys the derision of all thinking people whether they are atheists or religious.

Upon the latter one can build any number of coherant theologies, though none of them will satisfy people who still need stories to understand themselves and the world. Most esoteric. I think I'll leave this one until Nick and I resume tomorrow.

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 11:24 PM
Funny how in the last couple of hundred years where scientific thought has become more mainstream, these miracles haven't occurred. The Catholics still insist, but they are, of course, the Catholics. They still have an exorcism rite on the books. You are rightly suspicious of the Catholic church. It is no coincidence that we do not see public miracles today. They were last used by Jesus to establish his credentials as God's Son. They continued for a few years thereafter for the early church and then ended. 1 Corinthians 13:8 BTW, it is established in scripture that miracles do not build faith.

George Jung
04-21-2013, 11:32 PM
Interesting that those professing non-belief are generally responsible for starting and maintaining these 'discussions'. I've yet to see anyones' opinion or beliefs changed, and really - there's been very little challenge. The 'nons' seem to get most wound up about the topic; most antagonistic; most disrespectful of others beliefs. It's not hard science; no one contests that. Yet that seemingly is an inadequate answer, and so the recurring theme. Why the repetition? the intense interest? I have to wonder - do the 'nons' really disbelieve, or are they looking for someone to convince them? Seems a strong theory!

hanleyclifford
04-21-2013, 11:39 PM
Interesting that those professing non-belief are generally responsible for starting and maintaining these 'discussions'. I've yet to see anyones' opinion or beliefs changed, and really - there's been very little challenge. The 'nons' seem to get most wound up about the topic; most antagonistic; most disrespectful of others beliefs. It's not hard science; no one contests that. Yet that seemingly is an inadequate answer, and so the recurring theme. Why the repetition? the intense interest? I have to wonder - do the 'nons' really disbelieve, or are they looking for someone to convince them? Seems a strong theory! Good observations. However, even strong opposition can indicate an interest in spiritual/energy matters.

Boston
04-22-2013, 12:30 AM
An example is the Big Bang Theory. I guess it's really just conjecture, and not theory? I've read many different explanations for the big bang. Lately "dark matter, dark energy" effects are changing the various theories.

Cosmology is always such and interesting subject. Couple things to ponder. Does there have to be a beginning or an end, is it really necessary to have a creator or created ? I'm not so high on the big bang theory as I once was. Recently I read up on something called the Multiverse theory in which an infinite number of universes exist in a condition of constant change. IE exchange of energy. One might collapse and another expand endlessly. The Bang has its share of supporting data, but its also got its share of anomalies which might just be that famous straw that broke that camels back. Why is it quasars don't seem to follow the Hubble law ? See paper " Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms " by H Arp. Mnt polomer observatory. Arp got fired for his views yet the observable facts remain. Vera Rubin winner of the cosmology prize some time ago had her work nearly canned as well for finding similar results. See NGC 7603 galaxy quasar discovered A, Harp. The picture will show one large galaxy having a unique red shift. Another galaxy exists on the end of a connecting filamentary arm with a significantly different red shift as well as two HII type quasars embedded within the filamentary structure each with there own unique and wildly differing red shifts. Oh and yes spectral analysis confirmed the system was all one object.

Kinda throws a wrench into the whole thing if you ask me but what do I know :d

alvin greenwood
04-22-2013, 12:34 AM
One might take note SH begins with this...

Why are we here?.

Along with .

Where do we go when we die and whats for dinner maybe the 3 most important Qs we might ask .

downthecreek
04-22-2013, 03:09 AM
Good observations. However, even strong opposition can indicate an interest in spiritual/energy matters.

As George Jung comments - "a strong theory". In one form or another it has vast numbers of adherents and, both historically and in current times, a vast impact on societies around the world.

What that demonstrates is not the existence of a deity, but certain widespread features of human psychology - the need for explanations and the fear of death being amongst them. As a non believer, for example, I have often been struck by the psychological accuracy, in terms of emotional appeal, of the Christian religion as I know it. I also love and appreciate the wealth of music, painting etc. inspired by the immense and protean metaphor that is Christianity. Sometimes the creator of these works was genuinely inspired by faith and sometimes by the psychological power of the metaphor, but either way, the results have been stupendous. The Mass, for example, has always struck me as a superbly constructed, concise and compelling example of dramatic art.

But my interest, is not driven by some wish to believe or defensiveness against the "message". I'm just interested in this world and what makes us all tick and therefore cannot but be interested in a phenomenon so powerful and so universal as religion.

Belief in a supernatural deity is as unimaginable to me as (I imagine) unbelief is to you.

Incidentally, Nostrodamus also has some predictions that have "come true" as well as a very great many that have not. The more obscure and ambiguous the language the more likely it is that events will occur that can be interpreted as prophecy fulfilled.

Evolution, on the other hand, is happening all around us in ways that can be both observed, predicted and demonstrated in living creatures with short life cycles. The claim that there is "no evidence" to support the theory of evolution is not really worth responding to, because that fact is there is a great deal of evidence. There are several excellent books that have been recommended here from time to time that set it out in detail, but, like the religious texts, they have to be read with an open mind.

Boston
04-22-2013, 04:17 AM
Up The Creek, I wonder if that artistic inspiration isn't somehow offset by the centuries of lost time, lost knowledge and progress, things like the burning of the libraries by the Chiristian mobs in the late 3rd century, or the lack of sanitation and personal hygiene that accompanied the rise of Pauline Christianity for the first say, 1800 years of its existence ? I realize its PC to try and find some good in the fall of the ancient world to the totalitarian Pauline Christian cult, but all in all, any positive influence, was wildly offset by the utter and complete collapse of Greco Roman societies, and all the advancements in education art science political and sociological lost during those centuries of darkness.

Regardless of whats politically correct or not, I have little sympathy for religion or its blindly faithful when that faith so entirely ignores the simple realities that exist from day to day.

but the philosophy pails beside the science, so again I'd point out that quite real and definitive data exists that pretty much blows the basic tenants of the bang theory out of the water. Its pretty hard to find much support for the bang when Hubble's law itself sits on such precarious grounds.



Why is it quasars don't seem to follow the Hubble law ? See paper " Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms " by H Arp. Mnt polomer observatory. Arp got fired for his views yet the observable facts remain. Vera Rubin winner of the cosmology prize some time ago had her work nearly canned as well for finding similar results. See NGC 7603 galaxy quasar discovered A, Harp. The picture will show one large galaxy having a unique red shift. Another galaxy exists on the end of a connecting filamentary arm with a significantly different red shift as well as two HII type quasars embedded within the filamentary structure each with there own unique and wildly differing red shifts. Oh and yes spectral analysis confirmed the system was all one object.

Kinda throws a wrench into the whole thing if you ask me but what do I know http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/smilies/icon10b.png

downthecreek
04-22-2013, 04:22 AM
Regardless of whats politically correct or not, I have little sympathy for religion or its blindly faithful when that faith so entirely ignores the simple realities that exist from day to day.

I think what I think because that's what I think, not because it's "politically correct". I'm sorry if you don't approve, but there it is.

Not quite sure why you feel the need to alter my nom de keyboard, but if it pleases you, go for it.

BTW I presume you mean "pales"? And when it comes to the big bang, are you sure you aren't addressing somebody else?

Boston
04-22-2013, 05:01 AM
My approval or not is irrelevant, I was just presenting my own personal opinion. It was your post that got me thinking of the history of religion tho and so I noted it as the epicenter of my thoughts. Certainly didn't mean to offend. My apologies.


Oh and around here a common saying is up the creek without a paddle. So it was just a play on words. I guess my goofy sense of humor gets me in trouble again, oh well, hope all is good, no worries and no flies on yah as some of my Ausi friends might say.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-22-2013, 05:07 AM
Many of us have trouble with the Hubble constant.

I am emphatically no mathematician, but, like most of us, I do have some awareness of the history of cosmology. It seems to me that the Hubble constant is at one and the same time too simple and too inadequate. If the red shift is due to the relative speeds of galaxies observed, but the amount of matter observed cannot explain the observed red shift, we have a problem.

Boston
04-22-2013, 05:25 AM
Exactly and it goes beyond that as well. Why is it that there seems to often be a structural cohesiveness between what appear to be parent galaxies and ejected quasars of varying red shifts. Why Do these quasars often appear about the path of least resistance emanating from a parent galaxy, if they are just background features ? The probabilities are low that that this is mere chance.

downthecreek
04-22-2013, 05:36 AM
Oh and around here a common saying is up the creek without a paddle. So it was just a play on words.

Where do you suppose I got my nom de keyboard from? :D

Round here you need to be careful about going too far up the creek. You will, for sure, run aground..................

Peerie Maa
04-22-2013, 06:34 AM
Many of us have trouble with the Hubble constant.

I am emphatically no mathematician, but, like most of us, I do have some awareness of the history of cosmology. It seems to me that the Hubble constant is at one and the same time too simple and too inadequate. If the red shift is due to the relative speeds of galaxies observed, but the amount of matter observed cannot explain the observed red shift, we have a problem.

Which if I have it correct is why all of the work on Dark Matter is so relevant, something that is now bearing fruit.

bogdog
04-22-2013, 07:33 AM
The Bible was penned down by some 40 different individuals under inspiration so that the Bible as we now have it presents a unified central theme.Still waiting for the "inspiration" evidence.

Paul Pless
04-22-2013, 07:36 AM
the Bible as we now have it presents a unified central theme.tehe

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-22-2013, 07:38 AM
Which if I have it correct is why all of the work on Dark Matter is so relevant, something that is now bearing fruit.

I have a bad feeling about Dark Matter; it seems to resemble Phlogiston - something invented to permit a theory to fit the observed universe, when in fact the theory was profoundly mistaken.

I foresee the same thing happening here.

Peerie Maa
04-22-2013, 07:48 AM
I have a bad feeling about Dark Matter; it seems to resemble Phlogiston - something invented to permit a theory to fit the observed universe, when in fact the theory was profoundly mistaken.

I foresee the same thing happening here.

Or then again possibly not :D
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22155222

hanleyclifford
04-22-2013, 08:05 AM
If the universe is expanding, it is logical that it had a beginning.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-22-2013, 09:00 AM
If the universe is expanding, it is logical that it had a beginning.

Indeed so. But that beginning might well be a random event.

JimD
04-22-2013, 09:59 AM
My reading tells me that few if any physicists are committed to the position that the big bang was the beginning of existence. It was just the beginning of our Universe. In this case Hawkings is saying nothing particularly controversial. This has been discussed before on the forum.

Peerie Maa
04-22-2013, 10:02 AM
If the universe is expanding, it is logical that it had a beginning.

And the maths suggest that the begining was about 13,798,000,000 years ago.

Bob Adams
04-22-2013, 10:04 AM
Indeed so. But that beginning might well be a random event.

Or not.

Boston
04-22-2013, 10:19 AM
Which if I have it correct is why all of the work on Dark Matter is so relevant, something that is now bearing fruit.

Dark matter is an invention designed to solve the sticky little issue of there being a lack of observable matter sufficient to make the Bang theory work. While its obvious that a certain amount of dark matter exists, The chances of there being just the right amount to create the bang are somewhat slim. Dark matter, hyper inflation, dark energy and the like are all band aids for the bang. Tools by which we might create a beginning or end where none really need exist. Its just as likely there is some other mechanism which explains the motion of the universe we observe than one where even the fundamentals seem so flawed as to require such exotic inventions that have yet to be observed. I might also add that the fudge factor for just how much dark matter is needed is something between 90 and 99% of all matter. So its not like the theory missed the amount of matter to make it work by some small fraction. Most theories would have been dead right then and there.

Which brings up dark energy, the universe is teaming with charged particles, potentials result in the formation of whopping huge structures called Birkeland strands spanning in some cases thousands if not millions of light years. While the gravitational force is insufficient to significantly influence the nebula gasses, its obvious that the charged nature of the particles absolutely influences there motion and structure, long before gravity has any significant influence. I'm again forced to question one of the fundamental tenants of the bang, that gravity is the predominant force in the universe. The electrical component is obvious, yet absent for some reason, as a major influence in the structure and mechanics of the universe as defined by the bang. If the bang theory were to consider the electrical influence, would there really be a need for "dark" energy ?

Maxwells equations and the lorentz force require associated magnetic fields induced by the cohesive movement of electrons to form exactly the type structures as are observed within the nebula. Yet gravity is typically the only force used to define the universe as we see it today, and we invent dark energy ?

The premise of the OPs original is IMHO somewhat flawed as it presumes the standard model hasn't been discovered to have so many holes in it as to force a complete rethink of our understanding of how the universe works. At this point in cosmology it might be best just to admit we don't know, and not stifle research into alternative theories.

Boston
04-22-2013, 10:30 AM
If the universe is expanding, it is logical that it had a beginning.

and that presumed expansion is based of Hubbles law, which doesn't allow for binary structures to have dramatically differing red shifts, which is exactly what has been discovered, again I'd draw your attention to NGC 7603

Boston
04-22-2013, 10:40 AM
And the maths suggest that the begining was about 13,798,000,000 years ago.

again based off hubbles law which has been shown to be significantly flawed, I'll try and go dig up a reference of quasars which follow ejecta paths from galaxies indicating they are part of a general structure yet have wildly differing red shift, indicating they should exist at massive distances from one another, yet don't appear to.

Sure their is a number of structures in the universe that fall neatly into the definition of hubbles law, but there's a number that don't, in which case we really might consider the implications, Hubbles law isn't, a law, and again the fundamental tenant of the bang is not looking to healthy.

see
NGC 3516
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n4051seitz.jpg

You'll be looking at the galaxy at about a 45° angle to its rotation, there are a number of quasars fairly well aligned with this galaxies axis of rotation, along the line where one might expect globular clusters to exist. Which are most definitely structures accepted as existing in unison with the galactic structure as a whole. So if we consistently see quasars in these areas is it reasonable to simply chalk it up to chance that this occurs so often that a galaxy just happens to be aligned just right with quasars in the far far far distance which just coincidentally happen to lie along this path. The chances of it being happenstance is so phenomenally slim its kinda silly mainstream cosmology has yet to address the issue of the observed universe.

NGC 3516 is not alone, if anyone is actually interested I could try and dig up a few more examples. But its a common arrangement that is almost always ignored. Quasars of wildly differing red shifts appear to be associated with galactic systems of significantly lower red shifts. Thus throwing a massive monkey wrench into Hubbles law.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-22-2013, 11:27 AM
Boston - you certainly have my interest. Will be trying to understand the implications of NGC 3516 for a while.

I have thought that dark matter, inflaton, etc were a type of phogiston for some time.

Boston
04-22-2013, 11:56 AM
you might also find Chip Arps and Jack Sulentics work on NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 of interest as well. Again a filamentary element combining multiple galactic structures of intensely different red shifts. Either Hubbles law is flawed or there is so much galactic debris within that filamentary structure as to make it impossible that its own gravitational force wouldn't have overpowered the gravitational influence of the three galactic structures, which are fundamental to defining the kinematics of the system as a whole. IE somethings not right and Hubbles Law is the most likely error.

Which brings us again, ( for the third time, in just this short conversation ) to that sticky little issue of the fundamental tenant to the bang being observationally flawed. I could spend months looking up similar systems there's so many of them.

Our OP likened science to religion, and unfortunately there are some examples of this within the sciences, cosmology, I wish, weren't one of them, but it certainly appears that the observational evidence refuting the big bang theory has become so vast, that it belies explanation beyond something bordering on religious ferver that the standard model survives.

Looking back through my little library here at the house Jayant Narlikar's stuff goes into some detail on why the bang needs a rethink. He makes a rather famous case for the theories inability to make accurate predictions which can be backed up through observational evidences.

If enough observational evidence is corroborated to prove Hubbles Law unsound, then we'd be essentially stuck reevaluating decades of work in the field of astronomy. It would be pure bedlam, which is why I think most astronomers won't even consider releasing there death grip on the issue. Most of these guys start doing backflips right about the time you mention some of these anomalous formations.

hanleyclifford
04-22-2013, 01:57 PM
Boston, maybe you should delicately remind your colleagues of the "scientific method"?:D

Gerarddm
04-22-2013, 02:07 PM
"Unified central theme"? Bible?

Cognitive dissonance to use those in the same sentence.

I would hazard a guess that most of the European religious wars put paid to the idea of a 'unified central theme'

Boston
04-22-2013, 02:09 PM
Thats me, MR Delicate :ycool:

Oh and I'm pretty sure people like Fred Hoyle are quite familiar with the scientific process. I might also note he was not impressed with the big bang theory at all. Actually if I remember he named it.

Go look up Hoyles name and some of the others I mentioned and see it these folks who seriously questioned many of the basic tenants of the bang aren't some of the biggest names in cosmology.

hanleyclifford
04-22-2013, 02:14 PM
"Unified central theme"? Bible?

Cognitive dissonance to use those in the same sentence.

I would hazard a guess that most of the European religious wars put paid to the idea of a 'unified central theme' Bad guess.

Peerie Maa
04-22-2013, 03:31 PM
from wiki

The evidence that resulted in the Big Bang's victory over the steady state model, at least in the minds of most cosmologists, included the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) radiation in the 1960s, the distribution of "young galaxies" and quasars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasars) throughout the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) in the 1980s, a more consistent age estimate of the universe and most recently the observations of the COBE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer) satellite in the 1990s and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe) launched in 2001, which showed unevenness in the microwave background in the early universe, which corresponds to currently observed distributions of galaxies. Hoyle died in 2001 never accepting the expanding universe theory.
The steady state hypothesis was not supported by much physical evidence, whereas the Big Bang has been.

Boston
04-22-2013, 04:07 PM
Trying to be as delicate as possible, I quote specific systems, I'll even quote another one just off the top of my head NGC 7320 and NGC 7320C. Which specifically offer observational evidence directly refuting the consistency of Hubbles law, and quote one of the greatest astronomers of modern times Fred Hoyle. And The response I get is a short paragraph from Wikki about the microwave background ?

Oh what fun I could have with this one, Sorry Peerie but even a rudimentary understanding of the history of studies concerning the background radiation reveals countless theories predating the big bang theory which far far, far more accurately predicted that signal. Something tells me your not going to take my word for it so maybe I'll go collect a list of them you can check yourself if you like. Its pure bunk to suggest that the big bang theory accurate predicted the background radiation and its even worse that some people suggest that the existence of that back ground radiation is some kinda proof of the bang or any of the other failed hypothesis that predicted it before that.

I can see I'm going to need a beer for this so just a moment while I brave the snow and go pick up some supplies :d

Peerie Maa
04-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Trying to be as delicate as possible, I quote specific systems, I'll even quote another one just off the top of my head NGC 7320 and NGC 7320C. Which specifically offer observational evidence directly refuting the consistency of Hubbles law, and quote one of the greatest astronomers of modern times Fred Hoyle. And The response I get is a short paragraph from Wikki about the microwave background ?

Oh what fun I could have with this one, Sorry Peerie but even a rudimentary understanding of the history of studies concerning the background radiation reveals countless theories predating the big bang theory which far far, far more accurately predicted that signal. Something tells me your not going to take my word for it so maybe I'll go collect a list of them you can check yourself if you like. Its pure bunk to suggest that the big bang theory accurate predicted the background radiation and its even worse that some people suggest that the existence of that back ground radiation is some kinda proof of the bang or any of the other failed hypothesis that predicted it before that.

I can see I'm going to need a beer for this so just a moment while I brave the snow and go pick up some supplies :d

Don't just list them, or post pictures of galaxy's with no text.
Post up to date peer reviewed papers please.

WX
04-22-2013, 05:30 PM
What's the name of the church in Jerusalem where the different brands of Christianity fight and argue with each other? Unified, yeah sure.
However the Big Band theory discussion is quite interesting.

hanleyclifford
04-22-2013, 05:39 PM
What's the name of the church in Jerusalem where the different brands of Christianity fight and argue with each other? Unified, yeah sure.
However the Big Band theory discussion is quite interesting. You seem to be confused about the distinction between "church" and "Bible".

Boston
04-22-2013, 06:05 PM
I'll list them along with the names and dates of the estimates and your welcome to go look them up all you want. Sorry but your going to have to do at least some of your own legwork if you expect me to do some of mine. I'd think the simple facts would suffice, but I can understand your desire to see the actual work itself. I'm kinda that way myself. Deal is I'd be all afternoon going through my stuff to satisfy your request. But my thinking is it will make a richer conversation if we each are digging through the work. Rather than just me presenting and you refuting.

The simple fact of the mater is the existence of a background radiation was predicted by countless hypothesis far far more accurately than by the bang theory.

Actually you really couldn't have quoted a worse example to support your case. The embarrassment of the findings for the bang theorists resulted in a fire storm of excuses and corrections ( more fudge factors ). Giving much well founded ammunition to the old guard who still felt like observational evidence should be the driving factor of our cosmological theories

Jean Claude Pecker a very famous name in the history of cosmology argues this issue quite well

Huilluame 1896 6.1 K non expanding universe

Eddington 1926 3.2 K non expanding universe

Regener 1933 2.8 K non expanding universe

Nernst and Born 1937 2.8 K non expanding universe

McKellar 1941 2.3 K non expanding universe


Freudlich 1953 2.3 K non expanding universe

Gold Bondl Hoyle 1955 2.78 K steady state universe

Gamow 1961 50 K big bang

Penzias and Wilson 1965 3 K Detected

Peratt 1987 2.8 K Plasma Universe

In a nut shell the bangs failure to predict accurately the background radiation was such an embarrassment that to this day there's excuse after excuse offered as to why the failure occurred.

I once read an argument by Hoyle that this fact of the red shift being so accurately predicted by so many theorists was proof that it was no proof at all of any of them.

Oh and to be fair I think at one point prior to the discovery of the actual background radiation a bang theorist did predict something like 7 K but it was revised by another bang theorist to 50 K some time after

Peerie Maa
04-22-2013, 06:25 PM
Any thing more recent than 1987?

Boston
04-22-2013, 07:02 PM
Oh I'm sure there is but it wouldn't be all that relevant given that the actual measurement was discovered in 65. Hindsight is 20/20

However much of the observed evidences for non expansive red shift is very recent. Go check some of those previous references out.

AndyG
04-22-2013, 07:10 PM
...one of the greatest astronomers of modern times Fred Hoyle.

Really? I think Wiki gets the award for being nearer the mark:


While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, his career was largely dominated by the controversial positions he held on a wide range of scientific issues, often in direct opposition to the opinions and evidence supported by the majority of the scientific community.

Andy

bogdog
04-22-2013, 07:16 PM
You seem to be confused about the distinction between "church" and "Bible".

Do they all use the same Bible? Got any inspiration evidence for me?

Glen Longino
04-22-2013, 07:22 PM
You seem to be confused about the distinction between "church" and "Bible".

You seem to be confused about the distinction between "reality" and "mysticism".

Boston
04-22-2013, 07:26 PM
And Hubble played a great game of basketball to, but regardless, Hoyle's contributions to cosmology are legendary. He was one of the founding fathers of modern astrophysics

I'm watching a lecture from 2008 and as soon as I figure out what its saying I'll either post it or not, its from one of the mainstream universities but it does seem to be addressing some of the issues I've presented and confirming that the standard model is at a point where it might just have to be abandoned.

ok Meh it didn't really discuss non expansive red shift

But as an example of how mainstream astronomers avoid the electric influence of the universe I did dig up this image of what is obviously a Birkeland current in a double helix nebula,

http://www.everythingselectric.com/images/the-cygnus-loop-birkeland-currents-in-space.jpg

Now check out the this article from NASA 2009

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list185832

Again there's a growing body of evidence which is moving the observed reality further and further away from a predominantly gravitational influenced universe to a predominantly electrically influenced universe. The simple explanation for the filamentary structure is that the magnetic fields commonly associated with the movement of electrons in a uniform direction is a Birkeland strand. After all the universe is mostly plasma of some kind or another if you are willing to consider that all those little gas clouds spanning millions of light years are not void of an electrical charge.

Of particular note is that the article mentions that the ribbon runs perpendicular to the magnetic field. Aint that just fascinating, how many electrical engineers do we have maybe reading along and maybe one can chime in with an explanation of the right hand rule in maxwells equations ?

Either that of maybe someone might get curious and go look it up as Im in the middle of another lecture I found.

Boston
04-22-2013, 10:54 PM
OK lecture over, check out LMC N49 and tell me those filamentary structures have nothing to do with magnetic fields which must exist in conjunction with the motion of electrically charged particles, IE plasma. So where is the consideration of the electric influence in the bang theory ? And how if Hubbles law can be observationally shown to be flawed, is it possible to extrapolate from it, a compression of all known matter to a singularity that defies conservation of both mass and energy.

In the end I'm in the minority, but clinging to the bang is a lot like hanging on to a sinking ship, there's just no way its not going down eventually.

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 04:30 AM
Any thing more recent than 1987?


Oh I'm sure there is but it wouldn't be all that relevant given that the actual measurement was discovered in 65. Hindsight is 20/20

However much of the observed evidences for non expansive red shift is very recent. Go check some of those previous references out.

Well my point is that a quarter century has passed since the most recent paper that you listed.
Are there any more recent papers on steady state?
Is there any new evidence supporting steady state?
Is any body still working on steady state?

If the answer is no, no, and no then the steady state hypothesis is dead in the water.

Boston
04-23-2013, 09:20 AM
Yikes

one must learn to look before one leaps :ycool:
Don Scott's PHD 2009 lecture at NASA

http://mediaman.gsfc.nasa.gov/colloquia_asx/public/ENG/2009/ENG20090316.asx

how about from the Journal of Transactions on Plasma Science

Special Issues on Space and Cosmic Plasma:
Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (electrical engineering, plasma science, and the plasma universe), Contents
Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (golden anniversary of magnetic storms and the aurora, dedicated to Hannes Alfvén in recognition of his 80th birthday), Contents
Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990), Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Plasma Cosmology), Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology (First Workshop on Plasma Cosmology), La Jolla, California, USA, 20-22 February 1989. Contents
Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992), Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space.) Contents
Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather). Contents
Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004), 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Contents
Vol 35 No 4 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma

Or better yet the Alfen conferences
http://www.ep.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/~alfven5/ (http://www.ep.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/%7Ealfven5/)


If the answer is no, no, and no then the steady state hypothesis is dead in the water.

Not going to do any of your own work on this are you Peerie, The simple reality is that the science of plasma physics is exploding right about now. There's a very famous guy used to play a guitar with a few missing fingers, once said, you aint going to learn, what you don't want to know.


That aught to be enough to keep you amused for a while and convince our readers that, yes, this research is alive and well and still being peer reviewed and presented to the scientific community.

while I'm hesitant to switch the direction of the conversation from one in which I question the accuracy of the big bang theory by pointing out major flaws in the basic tenants of the theory.

For instance, we observe pulsars, some of which pulse ( explained as rotational speed of a neutron star ) in the millisecond range. hundreds of times a second. Thus Neutron stars were born, stars supposedly so dense that they can't fly apart. There's just one little problem, The island of stability principal in nuclear chemistry, says you can't pack neutrons together that densely they'd all fly apart instantaneously, Oh I suppose it could be wrong, after all it was only dreamed up by some unknown guy Glenn Seaborg, might have won some rather inconsequential little ditty called the Nobel prize for his efforts because it clearly defines a point at which if you pack matter, it becomes stable and won't pack any tighter. But explain that to a cosmologist and watch the back flips begin.

To one in which I'm asked to defend some other just as unlikely to be free of flaws cosmological theory.

Its just to much fun bashing the bang. Its got more holes in it than that last boat you built :D

I would suggest that a number of theories seem to have some merits and that we are most likely to find an accurate assessment of our universes construction somewhere in between them all. But, clinging to any one theory with a death grip is highly unlikely to further that scientific process someone mentioned earlier.

The bang is most likely a bust and the assumption that there need be a beginning or an end would seem to be in the process of going full circle. See multiverse theory if you really want to bake your noodle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag0U65NkxrI

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 10:33 AM
Well I am certainly not going to plough through something in an area of science that is way out of my field in the vain hope that the conclusion to the paper may state clearly that "this shows that the Big Bang is crap".
You want to claim that they disprove the big bang then you are going to have to c&p the relevant statements. I have a salary to earn (as a Naval Architect, nothing to do with plasma or magnetism ;)) so I'll not spend the time following some ideas that might or might not challenge the peer reviewed consensus.
Nothing from your earlier posts did that, and I have no idea whether your latest list of reading does so or not.

P.S. If we are not expanding from a central point, there should be about an equal number of blue shifted objects as well. Where are they?

Osborne Russell
04-23-2013, 11:20 AM
I often hear that "something cannot come from nothing". Why not?

downthecreek
04-23-2013, 12:10 PM
I often hear that "something cannot come from nothing". Why not?

Why not indeed?

If not matter, then why spirit? I would like to see that question answered.

peb
04-23-2013, 12:43 PM
I often hear that "something cannot come from nothing". Why not?

We have no evidence of it being able to occur. Science has provided no indication that something can come from nothing. On the other side of the equation, all of our evidence supports that idea that something always comes from something.

Boston
04-23-2013, 02:51 PM
Why not indeed?

If not matter, then why spirit? I would like to see that question answered.


Conservation of mass and conservation of energy, but the bang theory really isn't saying that or at least not entirely. What the bang basically is, is the embodiment of Einsteins field equations, which Einstein himself said were flawed. Actually he spent something like the last 30+ years of his life trying to figure out why he needed a cosmological constant ( another fudge factor ) to make it work, sorta. He also believed there was something wrong with relativity to, but again it escaped him. The problem arises when science assumes the beginning of an equation is the beginning of everything, it also assumes a singularity is possible. actually it assumes neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, all kinds of fairy dust as the lecturer in that last says to a room full of stunned NASA scientists.

My only point was to suggest that none of the special matter developed to help the bang stay alive is needed in the plasma universe theory, nor is the bang theory really holding its own against the myriad of other theories out there, and there are many. Most previous theories and most subsequent theories at least try and rationally account for whats observed and most don't follow the expanding universe concept either, as mentioned earlier if you really want to bake your noodle, go read up on multiverse theory.

The bang for instance sees a pulsar and develops all kinds of wild theories of special matter, a neutron star for instance who's density defies Nobel Prize winning discovery of the Island of Stability principal by nuclear physicist Glenn Seaborg PHD, yet plasma theory explains it perfectly and without the need of any special exceptions to known science.

Plasma physics is a fairly new study in the sciences, my patent involves plasma dynamics actually, so its no big surprise the old school bang theorist don't want to give up on there dream of solving the issues and problems they've invested so much in, its typical of the sciences to resist dramatically new ideas. I say give it time and the bang with fizzle to a bust.

Boston
04-23-2013, 03:09 PM
P.S. If we are not expanding from a central point, there should be about an equal number of blue shifted objects as well. Where are they?

Which is a good question, Joao Magueijo about 20 years ago discovered that the speed of light depends on the energy density of the medium it flows through, he considered only the energy density of the universe, but medium works just fine. He actually got the field equations to work without the cosmological constant, which was a first. But he took a lot of flack for doing it and ended up leaving his post at Cambridge ( a fellow if I remember ) cause he was literally being assailed in the halls. Science freaked.

One thing your question assumes is again Hubbles Law. But I've already shown multiple example that completely defy Hubbles Law. So there must be additional forces acting on what we can see that are more likely to produce an accelerating effect on light than a deceleration effect. Here's the part where your question plays right into the argument. How do physicist accelerate particles, IE how does a collider work ? Answer, they use magnetic fields, IE plasma universe theory explains it perfectly. Magueigo described how energy density effects light speed and plasma physics long ago discovered that the easiest way to accelerate a particle is with a magnetic field. Plasma theory says that the electrical influence which as defined by Maxwell's equations must be found in conjunction with magnetic fields, is many, actually they do give a number, a million billion billion billion billion times stronger than the gravitational influence. Thats a ton of energy and its not all that smoothly distributed. Same thing explains coronal acceleration from the sun, which bang theorists have absolutely zero explanation for.

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 03:10 PM
If you google Plasma Universe you get all sorts of fun stuff : http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

Wiki suggests that there is a lot more to do to sort out the anomalies.


Comparison to the standard model of Big Bang cosmology

Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-Peratt1986-5) and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-Alfven1978-16) In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve) of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_holes) in galaxy centres to power quasars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasars) and active galactic nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-Peratt1986-5)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-Peratt1983-34) This is controversial, as theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-Siegel2006-17) i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (say 1018 Amps) for galaxy formation are thought to not exist.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-Colafrancesco2006-13)
Light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis (as required in e.g. Alfvén-Klein cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive x-rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray) and gamma rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray) beyond that observed.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-37)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-38) This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-39)
In 1995 Eric Lerner published the only proposal based on plasma cosmology to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) (CMB) since the Cosmic Background Explorer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer) (COBE) results were announced in 1992.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-40) He argues that his model can explain both the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP). The fact that the CMB is so isotropic, in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#cite_note-41) These measurements show the acoustic peaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Primary_anis otropy) in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model. There has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology.

JimD
04-23-2013, 03:23 PM
One thing science and religion have in common is a lack of consensus. Personally, I do not live in a world of facts and beliefs. I live in a world of opinions and possibilities.

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 03:45 PM
One thing your question assumes is again Hubbles Law. But I've already shown multiple example that completely defy Hubbles Law.
Not sure that you did, there are interesting anomalies out there, but unless you can c&p me some text that says the Doppler effect as applied to stellar radiation does not happen they are just unexplained.

So there must be additional forces acting on what we can see that are more likely to produce an accelerating effect on light than a deceleration effect. Here's the part where your question plays right into the argument. How do physicist accelerate particles, IE how does a collider work ? Answer, they use magnetic fields, IE plasma universe theory explains it perfectly. Magueigo described how energy density effects light speed and plasma physics long ago discovered that the easiest way to accelerate a particle is with a magnetic field. Plasma theory says that the electrical influence which as defined by Maxwell's equations must be found in conjunction with magnetic fields, is many, actually they do give a number, a million billion billion billion billion times stronger than the gravitational influence. Thats a ton of energy and its not all that smoothly distributed. Same thing explains coronal acceleration from the sun, which bang theorists have absolutely zero explanation for.We are not discussing accelerating particles, we are discussing measuring the variations in wavelength of the radiation coming from the "particles" or structures that allows us to calculate their relative velocity. Now are you saying that something as simple as the Doppler effect does not work and that the red or blue shifts of the observed spectra are not real?
Quote me the sources that say that please.

Boston
04-23-2013, 03:50 PM
Uh you can't accelerate light, without changing the energy density of the universe/medium it travels through, but you can alter its wave length through other means, one of which is the application of a magnetic field

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 04:02 PM
Uh you can't accelerate light, without changing the energy density of the universe/medium it travels through, but you can alter its wave length through other means, one of which is the application of a magnetic field

Well a Google for that idea drew a blank, so can you link to any sources to explain the science.

Boston
04-23-2013, 04:28 PM
You'd need a pretty good understanding of Magueigo's work to get a grip on faster than light theory but the gravitational lens effect does change frequency a bit. Which is another something that screws up Hubbles Law. So I'll focus on that for a moment.

If you accept gravitational lensing, which I think is a pretty sound concept. Then you must accept that its possible that light might actually bend or be bent completely around on itself. Which is leads to another problem, but thats a whole other conversation. The light travels multiple paths to the observer. Meaning that we might be seeing the same objects multiple times due to gravitational lensing. And those objects might not follow a similar pathway to the observer, which means they will have similar spectral analysis but differing red shift, IE slide there spectral fingerprint down the scale a bit. In the end when you look up at the night sky, some number of features are highly likely to be copies of copies of copies.

I'd reiterate that I'm not saying that Plasma Theory is the end all beat all, I'm just saying that it appears to be the most promising of all the latest theories and it does offer some very simple explanations to some very sticky problems in bang theory.

Oh and


Not sure that you did, there are interesting anomalies out there, but unless you can c&p me some text that says the Doppler effect as applied to stellar radiation does not happen they are just unexplained

This is a good example of one where plasma theory isn't really offering an explanation, its just pointing out a problem. And its not saying that the doppler effect is void, its just saying that it can't be the only force involved given the observable evidence. Neither would the gravitational lens effect explain things like NGC 7603. As its all one system with wildly different red shifts.

Point being that its highly unlikely that the bang theory end up being correct, its basis, Hubbles law is not looking to good and even the field equations were claimed by there creator, Einstein, to be fundamentally flawed in some unknown way that necessitated the cosmological constant be applied to fix the error.

Bangs just got to many holes in it to survive much longer, if only that were the case with religion. Religions got more problems than your high school prom date yet for some reason, people are willing to believe. I'm pretty sure George Carlin put it best, "people are willing to believe in some invisible man in the sky, and give him their money, but put out a sign says wet paint, and look how many people gotta stick there fingers in it".

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 04:45 PM
You'd need a pretty good understanding of Magueigo's work to get a grip on faster than light theory but the gravitational lens effect does change frequency a bit. Which is another something that screws up Hubbles Law. So I'll focus on that for a moment.

If you accept gravitational lensing, which I think is a pretty sound concept. Then you must accept that its possible that light might actually bend or be bent completely around on itself. Which is leads to another problem, but thats a whole other conversation. The light travels multiple paths to the observer. Meaning that we might be seeing the same objects multiple times due to gravitational lensing. And those objects might not follow a similar pathway to the observer, which means they will have similar spectral analysis but differing red shift, IE slide there spectral fingerprint down the scale a bit. In the end when you look up at the night sky, some number of features are highly likely to be copies of copies of copies.

I'd reiterate that I'm not saying that Plasma Theory is the end all beat all, I'm just saying that it appears to be the most promising of all the latest theories and it does offer some very simple explanations to some very sticky problems in bang theory.

Why does that feature cause a differing red shift/ Red shift is caused by the velocity of the emitter, not the path of the photon.

I think that the only time light would be bent as extremely as you suggest is at a black hole event horizon. Gravitational lensing, when you consider the distances vcan only bend light through fractions of a second of arc.

WX
04-23-2013, 04:53 PM
You seem to be confused about the distinction between "church" and "Bible".
And how many versions/interpretations of the Bible are there? Dare I mention that it is also full of contradictions. It could do with editing.

Boston
04-23-2013, 05:11 PM
Why does that feature cause a differing red shift/ Red shift is caused by the velocity of the emitter, not the path of the photon.

I think that the only time light would be bent as extremely as you suggest is at a black hole event horizon. Gravitational lensing, when you consider the distances vcan only bend light through fractions of a second of arc.

lectures on gravitational lensing 1Harvard
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/research/bartelmann/Lectures/EinfSeminar/JeruLect.pdf&sa=U&ei=1fd2UYjpAaLr2AW5s4DQDA&ved=0CCEQFjAC&sig2=XTd639seFUw-ELEYeWtXZg&usg=AFQjCNF7ORZjgaOVcka-O_P5JosSAbFX3g

as far as light only bending threw a few degrees, think bigger. The universe is more than just one system across.

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 05:39 PM
lectures on gravitational lensing 1Harvard
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/research/bartelmann/Lectures/EinfSeminar/JeruLect.pdf&sa=U&ei=1fd2UYjpAaLr2AW5s4DQDA&ved=0CCEQFjAC&sig2=XTd639seFUw-ELEYeWtXZg&usg=AFQjCNF7ORZjgaOVcka-O_P5JosSAbFX3g

as far as light only bending threw a few degrees, think bigger. The universe is more than just one system across.

Que? One system of what?

Boston
04-23-2013, 05:52 PM
Light must pass by innumerable highly gravitational structures in space before it reaches us, depending of course, on just how far away it started from. But of course that doesn't mean that the light of that object near to us, emitted in the opposite, or any direction really, might not also bend around eventually and come back to us as a mirror image, or multiple mirror images really.

As to how many objects like galaxies that might enable this type of phenomenon to exist


http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/690951main_hs-2009-31-a-xlarge_web.jpg



For the time being, the hundreds of billions in the tally are extrapolated from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, taken over a time period in 2003 and 2004. Pointed at a single piece of space for several months — a spot covering less than one-tenth of one-millionth of the sky — Hubble returned an image of galaxies 13 billion light years away. ( there's about 10,000 galaxies in that image alone )


Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/36610/how-many-galaxies-have-we-discovered/#ixzz2RKFIdRPB

hanleyclifford
04-23-2013, 05:56 PM
I often hear that "something cannot come from nothing". Why not? Good question and actually introduces another spanner into the discussion, if by "nothing" you mean nothing "physical". The line separating matter and energy is in tatters now, as it were, in that the distinction between "matter" and "energy (spirit)" is no longer clear. Existence as we know it may actually be only one basic component.

Peerie Maa
04-23-2013, 06:20 PM
Light must pass by innumerable highly gravitational structures in space before it reaches us, depending of course, on just how far away it started from. But of course that doesn't mean that the light of that object near to us, emitted in the opposite, or any direction really, might not also bend around eventually and come back to us as a mirror image, or multiple mirror images really.

As to how many objects like galaxies that might enable this type of phenomenon to exist


http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/690951main_hs-2009-31-a-xlarge_web.jpg

I think that the probability of any coherent image existing in the circumstance that you postulate are vanishingly small. For that to occur the distances would be massive and consequently any brightness would be dissipated over distance rendering the result, if even possible, undetectable.

okawbow
04-23-2013, 07:12 PM
All things seem to have a "life cycle" if you will. It only seems logical to me that our universe has a cycle of expansion, then contraction, perhaps to a single point, and then it all starts over again. Maybe it's been happening forever.

Boston
04-23-2013, 08:46 PM
Oh I can monkey wrench that, Godel's model from his oh so famous paper Godel's universe, chapter on causality, builds a model that has been argued endlessly and has yet to fail the test. He suggests that closed time like loops exist throughout the universe and in effect all time occurs at once. IE there is no time, if there is no direction of time flow and no beginning or end.

Godel did some pretty mind bending mathematics that have yet to be found flawed to prove his theory of causality. Its been a thorn in the side of astrophysics for quite some time.

oh there was one error but someone corrected for it and found the model to work anyway. Godel assumed the universe was rotating kinda like everything else seems to be and its now thought that the universe isn't rotating. The model has been shown to work in successively smaller and smaller forms as well.

alvin greenwood
04-23-2013, 10:03 PM
No, I have never been a slave. A workaholic maybe, but never a slave. I am a sentient being that by the nature of my species evolution, I possess something we call "free will".
It is an interesting development, but mortality takes it all away, to reason no more..

Who told you that you have free will, did the woman trick you into eating the apple?

WX
04-23-2013, 10:59 PM
Free will is subject to hormonal influences etc.

L.W. Baxter
04-23-2013, 11:03 PM
Free will is subject to hormonal influences etc.

Yes, there are several days a month when I am definitely not free to say the first thing that pops into my head.

Durnik
04-23-2013, 11:40 PM
OTOH -


"Women complain about premenstrual syndrome, but I think of it
as the only time of the month that I can be myself."
-- Roseanne

enjoy
bobby

AndyG
04-24-2013, 06:42 AM
I think that the probability of any coherent image existing in the circumstance that you postulate are vanishingly small.

Indeed. Gravitational lensing tends to produce arc-shaped images from point-like sources.

No way are you going to get pretty pictures of galaxies after multiple lensing events, any more than you'd get a faultless reflection off rippled water.

Andy

WX
04-24-2013, 07:12 AM
Indeed. Gravitational lensing tends to produce arc-shaped images from point-like sources.

No way are you going to get pretty pictures of galaxies after multiple lensing events, any more than you'd get a faultless reflection off rippled water.

Andy
There is software that can surly correct the distortion.

AndyG
04-24-2013, 07:26 AM
Unless I'm reading Boston very wrong, he's suggesting (a fraction of) (normal-looking) galaxy images in Hubble Deep Field images are the result of multiple lensing events.

Since there is no "software" involved I find this idea unlikely, at best.

Andy

peb
04-24-2013, 08:15 AM
Oh I can monkey wrench that, Godel's model from his oh so famous paper Godel's universe, chapter on causality, builds a model that has been argued endlessly and has yet to fail the test. He suggests that closed time like loops exist throughout the universe and in effect all time occurs at once. IE there is no time, if there is no direction of time flow and no beginning or end.

Godel did some pretty mind bending mathematics that have yet to be found flawed to prove his theory of causality. Its been a thorn in the side of astrophysics for quite some time.

oh there was one error but someone corrected for it and found the model to work anyway. Godel assumed the universe was rotating kinda like everything else seems to be and its now thought that the universe isn't rotating. The model has been shown to work in successively smaller and smaller forms as well.

I do not think Godel's model was ever intended to represent our universe. He proposed it as a possible solution to some of Einsteins equations, a universe that could exist. A professor told me once that an ongoing joke of Godel's until the end of his life was the rhetorical question: is the universe rotating yet?

Osborne Russell
04-24-2013, 10:44 AM
We have no evidence of it being able to occur.

That doesn't mean it can't.

Depends how you define "nothing" and "something", seems to me.

Osborne Russell
04-24-2013, 10:46 AM
Why not indeed?

If not matter, then why spirit? I would like to see that question answered.

There could be realms upon realms of S.

Osborne Russell
04-24-2013, 10:49 AM
Good question and actually introduces another spanner into the discussion, if by "nothing" you mean nothing "physical". The line separating matter and energy is in tatters now, as it were, in that the distinction between "matter" and "energy (spirit)" is no longer clear. Existence as we know it may actually be only one basic component.

Yeah. There was never "nothing".

Osborne Russell
04-24-2013, 10:51 AM
Yes, there are several days a month when I am definitely not free to say the first thing that pops into my head.

For me it's only when the wolfbane blooms.BY:D

Osborne Russell
04-24-2013, 10:57 AM
The problem arises when science assumes the beginning of an equation is the beginning of everything, it also assumes a singularity is possible.

Yeah. They take an intellectual exercise and elevate it to the governing principle of the universe. Hubris, metaphysics, etc.

Boston
04-24-2013, 11:00 AM
Indeed. Gravitational lensing tends to produce arc-shaped images from point-like sources.

No way are you going to get pretty pictures of galaxies after multiple lensing events, any more than you'd get a faultless reflection off rippled water.

Andy

There will be a limit at which we are in a bubble and at which point all radiation will either dissipate in the way you suggest Andy or be bent back on itself. Can't remember what paper I read that in but its really only dependent on just how big the universe is, assuming there's only one. Multiverse theory would have it that we live in an infinite space with infinite universes

I'm not sure anyone's actually done a survey looking for perfect lensing copies, due to exactly the reasons you suggest, so I'd be curious just how often it might occur. Shouldn't rule it out as at least a possibility IMHO

Boston
04-24-2013, 11:07 AM
Unless I'm reading Boston very wrong, he's suggesting (a fraction of) (normal-looking) galaxy images in Hubble Deep Field images are the result of multiple lensing events.

Since there is no "software" involved I find this idea unlikely, at best.

Andy

In a nut shell yes, but I wasn't specifically thinking the deep space field shot, and I wouldn't think it all that common. Its just that there is such a huge number of chances of it occurring that its at least a possibility. Again it be interesting if someone surveyed the spectral analysis of a number of stars and compared them by shifting there position slightly on the spectrum and seeing if there are any perfect matches.

Gerarddm
04-24-2013, 11:11 AM
No, not a bad guess, hanleyclifford. There are enough splinter groups of Christianity flying around the ether and on old battlefields that the only unifying concept seems to be Jesus. That's a thin splinter to hang your hat on.

Boston
04-24-2013, 11:32 AM
E gads we agreed on something, unfortunately with the pauline christian mob having burned whatever written record that might have existed of who Jesus actually was and what he actually said, there's really no telling. I seem to remember a Vatican study a while ago that mentioned only a few lines of the entire new testament could be attributed to Jesus, and I'm pretty sure it was almost entirely the lords prayer. Thats it kids, pretty slim splinter indeed.

Gerarddm
04-24-2013, 12:14 PM
Meanwhile, back in the cosmos...

http://news.yahoo.com/why-does-anything-exist-scientists-bit-answer-151042708.html

peb
04-24-2013, 12:26 PM
That doesn't mean it can't.

Depends how you define "nothing" and "something", seems to me.

While you are correct with your first statement, it is a decidedly unscientific way of thinking. As to how you define something and nothing, it seems to me that is only a problem for scientists these days. The dictionary provides a pretty good definition for the rest of us.

downthecreek
04-24-2013, 12:27 PM
For me it's only when the wolfbane blooms.BY:D

For me, its the sukebind. BY:D

(And anyone who hasn't read Cold Comfort Farm should do so forthwith. There's something nasty in the woodshed...... )

Boston
04-24-2013, 01:29 PM
Meanwhile, back in the cosmos...

http://news.yahoo.com/why-does-anything-exist-scientists-bit-answer-151042708.html

Its always been kinda a thorn in my side when I read stuff like


"Everything seems to add up, it is just that it doesn't come to anything near the amount of difference we need to explain the evolution of the universe," Shears said.

NO NO and NO, It doesn't add up, if you need a massive fudge factor and a whole lot of exotic matter for which there is only marginal observational evidence and which directly contradicts other well known evidences, like neutron stars vs the island of stability principal which also won a Nobel. Drives me nuts when it seems like every single detail of the bang theory requires some massive fix to make it even remotely work. Is there really such a rush to publish ?

I'd say that again an evidence for the bang is being presented with the caveat of a whopping huge fudge factor. Kinda like dark matter, kinda like dark energy, Kinda like the cosmological constant kinda like there's so many fudge factors that eventually the bang theory is more likely to collapse under the weight of them as its likely to survive it.

My argument hinges around the idea that there are other theories which have far fewer fudge factors in them that deserve at least an honorable mention, and don't even remotely suggest any form of divine intervention. Which brings up back full circle to the question of why exactly did the vatican take so much interest, if there "faith" was enough to move mountains or the cosmos anyway.

JimD
04-24-2013, 02:23 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/72137_10151564783465155_1872747243_n.jpg

Boston
04-24-2013, 03:06 PM
Oh and that article on antimatter, Alfven Klein theory might just as well explain the actual results as an evidence of there ambiplasma hypothesis, where pockets of anti matter and matter are held apart by magnetic fields forming bubble like multiverses within an infinite space one of which, a positive one, we just happen to be living in, and can't really see the edges because our observational abilities aren't quite good enough yet

See
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967MNRAS.137..271H&sa=U&ei=eix4UaGQOIbA2gWtu4DwDQ&ved=0CDMQFjAG&sig2=as-D419o-aXaCH9iA2bJoA&usg=AFQjCNEnXZtH2Kzx_zWk5Q_5Nz7Aj5gbCg

Which brings us back to background radiation, its just as likely the background radiation could be caused by some kinda plasma effect, bubble effect or represent the bending of radiation back from the edge of the observable universe. There's been about a zillion explanations most with more accurate predictions that the bang concerning the level of radiation.

peb
04-24-2013, 03:43 PM
E gads we agreed on something, unfortunately with the pauline christian mob having burned whatever written record that might have existed of who Jesus actually was and what he actually said, there's really no telling. I seem to remember a Vatican study a while ago that mentioned only a few lines of the entire new testament could be attributed to Jesus, and I'm pretty sure it was almost entirely the lords prayer. Thats it kids, pretty slim splinter indeed.
References please.... You are likely talking about the Jesus Seminar group, certainly not out of the Vatican.

Boston
04-24-2013, 04:16 PM
It was a long time ago, not exactly sure where I read it, but I do seem to recall it being something from some Vatican study or study group. I'll see what I can find but not sure where to even begin on that one