Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by astrocat, Nov 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Red Devil Born Again Athiest Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    He says he can't understand math, and he wonders why his input is held in low esteem in a discipline which is virtually all math???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Hi, Stryder - nice of you to contribute. I take it you're a mathematician, and I'm sure you will agreee that Math is not a Science. I enjoyed reading about your Universe. Do I take it you think the Universe could be born of a "finite" resource. Myself, I believe that God created the Universe - it had to come from somewhere.
    Only thing is, I don't believe the Universe is a good thing, imperfect as it is. And about the Universe being hard to document - I don't find that at all.
    We have to assemble all the information we can get, and from that, form an opinion. For a start, there is absolutely no evidence at all to show that the Universe is expanding. It's only the Observable Universe (OU) that has been seen to be expanding. To go from an expanding OU, to an expanding universe is an assumption, I hope you can see that, and we all know the dangers of assumptions, in Science.
    We know, for example, that the Universe is Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. In addition, I think we can say the Universe is Clumping Up. Can we ageree on that, Stryder? If we talk again, we can go from there...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Thanks Doctor. And above all, thanks for the quote from Tesla. What a man he was ! But the quote from J. Bahcall, I disagree with. The Universe is a challenge to be answered.

    Because the Observable Universe (ou) had been found - by Hubble among othere, to be expanding - I don't think it's good Science to go from there to an expanding universe, when there is absolutely no evidence for this.

    Besides being the only thing in existence that has Mass, but no center of that Mass, and the only thing that was born "everywhere" when everything else starts from a point, the only thing expanding in the universe (everything else is going 'IN' - Galaxies are vortices (according to Wiki). And the rev LeMaitre, a Belgian cleric who is credited with the Big Bang Theory had, according to Einstein - a 'woeful lack of understanding of Physics'. I understand Hubble himself objected to this Big Bang - rightfully so, I believe.

    There is much double talk and stuff from Modern Scientists that I must object. They want you to think you need a Phd in Math to understand the workings of the universe, but I believe the universe is pretty simple - if you use logic.

    Imagine there is only Gravity. It's gravity that keeps the moon in orbit, Earth going arround Sol, etc etc. I think gravity runs the Universe. I can't believe it when people try to tell me the Universe is run by anti-Gravity as we can't find any no matter how hard we search.

    Gravity, tho', we all know. I think Gravity is King. How 'bout you, Doc?
     
  8. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Hi Red,
    What exactly is the topic you keep getting shot down for? Who's Sam? Son of? Red, talk to me. I really respect Aetheists, tho' I am Jesus' people. Also, do I detect an Englishman, or an Aussie?
     
  9. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Astronomy is all math? You wish. But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't. Like Tesla said, Mathematicians replace Science with stuff you need a Phd in Math to figure out. I agree with Newton - Gravity is Universal. It's gravity that runs the Cosmos - not anti Gravity.

    I know Math up to Calculus - never got further. Never really needed to. I love Physics - my favourite Science. What's yours, Fraggle Rocker - and thanks for contributing.
     
  10. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    There are plenty of scientists who have no problem rectifying their understanding of the universe with their religious beliefs. One example: Monsignor Georges LemaƮtre. I suggest you google that name.

    Please. While you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Keep this up and you will find this thread sent to the cesspool.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Astronomy is not only a science, but it's the First Science. People were predicting the courses of the stars and planets in the Stone Age. Still, I stand by my opinion that astronomy is a whole lot of mathematics with a little bit of physics, plus of course the empirical observation that is required for any science. But I was speaking of cosmology, which is an awkward blend of pure mathematics, theoretical physics, and philosophy.
    I spent three years at CalTech and got through differential equations, although I don't think I could set one up today. I can still do differential calculus, but I'm rusty because for the last 43 years I've worked in IT. I suppose my favorite science is biology, but I find cosmology fascinating because it blurs the boundary between the physical and the abstract.
     
  12. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    To me, Fraggle Rocker, Cosmology is a blend of Physics, with some Chemistry and Math thrown in. I really respect CalTech because James Gunn came from there. He was the man who proved Allan Sandage (RIP) wrong when he said the expansion was slowing down.
    I do know Differential equations, or is that 'simultaneous equations'? You obviously know more Math than me.

    The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding. It's an assumption on which the big bang was founded - which is why I have so little respect for the Big Bang. This 'Poof, there it is - instant universe' stuff sounds pretty insignificant to me.
    People used to think Mankind was made 'Poof, just like that,' but Darwin showed us (I don't think he needed Math to show us) that we evolvedslowly over a long time period.

    I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
    that hung together by their mutual gravity.

    From a Warm, Smooth, Soupy cloud of protons that was the Early Universe,
    the Cosmos evolved - starting at the center of the cloud, where Pressures and Temperatures were highest. We know, by looking at Sol, what a huge cloud of Hydrogen can become. But this cloud was immense.

    Gravity made the universe, and Gravity runs it. We're in freefall - that's why we're speeding up. Gravity is all there ever was.
     
  13. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    wrong. this is not what an isotope is.

    the observable universe is, and, as we have no reason to believe that this volume is special we infer that the whole universe is expanding too.
     
  14. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Thanks for your input, DH.

    I am well aware that the Big Bang agrees with the bible, and I know the Rev. Lemaitre was the first to theorise on a Big Bang. My problem, I guess, is that he went from an expanding Observable Universe to an expanding Cosmos and I believe Hubble himself objected to this.

    I certainly don't want my thread in the cesspool, I hope you don't do that to me. I answered a few posts before I read this, challenging the Expansion of the Universe- and now I see that according to you (and everybody else, of course) it's a fact that the Cosmos is expanding, and I might have said some things you might object to, in the past. However, if you don't want me to say the Cosmos isn't expanding - I won't. Sorry.
    Actually, I'm pretty grateful to you for letting me share my opinions here. It shows tolerance, on your part. For that I must respect you.
     
  15. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    Oh, a single proton is not an isotope of Hydrogen? would you say Deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen? What about Helium 3?
    I happen to think the Observable Universe may not be the same as the Entire Universe, else why do we call it the Observable Universe? If it's all the same, why don't we just scrap the term 'Observable Universe?'

    Because that would be unscientific, Boris. That's why. There remains the tiniest doubt that the Entire Universe may not be exactly like the Observable Universe. That doubt - that possibility - that's Science, Boris.
     
  16. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    this is what i responded to.


    that's what i said. it's not. but we have no reason to be it has different physical properties. anyway seeing as we can only know our volume the question is moot.

    all science has doubt. but we make assumptions so that we can actually get somewhere.
     
  17. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Ha astrocat, I was just wondering? Did you ignore my post completely?

    I do have a question though, whats you're ACTUAL reason for thinking astronomy is "wrong" about the entire universe? Or is it that you don't see the flaw in your arguments...how do you reconcile

    AND

    Are your ideas based on FACTS that are proven in all cases? Have you personally measured each and every "hydrogen" atom to make sure it only has one proton? How do YOU know it doesn't have 1.5 protons? How do you know what protons are, you've never seen them?! How do you know that protons and electrons have opposite charges? Why is some "science" okay but the rest is based on "assumptions" because I assure you sure there is 13.7 billions years worth of "evidence" saying the universe is expanding?

    How do you assume ANYTHING is true if the very thing that has been around the longest, the observable universe, cannot be "proved" as truly expanding with 13.7 billions years of observable evidence of expanding.

    Yet, something like protons and neutrons and stars, and gas, and everything else you're using to disprove such a "bogus" claim has far less evidence behind it?
     
  18. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    And I was taught that when you ASSUME something you make an ASS out of U and ME. What do you mean by "we can only know our volume?" I don't understand...
     
  19. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    2 Questions there, Chris. The first, (1) my ACTUAL reason for thinking the popular view is mistaken is the Speeding Up of the Expansion of the Observable Universe. There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.

    (2) I'm very careful when I conclude that something is happening with the Cosmos. After looking at the situation with an open mind - uncluttered by thoughts of Big Bangs and Dark Energy, and seeing that Gravity operates our Solar System as well as our Galactic System, and knowing that Newton taught us Gravity was Universal - I have concluded that Gravity operates the Universe, not anti-gravity. Remember please, that Einstein only improved on Newton's teachings. Einstein did not prove Newton to be wrong!

    Now, on my side I have Lex Parsimoniae the Law of Succinctness. Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'
     
  20. astrocat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    179
    2 Questions there, Chris. The first, (1) my ACTUAL reason for thinking the popular view is mistaken is the Speeding Up of the Expansion of the Observable Universe. There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.

    (2) I'm very careful when I conclude that something is happening with the Cosmos. After looking at the situation with an open mind - uncluttered by thoughts of Big Bangs and Dark Energy, and seeing that Gravity operates our Solar System as well as our Galactic System, and knowing that Newton taught us Gravity was Universal - I have concluded that Gravity operates the Universe, not anti-gravity. Remember please, that Einstein only improved on Newton's teachings. Einstein did not prove Newton to be wrong!

    Now, on my side I have Lex Parsimoniae the Law of Succinctness. Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'

    Sorry if I didn't catch your previous post - I want to answer everybody, of course.
     
  21. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

    Moderator action:
    Thread moved to pseudoscience.
     
  22. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    pseudoscience??
    i would think it was regular science..(just cause he doesn't want to acknowledge the real science doesn't necessarily make it pseudo..:shrug

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The cesspool is where this thread belongs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page