Bashing Big Bang theory
david ford
they believe the theory's implications are, that does not mean that
the theory in fact makes those implications.
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Weinberg on "the problem of Genesis"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980708001656.25952A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Quentin Smith; Smoot & Davidson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980826000738.18239B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
article by Arp, Burbidge, Hoyle, Narliker, & Wickramasinghe;
Boslough on "the scientific model of Genesis"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980826235131.13060B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Ferguson, Isham, Weinberg, Jastrow, Einstein, Sandage, Wilford
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980830000755.10441B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
See also
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Just because a group of individuals opposes a theory because of what
> they believe the theory's implications are, that does not mean that
> the theory in fact makes those implications.
<snip URLs>
I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
nature?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
> wrote:
>> Just because a group of individuals opposes a theory because of what
>> they believe the theory's implications are, that does not mean that the
>> theory in fact makes those implications.
>
>
> <snip URLs>
>
> I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do
> you have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and
> the Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious
> in nature?
It's going to be a lot of work if we have to make him admit he doesn't
have a point in every thread he launches.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Daniel T.
> I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
> have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
> Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
> nature?
I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
theory...
We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
If the universe is infinite, then no matter which way we look or how
small an arc we examine, we should see a star. If we assume that the red
shift represent the distance a star is from us, rather than the speed at
which it is moving (and in fact red shift is used to determine
distance,) then the background radiation does nothing but tell us the
average distance between us and the infinant stars around us.
Charles & Mambo
> We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
What kind of energy dissipation? I don't think there's a physical process in
which light decreases in frequency, i.e. changes its wavelength while
interacting with matter.
On one hand you have a perfectly reasonable and common Doppler effect, and
on the other you're trying to introduce a concept based on hypothesizing
that doesn't even make sense, because if "energy dissipation" causes the
distant stars to look reddish, that means that the higher energy light was
dissipated more than the lower energy light.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
dave e
Expansion of the universe was predicted by Einstein's general theory
of relativity, before it was observed, in 1929, by Edwin Hubble. In
fact, Einstein was at first so startled by his own prediction, that he
arbitrarily added a term to his equations called the "cosmological
constant" in order to keep his equations consistent with the
prevailing (incorrect) notion of a static universe. After Hubble,
Einstein removed the cosmological constant from his equations, and
admitted having made a mistake. If only creationists were so humble.
Light energy doesn't dissipate in the manner you describe. Red shift
can only be explained by the movement of distant galaxies. Looking at
the far reaches of space, Astronomer's don't see a star in every
direction. Astronomer's do observe that the structure of the universe
was not the same 10 billion years ago as it is today.
Dave
Littleboy
@gl.umbc.edu says...
David, can you point us to something original? Google searches of
newsgroups are not what one would call authoritative. Just like you were
told in school, primary sources, please.
Ulf Torkelsson
>AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
>>have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
>>Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
>>nature?
>>
>>
>
>I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
>theory...
>
>We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
>light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
>why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
>moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
>caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
>
This hypothesis is usually called tired light, and there are good reasons
why the universe does not work that way, see:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
>
>If the universe is infinite, then no matter which way we look or how
>small an arc we examine, we should see a star. If we assume that the red
>shift represent the distance a star is from us, rather than the speed at
>which it is moving (and in fact red shift is used to determine
>distance,) then the background radiation does nothing but tell us the
>average distance between us and the infinant stars around us.
>
>
>
The background radiation has the spectrum of a perfect black body of
about 2.7 K. While stars have spectra similar to black bodies they do not
follow the black body spectrum as well as the background radiation, and
furthermore stars have a wide range of surface temperatures between
4000 and 40000 K, so even if they were redshifted by a factor of 2000 to
20000, say, they would not give you a neat black body spectrum, but
rather something distributed over a wider range of wave lengths.
Ulf Torkelsson
dkomo
>
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
> > have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
> > Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
> > nature?
>
> I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
> theory...
>
> We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
>
Hate to disillusion you, but stellar objects aren't "moving" away from
us at all. The measured red shifts of receding galaxies are due to the
expansion of the universe. Expansion red shifts are caused by the
*stretching* of the wave lengths of the light emitted from these
galaxies according to the formula
z = (Rzero / R) - 1
where z is the measured red shift, R is the distance to the galaxy at
the time the light was emitted, and Rzero is that distance at the time
we measure the red shift. The ratio (Rzero / R) is therefore the ratio
by which the distance has expanded since the light was emitted.
Think of a sine wave drawn on a rubber sheet. Then grab the ends of
the sheet and stretch it out. The wavelength of the sine wave will be
increased in direct proportion to the amount by which the rubber sheet
is stretched. This is exactly what happens to light traveling from a
distant galaxy. Between the time the light is emitted and the time it
reaches earth, the space through which the light has been traveling
has expanded, thus increasing the light's wavelength.
Now, and let's be very clear about this, there is absolutely *no*
Doppler shift of the light when it is emitted! Why? Because the
galaxy isn't actually moving relative to us. It is standing dead
still. If you use the relativistic Doppler shift equation (what you
call Einstein's Doppler) to relate red shifts, distances and
velocities, you will in fact get the wrong results.
The use of the term "Doppler shifts" in conjugation with "red shifts"
is in fact a common misconception in elementary astronomy. Expansion
red shifts and *real* Doppler shifts between two sources in actual
motion relative to each other (know as "peculiar" motion in cosmology)
are two entirely separate phenomena.
Ian Braidwood
> theory...
>
> We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
The term red shift does not refer to loss of energy, but to an
increase in the wavelength of the light with a concomitant reduction
in frequency. Obviously, if you increase the wavelength, you reduce
the number of of wave cycles (peaks and troughs) observed in any given
amount of time, because the speed of light is constant relative to any
observer.
If the light had merely dissipated as you suggest, there would be no
change in frequency, only in amplitude - the peaks would not be so
high and the troughs wouldn't be so low, but the same number of waves
would be observed. The red shift would still need explaining.
> If the universe is infinite,
There is no reason to believe that the universe, though vast beyond
imagining, is infinite in either extent or age.
> then no matter which way we look or how
> small an arc we examine, we should see a star. If we assume that the red
> shift represent the distance a star is from us, rather than the speed at
> which it is moving (and in fact red shift is used to determine
> distance,) then the background radiation does nothing but tell us the
> average distance between us and the infinant stars around us.
What you describe is known as Olber's Paradox, though it is much older
than him; Johannes Kepler discussed it, for example.
I haven't got time to go into this right now, but a brief treatment is
here:
http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/other/cdsdev/old/uu-gna/text/astro/universe/olbers.html
Another good discussion is in Companion to the Cosmos by John Gribbin.
Finally, denial of the inflationary theory became irrational with the
discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which _is_ the remains
of the Big Bang that occured 14.7 billion years ago. Whatever the
details, there was an astoundingly big explosion at the begining ot
time, which caused space itself to expand and accounts for the
observed red shift.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
Daniel T.
> This hypothesis is usually called tired light, and there are good reasons
> why the universe does not work that way, see:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
Thank you for the link.
Elroy Willis
That's a bit confusing. If two objects are further apart than they
used to be, how can you say they're not moving relative to each
other? Since galaxies sometimes collide, how can they be said
not to move?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
dkomo
Ta, it is a bit confusing. Nonetheless, that's how the situation is
viewed in modern astronomy. The expansion of space-time, which
increases the distance between all galaxies, is distinguished from the
intrinisic motion that they might have relative to each other.
> Since galaxies sometimes collide, how can they be said not to move?
In this case they do move. For example, our galaxy is rushing toward
the Andromeda galaxy (or vice versa), and this "peculiar" motion is
actual motion. There will be a small blue shift of light received
from Andromeda, caused by a true Doppler effect. The distance between
the Milky Way and Andromeda, on the order of a few million light
years, is small enough that I would guess that the normal red shift
caused by space-time expansion can be neglected relative to the blue
shift. However, I don't have time to look this up, so I could be
mistaken on the relative magnitudes of the two shifts.
David Ewan Kahana
>
>> I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
>> have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
>> Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
>> nature?
>
> I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
> theory...
>
> We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
>
These are good questions, both of them. There certainly have been
such models of the cosmological redshift proposed. These are generally
grouped under the rubric `tired light models'. There are three major
observational problems which these models have great difficulty in
addressing. First: there is no known interaction of light
which could redshift the light and not also blur the image due to
scattering. Distant objects are not observed to be blurred in this
way. The relativistic Doppler effect and the gravitational redshift are
both known effects, and they easily explain the observations. Second: one
can observe both distant and nearby supernovae, and there are
extensive time records of their light curves. The very distant supernovae
brighten and darken much more slowly than the local ones do, in accordance
with the relativistic time dilation effect that is expected in expanding
universe models. It's not obvious how this could occur in a tired
light model. Third, the 2.7 K microwave background radiation is very hard
to account for in tired light models, since the universe is mostly
transparent at many wavelengths, and we observed very significant
deviations from a blackbody spectrum, say in starlight. To explain the
almost exact black body character of the background radiation in tired
light models is very hard.
There are more problems with tired light models, but these are enough
for a start.
David
[snip]
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Now, and let's be very clear about this, there is absolutely *no*
>>> Doppler shift of the light when it is emitted! Why? Because the
>>> galaxy isn't actually moving relative to us. It is standing dead
>>> still. If you use the relativistic Doppler shift equation (what you
>>> call Einstein's Doppler) to relate red shifts, distances and
>>> velocities, you will in fact get the wrong results.
>>> The use of the term "Doppler shifts" in conjugation with "red shifts"
>>> is in fact a common misconception in elementary astronomy. Expansion
>>> red shifts and *real* Doppler shifts between two sources in actual
>>> motion relative to each other (know as "peculiar" motion in cosmology)
>>> are two entirely separate phenomena.
>> That's a bit confusing. If two objects are further apart than they
>> used to be, how can you say they're not moving relative to each
>> other?
> Ta, it is a bit confusing. Nonetheless, that's how the situation is
> viewed in modern astronomy. The expansion of space-time, which
> increases the distance between all galaxies, is distinguished from the
> intrinisic motion that they might have relative to each other.
Hmm...
>> Since galaxies sometimes collide, how can they be said not to move?
> In this case they do move. For example, our galaxy is rushing toward
> the Andromeda galaxy (or vice versa), and this "peculiar" motion is
> actual motion.
So the often-used example of raisins in a loaf of bread all growing
further and further apart from each other as the loaf of bread "bakes
or expands" in the cosmic oven, is misleading, in that the raisins can
actually collide with each other along the way, as I see it.
> There will be a small blue shift of light received
> from Andromeda, caused by a true Doppler effect. The distance between
> the Milky Way and Andromeda, on the order of a few million light
> years, is small enough that I would guess that the normal red shift
> caused by space-time expansion can be neglected relative to the blue
> shift. However, I don't have time to look this up, so I could be
> mistaken on the relative magnitudes of the two shifts.
It seems that some galaxies are moving away from us, while
others are coming closer towards us, at least from what I've
been reading lately.
Denis Loubet
"dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:40252CAE...@cris.com...
So it's not a true doppler shift for the same reason the big bang isn't an
explosion. Damn! That makes sense.
Thank you for this posting. I can see that I have been operating under a
gross misunderstanding for years.
This is an example of why I read alt atheism. To be shown where I'm WRONG.
> > Since galaxies sometimes collide, how can they be said not to move?
>
> In this case they do move. For example, our galaxy is rushing toward
> the Andromeda galaxy (or vice versa), and this "peculiar" motion is
> actual motion. There will be a small blue shift of light received
> from Andromeda, caused by a true Doppler effect. The distance between
> the Milky Way and Andromeda, on the order of a few million light
> years, is small enough that I would guess that the normal red shift
> caused by space-time expansion can be neglected relative to the blue
> shift. However, I don't have time to look this up, so I could be
> mistaken on the relative magnitudes of the two shifts.
Right. There's the expansion of spacetime, and each galaxy embedded in that
expansion has its own additional intrinsic motion imparted by gravitational
forces or whatever.
I'll just whack myself in the forehead and say DOH!.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Bigdakine
>From: Elroy Willis e...@airmail.net
>Date: 2/7/04 10:08 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <ndga20li63v5fj25n...@4ax.com>
Only within 30Mpcs or so. Beyond that the Hubble expansion starts to dominate
motions due to gravitiational perturbations from other galaxies..
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Charles & Mambo
> Hate to disillusion you, but stellar objects aren't "moving" away from
> us at all. The measured red shifts of receding galaxies are due to the
> expansion of the universe. Expansion red shifts are caused by the
> *stretching* of the wave lengths of the light emitted from these
> galaxies according to the formula
>
> z = (Rzero / R) - 1
>
> where z is the measured red shift, R is the distance to the galaxy at
> the time the light was emitted, and Rzero is that distance at the time
> we measure the red shift. The ratio (Rzero / R) is therefore the ratio
> by which the distance has expanded since the light was emitted.
>
> Think of a sine wave drawn on a rubber sheet. Then grab the ends of
> the sheet and stretch it out. The wavelength of the sine wave will be
> increased in direct proportion to the amount by which the rubber sheet
> is stretched. This is exactly what happens to light traveling from a
> distant galaxy. Between the time the light is emitted and the time it
> reaches earth, the space through which the light has been traveling
> has expanded, thus increasing the light's wavelength.
If the space has *expanded*, then how the hell are those stars *not* moving
away from us?
wbarwell
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do
>> you have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and
>> the
>> Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
>> nature?
>
> I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
> theory...
>
> We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> moving away from use?
Because, red shift doesn't work like that. And how would you account for
blue shift?
Its a system. That system works on well known principles that account both
for red and blue shift where the tired old tired light theory does not in
many ways.
Its a dead issue in physics because its wrong.
It is testable in the lab and it has been so tested.
Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
>
> If the universe is infinite, then no matter which way we look or how
> small an arc we examine, we should see a star. If we assume that the red
> shift represent the distance a star is from us, rather than the speed at
> which it is moving (and in fact red shift is used to determine
> distance,) then the background radiation does nothing but tell us the
> average distance between us and the infinant stars around us.
--
Losers to the right of me, losers to the left of me
and the air is filled with kooks.
Cheerful Charlie
dkomo
Because true motion of stellar objects is motion *in* space or
*through* space, and that's not what happens when the universe
expands. There's simply more space between distant stellar objects as
time goes on. These objects are *not* being dragged along as space
expands!
If it makes you happier to be plugged into a mechanical picture, view
what happens as "virtual" motion. In fact, astronomy books routinely
refer to "recessional velocities" of distant galaxies. It's a lazy
way of talking because we can more easily relate it to motion of
things here on earth. However, if you aspire to be a genuine general
relativist, you need to acknowledge that such reference to motion as
though it were really taking place is a distortion.
Denis Loubet
"Charles & Mambo" <Duc...@gfy.self> wrote in message
news:4025B027...@gfy.self...
The expanding balloon model shows the counterintuitive fact that the spots
on the balloon are not moving around, yet are getting further from each
other. They're NOT moving, AND they're getting further away.
My head hurts.
david ford
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > Just because a group of individuals opposes a theory because of what
> > they believe the theory's implications are, that does not mean that
> > the theory in fact makes those implications.
>
> <snip URLs>
>
> I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
> have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
> Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
> nature?
[AC]"Or is your objection purely religious in nature?"
What is it that you think I'm objecting to?
If "the Big Bang theory," what are your grounds for thinking that I
object to the Big Bang theory?
david ford
Would you consider my Big Bang essay, which was included in the list
of URLs, [L]"original"? If "no," then I am sorry, I cannot point you
to something [L]"original."
The list of URLs was to posts that I myself made. I could have
instead collected together the quotations present in those URLs and
posted the collation. Would such a collation of quotations be
[L]"authoritative" or more-[L]"authoritative" than the list of URLs?
Keep in mind that either way, I'm claiming to have seen the quotations
in the buff, unless otherwise indicated by a "cited in _______."
I do not understand what you mean when you request [L]"primary
sources."
Ulf Torkelsson
>
>Finally, denial of the inflationary theory became irrational with the
>discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which _is_ the remains
>of the Big Bang that occured 14.7 billion years ago. Whatever the
>details, there was an astoundingly big explosion at the begining ot
>time, which caused space itself to expand and accounts for the
>observed red shift.
>
>
This does not make sense. The microwave background was discovered in
the middle of the 1960s by Penzias and Wilson, while the first inflation
model was constructed by Alan Guth in 1981. Consequently there was a
long period of time during which the microwave background was known,
but there was no inflation model to deny. The strength of the inflation
model when it appeared was that it could explain the high degree of
isotropy
that had been observed in the microwave background.
In recent years it has been noted that the deviations from isotropy that
are observed in the microwave background are of exactly the kind that
is expected from inflation. This does speak in favour of inflation, though
it is not clear to me that there is no other model that could make the same
prediction. Frankly, there has not been much work done on constructing
other models in the last twenty years.
Ulf Torkelsson
>
>
Wakboth
Well, starting a thread named "Bashing Big Bang theory" might be one
reason.
As for what you are trying to say, I think you are claiming that
because the universe has a beginning (Big Bang), atheism is false (at
least that's the impression I got from reading the links you posted),
which is false, of course.
To keep us evolutionists, theistic and atheistic alike, from guessing,
could you for once tell clearly just what you are trying to say; that
way we can agree or disagree with you, instead of having to try and
guess what's the point.
-- Wakboth
AC
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc28ke2.180....@namibia.tandem>...
>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC),
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> > Just because a group of individuals opposes a theory because of what
>> > they believe the theory's implications are, that does not mean that
>> > the theory in fact makes those implications.
>>
>> <snip URLs>
>>
>> I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
>> have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
>> Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
>> nature?
>
> [AC]"Or is your objection purely religious in nature?"
> What is it that you think I'm objecting to?
> If "the Big Bang theory," what are your grounds for thinking that I
> object to the Big Bang theory?
Look David. What the f*ck is the point of starting these threads? What is
your purpsoe? Are you just bored and trying to pick a fight here and there?
Here is a question. Please answer with either yes or no:
Do you agree that the Big Bang theory best explains the observed evidence?
John Vreeland
> used to be, how can you say they're not moving relative to each
> other? Since galaxies sometimes collide, how can they be said
> not to move?
I think the solution is this:
If you were standing in a distant galaxy (300,000,000,000 meters
away), with a relative velocity of zero with respect to the earth, and
threw a ball towards earth from the distant galaxy at a speed of
nearly 300,000,000 m/s relative to yourself, you would expect the ball
to arrive at the earth (after one thousand years) traveling at that
same relative speed of 300,000,000 m/s. If the galaxy were moving
away from the earth, the speed of the ball when it arrived at earth
would be somewhat slower than 300,000,000 m/s. Likewise if it were
closing on earth the relative velocity would be somewhat higher. With
a static starting location what you would find is that due to the
expansion of space the trip would have been longer than you had
originally calculated, but the ball would arrive at the same relative
speed of 300,000,000 m/s. So the relative distance increases but the
relative velocity remains zero between earth and the distant galaxy.
With light this analogy is not useful because the relative speed of
light is always constant no matter what the speed of the observer.
Have I erred?
John Vreeland
> used to be, how can you say they're not moving relative to each
> other? Since galaxies sometimes collide, how can they be said
> not to move?
I think the solution is this:
danarchist
> "Daniel T." <postm...@eathlink.net> wrote in message news:<postmaster-C62B5...@news03.west.earthlink.net>...
(Apologies, fledgeling biochemists really shouldn't have an important
opinion about astrophysics, but I'm trying to avoid studying for a
physical chemistry exam.)
> > I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
> > theory...
> >
> > We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> > light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> > why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> > moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> > caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
>
> The term red shift does not refer to loss of energy,
Hmm, yes it does.
> but to an
> increase in the wavelength of the light with a concomitant reduction
> in frequency. Obviously, if you increase the wavelength, you reduce
> the number of of wave cycles (peaks and troughs) observed in any given
> amount of time, because the speed of light is constant relative to any
> observer.
>
> If the light had merely dissipated as you suggest, there would be no
> change in frequency, only in amplitude - the peaks would not be so
> high and the troughs wouldn't be so low, but the same number of waves
> would be observed.
Frequency is directly proportional to energy, as in, for a photon, E =
hv (E - energy, h - Planck's constant, v - should be the Greek "nu,"
but it means frequency). (Also, as you mention, the speed of light is
the product of frequency and wavelength for a photon, so as wavelength
increases, frequency and energy decrease.) So this "red-shifted
light" is exactly light which has less energy than expected by, I
presume, something like Planck's blackbody law with some
composition-specific lines thrown in.
Amplitude is proportional to the intensity of the light (ie, number of
photons), not to the energy of a photon, which is the whole idea
behind red-shiftedness -- the photons in question are less energetic
than expected. Their intensity I would guess would be determined by
treating the galaxy as an emitter of a spherical wave, but with some
wacky general relativity thrown in to better the model. Given that,
the intensity/amplitude detected would be mostly linked to distance
from the object and not related to the red-shift itself.
(Recall also that the interesting things that electromagnetic
radiation does are linked to photon energy rather than wave
amplitude. Shine as intense of red light as you want on titanium
dioxide, but you'll never see a photocurrent. Shine just a teeny bit
of UV, however, and you'll detect current. The more intense the UV,
the larger the current.)
>The red shift would still need explaining.
I think that was the point -- perhaps the observed red shift could be
due to absorbance of energy by some object between us and the
red-shifted galaxy, maybe clouds of gas or a giant sheet of colored
plastic. Of couse, astrophysics seems to think that the red-shift is
better explained by expanding space than some object interacting with
light (which interaction would be very strange for a gas or colored
plastic -- absorption of all wavelengths and then re-emission at
slightly longer wavelengths).
<snip>
Dan Ensign
Chris Krolczyk
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc28ke2.180....@namibia.tandem>...
> > <snip URLs>
> >
> > I'm sorry David. Did you have a specific complaint? For instance, do you
> > have an alternate explanation for the expansion of the Universe and the
> > Cosmic Background Radiation? Or is your objection purely religious in
> > nature?
>
> [AC]"Or is your objection purely religious in nature?"
> What is it that you think I'm objecting to?
> If "the Big Bang theory," what are your grounds for thinking that I
> object to the Big Bang theory?
Dunno, David. The URLs (mostly of posts of yours - surely
you're not that self-absorbed, really?) seem to give
every hint that you *do* object to it.
It's nice to know that you actually can respond to a kook like
Publius with a straight face, though. In that regard, you're
a better man than I.
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
> Littleboy <allen....@comflycast.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8e7ed2...@news.comcast.giganews.com>...
> > David, can you point us to something original? Google searches of
> > newsgroups are not what one would call authoritative. Just like you were
> > told in school, primary sources, please.
>
> Would you consider my Big Bang essay, which was included in the list
> of URLs, [L]"original"? If "no," then I am sorry, I cannot point you
> to something [L]"original."
Ah. That one.
Okay, so at least one of the URLs you posted in the last round
of self-refencing was an original. Bully for you.
> The list of URLs was to posts that I myself made. I could have
> instead collected together the quotations present in those URLs and
> posted the collation.
You don't get it, David. Posting a bunch of URLS - particularly
when all you really have to do is post links to the original posts
in order to reference them - is *not a form of argument*. And
hairsplitting over *how* you chose to do so, like you are in
the above paragraph, is plainly ridiculous.
> Would such a collation of quotations be
> [L]"authoritative" or more-[L]"authoritative" than the list of URLs?
Please explain how these quotes are supposed to correspond
to an actual argument first. What you seem to be accomplishing
is using a bullhorn as a sound system for your private cassette
collection and not much else. And what does any of this have
to do with the ToE? Wouldn't some of this material be a bit
more appropo in, say, the sci.physics.* hierarchy?
> Keep in mind that either way, I'm claiming to have seen the quotations
> in the buff, unless otherwise indicated by a "cited in _______."
> I do not understand what you mean when you request [L]"primary
> sources."
You seem a bit confused on the merits of quoting URLs in order
to further a vague agenda.
-Chris Krolczyk
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Look David. What the f*ck is the point of starting these threads? What is
>your purpsoe? Are you just bored and trying to pick a fight here and there?
No, david is a troll.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
(Wakboth) posted in alt.atheism:
>As for what you are trying to say, I think you are claiming that
>because the universe has a beginning (Big Bang), atheism is false
Which is linguistically impossible, since atheism isn't a thing that
can be correct or false.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
Al Klein
ford) posted in alt.atheism:
>Would you consider my Big Bang essay, which was included in the list
>of URLs, [L]"original"? If "no," then I am sorry, I cannot point you
>to something [L]"original."
>The list of URLs was to posts that I myself made.
You use your assertions to back up your assertions? Six-year-olds
argue like that.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
david ford
Yes.
Another URL for the collection:
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
dkomo
This occurred to me also when this thread started. The photons that
arrive have been red-shifted and are at a lower frequency than those
emitted at the source, so according to E = hv they must have lower
energy. But there's no mechanism that could have caused the loss of
energy. All that happened was that the photons traveled for very long
distances through mostly empty space.
I refrained from writing about this because I don't know the answer.
It seems to be a mystery. Note that the same loss of energy (or gain,
in the case of blue shift) appears to happen in the familiar Doppler
effect near the earth -- for example involving satellites. Something
doesn't add up and I don't know what it is.
I tried googling for the answer, but no one out there on the web
that's competent in physics discussed the paradox involving photon red
shift and loss of energy. I ran across a huge amount of
pseudoscience, however, and lots of crackpot speculations, including
tired light theories. Physics is a happy hunting ground for cranks
and loons.
Ian Braidwood
> Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
> >
> >Finally, denial of the inflationary theory became irrational with the
> >discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which _is_ the remains
> >of the Big Bang that occured 14.7 billion years ago. Whatever the
> >details, there was an astoundingly big explosion at the begining ot
> >time, which caused space itself to expand and accounts for the
> >observed red shift.
> >
> >
> This does not make sense. The microwave background was discovered in
> the middle of the 1960s by Penzias and Wilson, while the first inflation
> model was constructed by Alan Guth in 1981.
The term Big Bang is a derogatory one coined by Fred Hoyle, so I
prefer to use the term inflationary instead. This may have mislead you
as to what I meant, so sorry.
I was of course referring to the red shift as evidence for the
expanding universe proposed by Hubble.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
Frank Reichenbacher
The violin thing didn't work out, so he thought he would take up
evolutionists.
Can't you guys tell when you're being set up? It really is a bit alarming.
Frank
Ian Braidwood
> diri...@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in message news:<53ad390d.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > "Daniel T." <postm...@eathlink.net> wrote in message news:<postmaster-C62B5...@news03.west.earthlink.net>...
>
> (Apologies, fledgeling biochemists really shouldn't have an important
> opinion about astrophysics, but I'm trying to avoid studying for a
> physical chemistry exam.)
I have this feeling too. :-)
> > > I have no idea what David thinks, but I wonder about the Big Bang
> > > theory...
> > >
> > > We know that red shifted light is less energetic, and we know that the
> > > light from far away stellar objects have travelled a long distance, so
> > > why must we suppose that the light is red shifted because the object is
> > > moving away from use? Couldn't it be the case that the red shift is
> > > caused by some sort of energy dissapation?
> >
> > The term red shift does not refer to loss of energy,
>
> Hmm, yes it does.
Only within a given time span. The redshift means that the energy is
'spread out', so that a pulse which would take a second to emit would
take longer to recieve once it had been redshifted.
If the light were merely being absorbed, the duration of a signal (say
from a pulsar) would not be affected.
> > but to an
> > increase in the wavelength of the light with a concomitant reduction
> > in frequency. Obviously, if you increase the wavelength, you reduce
> > the number of of wave cycles (peaks and troughs) observed in any given
> > amount of time, because the speed of light is constant relative to any
> > observer.
> >
> > If the light had merely dissipated as you suggest, there would be no
> > change in frequency, only in amplitude - the peaks would not be so
> > high and the troughs wouldn't be so low, but the same number of waves
> > would be observed.
>
> <Snip very good stuff>
>
> >The red shift would still need explaining.
>
> I think that was the point -- perhaps the observed red shift could be
> due to absorbance of energy by some object between us and the
> red-shifted galaxy, maybe clouds of gas or a giant sheet of colored
> plastic. Of couse, astrophysics seems to think that the red-shift is
> better explained by expanding space than some object interacting with
> light (which interaction would be very strange for a gas or colored
> plastic -- absorption of all wavelengths and then re-emission at
> slightly longer wavelengths).
I have 3 three problems with arguements against redshift:
1. Your hypothetical medium would have to be equally distributed
throughout the universe. Otherwise, the apparent motion of the
galaxies would be faster in one direction than another. (Your sheet of
plastic would have to be a bubble centred on Earth. :-)
2. Your hypotheical absorber would have to absorb all frequencies of
light equally and so could not be made of matter, as each element
absorbs light in a consistent and unique manor. Astronomers would be
able to use Fraunhofer lines to tell you the composition of the
absorbing medium.
For example: If your absorber were say - a cloud of hydrogen - then
the apparent proportion of hydrogen in galaxies would diminish with
distance.
3. Using observations of Cepheid variables and supernovae, astronomers
have been able to measure distances out to 32 1/2 million lightyears
and they coroborate the redshift data. (There could of course, be a
plastic bubble 66 million light years in diameter, centred on Earth.
:-))))
Nope, on balance of the evidence, the universe went BANG 14.7 billion
years ago and redshift is an accurate measure of distance and velocity
for far away galaxies.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
Mark Isaak
Braidwood) wrote:
>The term Big Bang is a derogatory one coined by Fred Hoyle, ...
On an almost completely different subject, there is a word for terms
which were originally intended to be derogatory but came to be widely
accepted even by the people the term meant to insult. Examples are
Big Bang, Impressionism, Yankee Doodle, gay, Mother Goose, and Howler
Monkeys. I learned that word years ago, forgot it, and have been
grieving my loss ever since. Can anyone help me find that word again?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
car...@no-dirac-spam.ucdavis.edu
> This occurred to me also when this thread started. The photons that
> arrive have been red-shifted and are at a lower frequency than those
> emitted at the source, so according to E = hv they must have lower
> energy. But there's no mechanism that could have caused the loss of
> energy. All that happened was that the photons traveled for very long
> distances through mostly empty space.
> I refrained from writing about this because I don't know the answer.
> It seems to be a mystery. Note that the same loss of energy (or gain,
> in the case of blue shift) appears to happen in the familiar Doppler
> effect near the earth -- for example involving satellites. Something
> doesn't add up and I don't know what it is.
> I tried googling for the answer, but no one out there on the web
> that's competent in physics discussed the paradox involving photon red
> shift and loss of energy.
You'll find a discussion in the sci.physics FAQs,
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
The short answer is that energy is not conserved globally in general
relativity, unless you happen to be in a time-independent spacetime.
Steve Carlip
AC
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:22:33 +0000 (UTC), diri...@virgin.net (Ian
> Braidwood) wrote:
>
>>The term Big Bang is a derogatory one coined by Fred Hoyle, ...
>
> On an almost completely different subject, there is a word for terms
> which were originally intended to be derogatory but came to be widely
> accepted even by the people the term meant to insult. Examples are
> Big Bang, Impressionism, Yankee Doodle, gay, Mother Goose, and Howler
> Monkeys. I learned that word years ago, forgot it, and have been
> grieving my loss ever since. Can anyone help me find that word again?
I dunno, but legend has it that Jimmy Page decided to rename the New
Yardbirds to Led Zeppelin after he heard Keith Moon say "Yeah, that band
will go over like a lead zeppelin."
dkomo
>
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:22:33 +0000 (UTC), diri...@virgin.net (Ian
> Braidwood) wrote:
>
> >The term Big Bang is a derogatory one coined by Fred Hoyle, ...
>
> On an almost completely different subject, there is a word for terms
> which were originally intended to be derogatory but came to be widely
> accepted even by the people the term meant to insult. Examples are
> Big Bang, Impressionism, Yankee Doodle, gay, Mother Goose, and Howler
> Monkeys. I learned that word years ago, forgot it, and have been
> grieving my loss ever since. Can anyone help me find that word again?
>
The technical term for this is "semantic shift" and can be of two
opposite types: amelioration and pejoration:
The one you want is amelioration.
Usage examples:
"Creationist" originally referred to a person who believes in the
literal story of creation as depicted in Genesis. On t.o.
"creationist" refers to an ignorant, arrogant and pig-headed
individual who believes in religious fairy tales and rejects science.
A twit. A moron. Trailer park trash. This is pejoration.
"Evolutionist" originally meant someone who accepts the scientific
theory of biological evolution. On t.o. it refers to a highly
intelligent, educated and enlightened person with a deep understanding
of science. A "bright." This is amelioration.
danarchist
> dana...@yahoo.com (danarchist) wrote in message news:<42c7a17.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > diri...@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in message news:<53ad390d.04020...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> > > The term red shift does not refer to loss of energy,
> >
> > Hmm, yes it does.
>
> Only within a given time span. The redshift means that the energy is
> 'spread out', so that a pulse which would take a second to emit would
> take longer to recieve once it had been redshifted.
>
> If the light were merely being absorbed, the duration of a signal (say
> from a pulsar) would not be affected.
I'm not sure what you're getting at by "time span" and reference to
signal duration. Seems to me, if you take a photon of frequency v,
then stretch the space it's in by a factor k>1, then the new photon
frequency is v/k, and you've got a photon with lower energy. See the
URL provided by Steve Carlip:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Right under the topic "Expansion of the universe leading to
cosmological redshift" you see, "Each photon gets redder and redder,"
which tells me the energy is being "lost" somehow (some freaky General
Relativity stuff, looks like). I'll bet this URL explains it all, but
I'm not sure I understand it all (yet).
I also don't know what the duration of a photon is. Sure, you can
have a pulse of light which lasts t seconds, then the length of the
pulse would be ct (speed of light times duration). I can't really
wrap my head around the duration of one photon, though.
<snip>
> > >The red shift would still need explaining.
> >
> > I think that was the point -- perhaps the observed red shift could be
> > due to absorbance of energy by some object between us and the
> > red-shifted galaxy, maybe clouds of gas or a giant sheet of colored
> > plastic. Of couse, astrophysics seems to think that the red-shift is
> > better explained by expanding space than some object interacting with
> > light (which interaction would be very strange for a gas or colored
> > plastic -- absorption of all wavelengths and then re-emission at
> > slightly longer wavelengths).
>
> I have 3 three problems with arguements against redshift:
>
> 1. Your hypothetical medium would have to be equally distributed
> throughout the universe. Otherwise, the apparent motion of the
> galaxies would be faster in one direction than another.
Sure -- some mixture of gases which could be described with some
density across a large local portion of the universe ("900 megatons
per cubic parsec" or something).
>(Your sheet of
> plastic would have to be a bubble centred on Earth. :-)
Imagine how many cookies you could wrap in that much cellophane!!
> 2. Your hypotheical absorber would have to absorb all frequencies of
> light equally and so could not be made of matter, as each element
> absorbs light in a consistent and unique manor. Astronomers would be
> able to use Fraunhofer lines to tell you the composition of the
> absorbing medium.
Nahh, you could get something like a red shift with a mixture of lots
of fluorescent materials. Remember also that some materials absorb
all wavelengths -- go drink a porter and check it out. Scattering
could also prevent light of all wavelengths from visiting the earth (I
don't know what it would look like if the scatterers were uniformly
distributed about us in a sphere, though -- a little like the blue
sky, perhaps? Certainly not like red shift, however.). Problem is,
... well, see below.
> For example: If your absorber were say - a cloud of hydrogen - then
> the apparent proportion of hydrogen in galaxies would diminish with
> distance.
Even worse for this clouds-of-fluorescent-cellophane hypothesis, we
know that radiation absorbed by matter is proportional to the path
length through the matter. So the further something was, the more its
spectrum would look like something passing through a broadly
fluorescent object, rather than what I assume is a continuation of
red-shiftedness.
Okay, that wasn't so clear. Second swing: I presume that the further
galaxy is away, the more red-shifted it looks. If there were a
broadly fluorescent object, then spectra from galaxies at great
distances would tend to converge on a particular shape.
> 3. Using observations of Cepheid variables and supernovae, astronomers
> have been able to measure distances out to 32 1/2 million lightyears
> and they coroborate the redshift data. (There could of course, be a
> plastic bubble 66 million light years in diameter, centred on Earth.
> :-))))
>
> Nope, on balance of the evidence, the universe went BANG 14.7 billion
> years ago and redshift is an accurate measure of distance and velocity
> for far away galaxies.
Yeah, those cosmologists probably have the basic picture right. Fun
to play with the alternative hypotheses, though, especially to see why
they must be wrong. As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me if
when red shift were first detected that some sort of distributed
absorber were responsible. This was, what, the 20's, and back then
quantum mechanics (which provides the tools we use to understand
absorbance and fluorescence) was just an itty bitty baby.
Dan Ensign
Matt Silberstein
<eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next>:
>On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:22:33 +0000 (UTC), diri...@virgin.net (Ian
>Braidwood) wrote:
>
>>The term Big Bang is a derogatory one coined by Fred Hoyle, ...
>
>On an almost completely different subject, there is a word for terms
>which were originally intended to be derogatory but came to be widely
>accepted even by the people the term meant to insult. Examples are
>Big Bang, Impressionism,
Huh? Impression: Sunrise
http://www.popartuk.com/art/impression-sunrise-6820023-print.asp
>Yankee Doodle, gay, Mother Goose,
How so? I thought it was one of the poems in the book.
> and Howler
>Monkeys. I learned that word years ago, forgot it, and have been
>grieving my loss ever since. Can anyone help me find that word again?
--
Matt Silberstein
I want to be different, I just don't want to change.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Littleboy <allen....@comflycast.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8e7ed2...@news.comcast.giganews.com>...
>
> > > David, can you point us to something original? Google searches of
> > > newsgroups are not what one would call authoritative. Just like you were
> > > told in school, primary sources, please.
> >
> > Would you consider my Big Bang essay, which was included in the list
> > of URLs, [L]"original"? If "no," then I am sorry, I cannot point you
> > to something [L]"original."
>
> Ah. That one.
>
> Okay, so at least one of the URLs you posted in the last round
> of self-refencing was an original.
"Littleboy" might end up disagreeing.
> Bully for you.
>
> > The list of URLs was to posts that I myself made. I could have
> > instead collected together the quotations present in those URLs and
> > posted the collation.
>
> You don't get it, David. Posting a bunch of URLS - particularly
> when all you really have to do is post links to the original posts
> in order to reference them -
Isn't that doing the same thing?
> is *not a form of argument*. And
> hairsplitting over *how* you chose to do so, like you are in
> the above paragraph, is plainly ridiculous.
>
> > Would such a collation of quotations be
> > [L]"authoritative" or more-[L]"authoritative" than the list of URLs?
>
> Please explain how these quotes are supposed to correspond
> to an actual argument first. What you seem to be accomplishing
> is using a bullhorn as a sound system for your private cassette
> collection and not much else. And what does any of this have
> to do with the ToE? Wouldn't some of this material be a bit
> more appropo in, say, the sci.physics.* hierarchy?
If good numbers of young-earth creationists are in the sci.physics.*
hierarchy, perhaps I will post the links there.
> > Keep in mind that either way, I'm claiming to have seen the quotations
> > in the buff, unless otherwise indicated by a "cited in _______."
> > I do not understand what you mean when you request [L]"primary
> > sources."
>
> You seem a bit confused on the merits of quoting URLs in order
> to further a vague agenda.
Young-earth creationists, the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old,
and the universe is about 15 billion years old.
You have nothing to fear from the big bang theory. It is an ally and
not a foe.
John Wilkins
"Christian" was also once a term of derogation by the romans. It then
became a term of approbation. Now, in many circles, creationists and
other fundamentalists are trying very hard to make it a term of
derogation all over again.
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Ulf Torkelsson
>Ulf Torkelsson <tor...@fy.chalmers.se> wrote in message news:<40264211...@fy.chalmers.se>...
>
>
>>Ian Braidwood wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Finally, denial of the inflationary theory became irrational with the
>>>discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation, which _is_ the remains
>>>of the Big Bang that occured 14.7 billion years ago. Whatever the
>>>details, there was an astoundingly big explosion at the begining ot
>>>time, which caused space itself to expand and accounts for the
>>>observed red shift.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This does not make sense. The microwave background was discovered in
>>the middle of the 1960s by Penzias and Wilson, while the first inflation
>>model was constructed by Alan Guth in 1981.
>>
>>
>
>The term Big Bang is a derogatory one coined by Fred Hoyle, so I
>prefer to use the term inflationary instead. This may have mislead you
>as to what I meant, so sorry.
>
According to Hoyle himself "big bang" was not meant to be derogatory,
but Hoyle wanted two short, catchy phrases to describe the two dominating
cosmological models of the 1950s for a radio show. He chose the phrases
"steady state" and "big bang", both alliterations. "big bang" has
become the
standard phase for describing the now generally accepted cosmology, and is
generally used in combinations such as "big bang nucleosynthesis". I do not
see any reason to change this usage now. "Inflationary" on the other
hand has
a very precise technical meaning describing a universe that goes through a
phase of rapid, exponential, expansion at an early time.
>
>I was of course referring to the red shift as evidence for the
>expanding universe proposed by Hubble.
>
>
>
It was not Hubble that proposed the expanding universe. This model
was based on the work by people like de Sitter, and in particular
Friedman, though because he was working in the Soviet Union, his work
was almost unknown in the west. Hubble observed the redshift and
noted with caution that this could be the effect suggested by de Sitter.
Later on the model was developed further by Lemaitre and Gamow,
whose model was named big bang by Hoyle.
The steady state theory is of course also describing an expanding
universe, but one in which the diluting effect of the expansion is
compensated by the continuous creation of new matter.
Ulf Torkelsson
>
>
dkomo
Well, that's okay. They're also trying to make the term "scientist" a
term of derogation. If they succeed with the pejoration of
"scientist" and it becomes globally derogated, that's the time to
start worrying because that will signal the beginning of the new Dark
Ages where religion will have dominion over science once more and
men's minds will become enslaved by superstition.
Of course, those who have a cyclical view of history will consider
this an inevitability.
Chris Krolczyk
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> chrisk...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ah. That one.
> >
> > Okay, so at least one of the URLs you posted in the last round
> > of self-refencing was an original.
>
> "Littleboy" might end up disagreeing.
I'm not him. Your point?
> > Bully for you.
> >
> > > The list of URLs was to posts that I myself made. I could have
> > > instead collected together the quotations present in those URLs and
> > > posted the collation.
> >
> > You don't get it, David. Posting a bunch of URLS - particularly
> > when all you really have to do is post links to the original posts
> > in order to reference them -
>
> Isn't that doing the same thing?
You've got me there. Typing too fast has its drawbacks.
That doesn't invalidate what I said about your lack of
original arguments, however. A major problem concerning
your referencing of posts is that you don't seem to put
much forward in the way of original material. And collating
all of the responses wouldn't help, either.
> > is *not a form of argument*. And
> > hairsplitting over *how* you chose to do so, like you are in
> > the above paragraph, is plainly ridiculous.
> >
> > > Would such a collation of quotations be
> > > [L]"authoritative" or more-[L]"authoritative" than the list of URLs?
> >
> > Please explain how these quotes are supposed to correspond
> > to an actual argument first. What you seem to be accomplishing
> > is using a bullhorn as a sound system for your private cassette
> > collection and not much else. And what does any of this have
> > to do with the ToE? Wouldn't some of this material be a bit
> > more appropo in, say, the sci.physics.* hierarchy?
>
> If good numbers of young-earth creationists are in the sci.physics.*
> hierarchy, perhaps I will post the links there.
Why? You're still missing the point - what does the Big Bang
Theory have to do with the ToE, other than both obviously
occurred in the same universe?
> > > Keep in mind that either way, I'm claiming to have seen the quotations
> > > in the buff, unless otherwise indicated by a "cited in _______."
> > > I do not understand what you mean when you request [L]"primary
> > > sources."
> >
> > You seem a bit confused on the merits of quoting URLs in order
> > to further a vague agenda.
>
> Young-earth creationists, the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old,
> and the universe is about 15 billion years old.
Who are you addressing in this statement? And again, *what does
the Big Bang have to do with the ToE*?
> You have nothing to fear from the big bang theory. It is an ally and
> not a foe.
I wasn't aware that it could be an "ally" or a "foe" of anything.
You've got a genuinely strange way of making your views known, David.
-Chris Krolczyk