Talk:Big Bang theory

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". Scorpionman 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? Scientz 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. Tsumetai 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. Scientz 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. Scientz 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. Dimensio 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

Contents

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory

You guys state: "Some creationists argue that the Big Bang theory is part of an effort to deny God's creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,[12] have claimed that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the theory of evolution, particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by atheist evolutionists to silence creationist opponents."

Sigh...I could be wrong, but wasn't the earth known to be billions of years old by then? And the view back then was that the Universe is static and that it had been around forever. Einstein actually inserted Λgμν into the left hand side of his equation  \mathbf{G}= 8\pi \mathbf{T} (geometrized units) so that he would get a static universe! So the big bang model proposes that the Universe is younger than previously thought, not older! AndyFrankinson 20:15, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Dominant theory

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --Horace 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. Hengineer 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Sweeping generalisation

The following sentence should be removed:

In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --Horace 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-AmesGyo! 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Article split

The intro confuses Big Bang with Expanding universe. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --Ed Poor 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. Nematocyte 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Have the bounds of outer space expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --Ed Poor 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --M 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is outer space infinite or what? --Ed Poor 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, outer space is infinite.--TimS 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. Tsumetai 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--M 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. Warhawk 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

YEC Citations

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:

A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)

with

All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? Conservative 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [1][2] Conservative 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will not yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation will reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

Common Misconceptions

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. Learn together 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Misconception about Evolution

I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. InTheEvent 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. DanH 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning

Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --Rolloffle 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. Dimensio 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--All Fish Welcome 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Most atheists?

Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?

The scientific community (which I define as the doctorate-level degree holding scientists) in the U.S. overwhelmingly accept the Big Bang and old universe. I think most atheists just believe what scientists say is right despite the fact they don't know anything about it. I don't have a source for the U.S. public relating atheism to big bang belief, but I have a source for correlation between scientists' atheism and big bang belief, which we could extrapolate from. From Nature magazine. --Theonlyconservative 12:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Article Depth

In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.

Georges-Henri Lemaître

Could somebody add something in about how Roman Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaître, the original proposer of the Big Bang theory, felt that the theory fitted beautifully with his faith as it supports a "creation event"? Ajkgordon 12:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Change "Starlight problem" to "Horizon problem"?

There's a section in this article that refers to the "starlight problem" but I believe scientists actually refer to this issue as the "horizon problem." See here and here for example. One reason is that the problem has to do with more than starlight--there are questions about density, temperature, etc. The term "starlight problem" is generally used by people discussing creationist cosmological models, while "horizon problem" is more appropriate in the context of the big bang model.--JamesR 20:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I've changed it. Philip J. Rayment 00:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Inflation and YEC

Couldn't inflation make the Big Bang and YEC compatible? I mean if it happened faster than the speed of light. Then why couldn't it happen in the YEC time scale? jfraatz

"God's Role"

Can someone help me come up with a better way of saying "God's role in creating the universe." ? Obviously God didn't just have a 'role,' He simply created it by Himself! Thanks! WillS 18:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried; do you think my wording is OK? DanielPulido 03:06, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
Looks great. And good job catching some other areas where liberal bias crept in as well!

Correcting "scientific"

I just corrected "scientific" the word used in description of the Big Bang to the proper in this case term "pseudo scientific". See also my Essay:Demystified gravitation where I explain why the Big Bang is a pseudo scientific hypothesis (between other things it assumes "curved" spacetime for which there is no evidence and a lot of to contrary) and how Einsteinian gravitation works. The essay is still not finished and so I invite anybody to expres their opinion on the talk page of the essay. Thanks. JimJast 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --SamCoulter 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never claimed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).
The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.
This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by relativists giving up the checking what is the intrinsic redshift in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the redshift is a proof that the universe is expanding. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse hypotheses that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a proof of their invalidity turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.
Intrinsic redshift is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by-step derivation in Essay:Demystified gravitation and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is
dH/dt=-H_o^2/2
where dH / dt is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time t, and Ho is the Hubble constant itself. JimJast 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

"even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions."

I must agree with the removal of the above sentence. The big bang theory is based on the observations of red shifts, background radiation and other observational and physical properties of the universe. However, it is the assumptions the Big Bang theorists draw from this that are the debatable part. MaxFletcher 19:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --SamCoulter 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes Sam, "it just isn't correct". But can we say it while relativists maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.
I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one, and justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH).
Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publish this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia (after being blocked on my university server) as Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in Essay:Demystified gravitation. JimJast 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Just as a note, Sam, the Scientific Theory (i.e. Scientific Method) was codified by two individuals that were deeply religious (Descartes and Francis Bacon). It is also derived from the theories of logic codified by Roger Bacon, a monk. I don't think it is a difference between faith and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made the argument that we should seek to combine the two, which John Calvin said was a very important advancement that allowed us to move beyond Greek philosophy/science. Ottava (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
It's irrelevant that Descartes and the Bacons were religious; the scientific method does NOT combine faith and reason and in fact explicitly rejects faith. --SamCoulter 15:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Additional note, Sam, what good it would do if we believed in things that are not true? As pseudo scientific theories usually are. JimJast 14:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
It's interesting to our readers that the founders of the scientific method were religious. We always want to know more about people who have influenced currents of modern thought.
When someone proposes "intelligent design", do we respond to the challenge of the idea purely on its merits, or do we consider the motives of its proponents? --Ed Poor Talk 15:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Hmm

As a Catholic, I hope people realize that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter. The Catholic Church is home to one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the US, the Knights of Columbus (1.8 million members), mind you. I do hope that we can at least acknowledge that this isn't an "atheist" view or a "liberal" view, but one that spreads across boundaries. :) After all, the Catholic Church's view about Genesis is based on St. Augustine's determination that Genesis was allegorical, which was something both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with. Just keep this in mind. :) Ottava (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

In what sense "the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"? The fact that "Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed (that Genesis was allegorical)" isn't a clear indication that "the Catholic Church was involved in the matter". At least to me (the crank :) that's why I'd appreciate if you explained it in more detail.
My opinion is the same as yours that there was an involvement but I'm not sure that I understand it the same way as you do. I know that Gorges Lemaître, the Catholic prist, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory[1], and also that the theory is false since I personally executed the for long time neglected calculation of value of intrinsic redshift and it turned out roughly as it is observed, which implies that practically there is no expansion of universe. Results of my calculations were not published since 1985 when they were done, except recently in conservapedia[2], but I don't think that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter of blocking the publication. Do you? :) JimJast 14:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)


Ottava, are you saying that a large percentage of Catholics accept the Big Bang theory? If so, is it because it seems reasonable to them? Or because it's Catholic dogma, or what? --Ed Poor Talk 14:36, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
It is both accepted by Catholics and given official approval by the Vatican. After all, Georges-Henri Lemaitre was a famous Catholic Priest and the originator of it. The Catholic Church also says there is enough reason to believe that evolution is okay. Afterall, Darwin made it clear that he believed in Aristotelian theory (and thus, Aristotelian Metaphysics which St. Thomas Aquinas relied upon), and that Darwin was Anglican his whole life, whether High Church or not is a different matter. Ottava (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually Darwin was Unitarian, not Anglican (he was baptised Anglican mainly due to social pressure) and it's pretty clear that he at least partly abandoned Christianity. He intended to become an Anglican vicar at one point (mainly so he could spend six days a week collecting beetles) but his mother was a practicing Unitarian and took him to her church, and his father and paternal grandfather were atheists. --SamCoulter 15:33, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Unitarian at the time was not a set "religion" but a religious philosophy, with many Low Church Anglicans adopting it. Darwin trained to become an Anglican priest, and Anglican thought and wording is throughout his texts. Darwin's actions and ideals are in line with the Franciscan school of natural philosophy, which is deeply connected to Aristotelian belief. You can see that in the writings of Roger Bacon and many Franciscan scientists. Darwin's constant referral to Aristotelian beliefs and logic is inline with that. Darwin married as an Anglican, was buried as an Anglican, etc. Such things are stripped away by modern atheists who want to make their current view seem more "historic". Darwin had many supporters in the Anglican clergy, by the way. He was never "high church", but you don't have to be high church to be religious. :) Ottava (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Darwin may well have been buried as an Anglican but he described himself as an agnostic. --SamCoulter 16:04, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
That term didn't exist at his time. So I doubt it highly. Ottava (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Of course it did; it was coined by his friend Thomas Huxley. Darwin used it on at least one occasion. --SamCoulter 23:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
By the way, a good read on the matter. :) Ottava (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Would you mind seeing to it that the above information gets into the appropriate articles? I'd like to see a Catholic views on evolution article, for example. --Ed Poor Talk 15:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Eventually. However, I do have a rather strong conflict with my personal involvement with the Church, publications on Catholic Theology, Cathology apologia, my work with Catholic advocacy groups, etc. I merely wanted to add a little note that you don't have to be liberal to believe in it. :) Ottava (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)


JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. Ottava (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Ottava, I agree on this point.
My question was whether you think that Catholics make it also a part of their faith (since the Pope accepts it).
Being from a Lutheran family, and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985 and then the sbject was considered not interesting enough to publish it, as editors of "Physical Review Letters" wrote me).
There are many other pseudo scientific "theories" popping around and scientific journals can't waste space and time on rejecting them all and leave the rejection to "relativists". It creates an impression of the BBH being right which only "crackpots" like myself object to. But of course even a crackpot might be right especially when the ideas he/she supports are supported also by rigorous physics and math as in this case. Thanks for responding and consider the case explained. JimJast 14:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
"you think that Catholics make it also a part of their faith'" I would say that many Catholics do. :) One of the reason why there were so many scientists who were Catholic monks is from St. Francis saying that we must understand nature so that we can most appreciate the world God has given us. Dominicans pursue science because they believe that knowledge is the path to God, which includes scientific knowledge. Combined with the allegorical interpretation of Genesis, many Catholics pursue these theories fully without seeing any contradiction with their faith (and instead see it as necessary to pursue them to best fulfill their faith). :) By the way, there has been no establishment of a universal understanding of matter, so the idea that the Big Bang was "proven" wrong is not true - there are a few contradictions, but there are a few contradictions in everything because we have not figured out how to tie all the loose ends together. P.S. I've had plenty of college level physics classes and not one ever dismissed the Big Bang. :) Ottava (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Ottava, it is a fact that the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding of gravitation among "relativists". It exists only since, as Feynman says, "no good men work in it". I strted my PhD in gravitation to see what's going on there. Einsteinian gravitation is against "relativists" and there is too many observations that support Einsteinian gravitation. Eventually someone with access to scientific publications starts treating astrophysics seriously and easily discovers that the Big Bang is a hoax. It is obvious for a real physicist (e.g. someone like Feynman). JimJast 21:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
"it is a fact the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding" - you are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim, so I find it incredibly hard to believe. The absurdity also makes me doubt that you have ever worked at the graduate level in physics, especially with such strong terms which I have never seen any physicist use. As such, I do not think I can, in clean conscience, continue discussing the matter with you. Sorry. Ottava (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Before we part for good I'd like to appologise for hurting your feelings by doubting the infallibility of the Pope, and tell you briefly why I'm sure that the big bang is a fake. And BTW, why didn't you ask that question, before labeling me a lier, while the answer may satisfy your curiosity (as I believe you are a curious person).
You may ask your friends physicists who believe that the big bang is not a fake whether they know what is the intrinsic redshift in our universe. The possible answers are (i) "don't know", (ii) "negligible, I guess", (iii) "depending on density of universe, but I don't know how", (iv) "ca. 72km/s/Mpc".
Redshift isn't measured in km/s/Mpc; it's measured in terms of z, or occasionally in terms of shifted frequency. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? --SamCoulter 20:30, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
I calculated this intrinsic redshift with very simple, easy to repeate for an intelligent high school student calculation, and the last answer is true. It means that there is no expansion of the universe since it is the redshift that astrophysicists observe but can't calculate since they don't know how. There is no such calculation in the whole scientific literature. The BBH theorists assume answer (ii) ("negligible"). Why, if I calculated it and got 72km/s/Mpc, which incidentally the Hubble redshift is observed as such?
And then I invented a relativistic theory explaining the illusion of expanding universe which predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion exacctly as Supernova Cosmology Project observed in 1998 with one standard deviation accuracy (max possible to confirm agreemant of theory with observations, predicted by little me 13 years earlier). Never published though (except in conservapedia) since editors belive that the universe is expanding and my university blocked my access to the university server so that I had to type the results into conservapedia manually instead just showing a link to them. JimJast 20:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given qualified acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. Maratrean 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

See chapter XIII. The Catholic Church was very anti-literalist and actually persecuted many literalist sects as heretics. :) I haven't seen anything in which they required a "literal Adam and Eve", but the "Fall" is different. See also Pope Leo XIII's warning about certain types of interpretation of the Bible in which we try to conform the divine into the human (i.e. trying to say things literally happened when our words cannot actually contain the divine). See also the statements about how "literal" we can interpret the Bible under "Literal sense". St. Augustine wrote a whole work criticizing taking the literal sense of Genesis (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis which is anti-literalist). I don't want to get into a debate about this, though. :) Ottava (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The Roman Catholic Church also opposed Galileo plus Copernicus delayed the publishing of his work under after he died and it was probably due to the Roman Catholic Church. Conservative 20:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

The Catholic Church endorsed the Copernicus book, and did not delay it. RSchlafly 11:52, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Georges Lemaître

He was a big name in coming up with it, as well as a Catholic priest. See Wikipedia for a rough biography [3]--CamilleT 21:54, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Woops, I just read JimJast's post more carefully. Georges Lemaître has already been acknowledged in this debate.--CamilleT 21:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Religious views of Charles Darwin

  • In his autobiography, Darwin wrote – “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” [4] --Ed Poor Talk 23:15, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
That is not our modern definition of "agnostic". Agnostic, at the time, was known to him as the Greek word for "ignorant" or "not knowing". An "agnostic" in the modern sense means something very different, just as atheist before the modern period meant "person who was a heretic to the standard faith" as opposed to "believing in no faiths". Furthermore, it is clear that he says he had doubts as to the proof of various aspects of religion, which is no real different from what Augustine and many others described (even Mother Theresa claimed that she had doubts until the end). Faith is not about knowing, after all. He goes through arguments based on "proof", and then ends up saying that he can't possibly know what the origin was. But he does not say that religion is wrong but that people could possibly be faulty. That is twisted around to say something far different than what Darwin said. Ottava (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Forgiveness + km/s/Mpc + Holy Ghost's work

Sam, Yes I do have an idea what I'm talking about since I studied astronomy at University of Warsaw, Poland (Country of Copernicus, remember the guy? Also an unconventional fellow) since 2004 (in case you insist on verifying it). I still remember some definitions. Even if your mom didn't teach you that it is not nice to butt in with your own opinion (especially with a false one) when grownups talk, I forgive you, and hope that Ottava, being a Catholic and therefore a Christian, forgives you as well, even if you tried to confuse her in the matter of units used in astronomy.

So clearing this point, and now outside the conversation with Ottava, who might have given up on talking to me whom she considers a lier since I don't belive in the Big Bang (woman's logic is strange, don't you think?) And BTW, there are many others who dissmiss the BBH on basis of its physics as me, and math as J. Narlikar, one of the best mathematicians of India, Halton Arp, American astronomer famous for his work on quasars which don't fit the BBH, and many others, so the resistance against pseudo science seems to grow in the world) but if you support the BBH you may explain why definitions of terms used in astronomy are wrong and explain why you think they should be different than they are and why. You may start with Hubble constant (unfortunately still measured in km/s/Mpc).

For the benefit of those who don't know what Mpc (megaparsec) is I explain that it is a distance million times greater then one 1pc (parsec, short for "paralax one second") from which the radius of Earth odbit is seen as 1" (one angular second). Mpc is roughly the distance between galaxies and it is equal about 3 million light years (distance the lihgt has to travel 3 million years to cover). It is a quite large distance if one takes under consderation that the whole universe has radius of only 13 bilion lught years and the whole universe contains in its space rughly 100 billion galaxies, each galaxy containing about 100 billion stars like our Sun, most with planets flying around them. Just imagine the work the Holy Ghost is involved in while taking care of all of those planets including the Earth as one of them. Of course if we assume that She does all this work instead of leaving it to some natural process which takes care of it by itself. JimJast 13:48, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

I am from New Zealand, Rutherford was from New Zealand, Ergo I am an expert on nuclear physics. ;) Cmurphynz 11:05, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

References

  1. After wikipedia and believed this time.
  2. Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe.

A suggestion.

there was a suggestion about the first sentence on here, but it got deleted. I looked at it and there didn't seem to be anything objectionable, just an idea about rewording one of the sections so that it was more accurate. I would presume that its deletion was the result of some form of oversight. If no-one objects I'll put it back on the page, and maybe change the article. Tell me if I'm wrong, Thanks, Cmurphynz 11:09, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

Introductory sentence

I don't really know much about the subject, but the points seem to be valid. It looks like the change was made, but was then reverted without giving a reason. Could someone that knows more about the subject than I do explain please? thanks, Cmurphynz 02:54, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
The individual who made them was originally thrown out of the site a long time ago, but apparently it hasn't sunk in. What it amounts to is a "push and shove" upon the site to force a theory as a fact, something we're just not going to accept. Karajou 03:16, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Ok, I see. But how about the expansion vs. acceleration thing? Cmurphynz 21:48, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
The way to do it is to state something like "...scientists theorize" or "...most scientists believe". It's avoiding dogmatic statements. Karajou 21:58, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Liberal falsehoods

There is no reason for it to be classified under here Haveblue 00:28, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools