[_ Old Earth _] Fizzling the Big Bang/Deflating Expanding Universe Theories

[Ephesians 6:12]

This topic is really hated by those devotees of the Big Bang & Expanding Universe theories, so rather than argue it, here's the sites; .....................................metaresearch.org is by former Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory, Dr Van Flandern, who lists 10 flaws with the Big Bang theory, and the flaws with the Expanding Universe theory.................................Other science rebels with degrees are electric-universe.info, jmccanneyscience.com, enterprisemission.com, mkaku.org..............................The uniformity of the visible universe is much like an atomic structure seen magnified, and recently the electro-static field of the universe has been cited by jmccanneyscience.com & electric-universe.info...................................If we could magnify the atoms of our bodies, would we see the process by which we keep warm blooded, in the electro-static field of our bodies' atoms? I'd guess there may be more to infinity than telescopes can see, but what we can see is billions of light years deep uniformity............................Perhaps the universe/multiverse is Gods' physical makeup. DNA rules our makeup down to the cellular level, at least, and white blood cells rush to any problem contaminating the system naturally. .....................................New theories are more plausible with old ones floundering. Whether the universe expands or not, or there was a Big Bang or not, creation is a miraculous wonder, and infinity has no boundary..............................Oh, and spare us the strategy of debate by character assassination of astrophysicists, doctors, and web sites. Science debates should be based on facts, not name calling...............................If you feel strongly about this, Dr Van Flandern has a message board for challenges about the flaws at metaresearch.org.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

I forgot to mention that Hubble telescope has found stars forming out of nebula, and galaxies forming, without any bang involved, but a recycling of material at hand. .....................................Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, as in our bodies. Uniformity isn't born of chaos. The universe has a uniform overall temperature also...................................I believe IT LIVES! The proof of God is in plain sight, and explains anomalous phenomena of the paranormal intruding on scientific reality. paranormal.org, ghostresearch.org, ghostpix.com, Forteantimes.com, bellwitchfansite.com, unexplainable.net, osironline.com, psiberific.com, psifactor.tvheaven.com...................................Science doesn't know it all.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Just a few of these...

The uniformity of the visible universe is much like an atomic structure seen magnified, and recently the electro-static field of the universe has been cited by jmccanneyscience.com & electric-universe.info

FYI...we can't "see" inside an atom, so this doesn't make sense.

Also, assuming it does look like this:

Doesn't look anything like the visible universe to me....

If we could magnify the atoms of our bodies, would we see the process by which we keep warm blooded, in the electro-static field of our bodies' atoms? I'd guess there may be more to infinity than telescopes can see, but what we can see is billions of light years deep uniformity

I read this nine times before I decided it makes no sense. What would we see if we looked at the atoms of a cold blooded animal, like a lizard?

Also, telescopes would be useless for looking at atoms (small things). I'd recommend a microscope.

Perhaps the universe/multiverse is Gods' physical makeup. DNA rules our makeup down to the cellular level, at least, and white blood cells rush to any problem contaminating the system naturally.

Sentence 2 is a non sequiter to Sentence 1, but nevertheless.

Interesting philosophical question, but has no bearing on science or the big bang.

New theories are more plausible with old ones floundering. Whether the universe expands or not, or there was a Big Bang or not, creation is a miraculous wonder, and infinity has no boundary

I would guess 100% of the scientific community is pretty sure infinity has no boundary (even creationists scientists).

Yes, theories are refined and adjusted and sometimes discarded (or revived). You are right, they tend to get more plausable.

Oh, and spare us the strategy of debate by character assassination of astrophysicists, doctors, and web sites. Science debates should be based on facts, not name calling

Agreed, perhaps if you offered some facts, or even alledged data, we could discuss it.

I forgot to mention that Hubble telescope has found stars forming out of nebula, and galaxies forming, without any bang involved, but a recycling of material at hand

That's exactly what science has been saying for years. Science does not claim that the big bang created stars, those came much later. Your post implies that, but that is not the position of BB theorists.

We've known well before Hubble that stars formed from nebula, including our own. Our star is a 3rd or 4th generation star. That is were the iron in your blood comes from....recycling.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, as in our bodies

Yep! Since it makes un 75% of the universe and reacts well with other elements, it's likely an important building block.

Helium is the second most abundant chemical, yet we have none in our bodies....do you know why that is?

Uniformity isn't born of chaos

2nd law of thermodynamics (a creationists favorite tool) says otherwise

The universe has a uniform overall temperature also

Not really. It is about 70 degrees here and about 10,000 degrees. No, certainly not uniform.

I assume you are talking about the background temperature of the universe....that is not perfectly uniform....see here it varies by a fraction of a degree, which may account for the "lumpiness" of space.

I believe IT LIVES! The proof of God is in plain sight, and explains anomalous phenomena of the paranormal intruding on scientific reality.

:o

Science doesn't know it all.

It never says it does. However, it tries using the best methods available....reason, experiment, testing, peer review.

 

[huj05]

just so u know, the picture of what you posted as an atom is not what it truly looks like at all.

Please take chemistry. lol that is the simplified version, it is much diffrent..

anywho, a guy posted 10 flaws.

I knwo whole sites that have 100's of flaws on religous things.
thats why it is a theory, to be improved upon.

 

[Drew]

In one sense, the Universe indeed has a uniform temperature - and this (I believe) is evidence for the Big Bang. In every direction one looks, a "temperature" of about 2.7 Kelvin is observed (pretty darn cold, by the way). I believe a brief excursion into history is required here. Back in the 1960's, two engineers at Bell Labs in New Jersey discovered this "background noise" by accident and measured it as being present in every direction they looked. Down the road at Princeton, the big bang theory was being worked out and one of the predictions of the theory was that there should be a background noise of about 2 and 1/2 degrees Kelvin in every direction you point your telescope. The engineers at Bell were not aware of what was going on at Princeton :o , and they in fact considered this noise to be an "annoyance", not evidence in support of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson (the Bell engineers) won the Nobel Prize.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Just a few of these...

The uniformity of the visible universe is much like an atomic structure seen magnified, and recently the electro-static field of the universe has been cited by jmccanneyscience.com & electric-universe.info

FYI...we can't "see" inside an atom, so this doesn't make sense.

Also, assuming it does look like this:

Doesn't look anything like the visible universe to me....

[quote:12670]If we could magnify the atoms of our bodies, would we see the process by which we keep warm blooded, in the electro-static field of our bodies' atoms? I'd guess there may be more to infinity than telescopes can see, but what we can see is billions of light years deep uniformity

I read this nine times before I decided it makes no sense. What would we see if we looked at the atoms of a cold blooded animal, like a lizard?

Also, telescopes would be useless for looking at atoms (small things). I'd recommend a microscope.

Perhaps the universe/multiverse is Gods' physical makeup. DNA rules our makeup down to the cellular level, at least, and white blood cells rush to any problem contaminating the system naturally.

Sentence 2 is a non sequiter to Sentence 1, but nevertheless.

Interesting philosophical question, but has no bearing on science or the big bang.

New theories are more plausible with old ones floundering. Whether the universe expands or not, or there was a Big Bang or not, creation is a miraculous wonder, and infinity has no boundary

I would guess 100% of the scientific community is pretty sure infinity has no boundary (even creationists scientists).

Yes, theories are refined and adjusted and sometimes discarded (or revived). You are right, they tend to get more plausable.

Oh, and spare us the strategy of debate by character assassination of astrophysicists, doctors, and web sites. Science debates should be based on facts, not name calling

Agreed, perhaps if you offered some facts, or even alledged data, we could discuss it.

I forgot to mention that Hubble telescope has found stars forming out of nebula, and galaxies forming, without any bang involved, but a recycling of material at hand

That's exactly what science has been saying for years. Science does not claim that the big bang created stars, those came much later. Your post implies that, but that is not the position of BB theorists.

We've known well before Hubble that stars formed from nebula, including our own. Our star is a 3rd or 4th generation star. That is were the iron in your blood comes from....recycling.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, as in our bodies

Yep! Since it makes un 75% of the universe and reacts well with other elements, it's likely an important building block.

Helium is the second most abundant chemical, yet we have none in our bodies....do you know why that is?

Uniformity isn't born of chaos

2nd law of thermodynamics (a creationists favorite tool) says otherwise

The universe has a uniform overall temperature also

Not really. It is about 70 degrees here and about 10,000 degrees. No, certainly not uniform.

I assume you are talking about the background temperature of the universe....that is not perfectly uniform....see here it varies by a fraction of a degree, which may account for the "lumpiness" of space.

I believe IT LIVES! The proof of God is in plain sight, and explains anomalous phenomena of the paranormal intruding on scientific reality.

:o

Science doesn't know it all.

It never says it does. However, it tries using the best methods available....reason, experiment, testing, peer review.[/quote:12670] The bull is a perfect avatar 4 you. It's not like I said solar systems are electrons, but similar. Patterns of nature are the point, and the relative uniformity of all Hubble can see. It is a structure, like an atomic structure. .....................................You're an expert distortionist, I can tell by your twisting of my statement about telescopes, as if it were a mistake, referring to Hubble, NOT atoms. Twisting statements isn't scientific, it's attack. You must be a big banger/ wildly expanding universe theorist.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Fizzling the Big Bang/Deflating Expanding Universe Theor

This topic is really hated by those devotees of the Big Bang & Expanding Universe theories, so rather than argue it, here's the sites; .

It doesn't matter if the big bang is not accurate. Getting to the truth is more important. That is what science is all about. Unlike theists who have the answer and are still looking for the evidence. Science is big enough to admit an error and correct if needed. Your post was not a slam of science but an endorsement. Honesty needs no apology.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Re: Fizzling the Big Bang/Deflating Expanding Universe Theor

This topic is really hated by those devotees of the Big Bang & Expanding Universe theories, so rather than argue it, here's the sites; .

It doesn't matter if the big bang is not accurate. Getting to the truth is more important. That is what science is all about. Unlike theists who have the answer and are still looking for the evidence. Science is big enough to admit an error and correct if needed. Your post was not a slam of science but an endorsement. Honesty needs no apology.

.......................................................................Yea, what he said! I've been treated like a heretic for even posting metaresearch.org at another site. But their only argument is based on name calling for blasphemy against the flat earth theory...I mean the Big Bang theory. Science needs rebels, too.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The bull is a perfect avatar 4 you.

Thanks, I like it. It is from the Far Side cartoon called "Cow Tools". Makes me laugh...

It's not like I said solar systems are electrons, but similar. Patterns of nature are the point, and the relative uniformity of all Hubble can see. It is a structure, like an atomic structure.

Along those lines, I tend to agree. The patterns of nature tend to be similar....I think that is the beauty of science.

.....................................You're an expert distortionist, I can tell by your twisting of my statement about telescopes, as if it were a mistake, referring to Hubble, NOT atoms. Twisting statements isn't scientific, it's attack.

In science, definitions matter. The reason why I responded the way I did was because some of your claims were too broad, some inconsistant, and others flat wrong.

The definitions matter, and we need to have a starting point to discuss the issue. See my post above? We refined the definitions and discussions and are now able to have a more poignant discussion about why this general uniformity exists.

If you felt it was a personal attack, I apologize. I was simply correctly some of your posts (and yes, some of my comments were a bit sarcastic).

You must be a big banger/ wildly expanding universe theorist

Actually, I am not a trained scientist. But I am a "big banger" in the sense that I believe it is the best explanation we have for the universe.

I am also inclined to agree that the universe is expanding, based on what we know.

Obviously you feel differently, perhaps we can discuss some of the specific data you feel points to different explanations.

Have a good one...

 

[keebs]

The uniformity of the visible universe is much like an atomic structure seen magnified, and recently the electro-static field of the universe has been cited by jmccanneyscience.com & electric-universe.info

Wow...so the motion of planets and asteroids move just like highly exited particles? Wow...it's hard to believe, seeing as how the planets and stars aren't all jumping around being dictated by a probability density function. Haha.

It doesn't matter if the big bang is not accurate.

Oh, but the big bang theory is accurate...this guy just doesn't know what he's talking about. The only real problem with the big bang theory is that it is incomplete, especially with regards to the mechanism of inflation. However, anyone who knows anything about the big bang theory would expect it to be incomplete, seeing as how we're currently lacking a theory of quantum gravity and such (gosh darn gravity and it's positive length coupling constant. But then again, who needs renormalization anyways...we have God, don't we?)

I am also inclined to agree that the universe is expanding, based on what we know.

Anyone who doesn't think that the universe is expanding should go to walmart and buy a cheap little telescope.

 

[ThinkerMan]

[quote:9d70f]Quote:

I am also inclined to agree that the universe is expanding, based on what we know.

Anyone who doesn't think that the universe is expanding should go to walmart and buy a cheap little telescope.[/quote:9d70f]

1. I used "inclined" to avoid using absolutes and encouraged discussion on this point (as it appears he/she may think otherwise.)

How inclined am I? Probably about equal to how pure a bar of Dove Soap is.

Just wanted to clarify this for my friend keebs.

2. Come on keebs, a telescope won't tell you (or show you) that the universe is expanding....otherwise somebody between the 1600's and 1929 would have seen it.

As you know, it's from analyzing the "red-shift" of the observed object, which your little wal-mart deal couldn't do.

Just want to clarify that so everyone doesn't run out to wal-mart in hopes of seeing galaxies flying apart.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

The uniformity of the visible universe is much like an atomic structure seen magnified, and recently the electro-static field of the universe has been cited by jmccanneyscience.com & electric-universe.info

Wow...so the motion of planets and asteroids move just like highly exited particles? Wow...it's hard to believe, seeing as how the planets and stars aren't all jumping around being dictated by a probability density function. Haha.

[quote:5be75] It doesn't matter if the big bang is not accurate.

Oh, but the big bang theory is accurate...this guy just doesn't know what he's talking about. The only real problem with the big bang theory is that it is incomplete, especially with regards to the mechanism of inflation. However, anyone who knows anything about the big bang theory would expect it to be incomplete, seeing as how we're currently lacking a theory of quantum gravity and such (gosh darn gravity and it's positive length coupling constant. But then again, who needs renormalization anyways...we have God, don't we?)

I am also inclined to agree that the universe is expanding, based on what we know.

Anyone who doesn't think that the universe is expanding should go to walmart and buy a cheap little telescope.[/quote:5be75] ........................................................................Only the first quoted statement is mine, and the reply is another lying distortion of my statements. I'm not saying that solar systems are electrons, or atoms, but that the patterns of nature are above as below, and the cosmos is a uniform structure. Is all infinity full of galaxies? I doubt it. Did all matter pop out of nowhere and fill infinity, as the bangers suggest? That would be a miracle, surely.................................................................. The replier hasn't read the 10 flaws of Big Bang at metaresearch.org, obviously, nor the flawed interpretation of red shift data with the expanding universe theory. And, I didn't know the universe is expanding so wildly that a toy telescope can easily observe it! I still don't!

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Re: Fizzling the Big Bang/Deflating Expanding Universe Theor

[quote="Ephesians 6:12":a05cb]This topic is really hated by those devotees of the Big Bang & Expanding Universe theories, so rather than argue it, here's the sites; .

It doesn't matter if the big bang is not accurate. Getting to the truth is more important. That is what science is all about. Unlike theists who have the answer and are still looking for the evidence. Science is big enough to admit an error and correct if needed. Your post was not a slam of science but an endorsement. Honesty needs no apology.

.......................................................................Yea, what he said! I've been treated like a heretic for even posting metaresearch.org at another site. But their only argument is based on name calling for blasphemy against the flat earth theory...I mean the Big Bang theory. Science needs rebels, too.[/quote:a05cb]
Is your enter key broken or something. Seriously, learn to use paragraphs or figure out a way around it or figure out how to fix your keyboard.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The replier hasn't read the 10 flaws of Big Bang at metaresearch.org, obviously, nor the flawed interpretation of red shift data with the expanding universe theory.

I think it would be helpful, and easier for everyone, if you simply laid out a few of the "flaws" for us to discuss.

By the way, the site lists 30 "flaws". Which ten, or one, would you like to discuss?

And, I didn't know the universe is expanding so wildly that a toy telescope can easily observe it! I still don't!

Don't strawman this. Keebs was making a sarcastic point, that's all. Science does not claim you can witness universe expansion via a $50 Wal-Mart telescope....

As you requested people don't twist your statements...don't twist others.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Dr Van Flandern has a message board

I don't want to discuss anything with you, now that I see your style. Dr Van Flandern has a message board at metaresearch.org for know it alls to challenge him. I started the article saying that. I'm not qualified to adequately defend his positions, so take your distortions to him, and stop chasing me to give me a hard time unfairly................................................................I see the multiverse as part of God, perhaps the body of God, or an expression of God. I don't buy into the big bang or expanding universe, and I don't expect we can convert each other.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Dr Van Flandern has a message board

I don't want to discuss anything with you, now that I see your style. Dr Van Flandern has a message board at metaresearch.org for know it alls to challenge him. I started the article saying that. I'm not qualified to adequately defend his positions, so take your distortions to him, and stop chasing me to give me a hard time unfairly................................................................I see the multiverse as part of God, perhaps the body of God, or an expression of God. I don't buy into the big bang or expanding universe, and I don't expect we can convert each other.

Oh, but you buy into Dr Van Flamfondle? Based on what?

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

Credentials

Based on what? I'll tell you. .....................................I don't see anyone here with better credentials than having spent 20 years with the US Naval Observatory, and as USNO Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch....................................................................................................Character assassinations and distortions of statements aren't scientific debates. Start a thread about the 10 flaws & expanding universe flaws so you can scientifically debunk him ON EVERY POINT, and humiliate me. (As if). You owe it to him for slandering his professional reputation with name calling now. And you are in what position to judge him?

 

[Asimov]

Re: Credentials

Based on what? I'll tell you. I don't see anyone here with better credentials than having spent 20 years with the US Naval Observatory, and as USNO Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch.

Ok, I'll take a look at Dr. Vim Flingbooger and see what he has to say. I didn't read your statements, because..................they....................are....................such......................an
......................eyestrain.

Character assassinations and distortions of statements aren't scientific debates. Start a thread about the 10 flaws & expanding universe flaws so you can scientifically debunk him ON EVERY POINT, and humiliate me. (As if).

I don't remember claiming that the BB was complete. Such is the problem with knowledge, you need to obtain through research, which takes time.

You owe it to him for slandering his professional reputation with name calling now. And you are in what position to judge him?

I owe Dr. Vroomy Foomdongle nothing. You're a little sensitive, maybe you should get a back rub. I'm in whatever position I feel like to judge anyone I want.

 

[Ephesians 6:12]

That's only credentials enough for being rude and obnoxious besides anonymous. Go find someone else to harrass. MODERATOR! GET THIS JOKER OFF ME!

 

[Asimov]

That's only credentials enough for being rude and obnoxious besides anonymous. Go find someone else to harrass. MODERATOR! GET THIS JOKER OFF ME!

You think I'm harrassing you? Well, no one is forcing you to post, and so far I haven't attacked you personally.

I didn't find Mr. Vingfinder's arguments too compelling. The static universe idea does not fit the data, and Mr. Doonboggle has some interesting things to say, such as:

"the data better fits a static universe!"

Compelling....very compelling. Considering he provides no data. Stephen Hawking has a much better idea about the Big Bang than this duder.

So let's see....does he explain a static Universe? How does it operate?