I don’t know why.
And in the interest of full disclosure I’ll acknowledge that these are areas of the theory that I’m less familiar with. Maybe these issues are more significant than they appear, but I’m inclined to doubt it. Our understanding of the universe is certainly incomplete, but there’s a reason the BBT is accepted and that reason isn’t an atheist conspiracy.
Wow I have a feeling either region scared or just trolling hard to tell sometimes. You do realize papers get published based on how “interesting” it is? This is of course their methodology isn’t just pure shit and there is actually a chance the results being true (and understandable). And by interesting I mean result that is profound so other people can set up new experiments using the result and thusly expand our knowledge. Of course there are going to be case fraud, those people commit academic suicide. If the results is of any significance others will set up experiment based on it and eventually everybody is going find out shit just don’t add up. Scientist will be the one most pissed off for wasting their time and resources.
The editors of journals can’t possibly send people into every lab out there and test truthfulness of every paper they publish. That would slow down the scientific process and no one get anything done. Considering some experiment takes months if not years to set up you really think its efficient or even possible for the editors to check everything out? And yes there are lies spread out through new/interent all the time, I pin that blame on the stupid ass media trying to sensationalize everything and copy and paste each other so they don’t have to read the actual paper. When in doubt just check the original paper it’s a lot easier with interent now days. I stay away from any science article unless they cite the paper or at least give me the author name so I can track it down.
As for problems you listed I don’t think you honestly considered them. For example the Horizon problem is reconciled by the inflation theory. Basically what it suggest is you get a pot of boiling water then expand it suddenly by pouring it on flat surface. Of course you would would to pour it damn fast and spread it out so flat so the molecules aren’t touching for the analogy to hold. You seem hell bent on using “god of gaps” argument to poke holes BBT so how about you show us something or point us to something that can fit in all the data we have.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming. The BBT fits all our data/observations and enables our predictions (which are also done with incredible accuracy).
Resorting to God of the Gaps (for anything) is fairly weak. We can always push God out beyond the bounds of whatever it is we know. If you place God outside of science’s reach, then how can science’s reach ever be sufficient in disproving him? It’s just a neverending game of moving the goalposts for the sake of holding onto some receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Welcome to the board, TripleFail. You can’t accuse other members of trolling in any forum except The BBQ Pit, so please don’t do this again.
Well when I read “You do realize papers get published based on how “interesting” it is?” I thought no they are not!
But when I did a search on how scientific articles are published I got alot of sites selling resources for getting articles published. So OK I agree.
I also agree with the media carries much blame in this. Often you can look at a quote from someone they interviewed and then look at what they wrote about and it is easy to tell that the author had no clue as to what the scientist was telling her/him.
The separation distances are so large and the CMB so smooth that it is hard to see how inflation could account for an average difference in temp of 2.7K.
We know that over time small diferences add up to make big ones. So if it is 2.7 today how small would the difference have to be at t= -350?
Also would not this whole argument violate the second law of thermodynamics?
And you still have no mechanism to “turn on” inflation.
Sorry I should have used quotation marks another one of my catchall terms. Besides many atheists disagree with you.
“The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community,…”
http://www.atheist-community.org/
“Staying in the closet tends to isolate you from the atheist community,…”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/society.html
“THE ATHEIST
The newsletter of the Atheist Society (Australia)”
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/athnews3.html
Its like any other group of people some do some dont. I made a generalization for the sake of argument. There certainly are some atheists who use BBT for validation.
In his book, God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor Stenger certainly makes the argument.
Of course not all atheists use this argument. Many use more philosophical arguments. I really dont think Anaxagoras in 500 BC was using BBT as proof of his stance.
Yes you (and you alone) have made the comment “The idea of an intelligent designer is not at odds with science, it is simply orthogonal to it.” or similar in this thread at least four times And I made the point of agreeing with it in one of my posts and I still do agree with it.
I wish everyone did.
[QUOTE=FixMyIgnorance]
It’s just a matter of ignorance. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s something to be remedied through education. But if you’ve actually been shown the arguments? If you’ve been shown outright that you’re wrong? And you STILL cling to your myth? Then you’re just insane.
[/QUOTE]
sh1bu1
I posted all that because I do respect your opinion and I want you to know that I do understand where you are coming from in fact you have not posted much that I can disagree with. I am getting out of the philosophical arguments at least on this thread. More on this in my response to Marley…I hope you read it.
FWIW I dont sit around imagining atheists in dark rooms plotting on how they are going to trick those devious Christians this time.
Atheists are just people like anyone else they are good and bad…often at the same time. Most would rather help me than hurt me. Some are open minded and some are not.
If you have decided that the accuracy of BBT is not a major priority in your life. That is cool with me. I wish I had time to investigate every facet of life thoroughly but I do not. Even those lucky enough to be able to devote their lifes to a pursuit of knowledge have to narrow their focus somewhat.
It is because cosmology stirred something deep in me that I am so interested in BBT. I am the kind of person that when I walk outside at night I cannot help to look up and hope no clouds are in the way.
So that is part of the reason for starting this thread and the other is that always one or more threads at any given time about the inaccuracies of the bible, was Jesus a historic person etc.
I wanted to equal the scales a little bit and see if the people that think they know this subject can mount an adequate defense of this theory. Not that it is complete or accurate in every way. But that it is close enough to be considered the cliff notes of the last 14 billion years.
There actually are quite a few scientists working on alternates and major rewrites but by and large the standard model is just accepted.
A previous poster on this page wrote “The BBT fits all our data/observations and enables our predictions (which are also done with incredible accuracy).”
No it does not. I have already shown how Eddington predicted almost the exact observation of the CMB. He said 2.8 and the data said 2.7 and he was not using BBT or anything like it.
The fact is the predictions using BBT were all over the place sort of reminiscent of Nostradamus’s quatrains. There were so many thrown at the target a few were bound to be close. But none of them got even half as close as Eddington.
Sorry to ramble but if this is not your main interest I do understand you accepting it. There are many things I accept just because I do not have the time to fully research them.
I am disengaging from the philosophical arguments on this thread. I am done with the textbook discussion and all the other distractions. I do not regret these OT discussions I wanted you to know where I am coming from and I hope and expect to be on some of the other threads discussing these kinds of subjects with you all.
Marley, Brian, sh1bu1 and all the others who have argued back and forth with me on these topics I give you the last word.
If anyone can make a resonable defense that BBT is an adequate description of what has happened from t=0 to the present I am all ears.
I do plan to refute it.
BBT = Big Bang Theory?
You plan to refute it?
Get a Physics or Cosmology degree, present a paper of your claims to a legit Phys or Astro Journal and then we’ll talk.
Casual forums like this will never be the platform of anything new that has escaped the notice of reason.
The kicker to all this is, human beings are irrelevant to reality and the universe.
Let me clear one point up:
-
Eddington died in 1944, years before the CMB was discovered.
-
Eddington also later became a supporter of the BBT.
-
What Eddington calculated had nothing to do with the blackbody spectrum of the CMB. He calculated the effective temperature via the energy densities of starlight. The fact that it happened to be close to the CMB temperature is coincidential. The starlight radiations from the Milky Way Galaxy represent such a small fraction of the volume of the universe, whereas the CMB refers to the entire thing.
Just because a calculated assumption happens to be close, numerically, to something else under a different assumption doesn’t mean that theory is somehow wrong, especially when that theory fits SO many reams of evidence and yields such accurate predictions along countless metrics.
If you want to disprove the BBT, you’d need a gargantuan amount of evidence to explain away.
Here is a good video that explains (merely) the basics of the BBT’s evidence, and even then, it’s pretty strong evidence. Please watch this video before discussing this matter any further so we can at least guarantee that you’re familiar with the evidence.
Its lose-lose with the Creationists. If we say nothing, they claim we are ignoring or hiding the “truth” and if we debunk their lies, we are still accused of hiding the “truth.”
- ::: shrug ::: *
I am quite happy to simply ignore ID in science texts, but if such texts are going to include a reference to ID, they should be explicit in noting that it is both unscientific and opposed to scientific inquiry.
I’ve read through bits and pieces of this thread and I still have no clue why you don’t think the BBT is a good theory. You seem to have done some reading on it so I’m honestly baffled as to why you still don’t like it.
There are “holes” in the theory, yes. The theory does not explain everything. But when new discoveries are made, they will be added to the theory. The theory will be fixed up and improved. A theory is not a document you can finish and stuff in the archives. A theory is always a work in progress.
That last bit is something you seem to fail to understand. Very rarely is any scientific theory or principle completely overturned. New discoveries don’t kill theories, they add to them.
If you want to debunk the BBT, you’ll have to come up with a theory that:
- fits the data at least as well at the BBT does
- fits the data in a way completely different than the BBT did
- show clearly why the BBT was the wrong way to look at it
- make predictions and fit data that the current BBT does not, and explain why the BBT in any form would never ever fit that data
In short you would have to undo decades of scientific research and show that thousands of scientists were all completely off base. This is a pretty tall order which is why it never happens.
And I’m curious to see how you’ll do so. Can we get a sneak preview of your suggested alternative theory?
I must have stated that really badly. Let me clarify if you would like to defend the theory I plan to refute your defense.
If this is not worth your time I do understand.
Seems that several think I am required to have a replacement theory in my pocket or else shut up and march lock step with the rest of you. Well I disagree. If we are sitting on the back porch and see a strange light wizzing around and I say oh lookee there them aliens is here. And you say no probably not it is just an unexplained light. I guess I would be right?
However there has been a whole lot of work by many people who are alot smarter than myself and they and you deserve something.
BBT is a unified theory and I have no alternative theory for the whole thing but I will along the way offer some alternative theories to the redshift phenomenom and other parts of BBT.
Actually I have yet to find any I like any better than their more popular counterparts but I will try to settle on one or two.
Not tonight tho.
Tonight I will point out a galaxy group that goes contrary to the standard explanation of redshift.
Halton Arp among others collected quasi-stellar objects that show a connection and yet have very different redshifts.
NGC 7603 and companions are perhaps the most well known group.
Four objects with four very different redshifts (z=0.057,z=0.0243,z=0.391,z=0.029) and it would be hard to make a case that they are not connected.
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm
The estimated distance to these objects is between 400 and 700 million light years.
This is not the only example of this type of anomaly.
This pretty good observed evidence that not all redshift is doppler.
One can extroplate from there…if not all redshifts are doppler maybe none of them are.
So it’s literally just a “revenge” thread?
I am confused by this thread.
The BBT theory, is a theory. It does not claim to be fact, it does not claim to have all the answers. Everyone in science readily admits that as more data is gathered, the BBT is changed or altered to fit those new facts, as required by the Scientific Method. Everyone in the scientific community is open about this, always. Nobody, at any point, will probably ever say that the BBT is a fact.
There are things that seem to be at odds with the BBT, but they are being researched constantly, and if they cannot be found to fit within the BBT, the BBT is revised to reflect that. This is also something that everyone in the Scientific Community will readily state.
The BBT as it currently exists is the front runner explanation for how the Universe came to be. There have been other theories over time, but as the data is collected, they have broken down, or been found to have flaws that could not be reconciled with existing data, or were revised to the point where they becamse part of the BBT itself.
I, a total Layman with a not much better than High School education, fail to see where your problem with the BBT is coming from, if it’s not from a religious place. All of the things you have posted here that are “ah ha! a flaw in the BBT!” posts are all readily stated by the people you are “debating” with here to be issues, and that they need more data, which is being sought by scientists of all stripes. Yet, you seem to be waving those items as some sort of proof that the BBT is wrong. Which is NOT how science works.
What is your alternate theory to the BBT? I am curious to know what your thoughts are on that subject, since it appears you do not hold to the Scientific Method.
Jon55, do you have any response to my post?
Regardless, the point is that a theory is rarely overthrown. It gets altered most of the time. If we find something that looks like counterevidence, we don’t suddenly reject the theory. We have to pick the evidence apart and see how it fits within the theory. Evidence that looks contradictory may have other explanations supportable by evidence.
You have mentioned this a couple of times, so I thought I’d look it up. I see that FixMyIgnorance has already addressed it, but I’ll pile on. What Eddington calculated was NOT the same thing as the CMB radiation. Eddington calculated that if you went out into deep space and integrated all the energy coming from the various galaxies, and smeared this out evenly, that energy would correspond to an effective temperature of about 3 K. This is a completely different concept from the CMB. The CMB is not averaging-out the energy from distant galaxies; it’s the background radiation from where there are no galaxies.