Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[chad kincham]

You have again seemed to have not understood my statement.

Tifft seems to have fallen into the "crank trap" by becoming over enamored with his idea (redshift quantization). This is a problem that has happened to several senior scientist that got stuck in the past and failed to integrate new data into their interpretations. On a very similar track is Halton Arp who also had weird ideas about redshift.

This type of bad science has nothing to do with the BB generally. Even if the BB theory was "bad science" it would not be a "lone crank trap" as BBT is widely accepted in astrophysics and cosmology and not the idea of a crotchety emeritus professor that no one pays attention to while the rest of the community moves on.

And the fact that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created and annihilated each other, leaving an empty universe?

Look. I actually like the BB theory for the same reason that it was resisted by the scientific establishment at first, because of its implications of supporting the Genesis account of creation, since it shows the universe having a beginning in a point in time - instead of always existing as the steady state cosmological model posited - (which many scientists including Einstein wanted to keep)

However, call it a pet peeve of mine, I dislike the way that theories and hypotheses are commonly presented as if already proven fact, when they’re far from proven, even problematic - including the big bang or hot big bang theory, whichever term you prefer.

I also suspect that a singularity would be the ultimate black hole, and may be incapable of exploding in the first place, but haven’t pursued that idea to see what data is out there on that, if any.

 

[chad kincham]

That pile of uncited plagiarism. We've heard most of that before and even had whole threads about some of the individual items. I am not impressed.

Physicists such as Paul Davies, and others such as astronomer Fred Hoyle also see evidence of fine tuning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And the fact that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created and annihilated each other, leaving an empty universe?

Look. I actually like the BB theory for the same reason that it was resisted by the scientific establishment at first, because of its implications of supporting the Genesis account of creation, since it shows the universe having a beginning in a point in time - instead of always existing as the steady state cosmological model posited - (which many scientists including Einstein wanted to keep)

However, call it a pet peeve of mine, I dislike the way that theories and hypotheses are commonly presented as if already proven fact, when they’re far from proven, even problematic - including the big bang or hot big bang theory, whichever term you prefer.

I also suspect that a singularity would be the ultimate black hole, and may be incapable of exploding in the first place, but haven’t pursued that idea to see what data is out there on that, if any.

The BBT doesn't explain how or why the expansion started, rather, it describes the things that happened once the expansion started. (The existence of a very dense, but expanding state *is* a part of the theory, but not the cause of that expansion.)

The BBT doesn't contain a "singularity", though if you run the equations backward past where we have physics that functions you will see an implied infinite density. (That infinite density could have infinite extent. Cosmology is weird.)

 

[sjastro]

Yes, accelerating or expanding away more or away faster the further out from wherever you are in it, is, correct...?

But how does that make sense, or can that be true...?

God Bless!

It has nothing to do with acceleration but is a property of metric expansion.
Space-time is defined as a scale factor a(t) = R(t)/R(t₀) where R(t) is the cosmic scale for some time in the cosmological past at time t, R(t₀) is the present cosmic scale at time t₀.
The cosmic scale increases with time which defines metric expansion.

While analogies are fraught with danger as shown in previous posts the expansion of the cosmic scale can be explained by the familiar inflating balloon analogy where the markers on the balloon represent galaxies and the two dimensional surface of the balloon is the universe itself.
When the balloon is inflated the galaxies remain in the same position as they do not move relative to the surface.
What does change is the scale and a randomly placed two dimensional observer on this surface will note all galaxies will recede at a velocity which depends on the distance between the galaxy and observer.

 

[chad kincham]

Here is the formula again.

If the locomotive analogy is "very appropriate" then what is the physical significance for zH and what values does it obtain for non cosmological scales?
If you want to go down this rabbit hole that's fine by me.

As if I need to know the specific formula and values to plug into it, to know that the science website analogy in question is correct, since both sound and light clearly have a change in wave frequency relative to a fixed observer due to velocity, when either coming or going.

 

[sjastro]

As if I need to know the specific formula and values to plug into it, to know that the science website analogy in question is correct, since both sound and light clearly have a change in wave frequency relative to a fixed observer due to velocity, when either coming or going.

You are not doing yourself any favours by making bold assertions that cosmological redshift and Doppler shift are the same then running away when presented with the opportunity to explain how this is consistent with the relevant formula.

Since you are incapable of explaining yourself let me show instead why it is not consistent using your train analogy.
Since the train travels at speeds far less than the speed of light c and if the light beam and the direction of travel of the train are collinear with the observer, then Doppler shift of the light signal is given by the equation.

We can stop right here because there is a problem, the formula indicates Doppler shift is independent of distance in which case the Doppler shift of the signal will be the same if the train travelling at a constant velocity is one kilometre, a billion kilometers or billions of light years away from the observer.
This is an absurd situation if one assumes cosmological redshift and Doppler shift are the same.
In the top formula zH = 0 there is no cosmological redshift for the signal at non cosmological scales in the earth's gravitational field.
If the train is billions of light years away zH ≠ 0, then the redshift changes with distance due to cosmological redshift.

The other issue that could be "worth considering" is if the train is accelerating instead being at a constant velocity.
This fails as in metric expansion where there is no Doppler component, the recession velocity v/proper distance r follows a simple linear relationship v = Hr where H is Hubble's constant.
Even in the simplest case for the train using Newton's equations at a constant acceleration "a", the velocity/distance relationship v² = u² + 2ar where u is the initial velocity is not linear.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And the fact that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created and annihilated each other, leaving an empty universe?

Know you not of CP violation?

 

[Kyrani]

I'm no biologist, but that's not how cancer works. I feel quite confident in saying that mental states (negative ideas or perceptions) cause exactly zero cancers.

There is damage to cells of various origins, etc. that cause different kinds of cancers, not "bad thoughts".

So from your reasoning damage equals function!
This is the medical story BUT the scientific evidence doesn't support it.

A cancer tumor has the characteristics of an organ. AND it takes cancer stem cells to form a cancer. So why does the cancer form if it is not a person's reactions, i.e., physiological reactions?

 

[Hans Blaster]

A cancer tumor has the characteristics of an organ. AND it takes cancer stem cells to form a cancer. So why does the cancer form if it is not a person's reactions, i.e., physiological reactions?

Oh, so now you want to talk about physiological reactions? It sure seemed like you were talking about psychological origins to cancer in the post I replied to. That's what my post was about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe


strong nuclear force constant:

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry

if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry


weak nuclear force constant:

if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible


gravitational force constant:

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry

if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form


electromagnetic force constant:

if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry


ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:

if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support

if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements


ratio of electron to proton mass:

if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

if smaller: same as above

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: same as above


expansion rate of the universe:

if larger: no galaxies would form

if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed


entropy level of the universe:

if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form


mass density of the universe:

if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements


velocity of light:

if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support


age of the universe:

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed


initial uniformity of radiation:

if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed

if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space


average distance between galaxies:

if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit


density of galaxy cluster:

if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit

if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material


average distance between stars:

if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life


fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines):

if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun

if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields

if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun


decay rate of protons:

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life


12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio:

if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life

if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life


ground state energy level for 4He:

if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life

if smaller: same as above


decay rate of 8Be:

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry



ratio of neutron mass to proton mass:

if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements

if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes


initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons:

if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation

if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation


polarity of the water molecule:

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result


supernovae eruptions:

if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form


white dwarf binaries:

if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry

if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production

if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry


ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass:

if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form

if smaller: no galaxies would form


number of effective dimensions in the early universe:

if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible

if smaller: same result


number of effective dimensions in the present universe:

if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

if larger: same result


mass of the neutrino:

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense


big bang ripples:

if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly

if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form


size of the relativistic dilation factor:

if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly

if larger: same result


uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:

if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable


cosmological constant:

if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

JFYI, if you're going to wholesale copy long screeds from other sites (there are many apologist sites quoting that material) it's generally considered at best poor form and at worst dishonest not to give attribution to the source ('Big Bang Refined by Fire' by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A cancer tumor has the characteristics of an organ. AND it takes cancer stem cells to form a cancer. So why does the cancer form if it is not a person's reactions, i.e., physiological reactions?

The common causes are things that damage DNA, such as carcinogenic chemicals, ionising radiation, and certain types of infection (viruses, bacteria, parasites).

Some people are more prone and some less prone to certain types of cancers than others due to their genetic makeup to do with DNA repair mechanisms, immune response to cancer cells, etc.

 

[NxNW]

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

These have all been debunked time and time again, but I'll point out a couple things:

strong nuclear force constant:

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry

if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry


weak nuclear force constant:

if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

The young earth creationists all claim that radiometric dating doesn't work because the nuclear forces are variable. Now you're claiming they are constant. You might want to have a meeting and decide what the official Christian position is on the nuclear forces.

expansion rate of the universe:

if larger: no galaxies would form

if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

Earlier you were claiming the universe is not expanding. Which is it?

velocity of light:

if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

Biblical literalists all claim the speed of light is variable, so that ancient man could see the stars for navigation. Now you're claiming it's constant. Again, what's the official position on the speed of light?

age of the universe:

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

There is a lot of 'give' in this, say, a at least a few hundred billion years?

cosmological constant:

if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Earlier, you claimed the universe does not expand. Which is it?

And that’s not even addressing the many fine tuning parameters necessary for this planet to support life.

The conditions on Earth could change drastically and still support life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

These have all been debunked time and time again, but I'll point out a couple things:

The young earth creationists all claim that radiometric dating doesn't work because the nuclear forces are variable. Now you're claiming they are constant. You might want to have a meeting and decide what the official Christian position is on the nuclear forces.

Earlier you were claiming the universe is not expanding. Which is it?

Biblical literalists all claim the speed of light is variable, so that ancient man could see the stars for navigation. Now you're claiming it's constant. Again, what's the official position on the speed of light?

There is a lot of 'give' in this, say, a at least a few hundred billion years?

Yes; the 'Fine-Tuning' problem has been argued to death in these forums. As one famous cosmologist (Lee Smolin) said, "If the universe is fine-tuned for anything, it's producing black holes".

 

[Neogaia777]

It has nothing to do with acceleration but is a property of metric expansion.
Space-time is defined as a scale factor a(t) = R(t)/R(t₀) where R(t) is the cosmic scale for some time in the cosmological past at time t, R(t₀) is the present cosmic scale at time t₀.
The cosmic scale increases with time which defines metric expansion.

While analogies are fraught with danger as shown in previous posts the expansion of the cosmic scale can be explained by the familiar inflating balloon analogy where the markers on the balloon represent galaxies and the two dimensional surface of the balloon is the universe itself.
When the balloon is inflated the galaxies remain in the same position as they do not move relative to the surface.
What does change is the scale and a randomly placed two dimensional observer on this surface will note all galaxies will recede at a velocity which depends on the distance between the galaxy and observer.

Yes, I get that, it is the fabric of space, or spacetime, itself that is growing and/moving or expanding, but how can it be doing so with you as the center of that, no matter where you are at in it, both pictures or vantage points cannot be completely correct, can they...?

So what is the explanation...?

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Yes, I get that, it is the fabric of space, or spacetime, itself that is growing and/moving or expanding, but how can it be doing so with you as the center of that, no matter where you are at in it, both pictures or vantage points cannot be completely correct, can they...?

So what is the explanation...?

God Bless!

There is no true centre.
Continuing with the expanding balloon analogy where is the centre on the surface of a balloon?
An observer can arbitrarily claim their location on this surface is the "centre" but it is no different or unique to any other observer making the same claim anywhere else on the surface.
When the balloon expands each observer see their surroundings recede due to metric expansion.

People who struggle with the idea that a centre must play a role generally do so because they visualize the BB as an explosion in existing space which it isn't.

 

[Neogaia777]

People who struggle with the idea that a centre must play a role generally do so because they visualize the BB as an explosion in existing space which it isn't.

Did it have a single center or origin point, etc...?

And if it did, why do we not see it/that, etc...?

But, anyway, can you please explain to us what the BB is or isn't when it comes to this subject specifically maybe...?

And why maybe it either doesn't or does explain this subject maybe...?

What you said I mean? People seeing it as an explosion, how should we see it in your view that differs from that, etc...?

And how does it change that everywhere is the center, and that so we should evaluate our view of what is really happening or going on, a little bit differently, or be ready to change it, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

There is no true centre.
Continuing with the expanding balloon analogy where is the centre on the surface of a balloon?
An observer can arbitrarily claim their location on this surface is the "centre" but it is no different or unique to any other observer making the same claim anywhere else on the surface.
When the balloon expands each observer see their surroundings recede due to metric expansion.

People who struggle with the idea that a centre must play a role generally do so because they visualize the BB as an explosion in existing space which it isn't.

What does true metric expansion look like when everywhere is the center...?

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Did it have a single center or origin point, etc...?

And if it did, why do we not see it/that, etc...?

But, anyway, can you please explain to us what the BB is or isn't when it comes to this subject specifically maybe...?

And why maybe it either doesn't or does explain this subject maybe...?

What you said I mean? People seeing it as an explosion, how should we see it in your view that differs from that, etc...?

And how does it change that everywhere is the center, and that so we should evaluate our view of what is really happening or going on, a little bit differently, or be ready to change it, etc...?

God Bless!

There are a lot of questions here.
The BB can explain why the temperature of the universe is the same in all directions relative to the observer which is 2.7K.

Let’s consider two scenarios by assuming the BB was an explosion within static space-time.
In this case the BB does have a point of origin having occurred at a specific time and spatial location.

In the first scenario the observer is not located at this point of origin.
The observer would detect a definite temperature dipole where the temperature is higher in the direction of this BB compared in the opposite 180⁰ direction.
Photons from this BB explosion approach the observer from the direction of the BB and are Doppler blueshifted while in the opposite direction they recede and are Doppler redshifted.

To prevent this temperature dipole is the second scenario of placing the observer at the same spatial location of this BB.
Since the BB explosion occurs within space-time the velocity of the explosion front cannot exceed let alone reach the speed of light.
This means that two diametrically opposite events in this explosion are causally disconnected as information can only travel as fast as the speed the light.
A consequence of this is the universe cannot cool down as a “unit” resulting in temperature variations in all directions relative to the observer.
An exploding BB in existing space-time cannot explain why the temperature is the same in all directions and other consequences such as why the universe appears to be isotropic.

There are no such issues when the BB results in the expansion of space-time.
There are no restrictions to the velocity of space-time expansion which was many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light in its early history and prevented the universe from becoming casually disconnected.
Since the conventional BB (not the hot BB which occurred slightly later) occurred when the universe was extremely small scaled and behaved quantum mechanically it occurred everywhere.

 

[Neogaia777]

There are a lot of questions here.
The BB can explain why the temperature of the universe is the same in all directions relative to the observer which is 2.7K.

Let’s consider two scenarios by assuming the BB was an explosion within static space-time.
In this case the BB does have a point of origin having occurred at a specific time and spatial location.

In the first scenario the observer is not located at this point of origin.
The observer would detect a definite temperature dipole where the temperature is higher in the direction of this BB compared in the opposite 180⁰ direction.
Photons from this BB explosion approach the observer from the direction of the BB and are Doppler blueshifted while in the opposite direction they recede and are Doppler redshifted.

To prevent this temperature dipole is the second scenario of placing the observer at the same spatial location of this BB.
Since the BB explosion occurs within space-time the velocity of the explosion front cannot exceed let alone reach the speed of light.
This means that two diametrically opposite events in this explosion are causally disconnected as information can only travel as fast as the speed the light.
A consequence of this is the universe cannot cool down as a “unit” resulting in temperature variations in all directions relative to the observer.
An exploding BB in existing space-time cannot explain why the temperature is the same in all directions and other consequences such as why the universe appears to be isotropic.

There are no such issues when the BB results in the expansion of space-time.
There are no restrictions to the velocity of space-time expansion which was many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light in its early history and prevented the universe from becoming casually disconnected.
Since the conventional BB (not the hot BB which occurred slightly later) occurred when the universe was extremely small scaled and behaved quantum mechanically it occurred everywhere.

What velocity do you think spacetime is expanding at now...?

Because it looks like it is expanding away from us as the center, and faster further out, etc...?

And in any dispersal pattern from a single center origin point, of anything, you should see evidence of that dispersal pattern from a single origin point if you are seeing enough of it, and be able to determine that point of origin fairly accurately...

But that's not what we see...

How can everything be expanding equally everywhere, etc...? And faster the further away from us as the center, etc...? Cannot be how it is really happening...? or can it...? Because if so, or if it can, what do you think it would look like...?

How would things really be expanding/growing/moving really...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did it have a single center or origin point, etc...?

And if it did, why do we not see it/that, etc...?

But, anyway, can you please explain to us what the BB is or isn't when it comes to this subject specifically maybe...?

And why maybe it either doesn't or does explain this subject maybe...?

What you said I mean? People seeing it as an explosion, how should we see it in your view that differs from that, etc...?

And how does it change that everywhere is the center, and that so we should evaluate our view of what is really happening or going on, a little bit differently, or be ready to change it, etc...?

I thought I'd do a quick search for the number of times I've already told you there was no centre of expansion:

Can we/you number the amount of quantum particles in the universe...? #63
Space is actually expanding equally and at the same rate or speed everywhere #22
How old is the universe and how big is the universe? #196, #199, #215.

I make that five times.