Cosmology

Brightmoon · Aug 26, 2018

Ordinary matter bends spacetime around it . We call that affect gravity . Ordinary matter uses the Higgs boson to interact with gravity. That’s why physicists call it the God particle . Without that ,atoms and any other normal everyday stuff wouldn’t exist. Even Einstein knew that about gravity and that was the early part of the 20th century. Now you’re saying gravity doesn’t exist . Can you summarize why you’ve stated that Chinchilla? . Antimatter ? Positrons are antimatter and they’re basically positively charged electrons. Of course it exists!

Justatruthseeker · Aug 26, 2018

Brightmoon said:
View attachment 239043
As I’ve explained before, we can see back that far into time because light takes time to travel. . Very early stars had no elements heavier than iron . The Big Bang explains that fact . Hawking accepted the Big Bang . Most modern physicists do.

Observations falsify that belief....

http://www.cosmosup.com/astronomers-discovered-ancient-dusty-galaxy-that-shouldnt-exist/

"They were surprised to discover a far more evolved system than expected. It had a fraction of dust similar to a very mature galaxy, such as the Milky Way. Such dust is vital to life, because it helps form planets, complex molecules and normal stars."

Lots of people accepted Ptolemy's epicycles too, that didn't make them true.

Argument ad-populum is a false argument. Don't you people ever get tired of using false arguments instead of real science?????

Your supernovae failure for producing heavy elements has already led to that theory being abandoned in favor of other ad-hoc theories because they realized supernovae explosions showed no abundances of heavy metals.

https://www.knowablemagazine.org/ar...18/crash-stars-reveals-origins-heavy-elements

So now we have the life savior Neutron star smashup since their supernovae theory fizzled. Soon this one will die the same death....

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/dwarf-galaxy-spawned-heavy-elements

"‘That’s what scientists concluded after finding traces of elements heavier than iron that had been left behind by that event.....One thing happened in this galaxy 13 billion years ago,’"

So enough already with the PR pseudoscience of no heavy elements in the early universe.....

In fact, they are puzzled.....

https://www.space.com/13781-ancient-stars-galaxy-history.html

"When astronomers found abnormally large amounts of heavy elements like gold, platinum and uranium in some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way they were puzzled, because an abundance of very heavy metals is typically only seen in much later generations of stars."

In fact nothing is going according to predictions, including star sizes....

https://www.space.com/13572-early-stars-universe-massive.html

"If the first stars were indeed as monstrous as thought, these supernovas should have left a specific pattern of these heavy elements imprinted on the material of the following generation of stars, which were built from the ashes expelled from the first supernovas. But, as much as astronomers searched the oldest stars for this pattern, they could not find it."

In fact, they can't find any evidence of heavy element production from stars exploding in the early universe. The pattern simply does not exist......

Stop preaching PR that the data has already falsified.....

Justatruthseeker · Aug 26, 2018

Brightmoon said:
Ordinary matter bends spacetime around it . We call that affect gravity . Ordinary matter uses the Higgs boson to interact with gravity. That’s why physicists call it the God particle . Without that ,atoms and any other normal everyday stuff wouldn’t exist. Even Einstein knew that about gravity and that was the early part of the 20th century. Now you’re saying gravity doesn’t exist . Can you summarize why you’ve stated that Chinchilla? . Antimatter ? Positrons are antimatter and they’re basically positively charged electrons. Of course it exists!

What gravity in the universe?

Every single gravitational model has shown to be 99.8% correct inside the solar system and the second you attempt to apply it to the rest of the universe you suddenly need 95% ad-hoc theory added to what was just shown to be 99.8% correct without it. You actually think that is an accurate model? Seriously??? You actually think having to add 95% ad-hoc theory to a model 99.8% accurate without it in describing planetary systems is actually scientific?????

But maybe some day astronomers will start treating a universe 99.9% plasma like actual plasma.....

Justatruthseeker · Aug 26, 2018

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113055333.html

""It's not quite time for theorists to panic, but we're getting there," said astronomer Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto, Canada, after announcing his group's discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe. But although the finding seemed to undermine the standard view of how matter assembled, theorists have respectfully declined to sound the alarm."

Yes, we wouldn't want to call attention to all the discoveries that falsify the Big bang Theory....

https://crev.info/2014/03/cosmologists-were-wrong-about-galaxy-evolution/

But don't worry, they won't question the Big bang, instead they'll just add ad-hoc theory and look the other way, like most on here do.....

Bungle_Bear · Aug 26, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113055333.html

""It's not quite time for theorists to panic, but we're getting there," said astronomer Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto, Canada, after announcing his group's discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe. But although the finding seemed to undermine the standard view of how matter assembled, theorists have respectfully declined to sound the alarm."

Yes, we wouldn't want to call attention to all the discoveries that falsify the Big bang Theory....

https://crev.info/2014/03/cosmologists-were-wrong-about-galaxy-evolution/

But don't worry, they won't question the Big bang, instead they'll just add ad-hoc theory and look the other way, like most on here do.....

What I love most about that article is the way Creationists apply that sort of thinking to others but completely fail to recognise their own monumental hypocrisy in pretending it doesn't apply to themselves.

Pot, meet kettle.

Brightmoon · Aug 27, 2018

This is an active area of research that scientists admit that they dont have all the answers to . You’ve decided that creationists info is correct based on that uncertainty. I’m withholding judgement as to what is going on as 1 I’m not a physicist and 2 the research is still ongoing. It’s interesting. But there’s still little reason to think the universe is young or that creationists are correct as they have a track record of being poor researchers.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Bungle_Bear said:
What I love most about that article is the way Creationists apply that sort of thinking to others but completely fail to recognise their own monumental hypocrisy in pretending it doesn't apply to themselves.

Pot, meet kettle.

It's too bad you cant show any hypocrisy from me, or you might have a point. Seems like you are trying to look the other way by finding any excuse you can to ignore all the falsifications of the Big Bang. Maybe you should look in the mirror when you say that????

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Brightmoon said:
This is an active area of research that scientists admit that they dont have all the answers to . You’ve decided that creationists info is correct based on that uncertainty. I’m withholding judgement as to what is going on as 1 I’m not a physicist and 2 the research is still ongoing. It’s interesting. But there’s still little reason to think the universe is young or that creationists are correct as they have a track record of being poor researchers.

Lol, all the answers? The observations are in complete contradiction of what their theories predict. That is called falsification in science. That's called an incorrect theory when it fails to predict what is observed. And this is why the epicycles just continue to build, no one wants to accept the observations for what they are - falsification of the theory......

This isn't a lone observation or a single event. It happens week after week, month after month, year after year with everything from surface brightness of galaxies all being the same, to old galaxies where they shouldn't exist, to supernovae failing to explain heavy elements, to the quantization of quasars, to almost every single prediction made by the Big Bang. The only predictions they got right were not even predictions, but were post fitted after the fact.....

Brightmoon · Aug 27, 2018

Not my field, Ill wait . From the little I’ve read you seem to be picking outliers. Those indicate the the Big Bang needs to be tweaked . Scientific theories are like that . They need to be tweaked according to new data.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Brightmoon said:
Not my field, Ill wait . From the little I’ve read you seem to be picking outliers. Those indicate the the Big Bang needs to be tweaked . Scientific theories are like that . They need to be tweaked according to new data.

That's the problem, you won't accept the falsifying data, but like Ptolemy and his followers, simply want to keep "tweaking" the epicycles.....

Halbhh · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Observations falsify that belief....

http://www.cosmosup.com/astronomers-discovered-ancient-dusty-galaxy-that-shouldnt-exist/

"They were surprised to discover a far more evolved system than expected. It had a fraction of dust similar to a very mature galaxy, such as the Milky Way. Such dust is vital to life, because it helps form planets, complex molecules and normal stars."

Lots of people accepted Ptolemy's epicycles too, that didn't make them true.

Argument ad-populum is a false argument. Don't you people ever get tired of using false arguments instead of real science?????

Your supernovae failure for producing heavy elements has already led to that theory being abandoned in favor of other ad-hoc theories because they realized supernovae explosions showed no abundances of heavy metals.

https://www.knowablemagazine.org/ar...18/crash-stars-reveals-origins-heavy-elements

So now we have the life savior Neutron star smashup since their supernovae theory fizzled. Soon this one will die the same death....

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/dwarf-galaxy-spawned-heavy-elements

"‘That’s what scientists concluded after finding traces of elements heavier than iron that had been left behind by that event.....One thing happened in this galaxy 13 billion years ago,’"

So enough already with the PR pseudoscience of no heavy elements in the early universe.....

In fact, they are puzzled.....

https://www.space.com/13781-ancient-stars-galaxy-history.html

"When astronomers found abnormally large amounts of heavy elements like gold, platinum and uranium in some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way they were puzzled, because an abundance of very heavy metals is typically only seen in much later generations of stars."

In fact nothing is going according to predictions, including star sizes....

https://www.space.com/13572-early-stars-universe-massive.html

"If the first stars were indeed as monstrous as thought, these supernovas should have left a specific pattern of these heavy elements imprinted on the material of the following generation of stars, which were built from the ashes expelled from the first supernovas. But, as much as astronomers searched the oldest stars for this pattern, they could not find it."

In fact, they can't find any evidence of heavy element production from stars exploding in the early universe. The pattern simply does not exist......

Stop preaching PR that the data has already falsified.....

Astrophysics/astronomy has always been discovering the unexpected over the last about 40 years I've been reading articles in the fields.

Instead of concern when they see something unexpected that doesn't fit leading theories, astrophysicists are delighted.

Astrophysics love to destroy and replace old theories.

Ideally, a person wants to avoid much favoring or disfavoring any hypothesis (in personal emotion) -- for example, the interesting new simulations where neutron star merger spins out a lot of heavy elements. This one looks pretty plausible, and that makes trying to disprove it even more motivated. Why? It's what scientists love to do.

Instead of coddling a leading theory, we always want to try to shoot down and destroy the leading hypothesis/theory -- by testing it with observations to find any contradictory evidence that can be repeatedly observed -- and see if it survives.

So, when a new hypothesis/theory displaces the old as seeming more likely, it's an energizing and exciting moment, because a lot of astrophysicists would love to find a flaw or contradicting observation to shoot it down.

They want to be the person who proved it wrong.

With observation or by finding a real flaw.

Right now, the theory neutron star mergers -- which we have observed via gravitational waves and also kilonova light emission (2 types of independent observations) -- look like a very plausible way to get the levels of heavy elements we observe.

We are trying to find out what God has done, even those who don't yet know He is behind it all.

Halbhh · Aug 27, 2018

An observation of a neutron star merger:

On October 16, 2017, the LIGO and Virgo collaborations announced the first simultaneous detections of gravitational waves (GW170817) and electromagnetic radiation (GRB 170817A, SSS17a) of any phenomena,[7] and demonstrated that the source was a kilonova caused by a binary neutron star merger.[8] This short GRB was followed by a longer transient visible for weeks in the optical electromagnetic spectrum (AT 2017gfo) located in a relatively nearby galaxy, NGC 4993.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilonova#Observations

In everyday english -- too extremely dense neutron stars fell together because of orbital decay (via gravitational wave radiation that increases exponentially as they get closer together, and converts orbital energy into gravity waves, and thus makes them spiral down together over time). As they were merging, the gravitational wave emission was very high, and was observed by LIGO. Astronomers turned telescopes toward the location and observed the kilonova, the flare of light and radiation, from the merger.

Sanoy · Aug 27, 2018

I think Tysons best and most realistic performance was in his role as Merlin in Sharknado 6.

Halbhh · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113055333.html

""It's not quite time for theorists to panic, but we're getting there," said astronomer Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto, Canada, after announcing his group's discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe. But although the finding seemed to undermine the standard view of how matter assembled, theorists have respectfully declined to sound the alarm."

Yes, we wouldn't want to call attention to all the discoveries that falsify the Big bang Theory....

https://crev.info/2014/03/cosmologists-were-wrong-about-galaxy-evolution/

But don't worry, they won't question the Big bang, instead they'll just add ad-hoc theory and look the other way, like most on here do.....

It was delightful to find out galaxies formed so early in the Universe's timeline. It's a fun time, to have so many big questions open together at once.

We see the normal situation of science history --
endless attempt to understand,
hypotheses/theories formed,
hypotheses/theories eventually proven inadequate,
replaced by new hypotheses/theories.

Your idea the Big Bang is a sacred cow -- that's not the way it is, and...well, it's almost like the opposite is true even.

Most any young theorist would be truly delighted to be the one who replaces the big bang with something better. There have been a lot of attempts already.

That's the actual flavor of the field -- the old theories always under threat.

We are actually quite impressed that Einstein's General Relativity has held up so perfectly under every kind of test and observation people can think of for so many decades now. It's looking like it's the real deal -- an accurate mathematics to tell a small part of what God has done.

Bungle_Bear · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
It's too bad you cant show any hypocrisy from me, or you might have a point. Seems like you are trying to look the other way by finding any excuse you can to ignore all the falsifications of the Big Bang. Maybe you should look in the mirror when you say that????

Lol. Pick a thread where you criticise others for not being open to being corrected, then reject others correcting you. There's your hypocrisy. And there's a lot of it.

Bye.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Halbhh said:
Astrophysics/astronomy has always been discovering the unexpected over the last about 40 years I've been reading articles in the fields.

Instead of concern when they see something unexpected that doesn't fit leading theories, astrophysicists are delighted.

Astrophysics love to destroy and replace old theories.

Except they never destroy their theory of the Big Bang despite failing to accurately predict anything..... They simply refine their epicycles.....

Ideally, a person wants to avoid much favoring or disfavoring any hypothesis (in personal emotion) -- for example, the interesting new simulations where neutron star merger spins out a lot of heavy elements. This one looks pretty plausible, and that makes trying to disprove it even more motivated. Why? It's what scientists love to do.

Instead of coddling a leading theory, we always want to try to shoot down and destroy the leading hypothesis/theory -- by testing it with observations to find any contradictory evidence that can be repeatedly observed -- and see if it survives.

So, when a new hypothesis/theory displaces the old as seeming more likely, it's an energizing and exciting moment, because a lot of astrophysicists would love to find a flaw or contradicting observation to shoot it down.

They want to be the person who proved it wrong.

With observation or by finding a real flaw.

Right now, the theory neutron star mergers -- which we have observed via gravitational waves and also kilonova light emission (2 types of independent observations) -- look like a very plausible way to get the levels of heavy elements we observe.

We are trying to find out what God has done, even those who don't yet know He is behind it all.

That's not true and you know it. If you disfavor the leading theory - the Big Bang, you are listed as a crackpot. All the little sundary theories may be replaced, but they never actually question the theory that led to all the incorrect predictions in the first place.....

It was belief in the BB that led to the belief of how heavy elements formed that were falsified, but the theory that led to the incorrect theories is never questioned. Instead the epicycles is simply "tweaked" and the original false belief that led to all the other incorrect beliefs, continues.....

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Bungle_Bear said:
Lol. Pick a thread where you criticise others for not being open to being corrected, then reject others correcting you. There's your hypocrisy. And there's a lot of it.

Bye.

Except I'm not criticizing anyone for correcting me. I'm criticizing you because you always say I have been corrected, but can't ever seem to present any actual science that corrects me, just keep making unsupported claims of correction..... As they all do..... as you are doing in this very post.....

I noticed not a single one of you actually wanted to discuss the actual evidence..... and observations that falsify the Big Bang, instead just make vague unsupported remarks about people being wrong.... I on the other hand listed several actual scientific discoveries that falsify the standard belief, which you all ignored..... in favor of your unsupported claims....

Halbhh · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
...
That's not true and you know it. If you disfavor the leading theory - the Big Bang, you are listed as a crackpot. All the little sundary theories may be replaced, but they never actually question the theory that led to all the incorrect predictions in the first place.....

...

It's not true and I know so? ???

???

That's quite a presumption to toss onto me, don't you think? You're really implying I'm lying? I'm not sure, but it's wild to have a stranger make a judgement like that, with little or no information to go on.

Here's the kind of thing I've seen many instances of --

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

https://phys.org/news/2008-06-universe.html

https://phys.org/news/2011-07-big-quick-conversion-antimatter.html

Perhaps you should reconsider...that's just a few of the many competing theories I've seen.

Just a few.

I suppose I've seen 8-12 competing theories over the last 30 years trying to replace the Big Bang.

These theories get the respect of other physicists who examining them very closely trying to find if there are flaws or contradicting observations.

EVen sometimes major experiments and months and years of work are spent trying to test and validate or falsify various theories, including the Big Bang.

Sincerely, you should be asking me questions, learning from me, if you are a believer and also you sincerely are interested in cosmology. If on the other hand you've read at least hundreds of articles (really at least 200) in a wide range of sources (or even professional journals), then we could converse as rough equals, in a friendly way.

Don't' ever say "that's not true and you know it" to your brothers and sisters in Christ, unless you have really clear evidence to go on, that the person is lying. Because you'd be disobeying Christ in John 7:24.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Halbhh said:
It's not true and I know so? ???

???

That's quite a presumption to toss onto me, don't you think? You're really implying I'm lying? I'm not sure, but it's wild to have a stranger make a judgement like that, with little or no information to go on.

Here's the kind of thing I've seen many instances of --

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

https://phys.org/news/2008-06-universe.html

https://phys.org/news/2011-07-big-quick-conversion-antimatter.html

Perhaps you should reconsider...that's just a few of the many competing theories I've seen.

Just a few.

I suppose I've seen 8-12 competing theories over the last 30 years trying to replace the Big Bang.

These theories get the respect of other physicists who examining them very closely trying to find if there are flaws or contradicting observations.

EVen sometimes major experiments and months and years of work are spent trying to test and validate or falsify various theories, including the Big Bang.

Sincerely, you should be asking me questions, learning from me, if you are a believer and also you sincerely are interested in cosmology. If on the other hand you've read at least hundreds of articles (really at least 200) in a wide range of sources (or even professional journals), then we could converse as rough equals, in a friendly way.

Don't' ever say "that's not true and you know it" to your brothers and sisters in Christ, unless you have really clear evidence to go on, that the person is lying. Because you'd be disobeying Christ in John 7:24.

And every one has been rejected in favor of the one that can't predict any observation correctly.....

Competing theories, please..... They were never given serious considerations from the start.

And that still fails to explain why they refuse to treat a universe 99.9% plasma like every plasma physicist treats it in the laboratory? And then wonder why they are constantly surprised and have to keep redoing every theory they ever devised in astronomy....

The big bounce, just another big bang theory with an added twist because they can't figure out how matter formed from nothing,,, so just add bounces.....

No beginning theory, to get over the problem of needing a beginning, but then you have no cause for expansion.....

I applaud these thinkers outside the box. It's only too bad every single one of them require we keep treating a universe 99.9% plasma unlike the state of matter that it is and the way we treat it in every single plasma laboratory. Perhaps, just perhaps, that's why they can't find a working theory, because they treat plasma like ordinary gasses????

Halbhh · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
And every one has been rejected in favor of the one that can't predict any observation correctly.....

Competing theories, please..... They were never given serious considerations from the start.

And that still fails to explain why they refuse to treat a universe 99.9% plasma like every plasma physicist treats it in the laboratory? And then wonder why they are constantly surprised and have to keep redoing every theory they ever devised in astronomy....

The big bounce, just another big bang theory with an added twist because they can't figure out how matter formed from nothing,,, so just add bounces.....

No beginning theory, to get over the problem of needing a beginning, but then you have no cause for expansion.....

I applaud these thinkers outside the box. It's only too bad every single one of them require we keep treating a universe 99.9% plasma unlike the state of matter that it is and the way we treat it in every single plasma laboratory. Perhaps, just perhaps, that's why they can't find a working theory, because they treat plasma like ordinary gasses????

I offered 4 links about some competing theories (the quantum one I consider intriguing), and those haven't yet been disproven to my knowledge (not saying there isn't something against them I haven't seen).

There is a clear trend though in articles in high quality sites like phys.org of increasing willingness to consider other theories, not usually as the headline of the article, but in the text somewhere.

Part of the motivation for that increasing desire to change or replace or supercede the Big Bang is that since the Higgs Boson result of the odd mass without expected other particles to explain it, it's become clear in a mainstream viewpoint our Universe looks "fine tuned" and "unnatural". (both terms now showing up in viewpoints of some mainstream physicists, not cranks)

Don't imagine group think. Physicists are eager to replace the Big Bang with something more far reaching. And one of the most key ideas, string theory, may have lately been shown to contradict another key hypothesis, inflation. It's interesting times. I'd suggest if you read sites arguing physicists have some kind of group think or conspiracy of silence, you replace that source with something more real and up to date and informative, like phys.org, quantamagazine.org, or other first-rate sources (even some more popular stuff like Scientific American or Science News, etc.) that directly report some of the actual tumult of actual physics here and now today.

Cosmology

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Whoot!

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Newbie

Newbie

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Newbie

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Whoot!

Newbie

Newbie

Everything You say is Life to me

Newbie

Everything You say is Life to me

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency