Cosmology

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Jason0047 said:
I would recommend checking out Jason Lisle's videos on Astronomy on YouTube.

Sorry, Jason0047, but you need to learn what a reliable source for science is.
You link to a Jason Lisle video who seems to cheat for religion because "The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement."
This is Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist who seems to parrot the old debunked YEC arguments.

Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Modern cosmology is dead, they just haven't realized it yet as they are too busy refining their epicycles.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: An idiotic link to a Gish Gallop on a crank radio host's web site !
That page starts with an blatant lie. The Big Bang does not predict his delusion of "infant galaxies" in the early universe. Galaxy formation models predict that the very earliest galaxies that the Hubble telescope cannot detect and has not detected (we need the next generation of telescopes) will be less mature than later galaxies. The only "surprise" is that some galaxies that we have detected are more mature then expected. That is empirical data refine the galaxy formation models!

Northbrook · Sep 25, 2018

RealityCheck01 wrote:

>> The current view of astronomy/physics on the origins of the universe is that we do not know because our current physics breaks down. It is very likely that we cannot know...

Your saying that perhaps we cannot know reminds me of a definition of the word "agnosticism" I heard years ago. Usually, nowadays, a person calls himself an agnostic when he doesn't know whether he believes in any god. DOESN'T know. But the Greeks, when they came up with the word "agnosticism," would not have assigned a word to something so insubstantial. In this definition of "agnosticism" I heard years ago, agnosticism was defined as a PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION that maintained that when it comes to the idea of a god or gods, THERE IS NO KNOWING. So, analogously to your current-day astrophysicist who maintains we cannot know about the origin of the universe, the true agnostic maintains that we cannot know whether there is a god. CANNOT know.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Observations falsify that belief....

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie of "Observations falsify that belief"
This is a reply to a post about GR and antimatter. None of the observations below falsify GR or antimatter. The observations make our models of star, galaxy and heavy element formation better.

Astronomers Discovered Ancient Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't Exist (2015)

The target of their observations is called A1689-zD1. Galaxy A1689-zD1 is so distant that you can barely see it in the massive Hubble image down. But it sits behind a massive cluster of galaxies called Abell 1689, which is so big that it acts as a gravitational lens and magnifies the light of A1689-zD1 by over nine times.

We see this galaxy because of GR and its gravitational lensing!

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "they realized supernovae explosions showed no abundances of heavy metals" lie.
He cites an instance of heavy elements being made in a neutron star collision. That is not a supernova.
A crash of stars reveals the origins of heavy elements

For over 60 years, scientists had debated where such elements came from. Some physicists favored supernovas, the violent explosions of massive stars. Others suspected that heavy elements might be generated in the explosive collisions of superdense neutron stars, remnants of supernovas. But no direct conclusive evidence had been available to settle the question. Thanks to the August 2017 gravitational wave signal, though, astronomers could train a full array of instruments on the collision site. Their data now confirm that precious heavy metals and heavier radioactive atoms emerged from the neutron star smashup.

This is a possible resolution between 2 existing models of heavy element production.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "no heavy elements in the early universe" lie
For a start we expect heavy elements to be formed in the early universe. The first stars are supermassive, quickly supernova and there is little difficultly in these supernovae producing heavy elements. Neutron stars form , collide and we have enrichment as above.
He cites a dwarf galaxy in the early universe producing heavy elements 13 billion years ago by the collision of neutron stars as above.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: "In fact, they are puzzled" idiocy when it is solving puzzles that advances science.
Unexpectedly Heavy Stars from Long Ago Puzzle Astronomers (2011)

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "nothing is going according to predictions, including star sizes" lie.
First Stars in Universe Weren't Giants, Astronomers Say (2011)
This a 2011 paper with a computer simulation showing that the first stars were massive but not to the extreme as earlier thought. If still correct, this is scientific progress .

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

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

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "all the discoveries that falsify the Big bang Theory" lie when he cites none.
Models of galaxy evolution are not the Big Bang.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

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

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "They were never given serious considerations from the start" lie.
Non-standard cosmology. For example, Steady state model considered by Einstein in 1931. and supported by Fred Hoyle.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
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?

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Lies about the treatment of plasma in astronomy.
Astronomers treat plasma in the universe just as every plasma physicist treats it in the laboratory. Many astronomers are plasma physicists!
A "99.9% plasma" lie. Dark matter and dark energy are textbook astronomy.
A "99.9% plasma" delusion. Throw away 50 years of scientific progress so that dark matter and dark energy not longer exist and the Big Bang is still valid !

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

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

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "in favor of the one that can't predict any observation correctly" lie
The Big Bang and the Lambda-CDM model predict most observations correctly. That is why they are mainstream and textbook science!

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
In everyday english. -- all of our other theories were falsified, ....

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Lies and delusions about falsified theories and neutron stars.
Halbhh wrote about the detection of gravitational waves and light from the merger of 2 neutron stars.
The gravitational waves are yet another testable, falsifiable prediction of GR that has been tested and found to be true.
This is a neutron star. Simply put, this is the replacement of the nuclear force that holds neutrons in an atomic nucleus with gravity holding them in a star. A dense enough star squeezes atoms until electrons and protons form neutrons.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "lorentz equations we deduce gravity from, are electromagnetic formulas" delusion.
General relativity is derived from the equivalence principle.
The Lorentz "equations" are coordinate transformations with nothing electromagnetic in them.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Without neutrons protons would fly apart, without protons, neutrons fly apart.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Abysmal ignorance about the existence of deuterium and ignorance about dineutron.
Deuterium is 2 protons sticking together with no neutrons present.
Dineutron is the much rarer 2 neutrons sticking together with no protons present (first detected in 2012).

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
But I still don't need your lighhouses....

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Deep "still don't need your lighhouses" ignorance about neutron stars or pulsars (lighthouses).
Plasma oscillation - Wikipedia is not about neutron stars or pulsars (lighthouses).
Plasma - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia) is not about neutron stars or pulsars (lighthouses).

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Lol, gravity? We have NO quantum theory of gravity to get the neutron to start sticking together in the first place.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance that we need a quantum theory of gravity to describe neutron stars.
Simply put, neutrons in a neutron star stick together because gravity squeezes them so close that they are in the range of the strong nuclear force which is 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times stronger then gravity. Only QM is needed.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Against their own theory.....

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "Against their own theory" lie since he list videos from the deluded Thunderbolts "cult".
This is not scientific literature showing that neutron stars are impossible. This is a bunch of neo-Immanuel Velikovsky cranks who are documented liars, specifically about comets.

18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.

The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
No, the entirety is a .2 second chirp..... and then a electromagnetic radiation event that has been produced in every plasma laboratory for close to 200+ years..

More unthinking parroting of the Thunderbolts "cult" delusions and lies.
26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Thunderbolts insanity that gravitational waves are electromagnetic waves.
Insane because the LIGO people have spent 40 years shielding their detectors from and accounting for external, non-gravitational wave effects !

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Thunderbolts stupidity about formation of galaxies from Birkeland currents.
This is one reason that "cult" can be used to label Thunderbolts - they treat certain people as prophets or papers as "holy books". This case is Anthony Peratt and his obviously flawed 1986 papers. The plasma physicist Peratt had a reasonable computer simulation that explained the shape of plasmoids in earlier experiments. He ignorantly thought that the galaxy-like shapes he produced matched actual galaxy shapes. That was fatally wrong because he seems to only have looked at galaxy images, not astronomy textbooks. Spiral galaxies do not have nothing between their arms. Double-lobed radio galaxies are mostly elliptical, not actually double-lobed.
Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
And electromagnetism HAS solved the three body problem, even if man hasn't...

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A bit of "electromagnetism HAS solved the three body problem" triviality.
He complains about the gravitational three body problem being unsolvable and then points out that Nature solves three body problems! The Milky Way has millions of objects !

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Don't blame me because astronomers don't understand plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma....

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Argument by insult (astronomers learn about plasma physics and so understand plasma physics and any universe).
We blame you for years of lying about the basic plasma properties that anyone who can read knows.
This is plasma. Plasma is quasi-neutral which means that above the Debye length, plasma acts as a neutral gas. The Debye length for the intergalactic medium is 100,000 meters. A light year is about 9.5 trillion kilometres !

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Now who's changing the goalpost and ignoring that those clouds of plasma are hundreds of millions of light years in diameter??????

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: An irrelevant citation of the discovery of the Milky Way hot halo.
sjastro stated basic plasma properties. The existence of a big, hot cloud of plasma does not make textbook plasma properties wrong. We see clouds of plasma with various sizes throughout the universe.
NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas
For others: This is a small part of the solution to the missing baryon problem. That was that we were missing half the visible, baryon matter (using his gibberish only 49.5% of the universe was known to be plasma!). The compete solution is the 2017 discovery of intergalactic plasma between pairs of galaxies.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 25, 2018

Chrétien de Troyes said:
You have never taken the courses you claim. You do not even know what a cosmological model is. God exists in the cosmological model not outside of it. It's really a pitiful answer from you.

Chrétien de Troyes, argument by insult is never good, especially with the addition of implied ignorance.
This is a scientific model. This is the Lambda-CDM model. You wrote a story, not a scientific or cosmological model.
Evolution is a process that can generate more information through chemistry and physics. For example gene duplication is a chemical process, mutation of one of those genes is more like physics, and the result is more information.
Nothing "comes from the creation of new information". New information comes from chemistry and physics.
Human beings are not the culmination of imaginary "fundamental processes". We are a fragile part of the evolution of all species on Earth. Evolution has no direction.
Evolution is not cosmology !
Cosmology is not religion and says nothing about God ! Note that our current cosmology starts with an existing universe (no need for a God to create the universe).

We have overwhelming physical evidence for an expanding universe. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes an expanding universe.
We have strong physical evidence for dark matter. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes dark matter.
We have strong physical evidence for dark matter. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes dark matter.
We have good physical evidence for inflation. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes inflation.
That gives cosmological model that explains the physical evidence and gives testable, falsifiable predictions.

Ophiolite · Sep 26, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
How would you know? We havent even penetrated into the earth hardly at all. And seismic waves indicate less dense material deeper. In fact three oceans worth of water near the core......

Sure, since you are too lazy to do your own research and instead prefer to cast aspersions of validity....

In fact the heat combined with the reduced porosity made drilling virtually impossible as the rock acted more like a plastic than a pressured heated rock would.

Kola Superdeep Borehole

"Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible."

Kola Superdeep Borehole Facts

"Drilling at such low depths at the Kola Superdeep Borehole meant drilling in extremely high temperatures. The rock density was also more like plastic than rock and it also contributed to the difficulty in drilling and eventually having to stop."

We won't mention that it falsified their beliefs of the mantle and that large amounts of unexpected water were found, as well as other gasses like hydrogen.....

But that's the problem with using incorrect beliefs in geology, you find water where your beliefs held you never would.....

So basically three major predictions of geology were falsified, but you certainly won't hear them tell it.....

This is so warped and misinterepreted and delusional that it merits a thorough a proper dismantling. This is a heads up to you - retract this nonense in the next couple of days or expect to have your argument thoroughly destroyed by year end. I'd prefer you retract, since I'd rather not spend weeks assembling the appropriate material just to demonstrate there is at least one fool in the world.

Justatruthseeker · Sep 26, 2018

Ophiolite said:
This is so warped and misinterepreted and delusional that it merits a thorough a proper dismantling. This is a heads up to you - retract this nonense in the next couple of days or expect to have your argument thoroughly destroyed by year end. I'd prefer you retract, since I'd rather not spend weeks assembling the appropriate material just to demonstrate there is at least one fool in the world.

Get to destroying boy, because all I hear is pathetic claims and crybabies......

What's At The Bottom Of The Deepest Hole On Earth?

Geological predictions demolished....

"We also found out that a major interpretation of seismic data – that at a certain depth, granitic rock transitioned into basalt – was incorrect, and that slow changes in pressure and temperatures over time were responsible for the phantom geological layer."

Kola Superdeep Borehole

Geological predictions demolished.....

"Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys.

Though the discontinuity has been detected beneath all of the continents, the drill at Kola never encountered the proposed layer of basalt. Instead, the granitic rock was found to extend beyond the twelve kilometer point. This led to scientists’ realization that the seismic-reflection results were due to a metamorphic change in the rock (i.e. from intense heat and pressure), and not a change in rock type as they had previously anticipated. "

Geological predictions demolished.....

"Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible."

What are you gonna do, show me more seismic data that couldn't even get it right ANY time at all and claim see? Lol.

Cosmology

Newbie

Newbie

No sé vivir sin Dios

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency