Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not a game, but rather an argument used to demonstrate how you use uniformitarianism because it is a useful and necessary assumption to get you through life.You thought guess which solar system I am from was a fun game?
That is what I intend to do from now on.I just don't know how to deal with people like this. Should I just ignore them?
The original prediction of the cosmic microwave background was published in a paper entitled 'Evolution of the Universe' by R.A. Alpher and R.C. Herman (1948), Nature, 162 (4124), pp. 774-5. The paper contains the words, 'the temperature of the universe at the present time is found to be about 5°K.' See P.J.E. Peebles, 'Discovery of the hot Big Bang; What happened in 1948', http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2146 and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v162/n4124/abs/162774b0.htmlYou need to show the original prediction that a CMB would be found one day and show the reasons that was claimed and how it fits.
Alpher was Jewish. You know about the Jews; they were the people who wrote the Old Testament. Alpher also suffered severely from anti-Semitic attitudes at the beginning of his career.In what way must the CMB be only something that fits into a godless universe from a little hot soup model?!
Try to prove uniformismmatism.Not a game, but rather an argument used to demonstrate how you use uniformitarianism because it is a useful and necessary assumption to get you through life.
You haven't answered my question, "would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?" and I suspect it is out of your personal dishonesty with regards to your rejection of uniformitarianism.
The original prediction of the cosmic microwave background was published in a paper entitled 'Evolution of the Universe' by R.A. Alpher and R.C. Herman (1948), Nature, 162 (4124), pp. 774-5. The paper contains the words, 'the temperature of the universe at the present time is found to be about 5°K.' See P.J.E. Peebles, 'Discovery of the hot Big Bang; What happened in 1948', http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2146
God wrote Scripture He used BELIEVING Jews only. You cannot try to associate the race itself with Scripture. Only the believers.Alpher was Jewish. You know about the Jews; they were the people who wrote the Old Testament. Alpher also suffered severely from anti-Semitic attitudes at the beginning of his career.
Well since I never noticed, you might consider you did not really do that at all.
dad said:Science uses the word predict rather loosely. All things are predicted to be made by Jesus!
dad said:Not if they believe the bible.
dad said:Even worse it implies a dead or lying God.
You're right - 'dad' doesn't seem to want to have a legitimate discussion, but just to deny and denigrate any science that contradicts his belief system; it reminds me of the Monty Python 'Argument Clinic' sketch:I am quickly giving up on "dad". Some people simply do not want to have a legitimate discussion, and will refuse to even read the other person's comments.
There seems little point in going into details that will just be denied or ignored, but if you can make a concise point in response to egregious errors, it might help inform other forum contributors and lurkers.I just don't know how to deal with people like this. Should I just ignore them?
The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model (that produced the green line on the graph posted by dcarrera) is the current standard big bang physical model. If you run that model forward from the big bang to the present day, you can compare its predictions with how the universe actually appears to us now to see how good a model of the universe it provides.No. That would just make it clear to all what you are saying.
...
Actually there is a claim often made that the CMB was specifically predicted as part of the BB. You think you need to post the theory of GR to address the simple issue?
No? Guess all that was easier than citing the post number? I suspect that you did not really make it clear or I probably would have remembered what you were trying to say no matter how wrong.Furthermore, you will not find a copy of my text in the original paper, which serves as evidence that I wrote that text myself, and hence it was in my own words.
Get a grip. Jesus created all things, and if your tiny little science is correct, it could be that the way He did it...rapidly! In fact, come to think of it the stars were made in a part of a day!!!!!!! So was space itself!!! The evidence mounts! The Creation Microwave Background!!What a load of nonsense. You make no prediction of any kind whatsoever, and have the audacity to claim that the precise predictions for specific measurements with actual error bars that science provides somehow don't exist.
I am bracing for a laugh as we speak, thanks for the heads up...as for God lying, no. That would just be you miscomprehending the creation in a methodological and deliberate way.I think you are the one who believes in a lying god. You believe in a god that has seriously gone out of his way to create a fictional universe that gives every possible indication of being very old, very big, and that follows a rigid set of natural laws for the sole purpose of lying to humanity. We have direct empirical evidence for the universality of the laws of nature in the form of testable and tested predictions, and only a lying deceiving god could be reconciled with your claim that this isn't so. Let me give some examples:
1) GR predicts that the early universe was very hot and radiation-dominated because the dilation of space means that photon density goes with the 4th power of the universe scale while matter density only goes with the 3rd power.
In other words applying earth laws as the be all end all reason that anything happened at creation....is all you do!Applying thermodynamics and particle physics to this, we get that protons and helium nuclei would have been in thermal equilibrium with photons...
Hilarious!!makes a specific prediction as to the ration of hydrogen to helium in the universe.
The ratio does not mean a godless expansion dunnit. Neither does it mean that is all that is there!...or was thereThen we can take the spectral signatures of these atoms, that we measure here on Earth, which you would say are completely inapplicable to the external universe, and use them to measure the hydrogen to helium ratio.
No. What IS amazing is the string of whoppers you use to get to that bit of data! A universe in a little hot soup too small at one time for the naked eye to even see! Then a magic unexplained rapid godless expansion that left all we see...etc.isn't it more than a little amazing that the H/He ratio predicted by the BB is exactly what we measure with the equally nonsensical spectral lines?
Right, it shows that here on and near earth we see things in TIME! We have a certain time and space. The mere fact that God has things moving round other things in space in NO way helps you or your rather insane idea that all the universe is a physical only freak show to be modeled after present state earth!2) We have observed an object in the sky that astronomers have determined to be a pair of orbiting pulsars. This object is loaded with all the things you love to criticize. The designation of the orbits of the pulsars has everything to do with time and space in the universe. The spin of the pulars, and the uniformity of their pulses also has everything to do with time and space.
Ha! So orbits observed only in the last centuries or decades are getting bigger or smaller because of your little theories!!!? No. That is circular logic. You observe and THEN you 'predict' why it is happening. The problem is that all your modeling is strictly belief based nonsense. Atoms go round too, notice? Not because of gravitational waves either. So whatever the stars really are, and however big and far away they actually are, is something that you do not know and never even considered yet.If this object really is a pair of neutron stars, with the sizes and orbits that we claim they have, and if GR (a theory entirely about space and time) is correct and applicable to the wider universe, then these pulsars should be emitting gravitational waves. By the emission of gravitational waves, their orbits should be shrinking,
implies that the interval between certain pulses should have a decreasing amplitude as the orbit shrinks...
So isn't it really amazing that this drift in the pulsation is detected, and it is exactly in line with the prediction of this model that has GR and time and space ..
The light and all things from there are ONLY seen here! There is time here, and our timespace. Your interpreting is biased and comically limited!3) The shift in the spectrum absorption lines from distant supernove and its physical interpretation is completely filled with GR, and time, space, and distance.
In other words it depends on the totally unknown. Thanks for that.In turn, the determination of mass of galaxy clusters does not use GR, but instead requires the determination of mass and size of things.
Light is only seen here in our solar system area. Any wave or anything else entering here must exist in time as we know it. You have used that to claim the universe is old. You are now busted. Clearly.And in turn, the CMB requires a different aspect of GR (e.g. propagation of light through the universe), and a bunch of other things.
You admit they are all based on earth physics! Is it any wonder they agree with each other? If they were all based on the easter bunny they would also agree with each other. Circular. Cultish. Inbred thinking. That is tantamount to creation denial as I see it.Three different models, all nonsense according to you, all made at different times by different people, all based on Earthly physics, and yet all three agree with each other.
You guys destroy your own cases so well I just need to sit back and marvel! In other words the 95% of the universe that to you is unknown dark stuff you invented to explain things that go on in the universe, will be plotted to exist where what the things you need invented them to explain ARE! 'Gee there must be a lot of dark stuff in these regions..'. Totally absurd.I can make a plot of the dark energy and matter components of the universe, something that you would call complete nonsense, and show the permitted regions of this parameter space corresponding to these three models, which you would call nonsense on top of nonsense, and yet somehow the three predictions line up and they all agree on the same point on that nonsensical phase space.
Yes light bends. Here in our system gravity seems to bend it. In the far universe you assume all bent light is also bent by gravity. Ho hum. Circular, much??!The prediction that starlight should bend when it goes near the Sun has everything to do with spacetime; and yet it fits.
Well, if you can simply outline a few things, maybe.. from your link..The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model (that produced the green line on the graph posted by dcarrera) is the current standard big bang physical model. If you run that model forward from the big bang to the present day, you can compare its predictions with how the universe actually appears to us now to see how good a model of the universe it provides.
The green line on the graph is one of the predictions the model makes of how the CMB should appear to us today, and the red dots are what we see when we examine the CMB today. The two are in surprisingly close agreement, suggesting that the LCDM model is a pretty good model of how the universe has developed from the big bang to the present.
The wikipedia link gives a more detailed explanation of the model.
Does that help?
As I understand it, cold dark matter (proposed as an explanation for gravitational anomalies at galactic scale and above) is modeled as a yet undetected weakly interacting ('dark') elementary particle, 'cold' because it moves at non-relativistic speeds. Dark energy (proposed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe) is modeled as a pervasive quantum field that exerts a constant repulsive force on spacetime equivalent to a 'negative pressure'.So, in what way if any is the unknown dark stuff figured into the equations that give us this lambda?
OK, so I think you are saying they DO use dark stuff in the math. (for the Lambda). If so that is a deadly problem for them. They would first assume the dark stuff, then use it in the math to claim it matched predictions. If that is that case, we have we know not what being used. No match is possible for their theories.As I understand it, cold dark matter (proposed as an explanation for gravitational anomalies at galactic scale and above) is modeled as a yet undetected weakly interacting ('dark') elementary particle, 'cold' because it moves at non-relativistic speeds. Dark energy (proposed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe) is modeled as a pervasive quantum field that exerts a constant repulsive force on spacetime equivalent to a 'negative pressure'.
The actual forms of dark matter and dark energy are not known yet, but in the case of dark matter, some possible explanations have been ruled out by observational evidence. The fact that when they plug the influence of hidden mass and a repulsive force into the cosmological model, it produces predictions that closely match what we observe, suggests that they're on the right track with those formulations.
I'm sure someone will be able to correct any errors I've made in that explanation, I'm no expert.
Not one speck, it is a story.I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?
The evidence is indirect, so it's only a hypothesis at present. It's a plausible source and explanation for the number and characteristics of long period comets observed - their paths don't indicate interstellar origin, and they don't appear to come from a single point.I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?
I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?
The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model (that produced the green line on the graph posted by dcarrera) is the current standard big bang physical model. If you run that model forward from the big bang to the present day, you can compare its predictions with how the universe actually appears to us now to see how good a model of the universe it provides.
As I understand it, cold dark matter (proposed as an explanation for gravitational anomalies at galactic scale and above) is modeled as a yet undetected weakly interacting ('dark') elementary particle, 'cold' because it moves at non-relativistic speeds.
Dark energy (proposed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe) is modeled as a pervasive quantum field that exerts a constant repulsive force on spacetime equivalent to a 'negative pressure'.
The actual forms of dark matter and dark energy are not known yet, but in the case of dark matter, some possible explanations have been ruled out by observational evidence. The fact that when they plug the influence of hidden mass and a repulsive force into the cosmological model, it produces predictions that closely match what we observe, suggests that they're on the right track with those formulations.
I'm sure someone will be able to correct any errors I've made in that explanation, I'm no expert.
So, there is no evidence but we know they must come from somewhere, so lets call this "somewhere" the "Oort cloud"
Now they all come from the Oort cloud and we can all sleep at night knowing their origin no matter how fictitious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?