What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Grossly incorrect.
The stress energy tensor T ͣ ͤ in Einstein’s field equations is the effect of external forces which can include electromagnetism via the electromagnetic stress energy tensor;
The overall equation is;
T ͣ ͤ = [(ρ + p/c²)(dx ͧ/ds)(dx ͥ/ds) - g ͣ ͤ p/c²] + ε₀(F ͣ ͤ Fₑͨ + (1/4)g ͧ ͨ F ͣ ͤ Fₐₑ)
The first term is the contribution from gravity the second term from electromagnetism.

The operative word in that paragraph is "can", not "do" (as in include external EM forces in LCDM).


Some early generalizations of Einstein's gravitational theory, known as classical unified field theories, either introduced a cosmological constant on theoretical grounds or found that it arose naturally from the mathematics. For example, Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington claimed that the cosmological constant version of the vacuum field equation expressed the "epistemological" property that the universe is "self-gauging", and Erwin Schrödinger's pure-affine theory using a simple variational principle produced the field equation with a cosmological term.

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The operative word in that paragraph is "can", not "do" (as in include external EM forces in LCDM).
Do I need to remind you in your previous post you made the bold claim GR does not take EM into consideration.
Your feeble attempts at wordplay are motivated by your inability of accepting your mistakes and learning from them.
Irrelevant.
Your defense of Einstein not making an error is because you can't admit a static universe doesn't have a leg to stand on if it's original champion eventually saw the light that such a model is unstable along with all the other arguments presented against it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
30
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Welcome to the conversation. Thanks for your answer.

I see that you label yourself an atheist. I'm wondering why you don't take the majority/expert/consensus opinion on the topic of God as well?

Is there an expert/consensus view on the existence of a God? That's the first time I heard of it.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Is there an expert/consensus view on the existence of a God? That's the first time I heard of it.

Sure. The religious equivalent of an expert in religion would be a priest, a pastor or a rabbi and they all tend to believe that God exists.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Do I need to remind you in your previous post you made the bold claim GR does not take EM into consideration.

You're right. I should have said that the LCDM cosmology model doesn't take any EM influences into consideration, rather than imply that GR doesn't allow for the inclusion of other influences.

Your defense of Einstein not making an error is because you can't admit a static universe doesn't have a leg to stand on if it's original champion eventually saw the light that such a model is unstable along with all the other arguments presented against it.

That's just dead wrong. Einstein's non zero constant didn't require the introduction of "space expansion", a concept that flat out defies verification/falsification in a lab. It could have been something simple like ordinary EM fields. That's the key difference.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Welcome to the conversation. Thanks for your answer.

I see that you label yourself an atheist. I'm wondering why you don't take the majority/expert/consensus opinion on the topic of God as well?

There is no majority/expert/consensus opinion on god.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I would beg to differ. The majority of humans believe in God, and "experts" on the topic (like Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, Imams, etc), certainly believe in God.

What's the difference between belief in "dark energy" and God from the standpoint of empirical laboratory physics?
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would beg to differ. The majority of humans believe in God, and "experts" on the topic (like Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, Imams, etc), certainly believe in God.

None of them agree. Even among their own sect, none have a consistent definition of who god is. Experts? Spare me.
 
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
30
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sure. The religious equivalent of an expert in religion would be a priest, a pastor or a rabbi and they all tend to believe that God exists.

I would say an expert on religion would be a theologian, and not all theologians actually believe in a God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 46AND2
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
None of them agree. Even among their own sect, none have a consistent definition of who god is. Experts? Spare me.

Ever hear astronomers try to physically describe "dark matter"? They can't even decide if it's made of WIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, MACHOs or something else altogether. Do you have any idea how many various brands of inflation there are to choose from?

Considering the billions spent on dark matter research and the *long* string of NULL laboratory results to date, one could be forgiven for questioning the level of "expertise" in that field too. Pots and kettles I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I would say an expert on religion would be a theologian, and not all theologians actually believe in a God.

Well, I happen to know (and and have written papers with) astronomers who aren't BB proponents either.

Hilton Ratcliffe - RationalWiki

The exception is hardly the rule.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're right. I should have said that the LCDM cosmology model doesn't take any EM influences into consideration, rather than imply that GR doesn't allow for the inclusion of other influences.
Well I’m glad you have admitted to error.
Of course LCDM doesn’t take the EM force into consideration as at cosmological scales the plasma number density is around 1/m³ and the range of the EM force is a paltry 10⁵m!!!
If you believe otherwise explain how a ternary system of galaxies can be formed from EM forces given a repulsive EM force must exist between at least one pair of galaxies.

That's just dead wrong. Einstein's non zero constant didn't require the introduction of "space expansion", a concept that flat out defies verification/falsification in a lab. It could have been something simple like ordinary EM fields. That's the key difference.

The inability of producing space expansion in a laboratory does not lead to the conclusion the many-fold problems of the static universe from Einstein realising its instability, to an eternal static universe devoid of stars and galaxies, have been successfully addressed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,511
9,486
✟236,257.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I would beg to differ. The majority of humans believe in God,
The main problem with democracy is that it relies on the input from the majority of humans. I wouldn't use the views of "the majority of humans" as a plank in any sensible argument.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
30
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, I happen to know (and and have written papers with) astronomers who aren't BB proponents either.

Hilton Ratcliffe - RationalWiki

The exception is hardly the rule.

Good for you. Anyway, I did answer your question. That's all I wanted to do.

When the consensus among astronomers changes regarding the BBT please let me know.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Is there an expert/consensus view on the existence of a God? That's the first time I heard of it.
The problem theologians have is with what 'existence' means in that statement.

Comparing BBT (expanding LCDM universe cosmology), including dark matter with God, as Michael did, is not a valid comparison, as neither are held as being true in science and thus, they are not beliefs.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Comparing BBT (expanding LCDM universe cosmology), including dark matter with God, as Michael did, is not a valid comparison, as neither are held as being true in science and thus, they are not beliefs.

Boloney. I've lost count how many times I've heard astronomers claim that they "know" that dark matter or dark energy exists. They "know" nothing of the sort of course, but that doesn't stop them from saying it, nor from getting uptight when their beliefs are called into question. :)

Just look at the reaction around here every time I pick on the BB theory. Personal attacks usually ensue.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Good for you. Anyway, I did answer your question. That's all I wanted to do.

When the consensus among astronomers changes regarding the BBT please let me know.

You did answer the question. Thank you. Then again, if you'd lived anywhere between the time of Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus (about 18 centuries), you'd have evidently been fine just "assuming" that the Earth was the center of the universe, because that's what astronomers were claiming. :)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Well I’m glad you have admitted to error.

It was more like sloppy verbiage, but I was certainly poorly worded on my part.

Of course LCDM doesn’t take the EM force into consideration as at cosmological scales the plasma number density is around 1/m³ and the range of the EM force is a paltry 10⁵m!!!

You're "assuming" that plasma density can be easily estimated down to a single number, everywhere. Current carrying plasma doesn't work like that.

If you believe otherwise explain how a ternary system of galaxies can be formed from EM forces given a repulsive EM force must exist between at least one pair of galaxies.

Well, for starters, Birkeland's model presumes that the surface of every sun is charged negatively compared to "space", and the discovery that the vast majority of cosmic rays are positively charged would tend to support that model.

The inability of producing space expansion in a laboratory does not lead to the conclusion the many-fold problems of the static universe from Einstein realising its instability, to an eternal static universe devoid of stars and galaxies, have been successfully addressed.

True, but other EM influences are obviously (at least to me) at work in space and the mainstream really doesn't account for them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
30
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You did answer the question. Thank you. Then again, if you'd lived anywhere between the time of Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus (about 18 centuries), you'd have evidently been fine just "assuming" that the Earth was the center of the universe, because that's what astronomers were claiming. :)

Yes, and I would have been justified in my belief. These people didn't have the means or technology that we have now to figure things out.

They had bigger fish to fry at that time anyway, figuring out astronomy wasn't really one of the most pressing issues.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.