Astronomy / Space The Big Black Bang Hole that wasn't
- Thread starter Cargobane
- Start date
Whaaaa??? Why would there be background radiation at all in an unlimited universe?
Creationist motivated reasoning. Surprise, surprise, surprise...
Edit: the problem with that kind of conclusion is that it cherry-picks just enough of current cosmology to be consistent with one or two observations (there is a universe) (there is background radiation) and then declares victory. For a theory to be better than garbage it has to be consistent with all observations and supporting theories, or explain away the theories or correct the observations. So, they wave off the CMB but sort of "don't notice, huh, whadda ya mean?" the red-shifting of distant galaxies that prove the universe is expanding. Because, explaining that with an "unlimited universe" is a bit trickier. Of course if a theory is basically "it's magic" it's not much of a theory.
Last edited:
That was just a quick response and I'm not a theoretical astrophysicist. On the other hand, it absolutely doesn't matter who comes up with a theory; all that matters is whether the theory is supported by observation and if it's consistent with other established knowledge. The guy could be Einstein, or the litter collector down the street and his theory has to stand on its own, not his credentials.
Edit: For one thing, the new theory appears to rest on another theory, asserted without supporting observation namely:
I am interested to know his evidence that god is infinite in space and time.
Last edited:
You seem awfully stuck on the God thing. I found that line to actually be a clever play on words and not something that has any impact on his scientific observations. In fact if you read the source, it sounds like the author actually refutes that line of thinking.
Which in interesting in that your 'Creationist motivated reasoning' is actually something the author agrees is a problem with the Big Bang. Hey?
Which in interesting in that your 'Creationist motivated reasoning' is actually something the author agrees is a problem with the Big Bang. Hey?
Last edited:
God is frequently invoked in science in a non-religious capacity. Einsteins "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe" for example, or the "God particle" which has nothing to do with God. So I wouldn't read too much into that. Professor Marmet might well be wrong about this but he wasn't a fruit loop or a young earth creationist.
It's also well worth remembering that each generation considers themselves to be enlightened and to have the answers to these sorts of issues, only to be scoffed at for ignorance by following generations. We laugh at the idea of geocentrism without considering that the Big Bang theory may just be our very own geocentrism.
God is just a word some people are using to express something hard to comprehend or explained by available theories and observed phenomena/evidence. Of course, truly religious people usualy go further than that, trying to find clues and answers in ancient books, but I cannot blame them.
As Carl Sagan said: "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
As Carl Sagan said: "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Last edited:
Dang it Sagan! Why you gotta bash my religious practices. I give thanks to gravity every day for saving me from flying off into space at 860 mph.
That quote (and the whole article you later linked) is just obsolete.
It was published in 1990, and the postulate that there are no inhomogenities in the microwave background radiation was proven false in contemporary studies, published 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Microwave_background_radiation_predictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
The follow-up a decade late looks interesting though.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
Quick search around the net didn't immediately reveal that the idea of molecular hydrogen being a good explanation for dark matter should be readily dismissed.
https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/h2
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/606/1/L13/fulltext/18251.text.html
The somewhat superfluous and unnecessary attacks on some religions over the last 10 or 15 years by the self proclaimed academic community has been a rather astonishing piece of Orwellian double speak.
It is increasingly becoming apparent that that was the ultimate intention all along.
Try pointing out to any group of self proclaimed atheists the truism that Atheism is as much a religion as Catholicism or even criticise Dawkins is little more than a telly evangelist and see the reaction.
Many of the current psuedo scientific claims are so simplistic even preposterus, it does beg the question, do these people hold us all in contempt?
Given the current claims which are principally backed by the insistence that only the experts, (IE, Dawkins crowd) can understand what is being claimed, it may be time to ask for some concrete results instead of yet more increasingly convoluted claims.
Science has indeed been once againts hijacked by dogmatists.
:S So you didn't bother even to skim through the article you yourself posted, let alone the links I provided...
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/ said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Timeline said:
I'm not ignoring this, just not sure because that's not the part of the wiki I'm talking about and I don't want to be a complete because of double negatives about uniformity. Which really are somewhat relative anyway.
OT: Oh, and if there was no 'light' for 380,000 years, what was there before then? Is this the primordial black blob hole of holes, 380,000Ly across of infinite singularity. Only to explode instantly and 'imprint' a single of it's 'creation' that we can detect locally. BILLIONS of years later. Everywhere.
OT: Oh, and if there was no 'light' for 380,000 years, what was there before then? Is this the primordial black blob hole of holes, 380,000Ly across of infinite singularity. Only to explode instantly and 'imprint' a single of it's 'creation' that we can detect locally. BILLIONS of years later. Everywhere.
Last edited:
I want to chime in here because I can't let that stand uncommented. The title of the book that spawned this meme was originally meant to be "The goddamn particle" (source), rather referring to the difficulty of proving its existence, but the editor insisted on shortening that to "the god particle", and now we are in this mess where almost all online and offline news keeps repeating that stupid phrase.
Last edited:
There was light, but it couldn't go far because the universe wasn't transparent - it was an optically thick plasma. Just like there's light inside the Sun, but you can't see that light - you only see the light emitted from the surface of the Sun.
The follow-up a decade late looks interesting though.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
Quick search around the net didn't immediately reveal that the idea of molecular hydrogen being a good explanation for dark matter should be readily dismissed.
https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/h2
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/606/1/L13/fulltext/18251.text.html
The IOP link discusses the difference between baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter. There's some room for baryonic dark matter, but the majority as it says has to be non-baryonic, that is not ordinary atoms (including hydrogen)
Baryons as a fraction of total matter can be inferred from big bang nucleosynthesis, and from measurements of X-ray emission in galaxy clusters. The baryon fraction is about 15% - you can't make the standard cosmology work with anything very far from that with current measurements. Again, Marmet is unfortunately very outdated at best.
Yes, that's all you have, whatever theory you think is right. So if you don't like it you might as well give up on the entire game. And no-one* thinks black holes have infinite mass.
*no-one who knows what they're talking about anyway