Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Still Bad Science

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on October 19, 2002 12:17:19 UTC

Paul:Could we ever get back to the idea of a singularity without at some point unifying gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces

Me:ingularities are mathematical. They do not exist in nature. If string theory or loop theory or the like ever unify the forces of nature, they will remove the mathematical singularity with finite theory.

Paul:The prediction of bb comes from reversing the observed expansion, you say. This is like seeing a car speeding north on the motorway to Manchester and determining it came from Watford. And while it is true that a physical phenonema doesn't make predictions, the theory of that phenonema certainly does.

Me: There are assumptions for the bb like it came from a quantum flucyuation. But no verified theory exists for its beginning. The assumption is that if it did start somehow, then we can say what the conditions in the universe were like millisec after its beginning. Please tell me what bb theory you are talking about?

Paul:As for the observed expansion, the effect could in fact be a Compton effect and it is interesting to note that Hubble didn't attribute the observed red-shift to an expansion. If the red-shift could be successfully attributed to a Compton effect, it would in fact explain the observed red-shift from the limb of our own sun

Me: Pure hogwash put out by scientific quacks. Regarding Hubble. If give me a reference to where he said it was not universal expansion and I will give you the opposite.

Paul:You then go on to say that the observation of the cosmic microwave background indicates that the universe was once a thousand times smaller, and this is a giant leap of religious faith in itself. Why a thousand?

Me: The temperature when light is no longer in equilibrium with matter is known, and its average wavelength is known. The wavelength of the microwave CMBR is approximately 1000 times smaller so the universe has expanded by about 1000.

Paul: Hoyle and Wickramasinge proposed that the CMBR is being generated by bacteria

Me: Please give me a reference to this remarkable remark. I cannot believe that Hoyle is that stupid. They, especially Nalarkar(Sp?), have made remarkable progress refining the original theory to include regions in the universe where matter creation is possible, such as in black holes. I have followed that work. But what you suggest is full of bugs.

Paul:There isn't enough mass in the universe for bb theory to be correct; the superclusters haven't had time to coalese; the presence of iron at a distance of 13.5 billion light years is impossible to reconcile with bb.

Me: All incorrect. Dark matter and dark energy provide all the requirements for coalesence. Quasars exist at 13.5 billion years, so supernovae can also exist then. Besides with accelerated expansion, indicating that the universe might not have been expanding much in the beginning, the universe could be twice as old. The biggest number I have seen is 30 billion years old.

Paul:And the universe could not run up hill.

Me: What do you mean by that statement?

Paul: BB theory is essentially a religious doctrine and this is why the Pope endorses it.

Me: There are problems with the bb hypothesis. For example, before anti-matter recombined with matter, and presumably after gravity came into existence, the mass in the universe was at least 10,000 times the present mass. That would prevent any expansion at all. Nobody has recounciled this with the models proposed for bb theory.

Paul:There wasn't a beginning and the universe is infinite in time and space.

Me: I agree. space and time are both infinite. However, within the megaverse, there may be isolated universes that appear to begin with a bb.

Paul:As a consequence, there is no God. I've got a gut feeling about it.

Me; Right. There may be a god for each separate universe, maybe for each galaxy or black hole, maybe even for each solar system. But a single infinite god is unlikely. But that has nothing to do with science. BTW-the original Buddhists did not think there is a god. The Dai Lama still professes this belief. And they seem to have a handle on the inner workings of the universe that surpasses the rest of us.

Sincerely,

yanniru

Someone else is using Richard

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins