Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Redshift Falsified??

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 3:17:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone know anything about this, or if this guy knows what he's talking about?? If he is right then it certainly raises some interesting questions about cosmic expansion and the big-bang theory.

This is the paper he references in the video...

http://vixra.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 4:09:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The guy in the video is a crank who doesn't know what he is talking about, but there is at least one cosmologist, Christof Wetterich who thinks that the universe is not expanding, that the redshift is an illusion created by the change in light frequency caused by light moving through particles of increasing mass. This is as of yet still an untested hypothesis, but some astrophysicists are open to the idea.

So in summary, the redshift has not been falsified, but there is a possibility that there is another cause for it.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 4:46:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 3:17:43 PM, medic0506 wrote:


Anyone know anything about this, or if this guy knows what he's talking about?? If he is right then it certainly raises some interesting questions about cosmic expansion and the big-bang theory.

This is the paper he references in the video...

http://vixra.org...

Dark matter is postulated because of:

1. Outer stars of a galaxy are travelling as fast as stars toward the center of the galaxy. This is in juxtaposition of our solar system. As planets get further from the sun the slower they are travelling. This is because if they were going faster they would not have been caught in orbit around the sun and would have flung out of its gravitational pull.

2. Observations confirm that in galaxy after galaxy the outer stars travel at a similar speed as the inner stars.

3. The only way #2 can happen is if there is enough matter to exert enough gravitational force to keep the outer stars.

4. There is not enough visible matter to add up to the required gravitational force needed in number 3. Plasma is visible matter so his hypothesis that plasma is a viable replacement to dark matter as far as explaining observable and documented behaviors of matter is busted.

5. Therefore dark matter is still required to explain why stars in the outer reaches of a galaxy travel as fast as the inner stars.

The simple fact that this guy mixes up dark matter and dark energy and many other concepts without looking at them individually means he is more interested in picking and choosing to support his predetermined stance versus making qualifications after reviewing the data or even understanding the data.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 5:01:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 4:09:06 PM, Polaris wrote:
The guy in the video is a crank who doesn't know what he is talking about, but there is at least one cosmologist, Christof Wetterich who thinks that the universe is not expanding, that the redshift is an illusion created by the change in light frequency caused by light moving through particles of increasing mass. This is as of yet still an untested hypothesis, but some astrophysicists are open to the idea.

So in summary, the redshift has not been falsified, but there is a possibility that there is another cause for it.

It's entirely possible that the guy in the video is a crank, I just ran across it today and found it interesting. But what about the paper by Ashmore in the link, and the reproduction of redshift in the lab, in stationary objects, when it has been used as evidence for cosmic expansion??

I agree that "falsified" in the thread title was a poor word choice on my part.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 6:31:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The new tired light theory does not explain why when looking at a glaxy and the edge that is rotating away from us shows a different wave length than the edge that is rotating towards us.

It is certainly not plausible that the side rotating away from us ALWAYS has more plasma the light travels through versus the side rotating towards us.

I don't see how it would disprove inflation as a mechanism of red shifting. It may introduce another variable, but there are observations that it can't account for as I mentioned above. The paper even states in the conclusion that plasma red shifting does not prove alternative red shifting, but may just need to be another phenomena that needs to be accounted for.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 6:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 5:01:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:09:06 PM, Polaris wrote:
The guy in the video is a crank who doesn't know what he is talking about, but there is at least one cosmologist, Christof Wetterich who thinks that the universe is not expanding, that the redshift is an illusion created by the change in light frequency caused by light moving through particles of increasing mass. This is as of yet still an untested hypothesis, but some astrophysicists are open to the idea.

So in summary, the redshift has not been falsified, but there is a possibility that there is another cause for it.

It's entirely possible that the guy in the video is a crank, I just ran across it today and found it interesting. But what about the paper by Ashmore in the link, and the reproduction of redshift in the lab, in stationary objects, when it has been used as evidence for cosmic expansion??

I agree that "falsified" in the thread title was a poor word choice on my part.

Right, there is apparent red shift, the question is what it means.

I'd just note that people should keep in mind the amount of evidence that some of these grand theories are based on. Anybody who argues passionately for the big bang doesn't understand how theoretical and untestable the concept is. I'm not disagreeing, for you faith-in-science types, I have no dog in the big bang race, I'm just pointing out that it's a very different sort of science from say, chemistry.
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
The new tired light theory does not explain why when looking at a glaxy and the edge that is rotating away from us shows a different wave length than the edge that is rotating towards us.

It is certainly not plausible that the side rotating away from us ALWAYS has more plasma the light travels through versus the side rotating towards us.

I don't see how it would disprove inflation as a mechanism of red shifting. It may introduce another variable, but there are observations that it can't account for as I mentioned above. The paper even states in the conclusion that plasma red shifting does not prove alternative red shifting, but may just need to be another phenomena that needs to be accounted for.

I agree that it probably isn't a KO punch at this point, but if redshift can be reproduced in stationary objects, it does give some validity to those who question inflation.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:36:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:35:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/9/2013 5:01:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:09:06 PM, Polaris wrote:
The guy in the video is a crank who doesn't know what he is talking about, but there is at least one cosmologist, Christof Wetterich who thinks that the universe is not expanding, that the redshift is an illusion created by the change in light frequency caused by light moving through particles of increasing mass. This is as of yet still an untested hypothesis, but some astrophysicists are open to the idea.

So in summary, the redshift has not been falsified, but there is a possibility that there is another cause for it.

It's entirely possible that the guy in the video is a crank, I just ran across it today and found it interesting. But what about the paper by Ashmore in the link, and the reproduction of redshift in the lab, in stationary objects, when it has been used as evidence for cosmic expansion??

I agree that "falsified" in the thread title was a poor word choice on my part.

Right, there is apparent red shift, the question is what it means.

I'd just note that people should keep in mind the amount of evidence that some of these grand theories are based on. Anybody who argues passionately for the big bang doesn't understand how theoretical and untestable the concept is. I'm not disagreeing, for you faith-in-science types, I have no dog in the big bang race, I'm just pointing out that it's a very different sort of science from say, chemistry.

Come on now V, we all know that if it has the title of Scientific Theory then it's clearly backed by testable and observable empirical evidence...*rolls eyes*
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:46:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We know that redshift works; Doppler radar uses it. If redshift is false, Doppler radar doesn't work. The question is over whether other things can cause redshift, or things that look like redshift. The answer to that question is yes. For instance, interstellar reddening.

As far as the Big Bang, it's used because it best explains the observations made.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:35:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd just note that people should keep in mind the amount of evidence that some of these grand theories are based on. Anybody who argues passionately for the big bang doesn't understand how theoretical and untestable the concept is.

Theoretical doesn't necessitate untestable.

I'm not disagreeing, for you faith-in-science types, I have no dog in the big bang race, I'm just pointing out that it's a very different sort of science from say, chemistry.

Faith isn't a requisite of science, theoretical or otherwise.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 6:05:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
The new tired light theory does not explain why when looking at a glaxy and the edge that is rotating away from us shows a different wave length than the edge that is rotating towards us.

It is certainly not plausible that the side rotating away from us ALWAYS has more plasma the light travels through versus the side rotating towards us.

I don't see how it would disprove inflation as a mechanism of red shifting. It may introduce another variable, but there are observations that it can't account for as I mentioned above. The paper even states in the conclusion that plasma red shifting does not prove alternative red shifting, but may just need to be another phenomena that needs to be accounted for.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inflation as a mechanism of red shifting", the two concepts aren't related. Perhaps you mean "expansion" as a conclusion of redshift observation?....that, or please explain.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 6:11:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:46:34 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 6:35:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd just note that people should keep in mind the amount of evidence that some of these grand theories are based on. Anybody who argues passionately for the big bang doesn't understand how theoretical and untestable the concept is.

Theoretical doesn't necessitate untestable.

I'm not disagreeing, for you faith-in-science types, I have no dog in the big bang race, I'm just pointing out that it's a very different sort of science from say, chemistry.

Faith isn't a requisite of science, theoretical or otherwise.

That's debatable, but what isn't is that there are certainly a lot of "faith in science types" that have embraced scientism, which isn't science and is indeed a faith based system of beliefs.

Perhaps that is what he is referring to.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 7:40:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 6:05:17 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/9/2013 6:31:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
The new tired light theory does not explain why when looking at a glaxy and the edge that is rotating away from us shows a different wave length than the edge that is rotating towards us.

It is certainly not plausible that the side rotating away from us ALWAYS has more plasma the light travels through versus the side rotating towards us.

I don't see how it would disprove inflation as a mechanism of red shifting. It may introduce another variable, but there are observations that it can't account for as I mentioned above. The paper even states in the conclusion that plasma red shifting does not prove alternative red shifting, but may just need to be another phenomena that needs to be accounted for.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inflation as a mechanism of red shifting", the two concepts aren't related. Perhaps you mean "expansion" as a conclusion of redshift observation?....that, or please explain.

Sorry, yes I meant the expansion. Specifically Doppler redshift. Plasma redshift can not solely explain the differences in observations of the edge of a galaxy we know is rotating away from us versus the side that is rotating towards us. Therefore plasma red shift is not adequate alone to replace expansion of space as an explanation of observed Doppler redshifts of galaxies as a whole.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 7:45:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nice guide the three known causes of redshifts and alternative theories.

http://www.plasma-universe.com...

I need to understand why the plasma phenomena is not a mainstream proven cause of redshift.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 8:46:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The other issue here is that redshift of stars and galaxies is not the only evidence that the universe is expanding.

Using the luminosity of Cepheid Variable stars over time has been used to measure how far it is from us at one point in time and how far it is at another point in time. These observations have been used to refine the value of the Hubble Constant.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu...

I am unaware of any alternative explanations as to why Cepheid Variable stars would get dimmer over the time frame we are measuring their peek luminosity other than they are traveling further from us.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:01:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:36:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...

Come on now V, we all know that if it has the title of Scientific Theory then it's clearly backed by testable and observable empirical evidence...*rolls eyes*

Yeah. To be fair, how would you test any of this stuff? Science has grown beyond the test tube, and there's nothing wrong with that per se.

But I have begun to notice how the big bang is evolving into a full-fledged creation myth. You have all these elaborate stories about how elements formed out of this original primordial soup, and no one seems to stop and ask "What a sec - how could you possibly know all this? How are you planning to test this hypothesis?"

And all this because of a color that's a little off from what you'd expect (I know, there's more than that, but not a whole lot more).
This space for rent.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:04:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Changing the frequency of a photon from an interaction with matter is not redshift. Redshift is caused a movement through space (doppler), a curving of space (gravitational) or an expansion of space (cosmological). If photons interact directly with matter they can finish up with a lower frequency eg compton scattering and flourescence, but that is not called a red shift.

What I think this guy is proposing is that the measured change in frequency could be accounted for by an interaction with an electron plasma instead. This requires that we assume that the universe is full of a very uniform electron plasma. The so called electric universe theory popular in the crank science world.

Why is it not mainstream? Well can you tell me how can a plasma be maintained at 2.7K, or , if the plasma is there, why can we not directly detect it. Or why it is made of electrons predominantly, where are the positive charges? These are obvious questions that are never addressed by the cranks.

It appears that in every walk of life there are people who automatically disagree with the mainstream and cannot help themselves from challenging it. Ok nothing wrong with that intrinsically but a minority then will convince themselves that they have a knew theory that is beyond question, that the old theory is a conspiracy and they crusade to overthrow the priesthood of the mainstream.

Invariably their new theory is ridiculous and full of holes and they have failed to understand the old theory, but if you try to correct them they resist with zealous fervor. Usually their misconceptions are based on their beliefs and they fail to understand the difference between a fact and a belief.

Ok the big bang theory still has a way to go before we have all the answers, but currently it is the best fit to the facts and theories we hold true.

That to me is what science is, the best fit theory based on what facts we can establish as probably true but could be falsified by new facts.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:06:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 6:11:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:46:34 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 6:35:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd just note that people should keep in mind the amount of evidence that some of these grand theories are based on. Anybody who argues passionately for the big bang doesn't understand how theoretical and untestable the concept is.

Theoretical doesn't necessitate untestable.

I'm not disagreeing, for you faith-in-science types, I have no dog in the big bang race, I'm just pointing out that it's a very different sort of science from say, chemistry.

Faith isn't a requisite of science, theoretical or otherwise.

That's debatable, but what isn't is that there are certainly a lot of "faith in science types" that have embraced scientism, which isn't science and is indeed a faith based system of beliefs.

Perhaps that is what he is referring to.

I was mostly referring to how much of the big bang theory is a mathematical extrapolation.

And clearly the big bang is untestable, over all. It's not the kind of thing you can recreate. I'm not saying the science is illegitimate, just saying we have to have a sense of the certainty here. The big bang could easily get thrown out the window tomorrow based on some new discovery.
This space for rent.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:19:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:04:45 AM, chui wrote:
Changing the frequency of a photon from an interaction with matter is not redshift. Redshift is caused a movement through space (doppler), a curving of space (gravitational) or an expansion of space (cosmological). If photons interact directly with matter they can finish up with a lower frequency eg compton scattering and flourescence, but that is not called a red shift.

What I think this guy is proposing is that the measured change in frequency could be accounted for by an interaction with an electron plasma instead. This requires that we assume that the universe is full of a very uniform electron plasma. The so called electric universe theory popular in the crank science world.

Why is it not mainstream? Well can you tell me how can a plasma be maintained at 2.7K, or , if the plasma is there, why can we not directly detect it. Or why it is made of electrons predominantly, where are the positive charges? These are obvious questions that are never addressed by the cranks.

It appears that in every walk of life there are people who automatically disagree with the mainstream and cannot help themselves from challenging it. Ok nothing wrong with that intrinsically but a minority then will convince themselves that they have a knew theory that is beyond question, that the old theory is a conspiracy and they crusade to overthrow the priesthood of the mainstream.

Invariably their new theory is ridiculous and full of holes and they have failed to understand the old theory, but if you try to correct them they resist with zealous fervor. Usually their misconceptions are based on their beliefs and they fail to understand the difference between a fact and a belief.

Ok the big bang theory still has a way to go before we have all the answers, but currently it is the best fit to the facts and theories we hold true.

That to me is what science is, the best fit theory based on what facts we can establish as probably true but could be falsified by new facts.

^ This.

We are 't pulling things out of our @sses, we're looking at what we CAN observe and then attempting to draw a conclusion of what might be going on by applying what we know. There is no faith here, only educated guesses based on what we can observe.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:21:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:06:57 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/10/2013 6:11:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:46:34 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 6:35:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I'd just note that people should keep in mind the amount of evidence that some of these grand theories are based on. Anybody who argues passionately for the big bang doesn't understand how theoretical and untestable the concept is.

Theoretical doesn't necessitate untestable.

I'm not disagreeing, for you faith-in-science types, I have no dog in the big bang race, I'm just pointing out that it's a very different sort of science from say, chemistry.

Faith isn't a requisite of science, theoretical or otherwise.

That's debatable, but what isn't is that there are certainly a lot of "faith in science types" that have embraced scientism, which isn't science and is indeed a faith based system of beliefs.

Perhaps that is what he is referring to.

I was mostly referring to how much of the big bang theory is a mathematical extrapolation.

And clearly the big bang is untestable, over all. It's not the kind of thing you can recreate. I'm not saying the science is illegitimate, just saying we have to have a sense of the certainty here. The big bang could easily get thrown out the window tomorrow based on some new discovery.

So you are unwilling to accept it because it is falsifiable?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:22:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 8:46:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other issue here is that redshift of stars and galaxies is not the only evidence that the universe is expanding.

Using the luminosity of Cepheid Variable stars over time has been used to measure how far it is from us at one point in time and how far it is at another point in time. These observations have been used to refine the value of the Hubble Constant.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu...

I am unaware of any alternative explanations as to why Cepheid Variable stars would get dimmer over the time frame we are measuring their peek luminosity other than they are traveling further from us.

Sure, I don't think many would dispute the basic inference that the universe is expanding, and that time and space are themselves expanding. But that's a long way from the big bang proper, from concluding that it all came from a singularity. It's actually a rather simplistic sort of extrapolation, you know? Cosmologist have long toyed with other ideas, like the bouncing ball theory, which would mean we're just seeing one point on a big curve and a linear extrapolation from our very limited observations is not valid.

And, of course, when you allow the creator in the room, as I do, then everything changes. Creation (any creation) reflects time like a mirror. I often use the example of an automobile. If you try to date an automobile based solely on watching it rust in a parking lot, you might come up with wildly inflated age. But we know that if you run the video of that car backwards, it's the same, same, same, very little change, until suddenly! you get back to the assembly line and everything changes at dramatic speed.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:27:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:21:14 AM, drhead wrote:
...

So you are unwilling to accept it because it is falsifiable?

Oh, man, just the question says so much. Why would I want to accept it, or not? It's not a religion, it doesn't even have any practical implications.

Your question, as I say, suggests it is a creation myth to you, a foundation of a world view.
This space for rent.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 9:38:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:01:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:

Yeah. To be fair, how would you test any of this stuff? Science has grown beyond the test tube, and there's nothing wrong with that per se.

But I have begun to notice how the big bang is evolving into a full-fledged creation myth.

I am unaware of any reference to mythical creatures in the big bang theory. The big bang theory is extrapolated from established facts not from beliefs. The facts can be falsified and if that happens the theory will have to adapt or be replaced. Myths can never be challenged because they are based on personal belief.

You have all these elaborate stories about how elements formed out of this original primordial soup, and no one seems to stop and ask "What a sec - how could you possibly know all this? How are you planning to test this hypothesis?"

The elements beyond hydrogen helium and lithium were formed by nucleosynthesis in super novae. This theory was first developed by Fred Hoyle who happened to be a big critic of the big bang theory but also named it. The 'primordial soup' usually refers to abiogenisis. Theories in science are under constant question by peer review. If a scientist starts talking rubbish they will quickly lose their job.

And all this because of a color that's a little off from what you'd expect (I know, there's more than that, but not a whole lot more).

CMBR is a thousand times lower in frequency than its original emission value. How do we know its original frequency? Because we have studied atoms and electrons and protons and quantum physics and electromagnetic waves and black body radiation and gravity and thermodynamics etc In short, everything we know about in established theories is used to challenge new theories. If the new theories are not consistent with the old they cannot be accepted.

The big bang theory is not faith based.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 10:00:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:38:51 AM, chui wrote:
At 9/10/2013 9:01:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:

Yeah. To be fair, how would you test any of this stuff? Science has grown beyond the test tube, and there's nothing wrong with that per se.

But I have begun to notice how the big bang is evolving into a full-fledged creation myth.

I am unaware of any reference to mythical creatures in the big bang theory.

You don't have to have creatures to have myth. And when you start getting into how complexity arose from the big bang, for instance, sorry, but you are writing a story. You're attempting to draw a line to life, and it's a wishful thinking stretch.

Myths can never be challenged because they are based on personal belief.


Again, that's not what myth means in the scholarly sense. Myth has to do with foundational and explanatory value. Their correctness is typically beyond verifying, but that's not an essential ingredient of myth.

...Theories in science are under constant question by peer review. If a scientist starts talking rubbish they will quickly lose their job.

There was a time when science was questioned by experiment. I guess the status quo being maintained by intimidation ('lose their job') - that's been a pretty constant story. Good thing people with courage come along every once in a while.


And all this because of a color that's a little off from what you'd expect (I know, there's more than that, but not a whole lot more).

.... How do we know its original frequency? Because we have studied atoms and electrons and protons and quantum physics and electromagnetic waves and black body radiation and gravity and thermodynamics etc

Nah - pass the light from burning chemicals through a prism and you get line spectra, i.e. one or several very narrow bands of light. It's not as complicated as all that.

In short, everything we know about in established theories is used to challenge new theories. If the new theories are not consistent with the old they cannot be accepted.


Yeah, you do sound like you're reciting the catechism.
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:12:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:01:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:36:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...

Come on now V, we all know that if it has the title of Scientific Theory then it's clearly backed by testable and observable empirical evidence...*rolls eyes*

Yeah. To be fair, how would you test any of this stuff? Science has grown beyond the test tube, and there's nothing wrong with that per se.

That has been one of my major criticisms since I first began looking into origins. Theoretical science is fine, and may even be beneficial when used by the scientific community to guide research and experimentation. But when these "theories" are adopted by ideologues and used to indoctrinate the masses to accept a particular worldview, it becomes nothing more than an appeal to what the majority of scientists think is the best "natural" explanation.

But I have begun to notice how the big bang is evolving into a full-fledged creation myth. You have all these elaborate stories about how elements formed out of this original primordial soup, and no one seems to stop and ask "What a sec - how could you possibly know all this? How are you planning to test this hypothesis?"

Right. We know the elements exist, and we have to assume there is a "natural" explanation.

And all this because of a color that's a little off from what you'd expect (I know, there's more than that, but not a whole lot more).
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:28:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:01:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:36:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...

Come on now V, we all know that if it has the title of Scientific Theory then it's clearly backed by testable and observable empirical evidence...*rolls eyes*

Yeah. To be fair, how would you test any of this stuff? Science has grown beyond the test tube, and there's nothing wrong with that per se.

But I have begun to notice how the big bang is evolving into a full-fledged creation myth. You have all these elaborate stories about how elements formed out of this original primordial soup, and no one seems to stop and ask "What a sec - how could you possibly know all this? How are you planning to test this hypothesis?"

And all this because of a color that's a little off from what you'd expect (I know, there's more than that, but not a whole lot more).

What are you talking about? One can not test anything without first having a hypothesis. It is not uncommon to have a hypothesis that gets tested decades later because the technology needed just does not exist at the time of formulating the hypothesis. Just because the time to test a hypothesis does not fit your definition of timeliness does not mean the process is flawed.

Does it mean that there are hypothesis that are proven wrong? Sure, but trying to pass the process off like it is pixie dust and rainbow wishes is just completely wrong.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:47:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:06:57 AM, v3nesl wrote:
I was mostly referring to how much of the big bang theory is a mathematical extrapolation.

I would agree.

And clearly the big bang is untestable, over all. It's not the kind of thing you can recreate. I'm not saying the science is illegitimate, just saying we have to have a sense of the certainty here. The big bang could easily get thrown out the window tomorrow based on some new discovery.

That could be the case with any theory. That's the nature of science.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:47:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 9:22:56 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/10/2013 8:46:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other issue here is that redshift of stars and galaxies is not the only evidence that the universe is expanding.

Using the luminosity of Cepheid Variable stars over time has been used to measure how far it is from us at one point in time and how far it is at another point in time. These observations have been used to refine the value of the Hubble Constant.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu...

I am unaware of any alternative explanations as to why Cepheid Variable stars would get dimmer over the time frame we are measuring their peek luminosity other than they are traveling further from us.

Sure, I don't think many would dispute the basic inference that the universe is expanding, and that time and space are themselves expanding. But that's a long way from the big bang proper, from concluding that it all came from a singularity. It's actually a rather simplistic sort of extrapolation, you know? Cosmologist have long toyed with other ideas, like the bouncing ball theory, which would mean we're just seeing one point on a big curve and a linear extrapolation from our very limited observations is not valid.

And, of course, when you allow the creator in the room, as I do, then everything changes. Creation (any creation) reflects time like a mirror. I often use the example of an automobile. If you try to date an automobile based solely on watching it rust in a parking lot, you might come up with wildly inflated age. But we know that if you run the video of that car backwards, it's the same, same, same, very little change, until suddenly! you get back to the assembly line and everything changes at dramatic speed.

Let me get this straight. The only point from big bang theory you dispute is the singularity. (no pun intended)?

Also, your theory about the automobile is so wildly different than the astro-physics it can't possibly be applied. We are looking at light from the full spectrum that was produced billions of of years ago. Granted we can't go back to the point of creation and the hypothesis is that there wasn't any light being radiated until 370,000 years after the creation point which is the cosmic background radiation.

The simple fact of the matter all the alternative theories have significant holes to fill in. Exactly how does the bouncy ball theory explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?

The big bang is not a slam dunk, but to date it is the best explanation as a whole to explain most of the observable data that we do have. Alternative theories and testing are the method that science uses to disprove theories, but to position that the big bang is wrong is erroneous at this point.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:54:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 6:11:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
That's debatable, but what isn't is that there are certainly a lot of "faith in science types" that have embraced scientism, which isn't science and is indeed a faith based system of beliefs.

I find more often scientism is a pejorative label ascribed to others than to oneself, typically used by those that would reject certain scientific conclusions in some area. Certainly we should concede to the science on matters where science is applicable, but also acknowledge the tentative nature of science. I do think that in understanding our world around us, science is second only to mathematics in reliability.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 12:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 11:47:08 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/10/2013 9:06:57 AM, v3nesl wrote:
I was mostly referring to how much of the big bang theory is a mathematical extrapolation.

I would agree.


And clearly the big bang is untestable, over all. It's not the kind of thing you can recreate. I'm not saying the science is illegitimate, just saying we have to have a sense of the certainty here. The big bang could easily get thrown out the window tomorrow based on some new discovery.

That could be the case with any theory. That's the nature of science.

Oh, I don't think we're going to wake up tomorrow and find that electrical force doesn't vary with the distance between charges. There's a big difference here in the sort of evidence we have vs the big bang.
This space for rent.