Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?


Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 15:30:26 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
> <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> in
> <1126045826.144355.297080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2005-09-02, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> >> On 2005-08-30, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> [snip]
>
> >Please smack me with the present-day source of the radiation, if any.
>
> That radiation is from the origin of the Universe, it has been
> traveling through expanding space for 14.5 billion years.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> > And, as for it being uniform, there is a picture chart showing, using
> >> > visible colors, the radiation pattern in the universe. It doesn't
> >> > appear that uniform.
> >> >
> >> > http://timeline.aps.org/APS/resources/85_06a.jpg
> >>
> >> Golly, you look at a picture which is color coded, and you conclude that
> >> "it doesn't look that uniform".
> >
> >Yes. It really doesn't look that uniform.
> >
> >>
> >> http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/COBE_Home/DMR_Images.html
> >>
> >> The following image just shows the reduced map (i.e., both
> >> the dipole and Galactic emission subtracted). The cosmic
> >> microwavebackground fluctuations are extremely faint, only one
> >> part in 100,000 compared to the 2.73 degree Kelvin average
> >> temperature of the radiation field.
> >>
> >> One part in 100,000 seems pretty damned uniform to me.
> >
> >Maybe not.
> >
> >"The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang
> >and the fluctuations are the imprint of density contrast in the early
> >universe."
> >
> >So, it really isn't uniform.
>
> Yeah, it has differences on the order of 1 part in 100,000. Not 100%
> uniform, just 99.999% uniform.
>
> >It is based on the layout of the early
> >universe. OK. If this radiation was emitted long ago, why hasn't it
> >either been mostly absorbed or dissipated massively by now?
>
> It has not been absorbed because most of space, way more than
> 99.999999999999% is empty. It has not "dissipated" because there is no
> place else for it to go. What it has done is cool down because the
> space it is traveling through has expanded.

Sounds logical.

>
> [snip]
>
> >> We don't. In fact, the idea is absurd. There is no center to the
> >> expansion: space itself is expanding. Everywhere. That's what is
> >> carrying galaxies away from us (and each other).
> >
> >By what science can we say that space itself is expanding?
>
> That is the core claim of the Big Bang, that is the thing you keep not
> understanding.

No, I understand that the theory says this. I'm just wondering what
the evidence is for space itself to be expanding as opposed to have
always existed or be infinite.

>
> >If there really was a singularity which exploded, wouldn't this be the
> >center of the universe since all matter accelerated away from this
> >point?
>
> Why would this be the center? Why would any point be the center? This
> "exploded" is a terribly unfortunate metaphor. There was no explosion
> at all, there was not initial TNT as it were. There was a tiny
> universe filled with very hot energy. That universe has expanded. Some
> of the energy cooled down to matter and clumped together to form stars
> and galaxies (due to slight non-uniformities in distribution). Some of
> that energy is still there in the expanding universe. Since the space
> occupied by the energy itself has expanded it has cooled down. (Temp
> is energy/space. Expand the space and you have cooler stuff.)
>
> >> > How do we know where the dime-sized singularity was right
> >> > before it exploded?
> >>
> >> The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Asking where the 'singularity' was
> >> is meaningless, as space and time were also created.
> >
> >...and I get critiqued for bringing a supernatural Supreme Being into
> >the discussion. Now, time and space create themselves from nothing
> >using purely supernatural means.
> >
> Nope, we have no firm idea and really little speculation on how it
> formed. All we can do is follow the evidence and all our work can't
> get us back before Plank's Time. T=0, S=0 is a convenient fiction, but
> we really don't know and know we don't know.

Thanks for being honest. Some sources present this as FACT, as opposed
to best explanation given the evidence, which is why I had been a
little doubtful about this theory.

>
> [snip]
>
> >> > We know that it probably wasn't natural when the basis for a theory
> >> > is supernatural. For example, when you say that the entire universe
> >> > was a singularity before it exploded where all laws of physics and
> >> > chemistry do not apply and where science is useless...then you have
> >> > a supernatural, non-natural means.
>
> No, what we have then is our *ignorance*. You can fill that ignorance
> with "God did it" if you want, but understand that the god of the gaps
> has been shrinking steadily for hundreds of years. The laws of
> physics, as (and if) they operate in the Universe, applied at the Big
> Bang. *Our understanding* of the laws breaks down under those
> conditions and *our understanding* does not apply then. It is not that
> the Universe was somehow not under the rule of law at T=0, but that we
> don't understand that time.

OK. Sounds good.

I may get hammered for this question, but...

Is it theoretically possible for there to be no laws in place (pure
randomness) at T=0?

>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> Genocide is news | Be A Witness
> http://www.beawitness.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
> www.darfurgenocide.org
>
> Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
> http://www.savedarfur.org/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... The assumption is that redshift is entirely due to Doppler shift, ... us appear to be at the center of the universe. ... difficult to say that space itself is expanding and than use a stable ... ignites the radiation and this energy expands back out, ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Cosmologically speaking, diamonds may actually be forever (Forwarded)
    ... If you've ever wondered about the ultimate fate of the universe, ... the current status quo between matter and ... the dark-energy dominated universe is that matter gets to beat radiation ... It is only in the last decade that the existence of dark energy has been ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Cosmologically speaking, diamonds may actually be forever (Forwarded)
    ... If you've ever wondered about the ultimate fate of the universe, ... the current status quo between matter and its ... alter ego, radiation, will continue as the newly discovered force of dark ... It is only in the last decade that the existence of dark energy has been ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - Whats wrong with answersingenesis.com?
    ... Certainly, this radiation ... then the radiation would not be so uniform. ... > the Universe itself is the body. ... if the universe is still expanding and is expanding at less than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
    ... say from a 2 billion year old universe, ... at one point in the universe, the universe is expanding ... But the energy of matter, ... matter it can effect with em waves within its range. ...
    (sci.physics)