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


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-09-10, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The Last Conformist wrote:
> >> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> >> Are you wilfully refusing to understand the concept of dark matter?
> >
> > No. I understand the basics of it as much as you. As of right now, it
> > is some entity (maybe not even matter) which affects the motions of
> > some celestial bodies. That's all.
>
> Actually Jim, it is clear that you don't understand the basics, because
> you ask questions like the one below:
>
> >> It's called dark because we can't see it. The CMBR we, of course, *can*
> >> see.
> >
> > How do we know that this dark matter is not really contributing or is
> > the sole source for this cosmic radiation? I keep hearing that it is
> > dark with nothing eminating from it. Yet, this cosmic radiation is
> > everywhere.
>
> We know that "dark matter" isn't emitting this radiation because _its_
> distribution is _not_ uniform. A moment's clear thought would show that
> this has to be true: if it were uniformly distributed, it's attractive
> effects on the matter we could see would zero. It also couldn't remain
> in a uniform distribution embedded in a distribution which was nonuniform.
> Because dark matter is _matter_, it has mass, and gravitation from the
> nonuniform distribution would disrupt the uniformity of dark matter.
>
> >> > > Im going to break this paragraph up because you present a number of
> >> > > different issues.
> >> > >
> >> > > > The doppler shift (Hubbell shift) seems legitimate.
> >> > >
> >> > > First, The doppler shift and the hubble shift are two different
> >> > > phenomena. Second, the Hubble shift is the Big Bang. The hubble shift
> >> > > is the expansion of the universe. If we track the expansion backwards
> >> > > in time, that is the Big Bang.
> >> >
> >> > Has it ever been shown, from analyzing a red shift, that some bodies in
> >> > the universe are actually accelerating instead of slowing down?
> >>
> >> Slowing down? Where did that one come from? As a matter of fact, the
> >> expansion is accellerating.
> >
> > I would think that all bodies would slow down eventually, especially
> > since scientists talk about the Big Crunch in 20 - 40 billion years.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
> >
> > If there is no force on the bodies in space, why would they be
> > accelerating? Because the universe itself (the shell or void of this
> > time/space continuum) is expanding and taking all cosmic bodies with
> > it? What is the evidence for this?
>
> That's what the Hubble redshifts are all about. In 1929, Hubble published
> a claim that radial velocity of galaxies was proportional to their
> distance.
>
> We think that the expansion is accelerating because of data on the
> brightness of supernovae:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC
>
> And of course the issue of where this accelerating force comes from
> is what the so-called "cosmological constant" was all about.
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
>
> It is still an open question as to whether the cosmological constant
> is greater than zero. There is some supernova data that suggests that
> it is, but there are lots of open questions here.
>
> >> Moreover, for nearby objects, such as the Andromeda galaxy, local
> >> movements are much larger than the cosmic expansion; Andromeda is
> >> heading towards a collision with us.
> >>
> >> > > > But, since there
> >> > > > is no known center of the universe, how do we know, in absolute terms,
> >> > > > how much of the universe is going in which direction?
> >> > >
> >> > > I have no idea what you mean by this. There is no center of the
> >> > > universe. There is no movement in absolute terms. Again, this simply
> >> > > shows a lack of familiarity with both the evidence and the theory.
> >> >
> >> > If there was a singularity at one time, whatever its location was would
> >> > be the center of the universe.
> >>
> >> Oh my God ...
> >
> > Please don't take the Name of God in vain.
> >
> >>
> >> Seriously, get a clue Jim. The initial singularity (if there was one)
> >> did not have a location *in* space. All space was, for lack of a better
> >> word, in it.
> >
> > Hey, I'm just trying to get a grip on this ever-changing supernatural
> > theory of the origin of the universe.
>
> I sincerely doubt that you are.
>
> >> > > > Maybe the
> >> > > > majority of the universe is standing still while our part is expanding.
> >> > >
> >> > > Again, there is no absolute motion. And even if this sentence made
> >> > > sense, what would you conclude from it? In what way would this be
> >> > > contrary to BB cosmology?
> >> >
> >> > Because showing half the universe standing still and the other half
> >> > expanding would be evidence that there was no Big Bang as previously
> >> > thought. How can you have a Big Bang with such a disparity in the
> >> > motions of stellar bodies?
> >>
> >> A static universe is incompatible with general relativity.
> >
> > I thought that general relativity didn't matter to this theoretical
> > singularity. If we can exempt some events from general relativity, why
> > not portions of or the entire universe?
>
> *sigh*
>
> General relativity is a theory which makes some predictions about the
> universe. For instance:
>
> http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>
> shows that for the Global Positioning System to locate individuals
> accurately, we need to have clocks aboard the satellites which are
> accurate to a few nanoseconds. Relativity predicts that the clocks in
> orbit will drift 38 _microseconds_ per day faster than the corresponding
> ground based clocks.
>
> You can do the math:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5eojo
>
> If we didn't take this into account, GPS simply wouldn't work. The
> formulas for General Relativity are thus tested daily, and found to be
> in excellent agreement to what we observe.
>
> And yet, we know that general relativity cannot be the whole picture,
> because it conflicts with the predictions of quantum theory. Therefore,
> it is clear that we don't as yet have an entirely accurate understanding
> of both. The "singularity" that you like to keep droning on about
> isn't a claim that "all bets are off". It is much more an admission
> that the mathematical models we use to model the situation predict something
> which appears to be absurd (infinite mass or enegy density) for instance.
>
> >> And what the hell are you arguing here? That big bang cosmology is
> >> wrong because there *could* be evidence against it?
> >
> > In a way. I am arguing that the evidence for the Big Bang theory is
> > very thin.
>
> But Jim, you simply don't know enough to make that claim.
>
> > The evidence exists; but, it is thin. And other counter
> > arguments, made from other scientists, have not been dismissed.
>
> Which claims and which scientists are those Jim? Be specific.

http://recessiongalaxies.ifrance.com/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020429080540.htm

>
> >> > > > Heck. Maybe God just threw the planets and stars into the universe
> >> > > > and gave everything a gentle push in different directions.
> >> > >
> >> > > And maybe angels push the planets in their orbits.
> >> > >
> >> > > > The derivation of all atoms from Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium...I'm
> >> > > > not familiar enough with this aspect to support or critique it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Im glad to here that you have some sense of your limitations. What I
> >> > > am curious about however, is why you think you are familiar enough with
> >> > > BB cosmology to critique that?
> >> >
> >> > It doesn't make sense at its most basic levels:
> >>
> >> You don't understand BB cosmology on its most basic levels.
> >>
> >> > 1) A singularity which defies all laws of science;
> >>
> >> I already addressed this.
> >>
> >> > 2) Theoretical dark matter which cannot be seen, measured, or analyzed
> >> > and which MUST exist for the motions of bodies in space due to a Big
> >> > Bang.
> >>
> >> I've already pointed out this is simply wrong. Repeating it makes you a
> >> liar. Doesn't your God disapprove of liars?
> >
> > You didn't point out why. You merely said the not-so-helpful statement
> > that my view was wrong.
>
> Actually, to an honest person seeking knowledge, that claim is statement
> is incredibly helpful.
>
> But others have tried to spoonfeed you the knowledge that you seem to
> resist so steadfastly.
>
> > Referring to the will of God for use in your argument but then denying
> > the existence of that same God is not a safe position to place yourself
> > in.
>
> The argument was tailored to the audience. It doesn't matter whether
> he believes it, only that you believe it.
>
> >> > 3) Red shift values being clustered around certain quantities and not
> >> > spread across all possibilities. Strange if the Big Bang produced a
> >> > spectrum of heavenly bodies with supposedly random velocities.
> >>
> >> Alphabet soup.
> >
> > Is that like a "no comment"?
>
> No, it means that nobody understands what you are trying to say. I
> suspect that is because even you don't know what you are trying to say.
> That is why I labelled the same as "word salad".

Well, when you list out every body in space and it's respective red
shift, are the values evenly distributed or are they clustered around
certain numbers?

>
> >> > 4) Cosmic radiation being supposedly uniform yet the matter that is
> >> > apparently dispensing this radiation is clustered into galaxies.
> >>
> >> Sigh. The CMBR dates to before galaxies formed. This argument is the
> >> equivalent to saying that my mother can't be 48 years old, since on a
> >> photo from 1977 she's twenty.
> >
> > Then why is this radiation still bouncing around the universe after 14
> > billion years? Surely, it should have dissipated, been absorbed, or
> > merely flown to the edge of this expanding universe, as you put it, by
> > now. But, this radiation is everywhere with no perceivable gaps. Are
> > you sure that you guys did your homework?
>
> What is certain Jim is that you did _not_ do your homework.
>
> The CMBR is emitted uniformly throughout all of space. Any radiation
> that makes it to the "edge" [sic] of the universe is equal to the radiation
> from the edge of the universe reaching here.

Wonderful, I guess. Has anyone pondered what happens to radiation to
reaches the edge of the universe?

>
> >> > 5) Light elements being so abundant? Why do some stars today not have
> >> > ANY helium in them?
> >>
> >> Point me out some such stars.
> >
> > Aren't there any stars that don't have a spectrum of emitted light
> > indicating Helium?
> >
> > http://www.answers.com/topic/supernova
> >
> > Type 1C
>
> Jim, what is your point?
>
> The universe is mostly hydrogen, followed by helium.

Nevermind.

>
> >> > > > Isotropy? The fact that all the universe appears similar? If so, why
> >> > > > do we find clusters of stars and black holes in some areas and
> >> > > > relatively none in other areas? Random chance?
> >> > >
> >> > > Again, as described earlier, if you look on a large enough scale, this
> >> > > is not the case, we see clusters of stars and galaxies and black holes
> >> > > equally dispersed. And it is on that large scale that the similarities
> >> > > are important.
> >> >
> >> > Now, we really don't see them that equally dispersed, do we? I mean,
> >> > if you zoom out the lens enough, anything can look uniform.
> >>
> >> That's not true. Think of, for instance, exponential functions.
> >
> > Fair enough. Point taken.
> >
> >>
> >> > > > General relativity? Why does the Big Bang theory necessitate general
> >> > > > relativity everywhere and at all times EXCEPT when theorizing how all
> >> > > > the cosmic matter and energy was stuffed onto a dime (singularity)?
> >> > >
> >> > > (Paragraph again broken for clarity)
> >> > >
> >> > > I have no idea what you mean by this. General Relativity is the basis
> >> > > of Big Bang cosmology and is what predicts how the universe was once
> >> > > much more dense.
> >> >
> >> > Does general relativity still apply to this singularity before it
> >> > exploded? If not, why not?
> >>
> >> No, as already said, GR breaks down in singularities. Now, what makes
> >> you think this is relevant to BB cosmology?
> >
> > Because, without a singularity to start everything, we're left with
> > alternative explanations that have the matter of this universe not
> > starting all in one piece.
>
> Sweet Zombie Jesus... This is even more absurd than your fixation with
> multiple common ancestors.
>
> > If all matter came from several locations
> > within this universe or even from multiple singularities (not an
> > impossibility with all the talk of multiverses going on), then all
> > expansion, nucleosynthesis, and cosmic radiation theories would have to
> > be seriously reworked.
>
> Word salad.

OK. Let me try to put this differently. If there was no singularity
or if this universe (the "shell" if you will) always existed, then what
is science's best guess about how the various celestial bodies got
going?

>
> >> > > > The very science that points to the Big Bang itself breaks down, by
> >> > > > scientists' own admission, when zero hour is considered.
> >> > >
> >> > > No, not even when zero second is consiered. Only when the most minute
> >> > > part of the zeroth second is considered. At that point, GR and Quantum
> >> > > Theory conflict. Shrug. So what? We have an accurate picture
> >> > > streatching back to the billionth part of the billionth part of the
> >> > > billionth part of the first second. Any theory that encompases that
> >> > > first fraction of a second is going to match the current predictions up
> >> > > until that point.
> >> >
> >> > So what? Are you kidding me? That's like driving for 14 billion years
> >> > along a road which is advertised to lead to your home, only to find the
> >> > road dead ends at an impassable chasm with your home in sight.
> >>
> >> And *your* argument is like saying that because of that chasm cutting
> >> off the last few meters, the rest of the road doesn't exist.
> >
> > The road, in this case, does NOT lead to home. It leads to a different
> > source.
> >
> >>
> >> > > Well that was a rather long post. Anyway, Id like to try to re-iterate
> >> > > a few points. 1) General Relativity predicts the Big Bang. 2) General
> >> > > Relativity is confirmed every day, not just in the lab, but by devices
> >> > > that are a part of our everyday life. 3) As AC indicated earlier, the
> >> > > age of the universe is developed from the same model as the BB.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the end, you do not appear to understand either the theory behind GR
> >> > > or BB cosmology, or the evidence for it. This is not really a cut on
> >> > > you, GR is a fairly difficult subject to approach. But what seems
> >> > > wrong is that when you see something that doesnt make sense to you,
> >> > > rather than recognise that you dont have a strong grasp on the theory
> >> > > and dig for further information to try to understand, you claim the
> >> > > theory isnt well supported and it shoulnt be believed.
> >> >
> >> > Dude, if you cannot explain a theory and show legitimate evidence
> >> > without obvious discrepancies in just a few paragraphs, then the theory
> >> > probably isn't accurate.
> >>
> >> Dude, if you don't understand a theory, you're objections to it are
> >> probably not worth the bytes they're written into.
> >>
> >> And what on earth makes you think GR and BB cosmology should be easy to
> >> understand?
> >
> > Hah! When it comes to explanations of God, the Bible, and possible
> > supernatural causes of events, skeptics are so quick to claim Ockham's
> > Razor and look elsewhere.
> >
> > Yet, what happens if I were to invoke Ockham's Razor with this
> > supernatural singularity which single-handedly created all matter,
> > time, AND space at the same time and which cannot be analyzed, tested,
> > and reproduced by science?
>
> Because of course it can and has been analyzed, tested and reproduced by
> science. You simply are too ignorant and, dare I say it, stupid to
> understand it.

A singularity has been reproduced under controlled conditions?!?

By the way, I hope that you're not a teacher with that kind of attitude
towards those of lesser education than you.

>
> > I am rebuked and told that I don't understand the theory, others are
> > smarter than I and I should just abide by what they say, and I am
> > willfully dismissive of the evidence which is just so obvious to
> > everyone else.
>
> Jim, you _don't_ understand the theory at even the most basic level.
>
> You don't have to accept what anyone has to say. Believe what you like,
> it's no skin of the universe's nose. But you _are_ in error. You are
> steadfastly repeating absurdities while people are trying to spoonfeed
> you knowledge. This knowledge isn't obvious, it concerns events which
> happen at very great or very small time intervals far outside the experience
> of most humans. But neither is it impossible to see, if one has the
> courage to look.
>
> > If you guys are trying to teach the world about the
> > universe, you're really not doing a good job...in my humble opinion.
>
> Perhaps it is the student who is not doing a good job.

Oh, of course. It's always the student's fault.

>
> Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont like the truth? Lie.
    ... "Most of the energy in the universe is not gravitationally attractive. ... We are probably the last generation to have been taught that gravity ... Visible matter comes nowhere close to closing the Universe. ... Recently dark matter has been observed directly using gravitational ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Hispanic loving Obama Removes ?Creator? From US Declaration Of Independence Speech
    ... The matter, and space inside is the SPONGE of our existence that got ... galaxies as their distance from us increases, that the universe is not ... It may or may not be accompanied by many SMBHs in galaxy centers ... I think that dark matter has more gravity than it gets credit ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Dont like the truth? Lie.
    ... A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy ... "Most of the energy in the universe is not gravitationally attractive. ... We are probably the last generation to have been taught that gravity ... Visible matter comes nowhere close to closing the Universe. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Is Doctor Who "realistic" sci-fi?
    ... The theory would of course have to be modified to account for a universe ... time as new matter then that should prevent it from causing a collapse. ... Or we could manufacture a solution like that in Logopolis where this ... Dark matter is based on the fact that galaxies need it to be present in order to rotate in the way they are observed. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Dark Matter Outer Shell - DMOS
    ... edge of our universe, and "missing" dark matter. ... outer shell in galaxies, galaxy clusters. ...
    (sci.astro)