When Did It Happen…?

Yes, Nathan, you are missing something. Something very big. (Most people miss it though).

I have had a similar, very long, albeit still interesting, conversation with another critic of YEC and something is generally true that applies here as well: they begin criticizing the YEC model based on a very advanced astronomy argument, not really understanding the implications of their argument for astronomy in general.

The “problem” of starlight travel is one that has been beaten to death. Is it a problem for YECers? Maybe (especially if you reject general relativity). But it is also a problem for EVERYbody else. Yes, including the big-bangers who believe in a 14-17 billion year old universe.

Why is that? Well, measurements suggest that the universe is over 120 Billion light years in diameter. Temperature differences due to quantum effects in the early universe do not allow the observed cosmic microwave background homogeneity if the Big Bang is really true.

It is perfectly normal, then, in astronomical models, to reverse engineer a number of assumptions. YECers suggest a white-hole event horizon as the source of explanatory relativistic effects. Big Bangers (using Alan Guth’s initial idea) use a “loop hole” in relativity that allows super-relativistic travel via expansion of a hyperdimensional space.

That said, it’s all interesting cosmology. I’m just really tired of people, who aren’t aware of the normal problems of all models, think it is special when they find something against YEC.

-Matthew

What other alternative do astronomers have when observing the data?

Intrepret the data using the Holy Bible as a baseline?

I love you Nathan. I think you are a wonderful person. Though I have never met you in person, or had the chance to speak in depth about “Theology” or “Biblical Studies”, I have to ask a question, so please don’t be offended…

In all of your posts, you seem to fall back on the same theme “Could God be wrong/Could God have made a mistake.”

So my question is:

Is “Grace” sufficient?

Does anything really matter outside of God and His will?

I will be the first to admit that “Questioning” is a good thing, that is how we learn. But to ever put the “Word Of God” to the question seems futile for the “Born Again Believer” The answer will alway come out the same.

“Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.”

Satan can manufacture all the science he wants, but how can it ever bear weight unless the revelation is “Special” or “Direct” from God?

Is it me? Am I wrong? Grace is sufficient enough for me, should I demand more? The apostle Paul got nothing more than the ability to “Bear the thorn in his side”, instead of its removal.

I feel kinda baffled as today’s society throws such heavy weight into the veracity of science.

Apostasy seems to be the “Flavor Du Jour” over the past 2.5 decades.

Methinks The King Is Coming soon…

Guy,

“”"Satan can manufacture all the science he wants, but how can it ever bear weight unless the revelation is “Special” or “Direct” from God?”"”

Statements like this are exactly what get Christians landed with the label “ignorant”/”anti-science” etc.

There is a proper place for special revelation, and a proper modus operandi for interpretation of raw data. This DOES NOT mean that science bears no weight just because it is gathered from the physical world.

-Matthew

Why is that? Well, measurements suggest that the universe is over 120 Billion light years in diameter. Temperature differences due to quantum effects in the early universe do not allow the observed cosmic microwave background homogeneity if the Big Bang is really true.

You mention Guth’s Inflation Theory, but you dismiss it as a loophole while conveniently ignoring the fact that it is backed up by rather solid experimental evidence. Remember how the Big Bang theory predicted the microwave background radiation? It predicted the temperature and, to a certain precision, the degree of homogeneity of that radiation. Well, Inflation Theory was able to predict the heterogeneity at a far higher precision. When the WMAP satellite was launched, with the ability to measure the homogeneity of the CMBR to a far higher precision than its predecessor, CoBE, that prediction was verified. Additional WMAP observations have confirmed several other major predictions of inflation.

And Humphries’ white hole cosmology was rather thoroughly refuted quite some time ago, and even if it weren’t, it is supported by zero experimental/observational evidence, in contrast to the substantial evidence in favor of cosmic inflation.

Statements like this are exactly what get Christians landed with the label “ignorant”/”anti-science” etc.

Satan is “The Prince of the Power of the Air”. To think that he has no input on science is just plain silly now. This is his world, he does have dominion over it. We can’t ignore that just so that man can glorify “himself” over “his” scientific discovery.

My main complaint about modern Christianity is the inability to ask questions we deem “irreverent” or “sac religious”.

I understand what you are doing here at your blog, and I know we are in a “series”, but it seems that “Christians & Science” want to leave God “out of the loop”, when it comes to seeking answers. Science is fine, but the coin has two sides, and asking God, and listening to His answer is what makes a “valid debate”, not taking the answer that science gives to the question, and then when it comes to God’s rebuttal, He must “first” prove Himself, before His answer can be given.

I am not trying to be an arse, I am just baffled that God’s word cannot be given at least the same weight in believability as science gets in society, and nowadays in areas of “Christianity”!

I know I must sound like some blind sheep who believes God only, and that nothing that man in his “Pseudo Omniscience” could ever match up to the God Breathed Word, is the cackle of a religious zealot…

But…

As I said before, I cannot ignore the ability of Satan to influence the unsaved scientist.

I dunno, maybe I am just an idiot. maybe I am living in faith by grace, and that blinds me to the…

Heck, I dunno how to explain it anymore. Maybe I am outta place in todays “modern world”… But I would rather stand at the Bema seat and accept entrance into Heaven, rather than stand at a podium and accept a Noble prize in science.

Cut me some slack, I am a Southern Baptist, and to me God is it, hands down. hahahaha…

I promise, I will stay out of all the science questions from now on and read only… Really, I will… (hopefully)

Satan is “The Prince of the Power of the Air”. To think that he has no input on science is just plain silly now. This is his world, he does have dominion over it. We can’t ignore that just so that man can glorify “himself” over “his” scientific discovery.

Don’t you see why I see this as a dangerous line of thought? Any evidence you don’t like, anything that might contradict your worldview, can be put down to Satan’s influence.

This mode of thought is actually relatively recent in origin. If you look at the philosophia naturalis of Medieval religious scholars such as Buridan or Ockham, you realize that, while they obviously believed in God, they thought that attributing phenomena to supernatural causes was ‘cheating’ the ‘game’ of science. ‘Yes, God made everything. So then what point is there to saying God is responsible for this? It doesn’t tell us anything new. Rather, we want to know how.’ That is of course not even a paraphrase of a quote, but it sums up their thinking. Simply calling any evidence one doesn’t like ‘the Devil’s work’ would have horrified most theologians up to a few centuries ago. It doesn’t actually answer any questions- it’s a cop-out.

Simply calling any evidence one doesn’t like ‘the Devil’s work’

It is not that I don’t “like” it.

It is that it is irrelevant.

I can say the same about science that is “complimentary” to my world view!

If tomorrow, some scientists came up with a semi tractor-trailer load of evidence that “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt” that God exists. I would still reject it!

Why?

Because it is of “man”…

It is not infallible, or innerrant, ergo it cannot be trusted. Man is human, and man makes mistakes easily, and often.

To the so-called “Christian”… It is not “How” the world and man came into being that is important. It is the “Why”.

The why of earth and man is to “Glorify God”. That is what is important to the “Family Of God”

As a parent, it is not important how my children are born, only that they are my children, and are dear to me. Such is the same with God.

Dag nab you George, now I went and broke my promise not to answer anymore! hahaha

You bring an interesting perspective, albeit different than mine, to the table.

I feel kinda bad though that I might appear as the old coot standing on the street corner with the sandwich board hanging on his shoulders that says “REPENT! The End Is Near!”

I think Guy has a real point that I think you might be missing. So let’s rephrase it.
The devil is a deceiver - no problems with that.
Quote from Nathan. “And when you start messing with constants (like the speed of light)”.
You see how can you say the speed of light is a constant. We cannot know that in space the speed of light is a constant. So I would say that Nathan has been deceived into believing something that is not true. A Simple deception but nevertheless a deception.
Now why do you say that the devil is not a scientist! The whole of the uk lives in cloud cuckoo land with regard to evolution, believing it to be true when there is no evidence for evolution. So yes I would question this latest ‘fact’ and assume that there is a very clever scientist and deceiver behind this one!
Rich

A Simple deception but nevertheless a deception.

Exactly! And that tactic has been going on since the dawn of time!

Lookie here…

Genesis 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

Here he goes right out of the gate… All that is needed is to change one word, to begin the doubt… To the woman, it appears as a simple question, but it leads her into a conversation. He is “chumming the waters” to prepare for the bait!

Here comes that tasty piece of bait attached to the hook!

Genesis 3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:”

Is Satan lying?? Well… Not really! She will suffer no physical death the moment she bites, and she doesn’t! Satan was right! No lightning bolt fell from Heaven when she tasted of it…

Like I said before, if evidence arised that PROVED the existence of God, I would probably run even farther and faster from it than I would evidence DISPROVING it.

It is not the questions that are bad themselves, it is the “doubt” that is the beginning of the mistake. The same today with science. Is science in itself bad? Nope. But the doubt it creates is! Here is a quote that I like in reference to the cause and effect….

“for doubt is the father of sin, and skepsis the mother of all transgression; and in this father and this mother, all our present knowledge has a common origin with sin”

George,

As usual, you have bought the “standard line” without actually putting it up to a little critical reasoning. This is very sad for me to see, as you are far too intelligent to let yourself be so easily taken.

A couple points in case:

“”"You mention Guth’s Inflation Theory, but you dismiss it as a loophole while conveniently ignoring the fact that it is backed up by rather solid experimental evidence. “”"

Essentially what you have done (well, not you, but whomever you are getting your info from) is reverse the history of the topic. The Big Bang did not predict essentially any of the phenomena you are discussing - it actually has blatantly contradicted many of them (MOST especially the CMB). The model is then re-manipulated, then claims that “we predicted it.”

I suggest you bring yourself up to speed on the history of the CMB and cosmological models before continuing such absurd assertions.

“”"And Humphries’ white hole cosmology was rather thoroughly refuted quite some time ago,”"”

Oh really? I’ve followed the followup in the technical papers and I have seen no such thing. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

“”"and even if it weren’t, it is supported by zero experimental/observational evidence, in contrast to the substantial evidence in favor of cosmic inflation.”"”

Again, assertions…. Humphrey’s model explains numerous observed phenomena, not least of which is the concentricity of the quantized spheres in redshift data. We of course do not expect a model worked on by one or two theoretical physicists in less than 2 decades to be fully adequate, but it is doing quite well.

Inflation theory is, of course, interesting - from the perspective of a mathematics person inflation in a non-euclidean 4d hyperspace is like a theoretical dream come true. It just begins to encroach on Occham’s razor as far as its explanatory difficulty goes.

-Matthew

“”"‘Yes, God made everything. So then what point is there to saying God is responsible for this? It doesn’t tell us anything new. Rather, we want to know how.’”"”

That is very interesting, and probably sums up what the proper Theistic view of science should be. The point is no longer just “God did it” - the point is the physical mechanism by which the phenomena was accomplished.

Sadly, many Christians seem to think that their is a sacrilegious intent to seeking to understand “how”. … Kind of reminds us of a *certain* recent interview with Richard Dawkins (’you can’t explain how the tides…’ - ‘yes, we can’ - NOT THE POINT).

-Matthew

Well, I don’t know much about microwaved 4d hyperspace, and I think Occham’s razor is dull, but this is great reading! (tongue in cheek…)

I think, at times, it’s too easy for us Christian “zealots” to swing the pendulum into gnosticism territory where all things physical are evil. Sure, the Devil can deceive a scientist. He can also deceive a preacher (shall we think of a few examples?). I look at science as yet another way to celebrate the complexity and power of my God.

It is NOT the foundation of my faith, but rather my faith in the validity of the truth in which I believe allows me to unhesitatingly embrace scientific evidence (and counter-evidence). My belief in eternity (and my place in it) gives patience with the things I do not understand, and joy in the things that are clear.

Matthew:

Essentially what you have done (well, not you, but whomever you are getting your info from) is reverse the history of the topic. The Big Bang did not predict essentially any of the phenomena you are discussing - it actually has blatantly contradicted many of them (MOST especially the CMB). The model is then re-manipulated, then claims that “we predicted it.”

Hah! Not likely. The BBT was proposed long before Penzias and Wilson discovered the CMBR. The history of the CMBR’s prediction is rather long and tangled. Many groups independently predicted it from the BBT with somewhat varying temperature values, however a value close to the actual result was agreed upon before the ‘Dicke’ radiometer at Bell Labs was even constructed. How could you say that the observation came before the prediction, when Wilkinson and Roll were already building their radiometer specifically to detect the CMBR before Penzias & Wilson unknowingly beat them to it? You say I should study the history? Perhaps you should look to the actual original sources rather than your YEC websites. I’ve read Gamow. I’ve read Penzias. I’ve seen Alan Guth speak in person.

Now you say that Humphries’ model explains a lot of observed phenomena. That’s all well and good. But unless it predicts those phenomena, and I’m not aware of any that it does, it can’t supplant a theory supported by a great deal of confirmed predictions and experimental evidence. In addition, white hole cosmology makes predictions that fly in the face of current evidence. If there is a massive gravitational field at the center of the universe and we are so near this field as to experience the required time dilation, the orbits of nearby stars around the galactic center should be affected. We do not observe this.

Inflation theory is, of course, interesting - from the perspective of a mathematics person inflation in a non-euclidean 4d hyperspace is like a theoretical dream come true. It just begins to encroach on Occham’s razor as far as its explanatory difficulty goes.

Sure- just like white hole cosmology. The difference is that one has made several confirmed predictions, and the other merely succesfully retrodicts certain observed phenomena.

All the Creationist explanations for the starlight problem are at best possible. Even provided they are error-free, none give any good independent reasons for accepting them. Explaining previously collected data is not good enough; a theory must tell us what data we should find in future. Of the ones that do so, we find these predictions are not confirmed. Despite what you may read on Creationist websites, not one of these theories are looked on favorably by experts on the subject.

Richard:

You see how can you say the speed of light is a constant. We cannot know that in space the speed of light is a constant. So I would say that Nathan has been deceived into believing something that is not true. A Simple deception but nevertheless a deception.

We actually have very good reasons for believing that the speed of light is constant. It’s not simply an assumption.

First- since the advent of accurate measurements for it, the value of c has not changed. Indeed, though the values reported by older experiments did differ, both from the current value and from each other, none of this difference was outside the margin of error for the individual experiments. If the value of c were changing at the required rate, we would have observed a significant change in the last few decades, when we have had reliable and accurate measurement methods. We have not.

Second, had the speed of light been so radically much higher in the past, even were this period of higher speed spread out through all 6,000 years of Earth’s existence up until the time we were first able to measure it, the intensity of the radiation bombarding the Earth would have melted the surface. No life could have survived, and we would have geological evidence of this period of extreme radiation.

Creationists are quick to assert that scientists are wrong to assume historical uniformity of constants like the speed of light or rates of radioactive decay, yet they are perfectly willing to turn around and use the fine-tuning argument, asserting that if fundamental constants were any different the universe would never have been able to support life. This smells of rank hypocrisy.

George,

You say I should study the history? Perhaps you should look to the actual original sources rather than your YEC websites. I’ve read Gamow. I’ve read Penzias. I’ve seen Alan Guth speak in person.

YEC websites? I did not suggest you read a YEC website. I suggest you open up a standard undergraduate physics text and read.

1st) When you open up the undergrad physics textbook, look under “problems with the big bang.” The first major problem you will see listed is the nature of the CMBR. It is popular to say “the BB predicted the CMBR”, but sorry, the CMBR was not supposed to look anything like it should have based on the BB prediction. So please, spare me the line about “predictions”. The only reason the BB even survives is because of the ad hoc addition of the inflationary period.

2nd) Now that the ad hoc “explanation” of inflation theory has been suggested, it does allow the existence of the CMBR as it is… This is the problem - many theories may allow the existence of the radiation. What this reduces to is the classic logical fallacy: affirmation of the consequent (the argument structure proceeds: If A then B. B. Therefore A. The consequent of course does not imply the antecedant though). In pre-modern “science” you might be able to get away with such nonsense, but the scientific method require reduction of alternative antecedants before you can actually affirm the causal linkage.

Now you say that Humphries’ model explains a lot of observed phenomena. That’s all well and good. But unless it predicts those phenomena,

I think we’ve already dealt with your illusion of “prediction.” Furthermore, you are still ignoring the fact that Humphrey’s geometry has done a much better job of explaining several phenomena that the BB hyperspace cannot even begin to grasp… And yet somehow many of the faithful believers in BB aren’t even aware of the nature of the BBT they believe in! …And I’m still waiting for the technical journal reference (creationist or mainstream) where Humphrey’s model was so ‘thoroughly refuted.’ (And don’t bother wasting my time with some online “refutation”).

and I’m not aware of any that it does, it can’t supplant a theory supported by a great deal of confirmed predictions and experimental evidence.

It verges on comical that you describe the BB with such laudatory effusion. For a theory that rests on the existence of invisible forces, hyperdimensional spacetime, and constant ad hoc revisions, I would have thought you would have been a bit more skeptical. Whatever - it’s your prerogative to be so faithfully attached to your beliefs…

Just don’t expect the rest of us to be ignorant enough to think it actually constitutes such a strong force of scientific deduction.

-Matthew

P.S. I might add that it is a bit strange that you continue referring to “experimental” support for the Big Bang. Cosmological work is never experimental - this seems to evidence another basic illusion you have of the field. Cosmology involves reconstructing historical events, and therefore runs feasibility calculations for various natural history paradigms - it never reaches the stage of “scientific/experimentally confirmed theory.”

“”"Matthew,
Forgive me if I’ve asked you this before, but do we have any justifiable reason to believe that c is not a constant, or at least relatively constant? Do we have accurate means by which to measure c?”"”

Kind of a big question to deal with in the comments section of a blog!

It’s kind of a crazy thing to even begin thinking about, but fun nevertheless… In relativity, we assume that the speed of light is “constant” - but I don’t think this means what most folks think it means. Einstein said that observers in all reference frames would record the same speed of light - this was stated axiomatically, and time was then taken to be variable. Thus, your time (but not the velocity of light) could be dependent on several variables in your reference frame.

What most folks mean by CDK theory is a variability of the speed of light *over time*, not between reference frames. That is, light may still be spatially constant, but not necessarily temporally constant.

If ‘c’ was temporally variable, it would make for some “interesting” side effects. Lots of things have been brought up, from the alteration of the fine structure constant (which some mainstream Big Bangers have even suggested may have occurred), to the energy equivalence of mass (due to the famous relationship E=mc^2, though it actually may not represent a problem because of the reciprocity of the rest mass).

Also, ‘c’ is supposedly related to field strength in quantum electrodynamics, which seems to hold some interesting possibilities for modeling quantum “particles.” I do not currently understand how this allows Einstein’s axiom of spatial constancy to stand, but it seems to be an integral possibility in QED nonetheless…

That said, I am not suggesting any of this holds the answer to the distant starlight travel, but some YECers and some Big Bangers (still struggling with the radiation horizon problem) have still been looking into it over the past few years.

-Matthew

As usual, you have bought the “standard line” without actually putting it up to a little critical reasoning. This is very sad for me to see, as you are far too intelligent to let yourself be so easily taken.

Or else you have bought the standard YEC line. Let’s see, shall we?

2nd) Now that the ad hoc “explanation” of inflation theory has been suggested, it does allow the existence of the CMBR as it is… This is the problem - many theories may allow the existence of the radiation.

Yes… but inflation is the only one that was able to predict the degree of universal isotropy that is now observed by WMAP. All theories are ‘ad-hoc’ until their consequences are confirmed. What’s your point?

I think we’ve already dealt with your illusion of “prediction.” Furthermore, you are still ignoring the fact that Humphrey’s geometry has done a much better job of explaining several phenomena that the BB hyperspace cannot even begin to grasp…

Which phenomena? Even if that’s true, explanatory power means little without experimental confirmation. Just look at string theory. And at least string theory hasn’t made falsified predictions.

For a theory that rests on the existence of invisible forces, hyperdimensional spacetime,

What we don’t know doesn’t change what we do know. I might as well point out that you should be more skeptical of a theory that requires a massive but unobserved white hole in the vicinity of the Earth and direct divine intervention- especially when that theory has no confirmation of any kind. Agreement with previous observations does not a good theory make.

and constant ad hoc revisions,

First, I wasn’t aware of ‘constant’ revisions, and second, so what? Every theory receives a great many revisions. So what? What matters is whether those revisions allow us to formulate additional, testable hypotheses. Inflation does, and it is tested. I’ve never argued that that means ‘proven’. But it does decidedly render it non ad-hoc. It seems you are willing to allow modification to theories in every other field, but when a theory contradicts your worldview, you want it thrown out wholesale at the slightest hint of a problem.

P.S. I might add that it is a bit strange that you continue referring to “experimental” support for the Big Bang. Cosmological work is never experimental - this seems to evidence another basic illusion you have of the field.

That will surely come as news to those who work in the field! It seems you have a ‘basic illusion’ that experiment means something that happens in a lab. Not so. And good grief, man, “Cosmology involves reconstructing historical events, and therefore runs feasibility calculations for various natural history paradigms”?! Where did you pull that from? “Feasibility calculations”?! That isn’t AT ALL how cosmology operates. Just like every other branch of science, it involves formulating theories based on previous observational evidence, formulating hypotheses based on mathematical/logical consequences of those theories, testing the hypotheses, and changing or discarding a theory if the hypothesis is falsified. This is called experimentation. How is this different from any other science? Why is it reasonable for theories to be modified in any branch of science except the ones that contradict your particular worldview? In what other branch of science would you demand that a theory be instantly thrown out rather than modified?

Kind of a big question to deal with in the comments section of a blog!

Indeed, but it seems you didn’t even try. Your post explained the difference between temporally and spacially variable values for c, but you didn’t at all answer Nathan’s question: is there any justifiable reason to believe that c is not a constant? As I explained in my last post, there isn’t, and there are in fact very good reasons to believe otherwise.

P.S.-

The history of the BBT’s acceptance in the cosmological community is rather different from the history of evolution’s acceptance among biologists. Evolution was accepted nearly universally and very quickly. Not so for the Big Bang. The community was nearly evenly split for several decades between adherents to the BBT, and adherents to the ‘Steady-State Cosmology’, lead by Fred Hoyle (who incidentally coined the term “Big Bang”: it was intended as a derisive nickname). In hindsight, the BBT should have been accepted long before it was; GR clearly demonstrated that the universe must either be expanding or contracting, and in order to account for this, steady-state theorists had to propose that the universe was constantly creating small amounts of new matter. The BBT was a lot to swallow, as well, but at least it didn’t require the violation of certain supposedly fundamental laws of physics.

The refusal to abandon the steady-state model derived largely from an aesthetic attraction many in the community felt for it; the hard sciences have always had more than their share of agnostics, deists, pantheists, and atheists. The BBT smacked too much of “Let there be light” for them.

The clincher was the discovery of the CMBR by Penzias and Wilson at Bell Labs. The BBT predicted a near-uniform radiation coming from all directions of the sky- the echo of the Bang itself. The majority of the steady-state adherents quickly gave up the ghost.

Where I’m going with all this is a question for Matthew:

If a handful of creationist scientists see why the CMBR doesn’t support the BBT, why didn’t half the cosmological community who were probably equally averse to the theory as the creationists?

George,

You are making this very difficult. You continue to defend a theory which you apparently do not know that much about, basically miswrite the history of BBT progression, are corrected, and then completely ignore the correction only to restate what you already said (incorrectly). You apparently set very low standards for yourself. How sad.

“”"Yes… but inflation is the only one that was able to predict the degree of universal isotropy that is now observed by WMAP. All theories are ‘ad-hoc’ until their consequences are confirmed. What’s your point?”"”

I’ve already said it multiple times: the BB did NOT predict CMB isotropy. CMB isotropy was a direct contradiction to BBT. But it was assumed true, then an explanation was derived (mechanisms of course are always assumed to exist regardless of how outrageous they seem) that could explain it.

“”"Which phenomena? “”"

You seem to claim that you read a lot. So re-read what has been said here. Then re-read the alleged refutations of Humphrey’s model (which, BTW, I am *still* waiting for you to provide references to - if you actually do have references to any additional ones then those that I have read and that have been answered already). Then re-read about quantization of redshift data, as well as the latest distribution data on the CMB. Then re-read some of the problems of a non-Euclidean treatment for gravitational fields, etc, etc.

“”"What we don’t know doesn’t change what we do know.”"”

George! You’re sounding more like the fundamentalist young earthers all the time! Glad to see you’re finally coming to terms with your faithful religious feelings…

“”"First, I wasn’t aware of ‘constant’ revisions…”"”

Then you obviously don’t actually know anything about the history of the BB, nor do you keep up with modern physics at all.

“”" It seems you are willing to allow modification to theories in every other field, but when a theory contradicts your worldview, you want it thrown out wholesale at the slightest hint of a problem.”"”

Slightest hint of a problem? You are incredibly sold on your ignorance, to an astonishing degree. I’m sure that sounds like the pompous, arrogant thing you’d expect out of me, but seriously - take a few real physics courses, and hopefully you’ll run across an honest professor or two who will set you straight on your incredible faith.

“”"That will surely come as news to those who work in the field! It seems you have a ‘basic illusion’ that experiment means something that happens in a lab. Not so. And good grief, man, “Cosmology involves reconstructing historical events, and therefore runs feasibility calculations for various natural history paradigms”?! Where did you pull that from? “Feasibility calculations”?! That isn’t AT ALL how cosmology operates. Just like every other branch of science, it involves formulating theories based on previous observational evidence, formulating hypotheses based on mathematical/logical consequences of those theories, testing the hypotheses, and changing or discarding a theory if the hypothesis is falsified. This is called experimentation.”"”

Where do I pull that from? Get this: it’s called the “scientific method.” It’s this amazing new thing that just started, oh, a few centuries back (there was this guy named Francis Bacon…)

Seriously. No self-respecting (sober) cosmologist would ever claim that their field is experimental (at least not in comparison to an experimental field of your choice). It isn’t. They do not run controlled, repeatable, variable sustained experiments, and therefore they do NOT participate in the scientific method.

“”"Where I’m going with all this is a question for Matthew:

If a handful of creationist scientists see why the CMBR doesn’t support the BBT, why didn’t half the cosmological community who were probably equally averse to the theory as the creationists?”"”

1st) It would be really nice if you would get your history right.

2nd) The creationists and the steady-staters are not remotely related in their responses for several reasons, the prime one of which is that the creationists still believe in a finite universe.

The steady staters wanted no initial singularity and no gravitational center.

-Matthew

Nathan,

George pointed out my brain lapse in answering your question (thanks), so I apologize about that.

I am not aware of very many reasons that would suggest the need for a different value for ‘c’.

Historical statistical data has been said to suggest this, but the statistical means are questionable (due to data collection methods).

Some big-bangers (i.e. Davies, et al) have even suggested that the fine structure constant shows a different value in stellar bodies whose light has traveled from far away, suggesting a temporally varying ‘C’, but again, even this would be a very minor change.

-Matthew

basically miswrite the history of BBT progression,

Uh… wow. Let’s calm down for a moment here, and find out exactly where we disagree. Do you deny that Wilkinson and Ross were building a radiometer to detect the CMBR specifically as a test of Dicke’s hypothesis (namely, that a CMBR would result from a BB) well before the Bell Labs radiometer finally discovered it? Do you deny that scientists such as George Gamow, Robert Dicke, Yakov Zeldovich, and many others, were all claiming that the CMBR resulted from the BBT years before the CMBR was actually discovered?
Perhaps we misunderstand each other. You have said several times that the Big Bang did not predict the CMBR at all. If you do not deny any of the above points, I don’t see how you can claim that. But perhaps you meant simply that the BBT predicted a CMBR with higher isotropy than was actually found. This much is true, and I never claimed otherwise. However, that is very far from claiming the BBT never predicted the CMBR at all.

And you’re still claiming that inflation is ad-hoc, yet you have yet to even deny that it has major confirmed predictions. Do you deny that inflation theory made very precise, quantitative predictions about the degree of homogeneity of the CMBR, to considerably greater precision than that of the contemporary data, and that new experiments like BOOMERanG and WMAP confirmed those predictions? If not, how can you call it ad-hoc?

And again, why doesn’t Humpherys’ white-hole affect the orbits of stars in our galaxy?

Seriously. No self-respecting (sober) cosmologist would ever claim that their field is experimental (at least not in comparison to an experimental field of your choice).

I suppose Alan Guth was drunk, then, when I saw him at the UMass- or else he has low self-esteem. Perhaps both, because as you said, no sober, self-respecting cosmologist would claim the field is experimental.
Seriously, I’ve mentioned in this discussion a number of cosmological experiments that are directly relevant. COBE, WMAP, BOOMERanG… I suppose ‘experiment’ is a misnomer when applied to these. How about particle-accelerator experiments, such as those testing various GUTs? Should these be called experiments at all? I think your definition of experiment would be found ridiculously narrow by any physicist.

I’d appreciate a source for your claim about cosmology running your ‘feasibility calculations’, because I’ve seen nothing remotely like that in anything I’ve ever read on the subject.

1st) It would be really nice if you would get your history right.

Mind pointing out where it was wrong?

2nd) The creationists and the steady-staters are not remotely related in their responses for several reasons, the prime one of which is that the creationists still believe in a finite universe.

That’s irrelevant to my point. Steady-staters would have about as much invested in discrediting the Big Bang; why didn’t even Fred Hoyle, who clung to the steady-state model until his death, point out that the Big Bang had never actually predicted the CMBR?

As for sources, let’s start with a Creationist journal: the CEN Technical Journal. Samuel R. Conner and Don N. Page, “Starlight and Time is the Big Bang”. Also see Oskar Klein, “Arguments Concerning Relativity and Cosmology” published in Science. Obviously this article does not directly address Humphreys’ model (indeed, it was written two decades before), but it does refute several of Humphreys claims before he even made them. The same goes for Stephen Weinberg’s Gravitation and Cosmology. No one in the relevant fields takes Humphreys seriously.

While we’re at it, I’m still waiting for sources to back up your claim that Dembski was well received among mathematicians.

I propose we move this discussion to physicsforums.com, where others with more knowledge than either of us might arbitrate.

“”"Do you deny that scientists such as George Gamow, Robert Dicke, Yakov Zeldovich, and many others, were all claiming that the CMBR resulted from the BBT years before the CMBR was actually discovered?”"”

They were not the first to predict it. The original predictions had nothing to do with the origin of the universe via the big bang from a cosmic singularity. The very nature of the CMBR that the BBT predicted blatantly contradicted the nature of the CMBR that they found.

It is quite fascinating to read back 4-6 decades BEFORE Gamow and Dicke to see (i.e. Eddington in 1926, suggesting 3.18 degrees Kelvin; Regener in 1933 saying 2.8 deg) predictions of cosmic radiation that proved to be accurate within fractions of a degree.

Curiously, you don’t really mention the fact that Gamow et al’s predictions were quite far off… First 5 deg, then 7 deg, then finally Gamow’s 1952 calculation of 50 degrees. Those poor, misled steady-staters and proto-big-bangers had it right long before him.

“”"Perhaps we misunderstand each other. You have said several times that the Big Bang did not predict the CMBR at all. “”"

The BB is one of several theories allowing some type of low frequency microwave radiation - I did not at all mean to imply that it did not. I was referring specifically to the nature of the CMBR.

“”"And you’re still claiming that inflation is ad-hoc…”

Are you even aware of what this homogeneity requires? Another ad-hoc ad on. “Big Bang needs CMB… But the CMB is too smooth, so we’ll add inflation… Only now we’ve destroyed our last hopes for galaxy/cluster formation, so we’ll add extra matter… Only now the extra matter destroys the BBT predictions about nucleosynthetic ratios, so we’ll call it non-baryonic… And since nobody has ever seen it, we’ll say it doesn’t interact with light.”"”

Radio mapping was the beginning of the final end for the BB.

“”"And again, why doesn’t Humpherys’ white-hole affect the orbits of stars in our galaxy?”"”

Are you suggesting there is a white hole still in existence?

“”"I suppose Alan Guth was drunk, then, when I saw him at the UMass- or else he has low self-esteem. Perhaps both, because as you said, no sober, self-respecting cosmologist would claim the field is experimental.”"”

Perhaps both indeed. In all seriousness, my initial statement is perfectly applicable - if Guth wants to hold that cosmology is an experimental field (by which I refer to scientific experimentation - not the pre-modern definition that you and he seem to have in mind), he has no clue what he is talking about - and I suggest you consult a more honest (or simply better informed) cosmologist. In actuality the majority of theoretical physicists usually don’t have a clue when it comes to philosophy/epistemology of science… this generalization could even be applied to most of the scientists in the department that I work in - they have just never read or been taught to think about it.

“”"Seriously, I’ve mentioned in this discussion a number of cosmological experiments that are directly relevant. COBE, WMAP, BOOMERanG… I suppose ‘experiment’ is a misnomer when applied to these. “”"

Yes, a terrible misnomer. COBE, WMAP, and boomerang are all observation projects - they are not experiments.

“”"How about particle-accelerator experiments, such as those testing various GUTs? Should these be called experiments at all? “”"

Particle-accelerator labs are observable, repeatable, and use sustained variable control: they are thus scientific experiments (I should know, I work under one of the top nuclear engineers from the former SCSC project). The high-energy projects neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of any past event though - including the Big Bang and the YEC model (both of which heavily employ such data).

“”"I think your definition of experiment would be found ridiculously narrow by any physicist.”"”

I don’t think so, but you might have a point. The scientific method is woefully restrictive for folks like you who want to promote their religious beliefs above all else.

“”"I’d appreciate a source for your claim about cosmology running your ‘feasibility calculations’, because I’ve seen nothing remotely like that in anything I’ve ever read on the subject.”"”

You also seem to have failed to grasp the most elementary distinctions between natural history and experimental science. Natural history is NOT = experimental science. Until you recognize this there is no further need for discussion.

“”"That’s irrelevant to my point. Steady-staters would have about as much invested in discrediting the Big Bang; why didn’t even Fred Hoyle, who clung to the steady-state model until his death…”"”

Do you actually read other scientists who aren’t BBers? Start with Eric Lerner, for example - vehemently opposed to anything perceived as “christianized science” ESPECIALLY the big bang - and you will start to understand just how badly you have been duped.

“”"As for sources, let’s start with a Creationist journal: the CEN Technical Journal. Samuel R. Conner and Don N. Page, “Starlight and Time is the Big Bang”.”"”

I am most surprised that you would cite the Conner and Page article!! Especially considering the fact that you are interested in defending the Big Bang, and the entire point of the C&P article is to show that Humphrey’s model is a “trivial variant of the standard Big Bang model.” I suppose now you have changed your mind from ‘Humphrey has been refuted’ to ‘Humphrey agrees with me!’

Of course if you were suggesting that Conner & Page actually refuted Humphreys, you have not grasped the basics of the issue. The entire C&P article utilizes the wrong metric, and fails to grasp even the most basic tenets of the Copernican principle - basically they don’t even understand the Big Bang. The level of their mistake regarding gravitational fields in a spherically symmetric radial distribution is so incredibly elementary that it would be embarrassing for an undergraduate like myself to make.

“”" Also see Oskar Klein, “Arguments Concerning Relativity and Cosmology” published in Science. Obviously this article does not directly address Humphreys’ model (indeed, it was written two decades before), but it does refute several of Humphreys claims before he even made them.”"”

Perhaps you can expand on which parts of the article stood out to you when reading it…

“”" The same goes for Stephen Weinberg’s Gravitation and Cosmology.”"”

Interestingly, the primary reason that Humphrey’s model remained so well intact after the Conner/Page “rebuttal” is that they did NOT attack the Klein metric… And one of the primary reasons for them doing so is very likely because Weinberg’s Gravitation and Cosmology actually walks you right through how to develop the Klein metric, which is the basis of the Humphrey model! (You might want to read through Ellis’ “Classical and Quantum Gravity” for more on metric restrictions if you do not understand why the initial RW metric is exclusive of some phenomena).

“”"No one in the relevant fields takes Humphreys seriously.”"”

As always, good job on continuing the hardcore faithfulness to your religious perceptions. One of these days, hopefully, you will come to a realization of reality - that your homotheistic deities are not quite what you have built them up to be.

I could care less if the ‘establishment’ wants to ignore Humphreys. The sociological structure you venerate happily allows that the wrong opinion will be likely to become stratified in the community at large. It doesn’t erase the presence of polarity shifts, quantized redshifts, etc, no matter how hard you (and they) continue to shut your eyes and plug your ears. When you are interested in reading some real, uncensored science, let us know…

(It kind of makes you wonder if nobody took relativists like Hellaby, Sumeruk and George Ellis seriously either when they demonstrated white hole timeless zones in the International Journal of Modern Physics {without even having to use the Klein metric}!).

“”"While we’re at it, I’m still waiting for sources to back up your claim that Dembski was well received among mathematicians.”"”

For starters, his book was published by Cambridge University Press in an academic series on probability and induction. Perhaps (unbeknown to me) the peer-review board, along with its NAS members and Nobel laureate, were all suddenly converted to fundi-christianity and that is why they recommended it to UC Irvine’s Skyrms to be published (who also got converted somehow, I suppose). Even nearly a half decade ago you could find his book a theme for math research in IJFS (Chiu, D.K.Y. and Lui, T.H. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis.)

There isn’t even a debate about it on the incredibly anti-ID Debski article on Wiki, …” it is true to say that The Design Inference has been been peer-reviewed for mathematics and philosophy,” - the point of departure lies the application. This is to be expected for any math model though, especially one that attacks so sacredly held beliefs as Darwinism. (I take it that it is in the application of the model as well that you differ).

“”"I propose we move this discussion to physicsforums.com, where others with more knowledge than either of us might arbitrate.”"”

I have no desire to do that, thank you. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest you do some more reading - and maybe get outside the tiny little box that you are currently in, where your ignorance has been so heavily capitalized upon.

Cheers,
Matthew

It is quite fascinating to read back 4-6 decades BEFORE Gamow and Dicke to see (i.e. Eddington in 1926, suggesting 3.18 degrees Kelvin; Regener in 1933 saying 2.8 deg) predictions of cosmic radiation that proved to be accurate within fractions of a degree.

Eddington and Regener did not in fact predict what you think they did. Read this: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

The BB is one of several theories allowing some type of low frequency microwave radiation - I did not at all mean to imply that it did not.

Which other of these several theories were around before this radiation’s discovery?

Are you even aware of what this homogeneity requires? Another ad-hoc ad on. “Big Bang needs CMB… But the CMB is too smooth, so we’ll add inflation… Only now we’ve destroyed our last hopes for galaxy/cluster formation, so we’ll add extra matter… Only now the extra matter destroys the BBT predictions about nucleosynthetic ratios, so we’ll call it non-baryonic… And since nobody has ever seen it, we’ll say it doesn’t interact with light.”””

First, dark matter was initially proposed by Zwicky in the ’30s, long before the inflation model. It is not at all an addition to inflation, ad-hoc or otherwise. Second, dark matter has independent empirical confirmation. Read this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
So it isn’t ad-hoc anymore, either. Though I’m not a scientist myself, I was actually somewhat skeptical of dark matter. It did seem too much to invent a new type of invisible matter that accounted for the vast majority of the universe’s mass just to satisfy a theory. However, it is now, for all intents and purposes, an observed phenomenon.

Are you suggesting there is a white hole still in existence?

I don’t know. Does Humphreys suggest that? If not, how long ago does he suggest it disappeared? Of course a white hole’s lifespan is limited, but there is a certain minimum timeframe in which it would have had to have been around to turn billions of years elsewhere into thousands here.

and I suggest you consult a more honest (or simply better informed) cosmologist.

Do you take yourself seriously? Guth is one of the most respected people in his field.

Yes, a terrible misnomer. COBE, WMAP, and boomerang are all observation projects - they are not experiments.

What exactly is the difference between an experiment and an ‘observation project’? Obviously, observation for its own sake isn’t experiment. But why isn’t it experiment when it is testing a hypothesis? What’s the difference? An experiment is repeatable, yes. So? We could repeat any of those observations. An experiment is controlled. Which variables were not controlled for? Could you define experiment for me, laying out exactly which requirements in that definition exclude these observations?

I don’t think so, but you might have a point. The scientific method is woefully restrictive for folks like you who want to promote their religious beliefs above all else.

Now that’s just plain infantile.

You also seem to have failed to grasp the most elementary distinctions between natural history and experimental science. Natural history is NOT = experimental science. Until you recognize this there is no further need for discussion.

Yeah, it is, because the scientific method requires us to assume that events in the past were governed by the same basic physical laws as events today, and causality requires us to assume that events in the past have effects in the present. We can experiment on those effects, and thus the past is accessible to experimental science. You seem to think we must have a phenomenon right in front of us to study it experimentally. Your criterion would rule out not only cosmology and evolutionary biology, but much of medicine, psychology, astronomy, and a host of other fields.

Do you actually read other scientists who aren’t BBers? Start with Eric Lerner, for example - vehemently opposed to anything perceived as “christianized science” ESPECIALLY the big bang - and you will start to understand just how badly you have been duped.

So the naughty atheists lied about the Big Bang, but wait… the BB is ‘Christianized science’… I’m smelling a contradiction here…

As always, good job on continuing the hardcore faithfulness to your religious perceptions. One of these days, hopefully, you will come to a realization of reality - that your homotheistic deities are not quite what you have built them up to be.

Yeah, that’s real useful.

There isn’t even a debate about it on the incredibly anti-ID Debski article on Wiki, …” it is true to say that The Design Inference has been been peer-reviewed for mathematics and philosophy,” - the point of departure lies the application. This is to be expected for any math model though, especially one that attacks so sacredly held beliefs as Darwinism. (I take it that it is in the application of the model as well that you differ).

Exactly. There’s no problem in Dembski’s math (as far as I can see at least, others disagree). Dembski thinks the reason The Design Inference was well-received but his later publications were not has to do with it coming out that he’s an IDer- but I think it has more to do with the fact that The Design Inference didn’t talk about applying CSI to co-evolution. It’s internally consistent, just improperly applied. But we can discuss that in the other thread, where it’s more appropriate.
Though, is the Wiki on Dembski really anti-ID? Nate said he thought it was fairly unbiased.

and maybe get outside the tiny little box that you are currently in, where your ignorance has been so heavily capitalized upon.

Yep, still real useful. You get a kick out of pushing people’s buttons, don’t you?

“”"Eddington and Regener did not in fact predict what you think they did.”"”

You can’t quite have it both ways… The proto-big-bangers and steady-staters accurately predicted the temperature, but to some extend missed the wavelength in which it would fall (although Born did note in ‘54 that Finlay-Freundlich’s photon-photon model would fall in the radio frequency range) - but Gamow grossly missed the temperature…

“”"First, dark matter was initially proposed by Zwicky in the ’30s, long before the inflation model.”"”

This method for “discovering” the dark matter was demonstrated to allow major sources of error at least 16 years ago… But dark matter proponents still seem to be using a very similar method to this day (I am not entirely convinced that the method is wrong though).

“”"It is not at all an addition to inflation, ad-hoc or otherwise.”"”

Inflational homogeneity cannot explain large-scale structure formation, and the theory would completely flop if dark matter were abandoned. The two are inherently linked, because without DM the BB theorists would be reduced to ‘explaining everything in the Universe - except for everything in the Universe!’ (I believe Hawking actually admits that this is where the Big Bang currently stands - unable to actually explain any of the structure of anything major in the Universe… a sad reflection on cosmology, to say the least).

“”" Second, dark matter has independent empirical confirmation. Read this paper: “”"

Gravitational lensing is a very interesting topic… I still do not think proposing non-baryonic matter is the answer though, but that is largely irrelevant to this conversation.

“”"However, it is now, for all intents and purposes, an observed phenomenon.”"”

It still is never observed in lab experiments, and it may actually be hiding a better understanding of the way gravity works… That is why it is dangerous to suggest some new particle exists every time we see curious field maps (the causal difference between a “new understanding of gravity” and the existence of non-baryonic matter may leave the question useless anyway in the end).

“”"I don’t know. Does Humphreys suggest that? “”"

I thought maybe you had actually read his book.

“”"Do you take yourself seriously? Guth is one of the most respected people in his field.”"”

So that is why you believe he is now an authority on epistemology?

Of course Guth is “respected” in his field. But physicists are so specialized in their fields now that it is ridiculous to even expect a particle physicist to understand a plasma physicist, let alone a philosopher. Einstein is perhaps the most respected scientist even to this day, and he is still the but of jokes in the philosophy camp for thinking his authority extended thus far.

“”"What exactly is the difference between an experiment and an ‘observation project’? Obviously, observation for its own sake isn’t experiment. But why isn’t it experiment when it is testing a hypothesis? What’s the difference?”"”

Read an article on how scientific experimentalism works.

“”"So? We could repeat any of those observations.”"”

Wrong. You can only re-observe the remnants of the same phenomena - you cannot repeat the phenomena, and therefore cannot build your inductive basis.

“”"An experiment is controlled. Which variables were not controlled for?”"”

All of them. The only way you can causally link phenomena ‘A’ to phenomena ‘B’ is to demonstrate that ‘A’ ONLY occurs in the presences of ‘B’ and NEVER occurs in the absence of ‘B’ (or some class ‘B’ of causally linked phenomena)…

This is glaringly absent from cosmology, as it is for all natural history reconstructions.

“”"Now that’s just plain infantile.”"”

Does the scientific method get you that upset? Again, demonstrating your religious faithfulness.

“”"You seem to think we must have a phenomenon right in front of us to study it experimentally. “”"

Strange concept isn’t it?

“”"Your criterion would rule out not only cosmology and evolutionary biology, but much of medicine, psychology, astronomy, and a host of other fields.”"”

You continue to mistakenly allude to them as my criteria… I do wish I could take credit, but the scientific method has been around much longer than I.

“”"So the naughty atheists lied about the Big Bang, but wait… the BB is ‘Christianized science’… I’m smelling a contradiction here…”"”

I could care less if the “naughty atheists” contradict each other. The point is that at least each recognizes that the other is philosophically/religiously biased. I am just hoping you will come to that realization.

“”"Yep, still real useful. You get a kick out of pushing people’s buttons, don’t you?”"”

I apologize that my tone is overly quizzical sometimes… I do not want you to come away feeling insulted, but rather to just get a clue how easily you let yourself get duped. I passionately love intellectual people, and it is very painful for me to see these people allow someone else the reigns to their otherwise extensive faculties - and yet seem to have no idea what is even going on. You just seem to exemplify such a person.

Cheers-
Matthew