32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 11:51 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.
     Evidence comes hardly after verification and validation of the proposed theory as such. If a theory is inconsistent what is the use of looking for any empirical evidence. If it is inconsistent, a theory cannot exist as a formal model ... on paper ... let alone to explain observations and to present itself as a true and correct representation of the physical world ... and as a truth of the last resort.
     Any theory should be also verified in terms of feasibility - do the transformations modeled by the math formulas have any consistent physical interpretation in the real world? When a theory is true and correct representation of the real world it will withstand any verification and validation tests and any interpretation of any evidence ... and could be even used as latmus for the verification and validation of some other theories,
     ... but when a theory is fake from the very assumptions, it becomes dead on arrival on the first verification & validation test ... and no evidence sewed up to it by any white threads could save it from evolutionary debunking with the time ... and from oblivion.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:01 am
@Herald,
Yet once again, no scientist claims that the standard model is perfect or complete. They would be the first to publish that fact. That's why they still have jobs. The point in collecting more and more data is to guide the theorists in the right direction.

All you have to do is produce something better. Let's see your competing hypothesis and the evidence + necessary inference you have to support it. Any day now.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:05 am
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:38 am
@FBM,
man o man, you really believe all that shite???

Quote:
Big Bang Never Happened

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Big-bang-never-happened.jpg/170px-Big-bang-never-happened.jpg

In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/



0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:41 am
Quote:
What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities[
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

Evidence for Plasma cosmology

Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances
Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/


See, **** off with the whole Biggie Bangie!!!!
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:46 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Yet once again, no scientist claims that the standard model is perfect or complete. They would be the first to publish that fact. That's why they still have jobs. The point in collecting more and more data is to guide the theorists in the right direction.

All you have to do is produce something better. Let's see your competing hypothesis and the evidence + necessary inference you have to support it. Any day now.


It seems you haven't studied the history and the philosophy of 'science'
collecting mor and more data??????????? You must be mad!!!
They are REJECTING more and more data!!!!

what a world this is.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:55 am
@Herald,
An example of how observation guides theory and how theory can also suggest places to make future observations, instead of just saying, "It's a miracle that we're not smart enough to understand!":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141118072741.htm

Quote:
Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang, say researchers
Date:
November 18, 2014
Source:
Imperial College London
Summary:
Physicists may now be able to explain why the universe did not collapse immediately after the Big Bang. Studies of the Higgs particle -- discovered at CERN in 2012 and responsible for giving mass to all particles -- have suggested that the production of Higgs particles during the accelerating expansion of the very early universe (inflation) should have led to instability and collapse.
...
In a new study in Physical Review Letters, the team describe how the spacetime curvature -- in effect, gravity -- provided the stability needed for the universe to survive expansion in that early period. The team investigated the interaction between the Higgs particles and gravity, taking into account how it would vary with energy.
They show that even a small interaction would have been enough to stabilise the universe against decay.
"The Standard Model of particle physics, which scientists use to explain elementary particles and their interactions, has so far not provided an answer to why the universe did not collapse following the Big Bang," explains Professor Arttu Rajantie, from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London.
"Our research investigates the last unknown parameter in the Standard Model -- the interaction between the Higgs particle and gravity. This parameter cannot be measured in particle accelerator experiments, but it has a big effect on the Higgs instability during inflation. Even a relatively small value is enough to explain the survival of the universe without any new physics!"
...


Again, if you've got something better, let's see it.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 01:39 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Yet once again, no scientist claims that the standard model is perfect or complete.
     It is inconsistent.
FBM wrote:
They would be the first to publish that fact.
     Do you know what is the percentage of the scientific discoveries that have never seen the light of day ... by various reasons?
FBM wrote:
The point in collecting more and more data is to guide the theorists in the right direction.
     Really! Are you developing some eccentric sense of humor, or what? What data are you going to collect - with the radio telescope only you have more data at present than you ever will be able to process and interpret ... by the used at present computational tools and analytic methods. To where are you going to collect more data? Take for example your favorite microwaves from the CMB - 'the oldest light in the universe'. If you haven't noticed all the contemporary TV channels are within that range ... hence, if we are not the first and still the best intelligent life form (ILF) in the Universe, and if there has been some other ILFs before us and if the CBM is really that old as you present it to be, we might be able some day to watch the TV shows of the aliens ... all you have to do is to find the TV/audio codecs and the carrier frequencies of the channels ... and the encoding techniques - 'seek and you will find'.
     Who knows, some day you may discover some methodological instructions by the primary intelligence of the universe ... to the assignees ... and to start understanding the question 'Are all people children of God', for example.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 01:41 am
@Herald,
Who knows, someday you might develop intellectual honesty and post your competing hypothesis and relevant evidence/necessary inference that supports it. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 03:44 am
How about angular momentum and the Biggie Bangie?
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 03:50 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Who knows, someday you might develop intellectual honesty and post your competing hypothesis and relevant evidence/necessary inference that supports it. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.
     I cannot understand what your question actually is: are Life and Intelligence stochastic processes or not - perhaps yes, they are stochastics, but hardly after they have appeared as realization in the real world ... hardly after that, and not before.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 03:54 am
@Herald,
I'm not sure how much more I can dumb the question/request down, but I'll try:

What explanation for the existence of the universe do you promote? Why should we accept it?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 04:17 am
You see, here's how science works. You observe something and ask, "What the hell?" Notice how their first response is to admit that they don't know. Then you share the observation data with everyone so that they can also investigate and come up with tentative answers, which they all share with each other. Then they investigate it even further and suggest modifications to make their answers better. This process continues indefinitely, and anyone is invited anytime to come up with a better answer. Which is why I'm asking you to provide your better explanation for the observed phenomena in this universe of ours.

Religions, however, start with an answer and threaten those who ask further questions. That is, as long as the religion has such political power. When it doesn't, its proponents lurk in the corners and whine and snipe.

A great example from the scientific approach in which something is observed and the scientists start by very openly going, "What the ****?": http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1438/

Quote:
Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years
VLT reveals alignments between supermassive black hole axes and large-scale structure

19 November 2014

New observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have revealed alignments over the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. A European research team has found that the rotation axes of the central supermassive black holes in a sample of quasars are parallel to each other over distances of billions of light-years. The team has also found that the rotation axes of these quasars tend to be aligned with the vast structures in the cosmic web in which they reside.

Quasars are galaxies with very active supermassive black holes at their centres. These black holes are surrounded by spinning discs of extremely hot material that is often spewed out in long jets along their axes of rotation. Quasars can shine more brightly than all the stars in the rest of their host galaxies put together.

A team led by Damien Hutsemékers from the University of Liège in Belgium used the FORS instrument on the VLT to study 93 quasars that were known to form huge groupings spread over billions of light-years, seen at a time when the Universe was about one third of its current age.

“The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other — despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years,” said Hutsemékers.

The team then went further and looked to see if the rotation axes were linked, not just to each other, but also to the structure of the Universe on large scales at that time.

When astronomers look at the distribution of galaxies on scales of billions of light-years they find that they are not evenly distributed. They form a cosmic web of filaments and clumps around huge voids where galaxies are scarce. This intriguing and beautiful arrangement of material is known as large-scale structure.

The new VLT results indicate that the rotation axes of the quasars tend to be parallel to the large-scale structures in which they find themselves. So, if the quasars are in a long filament then the spins of the central black holes will point along the filament. The researchers estimate that the probability that these alignments are simply the result of chance is less than 1%.
...


The scientist's approach to the mystery? Share the data! Keep observing! Invite others to investigate and propose answers! Keep refining the hypotheses to match the observation! It may never be perfect, but it can always be a little better!

The creationist's approach? Goddidit!!!one! It's a miracle!!!!1!uno Believe, you infidels!!!
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 04:22 am
@Quehoniaomath,
what if intial angular momentum is zero?
duhhhhh
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 04:53 am
@FBM,
Quote:
The scientist's approach to the mystery? Share the data! Keep observing! Invite others to investigate and propose answers! Keep refining the hypotheses to match the observation! It may never be perfect, but it can always be a little better!

The creationist's approach? Goddidit!!!one! It's a miracle!!!!1!uno Believe, you infidels!!!


Well, you just proved you are more stupid and dumber then I thought!
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 07:25 am
@FBM,
Swiss collider?

No offense to Switzerland but the LHC is a European project, funded and managed by the CERN. Switzerland pays for some 3% of it. And the LHC itself is for the most part located in France. How is that a Swiss collider?
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 09:34 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
What explanation for the existence of the universe do you promote?
      ... to study more seriously the assumptions in the first place and to leave it open for studies and investigation, because some fake explanation of the world may impede some other sustainable theories to break through.
FBM wrote:
Why should we accept it?
     The understanding of the world is very personal issue. Actually I don't care whether your personal system of beliefs (for it is nothing else) is sustainable or full of self-contradictions and conflicts. In terms of the Cosmology perhaps there is no problem, but with the time this may become a 'systematic error' of any representation.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 10:12 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
No offense to Switzerland but the LHC is a European project, funded and managed by the CERN. Switzerland pays for some 3% of it. And the LHC itself is for the most part located in France. How is that a Swiss collider?


Also a very very stupid thing. They will NEVER understand physics this way!
no way! Impossible!
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 12:22 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Which is why I'm asking you to provide your better explanation for the observed phenomena in this universe of ours.
     Perhaps this is not the first question to be asked: better explanations of the observations. The very first question most probably is: is it knowable ... and even if it is unknowable what will be the main benefits of trying to study it? ... and where is the Intelligence in all that - can you study the Universe without studying the life forms and the possibility of existence of other ILFs ?
FBM wrote:
Religions, however, start with an answer and threaten those who ask further questions.
     I don't know which religion you are talking about, anything that threatens you with whatsoever is actually sure sign of misuse - most probably this is not the original idea.
FBM wrote:
That is, as long as the religion has such political power.
     It is not the religion itself - it is the people, who are greedy for money and power, striving to misuse with it. If this would be some assuagement to you such people are able to misuse with everything - they can make a neutron bomb out of any math equation, they can make pandemic misunderstanding out of any innocent retro-virus, they are able to twist the standards into bylaws that will harass you to infinity - everything fallen into the hands of such people may become object of misuse. It is not the object itself that is dangerous - it is the way of thinking and the attitude to the world that are to be worrying, but this is another issue.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 07:15 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Swiss collider?

No offense to Switzerland but the LHC is a European project, funded and managed by the CERN. Switzerland pays for some 3% of it. And the LHC itself is for the most part located in France. How is that a Swiss collider?


I guess you'd have to ask the person who called it that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 02:57:07