Black Holes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2011, 08:58 AM
RE: Black Holes
(26-06-2011 09:36 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(26-06-2011 07:45 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  A "Thinking" atheist needs to use some of that thinking when someone is b.s.ing you. It doesn't matter if they try to dress it up as "scientific" or not. You need to use rational thinking! There was, nor is no deity: there was no singularity.

We can observe through redshift that the universe is expanding, so we can logically speculate that following the time line of the universe in back to its origin, we could expect to see it collapse into a single point.

We can observe through cosmic microwave background radiation that in the early stages of the universe, it was dense and consisted of extremely hot hydrogen plasma, which cooled the more the universe expanded.

Using only these 2 observations, it would be reasonable to conclude that the universe was at one point a single point of intense heat and dense matter. And that's without even considering general relativity or string theory.


And not a single method of the various ways we can observe the universe suggests a deity. There is zero observable evidence.


So which theory is the "unthinking" one again?

What causes redshift (the doppler effect) on light and other electromagnetic waves? True, if something is going away from you it is redshifted, but it is also true that if the electromagnetic waves (including light) come under the influence of gravity they are redshifted due to space time warp. Think of it. A photon leaving a star is redshifted from the gravity of it's own galaxy. Once it leaves that galaxy it is being redshifted for millions and billions of years due to the gravitational attraction of the area around the Great Attractor. Then when it reaches our galaxy it is red shifted by any stars or planets it passes not to mention the space time warp of the Milky Way itself. There has never been, nor ever could be a photon that has left any other galaxy that has reached earth without being redshifted by gravity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2011, 10:11 AM
RE: Black Holes
I'd just like to point out, contrary to popular belief the big bang isn't the origin of the universe, its a predictive model of everything immediately after.

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2011, 04:56 PM
RE: Black Holes
@capt

You don't NEED redshift to prove the universe is expanding, we just have no reason NOT to use it in Hubble's Law. I think you're overestimating the effect of gravity and general relativity. But if for some reason, you are skeptical and resistant to scientific theories (religious requirement), you can use the Parallax method, the fade rate of a supernova, Cepheid variables ("candles"), or one or several of the 8 or so methods in conjunction to support and verify your calculations. I say again, it can be observed that the universe is expanding.

And @ UTM

I refer to it as the origin but I know that it's technically just the cause that set the universe in motion. As far as "how long the state of singularity was maintained" or "what was before singularity," I'm not familiar with the theories.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2011, 08:48 PM
 
RE: Black Holes
Seriously, if you have a problem with the BBT please read it in its entirety, and quote to us the exact parts that are wrong. Find us the errors in this theory only AFTER you actually know it. You have done nothing more then speculate about possible mistakes without trying to confirm them.
Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2011, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2011 01:35 PM by captgalectro.)
RE: Black Holes
(27-06-2011 04:56 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  @capt

You don't NEED redshift to prove the universe is expanding, we just have no reason NOT to use it in Hubble's Law. I think you're overestimating the effect of gravity and general relativity. But if for some reason, you are skeptical and resistant to scientific theories (religious requirement), you can use the Parallax method, the fade rate of a supernova, Cepheid variables ("candles"), or one or several of the 8 or so methods in conjunction to support and verify your calculations. I say again, it can be observed that the universe is expanding.
IAnd I say again that the universe is not expanding. All those other methods that you mention rely on electromagnetic waves, and all electromagnetic waves are warped by gravity. If you believe in the big bang then you are forced into believing the nonsense about dark energy because all galaxies are going faster and faster to infinity and beyond! And energy has to have a source; so what's dark energies source?? The giant dark energy magnet? And @ UTM

I refer to it as the origin but I know that it's technically just the cause that set the universe in motion. As far as "how long the state of singularity was maintained" or "what was before singularity," I'm not familiar with the theories.


(27-06-2011 08:48 PM)Atheist Troll Wrote:  Seriously, if you have a problem with the BBT please read it in its entirety, and quote to us the exact parts that are wrong. Find us the errors in this theory only AFTER you actually know it. You have done nothing more then speculate about possible mistakes without trying to confirm them.

Seriously I have a big problem with the BBT as you should have. I have read enough crap about it and to quote the exact parts that are wrong with it 1. A singularity came out of nowhere. 2. The singularity decided to expand for some reason. 3. redshift is caused by the galaxies flying away from each other. 4. Most matter is dark, just can't find any here on the blue planet. 5. Most energy is dark. Come on, where is the rational thinking? Where do you say "enough is enough".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2011, 02:41 PM
RE: Black Holes
(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  Where do you say "enough is enough".
At the moment someone says we need to worship it

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Observer's post
28-06-2011, 03:56 PM
RE: Black Holes
(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  1. A singularity came out of nowhere.

BBT doesn't say anything about where it came from, its not even an origin theory, its a predictive model of what happened after the universe "began"

(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  2. The singularity decided to expand for some reason.

You're putting intent in an inanimate object.
So because we don't understand the force behind it yet, its automatically wrong?


(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  3. redshift is caused by the galaxies flying away from each other.

Correct, the further light is the more it redshifts. So what?


(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  4. Most matter is dark, just can't find any here on the blue planet.

Where does it say anywhere in the big bang theory that matter is mostly anti-matter? and yea, we find it here on earth, we use positrons in most radiation based medical equipment.

(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  5. Most energy is dark.

Wheres the flaw? Honestly even if quantum physicists were to publicly say right now "most energy in the universe is dark energy" so what? what is your argument?


Here is the problem I find with people arguing against these kinds of things, there are real professionals who spend most of their lives finding little bits of information, and over generations we build a predictive model that best describes all the information. Then common folk read it and think "I don't understand it. Theres no way it could be true if I don't."

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like UnderTheMicroscope's post
28-06-2011, 04:45 PM
RE: Black Holes
(28-06-2011 03:56 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  1. A singularity came out of nowhere.

BBT doesn't say anything about where it came from, its not even an origin theory, its a predictive model of what happened after the universe "began"

(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  2. The singularity decided to expand for some reason.

You're putting intent in an inanimate object.
So because we don't understand the force behind it yet, its automatically wrong?


(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  3. redshift is caused by the galaxies flying away from each other.

Correct, the further light is the more it redshifts. So what?


(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  4. Most matter is dark, just can't find any here on the blue planet.

Where does it say anywhere in the big bang theory that matter is mostly anti-matter? and yea, we find it here on earth, we use positrons in most radiation based medical equipment.

(28-06-2011 01:23 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  5. Most energy is dark.

Wheres the flaw? Honestly even if quantum physicists were to publicly say right now "most energy in the universe is dark energy" so what? what is your argument?


Here is the problem I find with people arguing against these kinds of things, there are real professionals who spend most of their lives finding little bits of information, and over generations we build a predictive model that best describes all the information. Then common folk read it and think "I don't understand it. Theres no way it could be true if I don't."

Just to let you know; anti-matter is not dark matter. Dark matter supposedly mostly consists of "wimps". They are digging down in copper mines to try and find traces of it; but after years of looking, so far not a trace. Well, maybe next year, after all it is most matter.
Being one of the common folk it's not that I don't understand the bbt, it's that I don't understand how any one could believe the nonsense. But I confess I have the same problem with religous people.
What I do believe is gravity warps space-time, and the galaxies like the planets and stars are in orbit. With those two statements all the nonsense of the big bang, dark matter, and dark energy can be flushed down the toilet where they belong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2011, 10:44 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2011 11:16 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: Black Holes
I still fail to see how space-time warps and the existence of orbit (are you suggesting that planets/stars/moons can't be moving a direction AND orbiting each other at the same time?) have anything to do with the BB, dark matter, or dark energy. Or why you assume the absence of dark matter on earth indicates a nonexistence of dark matter in space. The element components of earth's atmosphere are vastly different than those in outer space thanks to the gravity/atmosphere "containment system" we have.

That's like a society that floats through outer space and one of them suggests that one of the rocks labeled Earth is made up of 1/5th of a chemical called Oxygen. So they set about trying to find this oxygen element and since oxygen only makes up about 1% of the universe's element composition, they would struggle to find anything. And they might first discover the toxic form, O before they discover O2 and conclude that this theory is false. My point is that just because scientists haven't found dark matter here on earth is no reason to dismiss it so readily. They've only been looking for it on earth for 6 years, with other observational evidence to support it.


And if the light from stars were as affected as you believe by gravity, then there would be no conclusion. The data from the measurements would be chaotic and inconsistent instead of incrementally increasing in distance. You would get a distance, then perhaps a large mass passed between us and the star and the distance would appear to have grown considerably (time "slowed down" by bend), but then the mass would continue on its way and we would get a distance slightly larger than our original number. I doubt that if a scientist measured a star's distance to be 1.5 light years, then 3.8, then 1.7 light years, that he would reach a conclusion.



My main question is; without religion telling you to, WHY question science? I'm not saying scientists are infallible, but science has always strived to discover the truths of our reality and existence, regardless of what anyone else thinks (What do you mean, earth isn't the center of the universe? How silly, of course it is). And when science recognizes they made a mistake, they are the first ones to point it out and correct themselves. Science has never tried to cover up mistakes or knowingly deceive humanity.

On the other hand, religion is built on a basis of lies. They refuse to correct themselves, claiming that WE are the ones who are wrong in our interpretations of God, with our limited understanding. And when new evidence contradicts their position, they weave a new web of lies to accommodate (What? Dinosaur bones? Creatures that lived long before 6,000 years? No no, eh, dinosaurs lived with humans... like the Flintstones... and were ALSO on Noah's Ark... in egg form. There. Problem solved.).



And finally, philosophically dark matter makes sense. You can't have everything IS. There has to be ISN'T in between the IS. And since, IS is becoming more and more distanced in the expansion of the universe, the ISN'T is forced to expand by nature.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2011, 07:18 AM
RE: Black Holes
(28-06-2011 10:44 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I still fail to see how space-time warps and the existence of orbit (are you suggesting that planets/stars/moons can't be moving a direction AND orbiting each other at the same time?) have anything to do with the BB, dark matter, or dark energy. Or why you assume the absence of dark matter on earth indicates a nonexistence of dark matter in space. The element components of earth's atmosphere are vastly different than those in outer space thanks to the gravity/atmosphere "containment system" we have.

That's like a society that floats through outer space and one of them suggests that one of the rocks labeled Earth is made up of 1/5th of a chemical called Oxygen. So they set about trying to find this oxygen element and since oxygen only makes up about 1% of the universe's element composition, they would struggle to find anything. And they might first discover the toxic form, O before they discover O2 and conclude that this theory is false. My point is that just because scientists haven't found dark matter here on earth is no reason to dismiss it so readily. They've only been looking for it on earth for 6 years, with other observational evidence to support it.


And if the light from stars were as affected as you believe by gravity, then there would be no conclusion. The data from the measurements would be chaotic and inconsistent instead of incrementally increasing in distance. You would get a distance, then perhaps a large mass passed between us and the star and the distance would appear to have grown considerably (time "slowed down" by bend), but then the mass would continue on its way and we would get a distance slightly larger than our original number. I doubt that if a scientist measured a star's distance to be 1.5 light years, then 3.8, then 1.7 light years, that he would reach a conclusion.



My main question is; without religion telling you to, WHY question science? I'm not saying scientists are infallible, but science has always strived to discover the truths of our reality and existence, regardless of what anyone else thinks (What do you mean, earth isn't the center of the universe? How silly, of course it is). And when science recognizes they made a mistake, they are the first ones to point it out and correct themselves. Science has never tried to cover up mistakes or knowingly deceive humanity.

On the other hand, religion is built on a basis of lies. They refuse to correct themselves, claiming that WE are the ones who are wrong in our interpretations of God, with our limited understanding. And when new evidence contradicts their position, they weave a new web of lies to accommodate (What? Dinosaur bones? Creatures that lived long before 6,000 years? No no, eh, dinosaurs lived with humans... like the Flintstones... and were ALSO on Noah's Ark... in egg form. There. Problem solved.).



And finally, philosophically dark matter makes sense. You can't have everything IS. There has to be ISN'T in between the IS. And since, IS is becoming more and more distanced in the expansion of the universe, the ISN'T is forced to expand by nature.

You are on the right track when you wrote about there being no conclusions if the electromagnetic waves (including light) are bent coming to earth. And all light coming to earth has been bent. To make any kind of factual statement about a galaxy you would logically have to know how much that light has been bent. But there is no way of knowing. We can know nothing about any galaxy: where it is or where it had been, its shape, or its distance. All the rulers have been bent and we don't know by how much. http://galaxyspin.thecomicseries.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: