The Big Bang never happened ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-01-2013, 01:57 PM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2013 02:04 PM by Nappa.)
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 08:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-01-2013 07:10 PM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  I hesitated about putting this in the Science thread, but in the end I decided that would have been too provocative !

Can anyone with more knowledge of the subject adequately refute what this guy is claiming ?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

I'm not talking about YEC here. He seems to raise some valid discussion points based on the science, although I admit to being unqualified to judge their merits.


The problem with this is that "quantized red shift" is non-existent. His argument is based on false premise.
Sir can you cite your sources before you just say something about it not being existent? Sir you're trying to prove that it doesn't exist sir. I'm going to need a lot more than your word on that.

Me I tried questioning other atheists about the big bang. And it was like going into a church on a sunday and saying god doesn't exist. shit you not.

Of course I've always held the big bang as a mere possibility, though right now it's still the most evidence based theory out there. I'm a personal rooter for a more static universe. I'll give the article a read. About the red shift stuff. Not about aristotle or who ever the hell else they decided to put in there to try and stoke the flow of doubt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 01:40 PM)cufflink Wrote:  If the vast majority of scientists say A, but some maverick says B, then it's up to the maverick to prove his point to the satisfaction of the majority of the A guys. This has happened a number of times in the history of science. For example, Einstein overturned the Newtonian conception of space and time and changed how we look at gravitation. He convinced the establishment by getting his results published in professional, peer-reviewed journals, where the pros could weigh the evidence. And his new theories made empirically verifiable predictions that turned out to be correct. As a result, the vast majority of scientists changed their minds.

The Big Bang Theory is accepted as fact by the vast majority of working astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists. If the contrary guy says it never happened, let him write up a paper cogent enough to pass muster with the editorial board of a recognized scientific journal. Once the article is published, the scientific community will examine the evidence. If the majority, or even a significant minority, conclude he's right, or that he's come up with a legitimate challenge to the accepted theory that merits further examination, I'm willing to suspend my belief in the Big Bang. Otherwise he's just another wannabe scientist with specious arguments that sound valid to non-experts.

That's how science works. And it works well. We can't all be experts in everything; for most things we need to rely on the expertise of professionals. If the majority of professionals with the background and knowledge to know what they're talking about say one thing, that's the default which we non-professionals need to accept unless there's good reason not to. If you think that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, or that man-made global warming doesn't exist, or that the Big Bang never happened, then first convince the professionals you're right. If they buy it, I will too. Otherwise, you have nothing of interest to say to an educated audience.
Well I'm going to go ahead and assume that I just read your last sentence wrong, otherwise I might feel compelled to point out that arrogant asshole is not a highly valued charcter trait. No

Other than that small point, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of a discussion forum, whereby one person proposes a subject for discussion, then others go ahead and discuss the subject with him/her. What I asked was whether anyone with the necessary knowledge could adequately refute the position described in the link. I am not personally defending that position, I'm trying to understand all sides of the question.

Chas answered on-subject (in his terse & deadly style), as did Kim.
All you did was give a big "hooray for Science" without contributing to the discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 02:30 PM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  
(13-01-2013 01:40 PM)cufflink Wrote:  If the vast majority of scientists say A, but some maverick says B, then it's up to the maverick to prove his point to the satisfaction of the majority of the A guys. This has happened a number of times in the history of science. For example, Einstein overturned the Newtonian conception of space and time and changed how we look at gravitation. He convinced the establishment by getting his results published in professional, peer-reviewed journals, where the pros could weigh the evidence. And his new theories made empirically verifiable predictions that turned out to be correct. As a result, the vast majority of scientists changed their minds.

The Big Bang Theory is accepted as fact by the vast majority of working astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists. If the contrary guy says it never happened, let him write up a paper cogent enough to pass muster with the editorial board of a recognized scientific journal. Once the article is published, the scientific community will examine the evidence. If the majority, or even a significant minority, conclude he's right, or that he's come up with a legitimate challenge to the accepted theory that merits further examination, I'm willing to suspend my belief in the Big Bang. Otherwise he's just another wannabe scientist with specious arguments that sound valid to non-experts.

That's how science works. And it works well. We can't all be experts in everything; for most things we need to rely on the expertise of professionals. If the majority of professionals with the background and knowledge to know what they're talking about say one thing, that's the default which we non-professionals need to accept unless there's good reason not to. If you think that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, or that man-made global warming doesn't exist, or that the Big Bang never happened, then first convince the professionals you're right. If they buy it, I will too. Otherwise, you have nothing of interest to say to an educated audience.
Well I'm going to go ahead and assume that I just read your last sentence wrong, otherwise I might feel compelled to point out that arrogant asshole is not a highly valued charcter trait. No

Other than that small point, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of a discussion forum, whereby one person proposes a subject for discussion, then others go ahead and discuss the subject with him/her. What I asked was whether anyone with the necessary knowledge could adequately refute the position described in the link. I am not personally defending that position, I'm trying to understand all sides of the question.

Chas answered on-subject (in his terse & deadly style), as did Kim.
All you did was give a big "hooray for Science" without contributing to the discussion.

@Idlecuriosity:

The "you" in my last paragraph was not meant to refer to you personally--I intended it to be the general "you," equivalent to "one," as in "You should look both ways when you cross the street" = "One should look both ways when one crosses the street." But I acknowledge that what I wrote was ambiguous, so I've edited my post for clarity. Thank you for pointing that out.

Other than that, I'll stick with what I said. And I think perhaps it's you (this time referring to you yourself) who need to understand what an open discussion forum is. It's a place where all points of view can be expressed, including the point of view that a particular topic is not worth discussing.

The author of the article you cited is not a scientist; judging from his web site, he's a social commentator with a particular political bias. I won't judge him on that. But when he makes claims about highly technical aspects of modern science with the intent of tearing down a generally accepted theory, without having any credentials in the field, I say he's not worth listening to. His whole point is that the Big Bang Theory is religion in disguise, the result of a conspiracy among religious-leaning scientists to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning. Bullshit. The BBT is not the result of religion or supersitition; it's the explanation that best fits the evidence. Period.

The world is full of crackpots pushing an agenda. This guy is clearly one of them. if you feel his claims are worth your time and energy to investigate, be my guest. They're not worth mine, and I don't mind saying it.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
13-01-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 03:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  The author of the article you cited is not a scientist; judging from his web site, he's a social commentator with a particular political bias.
Mmm... let's see... Michael Rivero: originally a child actor, went to work for NASA on the Viking and Voyager projects (although it offers no credentials regarding a degree in any field). In the 70s he went back into film work arriving at the exact time Hollywood was beginning to employ more computers for visual effects; a classic case of being in the right place at the right time, with the right skills. (Ah, I will now make an educated guess: computer input guy.) Having paid for college as a professional stage magician, Michael brings an awareness of how an audience perceives what they see to his designs for visual effects. While Michael is on sabbatical from film work, he devotes his full time efforts to peace activism and talk-radio.
I gleaned this from here. Words in italics are mine.

***
After reading an interview and a couple of other of his articles, he seems bent on accusing the scientific community of being as radically theist as he views the US government. I find that absurd and frankly, somewhat demeaning to both the scientific community and the atheist community.

(13-01-2013 03:34 PM)cufflink Wrote:  I won't judge him on that.

No problem, allow me... if for no other reason than that part about possessing an awareness of how an audience perceives what they see. He wants people to look at his website and he's likely to be as controversial as he can, just to get people there. I might be a bigger nobody than this guy... but personally, I'll trust what I think before I'll trust what he wants me to think. Shy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
13-01-2013, 10:40 PM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
The big problem I had reading the article, was that it reminded me so much of what we hear coming from the creationist camp. There he is attacking an established scientific theory, not by doing research and submitting work to peer review, but by attacking it in a public forum in somewhat layman terms.

In the same way that creationists grab onto one perceived incongruity, then attempt to tear down the entire theory with it (irreducible complexity anyone?). Even if he had a valid argument, he's going about it the wrong way. Newtonian mechanics were known to not be perfect, it was unable to account for perturbations in the orbit of Mercury; but you don't use that as an excuse to ditch the entirety of the best available explanatory framework of the time.

He claims the background microwave radiation doesn't fit the Big Bang model. Most everyone else educated in the field would disagree, and until he has the work to show otherwise, I'm standing on the side of the majority of physicists and cosmologists.

You don't replace a working theoretical framework with nothing that doesn't explain anything.

Yes, the Big Bang Theory is not complete or perfect. The theory does require refinement, and it has and will change to accommodate new data. Quite unlike the religious dogma he tries to associate it with. Big Bang Theory isn't the leading explanation because it's what the scientists (or the Pope) want to believe in, it's the leading explanation because it's the best framework we have to explain the most information and with the best predictive capability.


[Image: science.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-01-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
Quote: The "you" in my last paragraph was not meant to refer to you
personally--I intended it to be the general "you," equivalent to "one,"
as in "You should look both ways when you cross the street" = "One
should look both ways when one crosses the street." But I acknowledge
that what I wrote was ambiguous, so I've edited my post for clarity.
Thank you for pointing that out.
OK, glad we cleared that up : all good now !

Quote: Other than that, I'll stick with what I said. And I think perhaps it's
you (this time referring to you yourself) who need to understand what an
open discussion forum is. It's a place where all points of view can be
expressed, including the point of view that a particular topic is not worth discussing.
I know, I was being provactive.

Quote: His whole point is that the Big Bang Theory is religion in disguise, the
result of a conspiracy among religious-leaning scientists to
demonstrate that the universe had a beginning. Bullshit.
I didn't read it in quite that way. More that religion had latched onto BBT because it implied a first event, which they explained by god (obviously other than the YEC crowd). Also that the scientific community was holding on to the core theory "religously", interpreting data to fit the desired result (his claim, not mine).

Quote: it's the explanation that best fits the evidence.
Yes

Quote: Period.
No.
Deeper understanding of data, or new data, could and should lead scientists to reevaluate any subject if the evidence is compelling enough. The criticism in the article is that BBT has become unquestionable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Idlecuriosity's post
14-01-2013, 08:05 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(14-01-2013 12:50 AM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  Deeper understanding of data, or new data, could and should lead scientists to reevaluate any subject if the evidence is compelling enough. The criticism in the article is that BBT has become unquestionable.


And he is wrong. Theories of the origin of the universe are part of the various string theories, for instance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-01-2013, 11:57 PM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
BBT is not unquestionable. All evidence thus far supports it. That's the problem with his and those scientists' claims. Redshift? That's something else. Singularity? That should be bigger according to OUR calculations. Background radiation from the time of the BB? That's something else. Then it talks about churches and religion just to throw a cherry on top I guess.

Long story short, this guy and scientists that think like him are futilely debating ALL the evidence that supports BB. They aren't just refuting one or two pieces of evidence. They are refuting it all. That raises a major red flag to me. You're telling me that not one of the BB evidence is correct? And why is BB still the top theory???


That one side of the horizon should be stretched out further bit made me chuckle. I'm no scientists and GOD knows I'm horrible at math, but no matter where you are, your horizon will always be even so long as there is no wall. Draw a bunch of dots on a balloon then blow it up. Pick any dot on that balloon and I guarantee you will be picking the center of that dot's horizon.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
Dude, if the BBT isn't correct they wouldn't have made a show about it. BAZINGA! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ape_Linkin's post
15-01-2013, 01:29 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
[Image: Modified_Raised_Eyebrow_Smiley_by_Prince...rpoint.jpg]

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  [split] Gravity waves from the Big Bang hjzin 15 351 21-03-2014 03:38 PM
Last Post: DLJ
  Psychics tested in a controlled environment, and guess what happened?! Hughsie 2 500 31-10-2012 01:04 AM
Last Post: Dark Light
  Roswell, New Mexico -What really happened? Grassy Knoll 5 923 05-02-2012 06:08 PM
Last Post: Grassy Knoll
Forum Jump: