The Big Bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2011, 09:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011 09:57 PM by captgalectro.)
RE: The Big Bang
(03-06-2011 07:45 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(03-06-2011 01:43 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  You're funny cause you have faith, I'm funny because I have logic.

Poor logic
Quote:Where am I wrong.
More to the point, where are you right? If you're going to make such a claim, back it up with some actual information.
Quote:Today's astronomer tell you a galaxy is 10billion ly's away
You do realize that when they estimate a distance like that, it's just that. An estimate. With a margin of error of millions.
Quote: but then he says electromagnetic waves are bent by gravity? You can't have it both ways.
Why not?
Quote: You can't do measurements with a bent ruler especially if you don't know how much it's bent.
If you know approximately how much it's bent, then you can most definitely make a pretty good approximation. You talk as if scientists/astronomers/physicists are claiming they can tell us exactly how big the universe is, the exact size of distant galaxies, and the exact rate at which the universe is expanding. They're not. They have a pretty good idea though. And by putting those estimates to use, they have VERY valid evidence for TBB.

It's like saying, "that car is red", and you are responding with, "but what SHADE of red. Unless you can tell me EXACTLY where the shade of red sits on the color spectrum I won't believe the car is red."

Dude, the car is red. I'll get back to you with the shade.
T
How do you know approximately how much the light is bent? Take one star in another galaxy. Any star or planet that its light passes close enough to in its own galaxy will warp it. The space time warp of its own galaxy will bend it. Then when it is in deep space it will be warped by the gravitational effect around the Great Attractor for millions or billions of years. Then when it reaches the milky way it will be bent by any star or planet it passes close enough to and it will be space time warped by the gravitational effect of the milky way before it reaches earth. Yeah, they can approximate that.

(03-06-2011 05:54 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(03-06-2011 04:01 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  My logic is flawed; so gravity doesn't warp space and time?

That's not even remotely close to what I said. Reading comprehension is our friend and we should embrace it.

As for the rest of your post, now would be a good time for everyone's favorite game: Let's Find The Irony!
Sorry, one other point I wanted to make: there is no "one" piece of evidence that is the basis for the Big Bang. Ignoring how absurd it is to take a concept "like gravity bends light" and think that "hey, no one else ever thought of that before, I must be a genius!" rather than it has already been accounted for in the equations, the theory itself is built upon a number of distinct pieces of evidence, each a piece of a puzzle that was put together of many, many decades and reinforced over the past 30 years as our ability to look further and further into space has increased.

You've already proven you don't understand the theories and science behind the Big Bang with your comment on the CMB, and it is fairly obvious that you have not studied this at all or you wouldn't be making such claims. You want to dispute the evidence as it exists, that's fine. But, to ignore 99% of the science and pick on one small point that has already been dealt with and say "HA!" is not exactly credible.
Let's look at the other fallacies of the big bang. The C.M.B.R. What is it? It's microwaves. How come they don't say Cosmic Radio Waves, or Cosmic Gamma Rays, or Cosmic X-rays? They used to say that there weren't enough stars to account for all the microwaves, but then it's came to light they have not a clue how many stars there are to a factor of three. And dark energy, where there's a giant energy magnet making galaxies go faster and faster. And all that dark matter, but gee they can't find any around here. It would be easier to believe in a deity instead of all that crap. With a deity you can say he done done everything. Done deal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 10:00 PM
RE: The Big Bang
For crying out loud, email a cosmologist, email an astronomer or a professer.. don't complain that this is all bollicks because some atheists can't give you the answers you want.

And there is so a giant space magnet that pulls galaxies. How dare you say otherwise!

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 07:45 AM
RE: The Big Bang
(03-06-2011 09:45 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  Let's look at the other fallacies of the big bang. The C.M.B.R. What is it? It's microwaves. How come they don't say Cosmic Radio Waves, or Cosmic Gamma Rays, or Cosmic X-rays? They used to say that there weren't enough stars to account for all the microwaves, but then it's came to light they have not a clue how many stars there are to a factor of three. And dark energy, where there's a giant energy magnet making galaxies go faster and faster. And all that dark matter, but gee they can't find any around here. It would be easier to believe in a deity instead of all that crap. With a deity you can say he done done everything. Done deal.

Like I said, you clearly don't understand the science and have no idea what you're talking about. The CMB does not come from stars. It does not matter if there is 1 star or 1 trillion stars, it will have no impact on the CMB.

You don't want to believe in the Big Bang, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions. However, you are not entitled to your own facts, and pretty much everything you've said on the topic is incorrect as proven by the actual science.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
08-06-2011, 10:58 AM
 
RE: The Big Bang
Darn, wish I commented on this earlier. captgalectro if you don't agree with the BBT then prove it wrong, do something all the greatest minds of our world could not do. Go out, get a degree, prove it wrong and win a Nobel prize. Every thing you have mentioned as to why its a "fairy tale" has been accounted for, thats why not a single person can find a flaw in the theory, because its mathematically proven. The BBT is as solid of a theory as the theory of 2+2=4. I highly doubt your knowledge extends past highschool physics so lets leave it up to people who actually know what they are dealing with.
Oh, last thing, logic and common sense take a backseat to evidence, and the evidence points towards a big bang.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Atheist Troll's post
09-06-2011, 02:58 AM
RE: The Big Bang
I've argued for the Big Bang model plenty of times, but it's been awhile since I last looked at the evidence for it so i'm glad this topic is here.

Red Shift: From what I understand, scientists have to make an assumption that the light that we are receiving has been bent evenly as it approaches us. This is a relatively big assumption, but a necessary one to make otherwise we can't move forward in research (hopefully it will either be validated later, or thrown out if a better explanation is found). That's why scientists don't just take one photon and use it to calculate the red shift of a galaxy, they take measurements from various times of the year, and from various parts of the galaxy in order to get an understanding of how the entire system is moving.

Dark Matter/Energy: Here is a link to a news article from May talking about the discovery of dark energy. I know you took a swing at Dark Matter, but progress is being made in these areas. But we have gained some understanding of both of these through our observations of the universe (their effects on regular matter have been observed). I'm sorry they haven't gotten to the point where they can hand you a slab of dark matter, but we can feel it's effects on the objects around it (and "dark matter" is simply a place-holder name until we get a better grasp on this substance that effects the objects around it).

CMBR: They call it "Microwave" because it is in the microwave part of the EMR spectrum. And like BnW said, CMBR doesn't come from stars, it's leftover (hence the "background") from an earlier time and believed to be from the dawn of the universe.

I'll check with my physicist friends to make sure that my understanding is still true (I haven't looked into the BBT too much since college started). If you or anyone else has some questions, I'll pass them on to the physics department and report back.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2011, 03:02 PM
RE: The Big Bang
(09-06-2011 02:58 AM)Glaucus Wrote:  I've argued for the Big Bang model plenty of times, but it's been awhile since I last looked at the evidence for it so i'm glad this topic is here.

Red Shift: From what I understand, scientists have to make an assumption that the light that we are receiving has been bent evenly as it approaches us. This is a relatively big assumption, but a necessary one to make otherwise we can't move forward in research (hopefully it will either be validated later, or thrown out if a better explanation is found). That's why scientists don't just take one photon and use it to calculate the red shift of a galaxy, they take measurements from various times of the year, and from various parts of the galaxy in order to get an understanding of how the entire system is moving.

Dark Matter/Energy: Here is a link to a news article from May talking about the discovery of dark energy. I know you took a swing at Dark Matter, but progress is being made in these areas. But we have gained some understanding of both of these through our observations of the universe (their effects on regular matter have been observed). I'm sorry they haven't gotten to the point where they can hand you a slab of dark matter, but we can feel it's effects on the objects around it (and "dark matter" is simply a place-holder name until we get a better grasp on this substance that effects the objects around it).

CMBR: They call it "Microwave" because it is in the microwave part of the EMR spectrum. And like BnW said, CMBR doesn't come from stars, it's leftover (hence the "background") from an earlier time and believed to be from the dawn of the universe.

I'll check with my physicist friends to make sure that my understanding is still true (I haven't looked into the BBT too much since college started). If you or anyone else has some questions, I'll pass them on to the physics department and report back.

Thank you for your reply. I've been arguing against the big bang for years now, not to be different but because I find it greatly flawed. I put it on this forum in hopes that rational people (atheists) could see how it is flawed. The assumption that light is bent the same from all galaxies is wrong. The galaxy light closer to the Great Attractor is space-time warped much more than those further away. Just like the closer you put a nail to a magnet the more you feel the attraction. The light is being warped for millions and billions of years on it's way to earth. Saying that the light is bent at all is saying that the light is red shifted. I've put my arguments on the site http:galaxyspin.thecomicseries.com I apologize for the quality of the work, when I transposed it it got messed up. To change pages hit the side arrows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2011, 07:12 PM
RE: The Big Bang
(09-06-2011 03:02 PM)captgalectro Wrote:  
(09-06-2011 02:58 AM)Glaucus Wrote:  I've argued for the Big Bang model plenty of times, but it's been awhile since I last looked at the evidence for it so i'm glad this topic is here.

Red Shift: From what I understand, scientists have to make an assumption that the light that we are receiving has been bent evenly as it approaches us. This is a relatively big assumption, but a necessary one to make otherwise we can't move forward in research (hopefully it will either be validated later, or thrown out if a better explanation is found). That's why scientists don't just take one photon and use it to calculate the red shift of a galaxy, they take measurements from various times of the year, and from various parts of the galaxy in order to get an understanding of how the entire system is moving.

Dark Matter/Energy: Here is a link to a news article from May talking about the discovery of dark energy. I know you took a swing at Dark Matter, but progress is being made in these areas. But we have gained some understanding of both of these through our observations of the universe (their effects on regular matter have been observed). I'm sorry they haven't gotten to the point where they can hand you a slab of dark matter, but we can feel it's effects on the objects around it (and "dark matter" is simply a place-holder name until we get a better grasp on this substance that effects the objects around it).

CMBR: They call it "Microwave" because it is in the microwave part of the EMR spectrum. And like BnW said, CMBR doesn't come from stars, it's leftover (hence the "background") from an earlier time and believed to be from the dawn of the universe.

I'll check with my physicist friends to make sure that my understanding is still true (I haven't looked into the BBT too much since college started). If you or anyone else has some questions, I'll pass them on to the physics department and report back.

Thank you for your reply. I've been arguing against the big bang for years now, not to be different but because I find it greatly flawed. I put it on this forum in hopes that rational people (atheists) could see how it is flawed. The assumption that light is bent the same from all galaxies is wrong. The galaxy light closer to the Great Attractor is space-time warped much more than those further away. Just like the closer you put a nail to a magnet the more you feel the attraction. The light is being warped for millions and billions of years on it's way to earth. Saying that the light is bent at all is saying that the light is red shifted. I've put my arguments on the site http:galaxyspin.thecomicseries.com I apologize for the quality of the work, when I transposed it it got messed up. To change pages hit the side arrows.

I have read through this entire thread and I will have to say you have argued nothing that resembles truth. You just make up stupid shit and fallacies. As for me, I leave what I "know" up to the people who actually do the research and not the people sitting in the dark basking in the faint glow of their computer frantically searching for loopholes on Wikipedia and genesis.com.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2011, 08:58 PM
RE: The Big Bang
Is there a book which explains the most current research on the BBT in such a manner that an average Joe interested in science can understand? I've skimmed through the thread and only seen a "...for Dummies" book and a pdf on cosmology.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2011, 11:09 PM
RE: The Big Bang
After speaking with some students in the Physics department at school, I think I have a better understanding of the argument.

First off, the Big Bang theory is still the prevalent theory behind the start of the universe and very little has come forward as a serious contender (that's not saying there won't be one, but the Big Bang fits the data we currently have the best).

Here's how they explained redshifting to me. It is the Doppler Effect, so it relies only on the velocity and positions of the object and observer (as does all relativity). Though there is such a thing as Gravitational Redshift (what you've been referring to), which is the effect that a star's gravity well has on light that it emits, but this effect is minuscule when compared to the redshift caused by the velocity of the object. Gravitational Redshifting will only occur if the light is pulled into our out of the well. So the light will blueshift as it approaches the star (getting pulled into the well) then redshift as it leaves the well, essentially cancelling each other out. Though scientists are able to calculate the redshift that is caused by the gravity well if they know the mass of the object, so the remaining redshift is caused by the motion of the object.

I hope that makes sense.

(15-06-2011 08:58 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Is there a book which explains the most current research on the BBT in such a manner that an average Joe interested in science can understand? I've skimmed through the thread and only seen a "...for Dummies" book and a pdf on cosmology.

I'm not sure if he has any books on the Big Bang specifically, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an amazing astrophysicist whose books are easy to understand. If anything look into his lectures or speeches on Youtube.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2011, 11:49 AM
RE: The Big Bang
(15-06-2011 11:09 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  After speaking with some students in the Physics department at school, I think I have a better understanding of the argument.

First off, the Big Bang theory is still the prevalent theory behind the start of the universe and very little has come forward as a serious contender (that's not saying there won't be one, but the Big Bang fits the data we currently have the best).

Here's how they explained redshifting to me. It is the Doppler Effect, so it relies only on the velocity and positions of the object and observer (as does all relativity). Though there is such a thing as Gravitational Redshift (what you've been referring to), which is the effect that a star's gravity well has on light that it emits, but this effect is minuscule when compared to the redshift caused by the velocity of the object. Gravitational Redshifting will only occur if the light is pulled into our out of the well. So the light will blueshift as it approaches the star (getting pulled into the well) then redshift as it leaves the well, essentially cancelling each other out. Though scientists are able to calculate the redshift that is caused by the gravity well if they know the mass of the object, so the remaining redshift is caused by the motion of the object.

I hope that makes sense.
Not to belittle the physics students but unfortunately they are wrong. Light would be blueshifted coming into the star, only if you were standing on the star. An observer away from the star would see the light being red shifted (bent) as it goes toward the star and away from the star. As to the well of the Great Attractor we are being bent (being red shifted) to all other galaxies as we are to them.
(15-06-2011 08:58 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Is there a book which explains the most current research on the BBT in such a manner that an average Joe interested in science can understand? I've skimmed through the thread and only seen a "...for Dummies" book and a pdf on cosmology.

I'm not sure if he has any books on the Big Bang specifically, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an amazing astrophysicist whose books are easy to understand. If anything look into his lectures or speeches on Youtube.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: