Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[YoursTrue]

Goes like this:
There's no evidence of any King David, he didn't exist
Ok, so there WAS a King David, but he just ruled over a few tribes
All right, so there were a lot more people back then, but that doesn't make the bible story true - I mean, look at Sodom and Gomarrah fable
Sure, some calamity DID happen to the cities of the Jordan plain, but the bible made a myth out of the event

and on it goes. The real question isn't whether some event happened, but what would it take for you to believe the bible's account? I suggest nothing.

Oddly, there IS evidence that I know about regarding what is called the "City of David" very close to Jerusalem. So I'll just start there for the moment regarding evidence. But thank you for bringing it up because I'd love to do a little research about this.
I'm going to stick with David, the temple and Jerusalem now, not going into the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. That's for a later time.

 

[PruePhillip]

Now you are using strawman arguments. I never heard anyone ever say that there was no King David as has been claimed of Moses and his predecessors. There is quite a bit of evidence against the Moses myth and none for. Meanwhile you are trying to use your strawman argument about King David to justify your false belief that the fact that David was a chieftain at best. And sorry, but Sodom and Gomorrah are still clearly in the mythical category. You have no evidence to the contrary. You really should try to learn what it takes for an observation to be evidence.

I grew up with people telling me 'There is no evidence for any King David' and then the kicker - 'David did not exist.'
Bad science.

I am sure this new finding on the Jordan Valley will pan out. After all, archaelogists stated they found shocked quartz - first discovered in nuke tests, then in meteorite craters (lightning can create this too - high pressure but not high temperature. But lightning won't create shocked quartz over large areas)
If this pans out (and it will take time, if it's not ignored) then for sure, this will be the spot for the 'well watered plains of Jordan' spoken of in Genesis.
Interestingly, if it pans out, there was no record of this in any iron age sources - one of the world's greatest cataclysms. So what hope has Moses got of being on the front page, particularly when Egypt didn't record its defeats.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I grew up with people telling me 'There is no evidence for any King David' and then the kicker - 'David did not exist.'
Bad science.

I am sure this new finding on the Jordan Valley will pan out. After all, archaelogists stated they found shocked quartz - first discovered in nuke tests, then in meteorite craters (lightning can create this too - high pressure but not high temperature. But lightning won't create shocked quartz over large areas)
If this pans out (and it will take time, if it's not ignored) then for sure, this will be the spot for the 'well watered plains of Jordan' spoken of in Genesis.
Interestingly, if it pans out, there was no record of this in any iron age sources - one of the world's greatest cataclysms. So what hope has Moses got of being on the front page, particularly when Egypt didn't record its defeats.

You grew up with people that did not understand what there was evidence for and what there was not evidence for. Or, and this seems far more likely, you just remember incorrectly.

Even if the "shocked quartz" evidence is correct. It needs to be confirmed by others. That is still not evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah. You are just making an ad hoc explanation.

To have evidence you first need a testable hypothesis.

 

[PruePhillip]

You grew up with people that did not understand what there was evidence for and what there was not evidence for. Or, and this seems far more likely, you just remember incorrectly.

Even if the "shocked quartz" evidence is correct. It needs to be confirmed by others. That is still not evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah. You are just making an ad hoc explanation.

To have evidence you first need a testable hypothesis.

You won't find Sodom or Gomorrah - what has been found is shattered cities, flattened, splintered, baked, smothered in salt and melted. Humans were splintered and palaces torn clean off their foundations. The real issue isn't that it happened, but that date.
What people would say about David, like Moses today, is that 'there is no evidence', some would make the leap that this 'proved' he didn't exist, but mostly it was the implication. It's a tactic. And when something IS found the skeptics just move the goal posts. So yeah, we know there was a Davidic dynasty and we know there were a lot more people in Israel at the time than first thought.

 

[gnostic]

To repeat, things like relativity and quantum ARE A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE.

As far as we know, yes.

And the current model Big Bang theory (ΛCDM) and the earlier models (1920s models of Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaître, eg Friedmann equations and the relationship between Redshift and distance; the BB Nucleosynthesis & CMBR of 1948; and the Inflationary model of 1980s) implement both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into understanding the physical cosmology of our Observable Universe.

The Static Universe model of Albert Einstein (1917) and the Steady-State model of Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi & Thomas Gold (1948) have also relied on General Relativity, but they used slightly differently to that of the Big Bang model.

In the Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity (1917), Einstein wrote that the universe is eternally unchanging in appearance, so space neither expand, nor contract. And Einstein used a Cosmological Constant on his field equations that formulated for General Relativity (1915).

The purposes of the Cosmological Constant are - to provide exact solution to his field equations, that prevent the universe from spatially expanding or contracting, which in turns the universe would have a closed topology and positive spatial curvature.

Alexander Friedmann used the Friedmann Metric (1922) that was applied to Einstein’s field equations to give negative curvature and open shape of the universe. The negative curvature allow for the universe to expand or to contract, plus it allowed for energy density of the universe to change over time.

Georges Lemaître (1927) and Howard Percy Robertson with Geoffrey Walker (1931), have both independently came up the same metric as that of Friedmann. So the metric is known since then as the FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric). Einstein’s field equations became the Friedmann equations, when FLRW metric is used.

But Robertson (1924) and Lemaître (1927) - again independently proposed using Vesto Slipher’s Redshift model on distance, where objects (eg galaxies) that are shifted to the red in EM spectrum, would indicate the objects moving away from the observer, which in turn, are indications of the universe is expanding.

Edwin Hubble discoveries of redshift in 1929 not only show the universe is expanding, but also prove Friedmann metric is correct, and Einstein’s Cosmological Constant to be incorrect.

Einstein’s Static Universe was refuted, and Einstein supposedly said his Cosmological Constant was his greatest blunder.

As to the 1948’s Steady-State model of Bondi, Gold & Hoyle. They also proposed the universe to expanding too, the same as that of another team in 1948 (George Gamow, Ralph Alpher & Robert Herman). However, the Steady-State universe proposed that energy density is constant, unchanging and eternal.

The only way this perfectly constant energy density can happen, if the universe continued to create new matters.

Gamow, a former student of Alexander Friedmann, worked together with Alpher, where they proposed matters (atoms) were formed through the process of Primordial Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) as it would later be known. Gamow also proposed the Hot Bang Bang (HBB), where the universe have hot and dense beginning.

Alpher and Herman proposed that when the electrons bonded with ionized atoms for the first time, the universe cooled down considerably cooled became transparent...but the bonding have caused the photons to decouple from the earliest elements (at that time, only hydrogen, helium and lithium exist in the universe).

These photons shifted to the red end of the spectrum, over time, becoming the microwave photons, hence the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The CMBR is the oldest light detected, and not only leave residual heat signatures of that period (the Recombination Epoch, that started about 378,000 years after the Big Bang), it also tell us the energy density have also changed.

The discovery of CMBR in 1964 by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson, have changed the status of the two competing hypotheses. The Big Bang hypothesis have been verified, hence it became a scientific theory, while the Steady-State hypothesis have been debunked.

The earliest periods of the universe changed from hot and dense, to much cooler and less dense universe AFTER the Recombination Epoch.

That’s what debunked Hoyle’s Steady-State model, the unchanging density of expanding universe doesn’t work. That’s why Hoyle is wrong.

Of course, Hoyle didn’t give up his cosmological model, a revised version of the Steady-State model was proposed before he died, but the newer version was even less popular than the original 1948 version.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You won't find Sodom or Gomorrah - what has been found is shattered cities, flattened, splintered, baked, smothered in salt and melted. Humans were splintered and palaces torn clean off their foundations. The real issue isn't that it happened, but that date.
What people would say about David, like Moses today, is that 'there is no evidence', some would make the leap that this 'proved' he didn't exist, but mostly it was the implication. It's a tactic. And when something IS found the skeptics just move the goal posts. So yeah, we know there was a Davidic dynasty and we know there were a lot more people in Israel at the time than first thought.

I keep hearing this claim, but so often on further investigation it was only a misinterpretation by ignorant amateur anthropologists that made the error of purposefully looking for something that probably does not exist. They are like the people that "found Noah's Ark" and were later laughed at.

If you don't want to be disappointed at the very least you should get your claims that are based upon works in peer reviewed journals. They can be wrong too, but they are wrong at a much much lower rate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Goes like this:
There's no evidence of any King David, he didn't exist
Ok, so there WAS a King David, but he just ruled over a few tribes
All right, so there were a lot more people back then, but that doesn't make the bible story true - I mean, look at Sodom and Gomarrah fable
Sure, some calamity DID happen to the cities of the Jordan plain, but the bible made a myth out of the event

and on it goes. The real question isn't whether some event happened, but what would it take for you to believe the bible's account? I suggest nothing.

I'm not going to argue with you as if, "Yes, David existed," because that isn't going to work just because I say it. However, I will mention the following in corroboration of the existence of David, From wikipedia, "The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing a Canaanite inscription which dates to 9th century BCE. It is notable for being the most significant and perhaps the only extra-biblical archeological reference to the house of David." So now we see that despite the fact there is virtually that one extra-biblical reference to the house of David, perhaps another, it tells me that there is verification.
Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm not going to argue with you as if, "Yes, David existed," because that isn't going to work just because I say it. However, I will mention the following in corroboration of the existence of David, From wikipedia, "The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing a Canaanite inscription which dates to 9th century BCE. It is notable for being the most significant and perhaps the only extra-biblical archeological reference to the house of David." So now we see that despite the fact there is virtually that one extra-biblical reference to the house of David, perhaps another, it tells me that there is verification.
Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

Think there's two references at the moment. Not sure if you are agreeing or what.

 

[PruePhillip]

I keep hearing this claim, but so often on further investigation it was only a misinterpretation by ignorant amateur anthropologists that made the error of purposefully looking for something that probably does not exist. They are like the people that "found Noah's Ark" and were later laughed at.

If you don't want to be disappointed at the very least you should get your claims that are based upon works in peer reviewed journals. They can be wrong too, but they are wrong at a much much lower rate.

Agreed. I have followed science for over 60 years. I read many claims, but I need to keep reading these claims elsewhere before I will accept them.
Happened two weeks ago - new Artificial Intelligence had deciphered ALL of the known proteins, over 200 million of them. Now that's flat wrong - people have worked on a single protein for malaria for generations, using xray crystalography. But the reports kept appearing everywhere. Turned out no xray were used, but rather working backwards from known DNA sequences - DNA makes proteins.
But I am hopeful that what these 'amateur' archaelogists found will be followed up. Again, finding shocked quartz is a very big deal - it means n0 volcano, fire, earthquake or army destroyed this plain. And it WAS destroyed - it was once quite fertile, then a salt desert. What happened? Did someone strew tons of salt around like some reckon the Romans did in Carthage? Doubt it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. I have followed science for over 60 years. I read many claims, but I need to keep reading these claims elsewhere before I will accept them.
Happened two weeks ago - new Artificial Intelligence had deciphered ALL of the known proteins, over 200 million of them. Now that's flat wrong - people have worked on a single protein for malaria for generations, using xray crystalography. But the reports kept appearing everywhere. Turned out no xray were used, but rather working backwards from known DNA sequences - DNA makes proteins.
But I am hopeful that what these 'amateur' archaelogists found will be followed up. Again, finding shocked quartz is a very big deal - it means n volcano, fire, earthquake or army destroyed this plain. And it WAS destroyed - it was once quite fertile, then a salt desert. What happened? Did someone strew tons of salt around like some reckon the Romans did in Carthage? Doubt it.

I sincerely doubt that a meteor without even a crater would change it into a "salt desert". I am not sure if that is even the case. I would have to look up the history of the area. Over long periods of time climates do change so that it was once a desert and may not be recovering is not unheard of. But such changes tend to be gradual. The Sahara is much bigger than it used to be. Again, not an over night change. And if these were amateurs and did not go to experts I would find their claim of "shocked quartz" very dubious.

Amateurs far too often see what they want to see. They do not see what is actually there. You were willing to swallow their claims hook line and sinker. I did not deny it, I took a wait and see attitude. Like so many other such "discoveries" this one is likely to be false.

 

[PruePhillip]

I sincerely doubt that a meteor without even a crater would change it into a "salt desert". I am not sure if that is even the case. I would have to look up the history of the area. Over long periods of time climates do change so that it was once a desert and may not be recovering is not unheard of. But such changes tend to be gradual. The Sahara is much bigger than it used to be. Again, not an over night change. And if these were amateurs and did not go to experts I would find their claim of "shocked quartz" very dubious.

Amateurs far too often see what they want to see. They do not see what is actually there. You were willing to swallow their claims hook line and sinker. I did not deny it, I took a wait and see attitude. Like so many other such "discoveries" this one is likely to be false.

This could be an air burst. Leaves no crater, never hits the ground but comes apart in the lower, dense atmosphere. There's been a few of them over the past century, but most happen at sea - one hit Russia and another in Syria/Turkey I believe.

 

[PruePhillip]

I sincerely doubt that a meteor without even a crater would change it into a "salt desert". I am not sure if that is even the case. I would have to look up the history of the area. Over long periods of time climates do change so that it was once a desert and may not be recovering is not unheard of. But such changes tend to be gradual. The Sahara is much bigger than it used to be. Again, not an over night change. And if these were amateurs and did not go to experts I would find their claim of "shocked quartz" very dubious.

Amateurs far too often see what they want to see. They do not see what is actually there. You were willing to swallow their claims hook line and sinker. I did not deny it, I took a wait and see attitude. Like so many other such "discoveries" this one is likely to be false.

This air burst was over the Dead Sea - plus there were already large salt deposits in the area. It kicked up salt like the Yukatan strike hit sulphur deposits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This could be an air burst. Leaves no crater, never hits the ground but comes apart in the lower, dense atmosphere. There's been a few of them over the past century, but most happen at sea - one hit Russia and another in Syria/Turkey I believe.

It could be. The writers of the article do not scream "hack" right off the bad, but I would wait before I started to yell "fact" etc. If their work is right it will be confirmed. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah still has all of the hallmarks of a legend.

Please note that it does not appear that this article was peer reviewed, it was accepted by nature for their open access area, not the hard science area. In other words, do not get too excited yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This air burst was over the Dead Sea - plus there were already large salt deposits in the area. It kicked up salt like the Yukatan strike hit sulphur deposits.

The Yucatan strike left a massive crater. Perhaps not the best example.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Yucatan strike left a massive crater. Perhaps not the best example.

Sure, one was an air burst over water and the other was a ground strike over land and water (?)

 

[PruePhillip]

It could be. The writers of the article do not scream "hack" right off the bad, but I would wait before I started to yell "fact" etc. If their work is right it will be confirmed. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah still has all of the hallmarks of a legend.

Please note that it does not appear that this article was peer reviewed, it was accepted by nature for their open access area, not the hard science area. In other words, do not get too excited yet.

The thing is - it won't change either of our opinions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

About Timna valley. Mining sites are not usually large. We have the example of salt mines in Punjab. Salt went to all places but no large cities existed at the mining sites. Similarly the copper mines in the Yamnaya.

This could be an air burst. Leaves no crater, never hits the ground but comes apart in the lower, dense atmosphere. There's been a few of them over the past century, but most happen at sea - one hit Russia and another in Syria/Turkey I believe.

Tunguska affected only the trees. No other effect was found. If the Jordan air burst was over Dead Sea, it would have made even less effect, just the vaporization of some water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing is - it won't change either of our opinions.

That is not true. Think about it.

Here is a hint:

You just admitted that you cannot reason rationally.

 

[YoursTrue]

Think there's two references at the moment. Not sure if you are agreeing or what.

Yes, from the article it seems one finding is more accepted than the other, controversy surrounds especially the second finding, if I recall correctly. Going back to the Tel Dan stele article however about it, the wiki article says in part: "These writings corroborate passages from the Bible, as the Second Book of Kings mentions that Jehoram, also Joram, is the son of an Israelite king, Ahab, by his Phoenician wife, Jezebel." I'm reading 1 Kings chapter 8 which goes into much detail about that time. It's very interesting. Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

 

[gnostic]

Happened two weeks ago - new Artificial Intelligence had deciphered ALL of the known proteins, over 200 million of them. Now that's flat wrong - people have worked on a single protein for malaria for generations, using xray crystalography. But the reports kept appearing everywhere. Turned out no xray were used, but rather working backwards from known DNA sequences - DNA makes proteins.
But I am hopeful that what these 'amateur' archaelogists found will be followed up.

Source(s), please.

Are you sure these proteins were found by "archaeologists"?

I am asking, because archaeology are focused on man-made constructs, such as -

• buildings (domestic, palatial, public, religious, etc) in urban or rural areas,
• city planning,
• roadworks,
• aqueduct systems,
• in technology (eg tool type and method of making tools, farming techniques, irrigation, mining techniques, etc),
• arts (eg painting, sculptures, etc) and crafts (pottery),
• minted coins,
• funerary customs (eg graves, tombs, necropolis, etc),
• and of course, philology and translations of inscriptions.

There are probably a lot more that are not in the above list.

Among the things that they don’t do, is trying to identify the different types of proteins. And while they may work with bodies, remains or fossils of humans, their speciality isn’t in molecular biology.

So can please cite your sources, so we have some ideas as to the context of your claims.