Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Subduction Zone]

I actually understand your position, you are conservative, there is nothing wrong with that. But surely you do not think that your present understanding based on evidence to date is final, that no new evidence exists that will ever come to light that will require you to change. That's what this is about. The fact that those producing the new evidence are ahead of the curve is not necessarily a case of being intuitive, just that they access to the latest scientific data such as latest Hubble and soon to be James Webb Space Telescope data for example. Hang on to your hat!

It appears that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. You certainly have not provided any.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Oh well, if it makes your day, we can agree that nothing excists.

Can you come to agreement with yourself and explain "gravity force" consistently in the explanation line of the real fundamental E&M forces?

Gravity is a difference force than E&M. In Newtonian physics, it is simply an action at a distance. In General relativity, it is a curvature of spacetime. In a quantum system, it would be the exchange of a spin 2 particle.

E&M is also a force. In both Newtonian physics and General relativity, it is a force on a charged particle produced by both electric and magnetic fields via the Lorenz force law. This force then produces accelerations in the charged particles. Furthermore, the electric and magnetic fields obey the Maxwell equations in both Newtonian physics and General relativity.

In the quantum description, the E&M force is produced by the exchange of a spin 1 particle known as the photon. This particle aspect is why there can be such effects as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering.

 

[Polymath257]

It´s called "alternative approaches" based on the unnatural statements and observed contradictions in standing cosmology.

Well, then, let's start with gravity on the Earth. Your model says that air pressure is what makes things like apples fall.

A test for this hypothesis is to see whether an apple falls when it is in a vacuum. Your model would predict the apple would not fall at all. Instead, it should float. Newtonian gravity would predict that the apple will fall *faster* than it did in the air.

Do you agree that this is a fair test between the two hypotheses? if not, why not? if so, we can then proceed to the experiment.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It´s called "alternative approaches" based on the unnatural statements and observed contradictions in standing cosmology.

And yet you actually deny the observations,

Of course I don´t deny factual observations of any kinds. But as long as the standing cosmological ideas are based on the by far weakest of the fundamental forces (which even can´t be explained scientifically as a force) I simply refuse to accept different interpretaions of cosmic observations.

You cannot explain the motions even of the planets in our solar system based on your ideas, let alone the motions of stars in our galaxy. All you do is hand waving and saying stuff like 'rotation of the galaxy produces rotation in our solar system'.

Obviously you haven´t paid attention when I´ve explained these matters and I´m not even sure you really want to know as you several times just refuse my explanations by referring to convensus cosmological matters which isn´t a part of my alternative explanations.
With other words your cosmological biases hinders you in this case.

 

[gnostic]

If that´s the case, we all can kiss an evolution in standing cosmology goodbye.

If even scientific discoveries as posted on my #847 cannot make cosmological proponents to think otherwise and indepently for themselves, the highly worshipped scientific method is nothing worth at all.

Then this scientific method only can be used to smack otherwise opposing thinkers in their heads and nothing more.

You still don’t understand how the Scientific Method work.

It not only require testing of new hypotheses or theoretical models, but new observations, evidence and data can allow EXISTING scientific theories to be revised, corrected, changed, expanded, updated.

The Big Bang theory have already expanded several times since the 1920s beginning as the Expanding Universe Model, and will most likely expanded and updated again in the future as more precise observations and data come in.

Likewise, the theory of gravity have expanded since Newton’s day, with Einstein’s General Relativity providing more precision in explanations and calculations for larger massive bodies. Gravity will expand and be updated again in the future, like I said, as more precise observations and data come in.

And the same have happened in biology, where the theory of Evolution has expanded beyond Darwin’s and Wallace’s original Natural Selection, to include the 20th century’s discoveries of other mechanisms, like Mutations, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking, as technology allowed for better understanding and techniques in genetics, DNA testings, and in the cases of paleontology, various refined techniques in dating fossils and geology.

Beside that, the article is old, and only relate to revising and updating Big Bang theory, not about debunking the Big Bang cosmology.

And nothing in that article generated support for your pseudoscience Electric Universe.

As I said, the article you have posted in 847, the article is old (1994). Have you bother to follow updates after those pictures and article were taken and published?

They predated many of the more recent discoveries in the 21st centuries, including that of WMAP and Planck mappings of CMBR, and the dating of thee age of the universe was revised again by publication of the latest data in 2013 from the Planck’s mission.

So, your article is not only old news, you are mistaken to believe that the Hubble images debunked the Big Bang theory. It didn’t.

Seriously, Native, you do need to keep up to date.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Quite the opposite, actually.



Of course I don't - I just said as much.



It so definitely isn't.



It's actually quite comical that you think you and the other deniers are "ahead of the curve" or have produced any new evidence. I'm sorry but you've shown no understanding of evidence or how science works, and at every turn you and Native have tried to push your own obvious agendas, rather than following the evidence.

There are problems and questions with our current understanding (nobody would seriously deny it) but people who latch on to those and just claim that it shows that what they don't like is wrong and that it must support what they do like, are simply not doing science - they are doing faith (in their intuitions).

Who said anything about I or anyone here being ahead of the curve, I was speaking about the new scientific discoveries being brought to light by scientists who are working with advanced space instruments producing new data. It seems to me that you and other bb true believers would rather attack the messenger than consider the message.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are projecting.

The only ones here are in denial of the available evidence and data, are you and Native.

Neither of you understand the concept of evidence...you are making the same mistakes as young earth creationists and ID creationists, projecting your own ignorance upon others.

I don’t what cosmological concept you accept, and I don’t know if you are adherent to the same cosmology as Native (which is the Electric Universe), but I don’t really care.

From what I’ve read from your replies, past and present, you don’t even understand basic physics, you cannot learn from your mistakes. So I don’t see how you can even judge which cosmology correct or incorrect, and you have no businesses telling others here who understand physics better than you, which is correct, when you are in denial that others have presented evidence in front of you.

See what I mean, here comes gnostic attacking the messenger. Gnostic, contemporary bb science is not settled, new data from existing and new space based systems will undoubtedly bring new light and result in new understanding of the cosmos as time goes by. Does not being a scientist mean in your view that my message is to be dismissed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See what I mean, here comes gnostic attacking the messenger. Gnostic, contemporary bb science is not settled, new data from existing and new space based systems will undoubtedly bring new light and result in new understanding of the cosmos as time goes by. Does not being a scientist mean in your view that my message is to be dismissed.

When the "messenger" does not understand the concept of evidence and cannot provide any it is perfectly legitimate to point that out. It is not "attacking the messenger".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It appears that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. You certainly have not provided any.

So far as I am aware, I did not mean to offer any evidence. I said the Hubble Space Telescope is bringing new data, it changed the scientific view of the early universe when it went into operation and in the near future the James Webb Space Telescope will do the same. In time certain theoretical aspects of present day understanding of the universe will be abandoned, not that I am intuitive, but because this is how science works. The space is only in its infancy, imagine the greater understanding that will come in the next one hundred years. Attacking the messenger will not prevent the unfolding deeper understanding of the cosmos coming to humanity. Join us.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When the "messenger" does not understand the concept of evidence and cannot provide any it is perfectly legitimate to point that out. It is not "attacking the messenger".

What evidence are you talking about, do you mean my saying about future new data will bring new understanding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far as I am aware, I did not mean to offer any evidence. I said the Hubble Space Telescope is bringing new data, it changed the scientific view of the early universe when it went into operation and in the near future the James Webb Space Telescope will do the same. In time certain theoretical aspects of present day understanding of the universe will be abandoned, not that I am intuitive, but because this is how science works. The space is only in its infancy, imagine the greater understanding that will come in the next one hundred years. Attacking the messenger will not prevent the unfolding deeper understanding of the cosmos coming to humanity. Join us.

Then you just admitted that there was no point to your post. Again, the "messenger" is only a science denier. Why pay any attention to him?

The sciences being discussed can be difficult. There is no good reason to throw out what works for an idea that is to date totally worthless. For those that cannot do math it is attractive because they can't do the math of real science anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence are you talking about, do you mean my saying about future new data will bring new understanding?

Not at all. Try to avoid strawman arguments even in questions. I was talking about the evidence that we have now that allows us a fairly accurate picture of the universe. Believers in the Electric Universe simply ignore the evidence that they do not understand. That is probably over 99% of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you just admitted that there was no point to your post. Again, the "messenger" is only a science denier. Why pay any attention to him?

The sciences being discussed can be difficult. There is no good reason to throw out what works for an idea that is to date totally worthless. For those that cannot do math it is attractive because they can't do the math of real science anyway.

What are you talking about?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not at all. Try to avoid strawman arguments even in questions. I was talking about the evidence that we have now that allows us a fairly accurate picture of the universe. Believers in the Electric Universe simply ignore the evidence that they do not understand. That is probably over 99% of it.

What has Electric Universe got to do with anything I said?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What has Electric Universe got to do with anything I said?

You attacked @gnostic for correcting @Native . Native is the one that believes in the electric universe. I assumed that you knew at least a little bit of what you were talking about when you attacked gnostic. It appears that I was mistaken.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You attacked @gnostic for correcting @Native . Native is the one that believes in the electric universe. I assumed that you knew at least a little bit of what you were talking about when you attacked gnostic. It appears that I was mistaken.

What are you rambling about, Gnostic replied to a post of mine about the space Telescopes, etc. ranting about my being a denier. I have not mentioned EU in this whole thread except in my last comment to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you rambling about, Gnostic replied to a post of mine about the space Telescopes, etc. ranting about my being a denier. I have not mentioned EU in this whole thread except in my last comment to you.

"You are projecting.

The only ones here are in denial of the available evidence and data, are you and Native.

Neither of you understand the concept of evidence...you are making the same mistakes as young earth creationists and ID creationists, projecting your own ignorance upon others.

I don’t what cosmological concept you accept, and I don’t know if you are adherent to the same cosmology as Native (which is the Electric Universe), but I don’t really care.

From what I’ve read from your replies, past and present, you don’t even understand basic physics, you cannot learn from your mistakes. So I don’t see how you can even judge which cosmology correct or incorrect, and you have no businesses telling others here who understand physics better than you, which is correct, when you are in denial that others have presented evidence in front of you."

There you go.

By the way, where did he "attack the messenger"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"You are projecting.

The only ones here are in denial of the available evidence and data, are you and Native.

Neither of you understand the concept of evidence...you are making the same mistakes as young earth creationists and ID creationists, projecting your own ignorance upon others.

I don’t what cosmological concept you accept, and I don’t know if you are adherent to the same cosmology as Native (which is the Electric Universe), but I don’t really care.

From what I’ve read from your replies, past and present, you don’t even understand basic physics, you cannot learn from your mistakes. So I don’t see how you can even judge which cosmology correct or incorrect, and you have no businesses telling others here who understand physics better than you, which is correct, when you are in denial that others have presented evidence in front of you."

There you go.

By the way, where did he "attack the messenger"?

Ok, if you don't know what my take is on cosmology and you don't care, there is no point in continuing to engage me, so let it be. So long as you are content with your belief, so be it, I am happy for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, if you don't know what my take is on cosmology and you don't care, there is no point in continuing to engage me, so let it be. So long as you are content with your belief, so be it, I am happy for you.

From what I have seen not even you seem to understand your take on cosmology. Here is a more than reasonable request:

Please put your beliefs into the form of a testable hypothesis. If you cannot do that then by definition you have no evidence for your beliefs and they appear to be mere speculation at best.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the human attraction between the body mass in a man and a woman, this force is defined as being electric. Let that be a logical and natural hint for you

No natural logic here. The lack of a basic knowledge of physics and terminology, and basically false.