The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

Why would I spend energy to first explain to you why your question is ignorant and then correct your question to something that makes sense and give you an example of that only to have you dismiss everything with but a handwave without addressing any point whatsoever, only to then repeat your air-guitar solo saying "you just proved the bible correct again"?


Their is however one thing I would have to complement you on.

You probably are the very best, the GOAT if you will, pigeon chess player I have ever conversed with.

Your answer matches what entire evolutionist and billions of years community has done.
They have no answers to the origin on anything.

 

[Polymath257]

It means the data and there is lots of it absolutely refute the current Big Bang model.
Here is somethings you can address.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

www.spaceandmotion.com

In order to prevent a 'Gish gallop', can you pick 1 or 2 of these to debate before we go on to the others?

 

[YoursTrue]

I would be prepared to answer those questions I feel I have the understanding to say something meaningful.

Thank you. This thread is about the so-called "Big Bang," but the question I have is more or less about the theory of evolution and its posits. So I am going to ask a question on Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories..

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In order to prevent a 'Gish gallop', can you pick 1 or 2 of these to debate before we go on to the others?

Start with the red shift values being quantized.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your answer matches what entire evolutionist and billions of years community has done.
They have no answers to the origin on anything.

Thanks for proving my point again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Thanks for proving my point again.

So, why is there not mutiple trees of life?
After all if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, why did it not happen mutiple times each leading to its own descent tree?

 

[Polymath257]

So, why is there not mutiple trees of life?
After all if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, why did it not happen mutiple times each leading to its own descent tree?

It may have. One branch won out over the rest. This is expected and is related to the 'mitochondrial Eve' phenomenon.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, why is there not mutiple trees of life?

Because species share ancestors.

After all if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, why did it not happen mutiple times each leading to its own descent tree?

It could very well be that there were several and that all but one survived.

 

[Polymath257]

Start with the red shift values being quantized.

OK.

To begin, it isn't completely clear that this effect even exists or whether it is an effect of our data processing. The analysis from the SLoan Digital Survey suggests that it is a selection effect and NOT intrinsic to the galaxies or quasars themselves.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3833.pdf

On the other hand, a number of surveys over the past few decades seem to suggest a periodicity peak of about .062 in the z values for quasars and some galaxies.

*IF* this is true (and, again, it is far from clear that it is), this is an *additional* effect on top of the Hubble flow. There are a number of theoretical models that have been proposed, although none have been extensively tested.

My personal viewpoint is that I *hope* it is a real effect since that would lead to new and interesting physics. Why are there such intrinsic red shifts? Is it gravitational? There is some suggestion that it is due to harmonics of the speed of light. If so, what is the physical mechanism of this?

It is important to note that this periodicity is not absolute. It is a peak in the Fourier transform, but does NOT describe the whole data set. In other words, it is, even if it exists and is not due to our data processing, it is *one* effect and does NOT contradict the overall Big Bang model nor the fact that the universe is expanding.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

OK.

To begin, it isn't completely clear that this effect even exists or whether it is an effect of our data processing. The analysis from the SLoan Digital Survey suggests that it is a selection effect and NOT intrinsic to the galaxies or quasars themselves.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3833.pdf

On the other hand, a number of surveys over the past few decades seem to suggest a periodicity peak of about .062 in the z values for quasars and some galaxies.

*IF* this is true (and, again, it is far from clear that it is), this is an *additional* effect on top of the Hubble flow. There are a number of theoretical models that have been proposed, although none have been extensively tested.

My personal viewpoint is that I *hope* it is a real effect since that would lead to new and interesting physics. Why are there such intrinsic red shifts? Is it gravitational? There is some suggestion that it is due to harmonics of the speed of light. If so, what is the physical mechanism of this?

It is important to note that this periodicity is not absolute. It is a peak in the Fourier transform, but does NOT describe the whole data set. In other words, it is, even if it exists and is not due to our data processing, it is *one* effect and does NOT contradict the overall Big Bang model nor the fact that the universe is expanding.

Thanks for the update and while I still believe that it is a problem, I appreciate your honest answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the update and while I still believe that it is a problem, I appreciate your honest answer.

If you would like to detail why you think it is a problem when most of those who study this do not, I would like to see what you have to say.

 

[Polymath257]

I looked into the SDSS data that gives a 'quantized' red shift for quasars. There is a parameter, called zconf, which is the degree of confidence that the red shift was measured correctly. Since there are a number of ways in which errors can leak in, this is an important piece of information. For example, if there is another galaxy that 'overlaps' the quasar image, the correct red shift would be very difficult to measure correctly. If there is blurring in the image, it can affect the determination of the positions of the spectral lines themselves and that makes it much harder to get a correct reading of how much they have shifted from 'normal' lines.

What was discovered is that the periodicity in the measured red shifts was correlated in a periodicity in the *reliability* of those red shifts. In other words, the 'quantized' aspect was related to which measurements were uncertain (as determined by the instruments themselves).

This strongly shows that the quantization is a processing artifact and NOT anything intrinsic in the quasars themselves. Furthermore, if similar processing is done in other surveys, that would lead to similar 'quantized' data related to the confidence in that very data.

This issue is not closed, though. At the very least, it will be necessary to figure out *what* aspect of the data processing is leading to this result. If that can't be done, it may be a while before there is clarity here.

*If* this 'intrinsic red shift' is verified, it would mean there is another way to get red shifts. We already know about relative velocity, gravity, and universal expansion, for this might give a fourth source for red shifts. That said, the data at this point shows that intrinsic red shifts are NOT the only thing going on. The Hubble flow is still clearly seen in the data and the overall age of the universe is not affected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked into the SDSS data that gives a 'quantized' red shift for quasars. There is a parameter, called zconf, which is the degree of confidence that the red shift was measured correctly. Since there are a number of ways in which errors can leak in, this is an important piece of information. For example, if there is another galaxy that 'overlaps' the quasar image, the correct red shift would be very difficult to measure correctly. If there is blurring in the image, it can affect the determination of the positions of the spectral lines themselves and that makes it much harder to get a correct reading of how much they have shifted from 'normal' lines.

What was discovered is that the periodicity in the measured red shifts was correlated in a periodicity in the *reliability* of those red shifts. In other words, the 'quantized' aspect was related to which measurements were uncertain (as determined by the instruments themselves).

This strongly shows that the quantization is a processing artifact and NOT anything intrinsic in the quasars themselves. Furthermore, if similar processing is done in other surveys, that would lead to similar 'quantized' data related to the confidence in that very data.

This issue is not closed, though. At the very least, it will be necessary to figure out *what* aspect of the data processing is leading to this result. If that can't be done, it may be a while before there is clarity here.

*If* this 'intrinsic red shift' is verified, it would mean there is another way to get red shifts. We already know about relative velocity, gravity, and universal expansion, for this might give a fourth source for red shifts. That said, the data at this point shows that intrinsic red shifts are NOT the only thing going on. The Hubble flow is still clearly seen in the data and the overall age of the universe is not affected.

Hi @Polymath257. Would you mind explaining what the Hubble flow is?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I looked into the SDSS data that gives a 'quantized' red shift for quasars. There is a parameter, called zconf, which is the degree of confidence that the red shift was measured correctly. Since there are a number of ways in which errors can leak in, this is an important piece of information. For example, if there is another galaxy that 'overlaps' the quasar image, the correct red shift would be very difficult to measure correctly. If there is blurring in the image, it can affect the determination of the positions of the spectral lines themselves and that makes it much harder to get a correct reading of how much they have shifted from 'normal' lines.

What was discovered is that the periodicity in the measured red shifts was correlated in a periodicity in the *reliability* of those red shifts. In other words, the 'quantized' aspect was related to which measurements were uncertain (as determined by the instruments themselves).

This strongly shows that the quantization is a processing artifact and NOT anything intrinsic in the quasars themselves. Furthermore, if similar processing is done in other surveys, that would lead to similar 'quantized' data related to the confidence in that very data.

This issue is not closed, though. At the very least, it will be necessary to figure out *what* aspect of the data processing is leading to this result. If that can't be done, it may be a while before there is clarity here.

*If* this 'intrinsic red shift' is verified, it would mean there is another way to get red shifts. We already know about relative velocity, gravity, and universal expansion, for this might give a fourth source for red shifts. That said, the data at this point shows that intrinsic red shifts are NOT the only thing going on. The Hubble flow is still clearly seen in the data and the overall age of the universe is not affected.

What is the value of the Hubble constant?
There are 2 numbers which are almost 10% differnt from each other.
The JWST has made this even more certain.
How can you explain this discrepancy?

 

[Polymath257]

Hi @Polymath257. Would you mind explaining what the Hubble flow is?

Sure.

Let's do the classic analogy of ants moving around on an expanding sphere. This is analogous to galaxies moving in an expanding universe. The motion of the ants *on* the sphere is called the peculiar motion. For galaxies, this is due to, for example, the gravitational forces between nearby galaxies. You may have heard that the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are going to collide in a few billion years. This is due to the peculiar motion of the two galaxies.

The Hubble Flow, in this analogy, corresponds to the motion of the ants due to the overall expansion of the sphere. It represents the motion between galaxies because of the overall expansion of the universe, as opposed to the smaller scale peculiar motion.

In the early days of cosmology, the attempts to measure the Hubble parameter (which gives the relation between distance and velocity of motion away for galaxies) was complicated because we could only get good distance measurements for 'nearby' galaxies and the peculiar motion was large enough compared the the Hubble flow that the estimates had very large error bars.

This is related to the next topic.

What is the value of the Hubble constant?
There are 2 numbers which are almost 10% differnt from each other.
The JWST has made this even more certain.
How can you explain this discrepancy?

I would say that JWST measurements make the estimates more *un*certain.

The problem seems to be that low estimates for the Hubble parameter (around 67 km/sec/mPar) are those obtained from the background radiation and the higher estimates (around 73 km/sec/mPar) are those obtained by using the distance ladder to estimate distances to distant galaxies.

Which is correct? Nobody knows.

The tension was first seen about 5 years ago and there is active research being done to figure out what is going on. The wikipedia article on this is fairly good and covers the values obtained this century.

That said, I find it somewhat funny that a 10% difference is seen as large when 50 years ago the estimates for the parameter were 'somewhere between 50 and 100' with debate very heated between the two camps. That a 10% difference is considered significant is a testimony to how accurate cosmology has become over the last 20 years or so.

My personal guess is that the distance ladder estimates are off. The CMBR estimates seem more fundamental and less likely to have cascading error bars. But there is also a possibility of new physics (an equation of state for dark energy is perhaps the most likely of these).

Given that this tension has only been around for 5 years, I would wait until JWST (for distance ladder estimates) and other sources (for CMBR estimates) have opportunity to collect more data.

Since the difference is small (although statistically significant), this has almost no conseque3nces for the overall age of the universe. We are still talking about somewhere in the 13-14 billion year range either way.

 

[YoursTrue]

It may have. One branch won out over the rest. This is expected and is related to the 'mitochondrial Eve' phenomenon.

And it may not have. And it may not have happened at all. One may never know.

 

[John53]

And it may not have. And it may not have happened at all. One may never know.

Or one may go round preaching to others they know everything and you will miss out on paradise if you don't agree with them.

 

[Polymath257]

And it may not have. And it may not have happened at all. One may never know.

Exactly. Without evidence, we may never know. We don’t get to just make up stuff to answer questions. There has to be evidence and stability of our answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Or one may go round preaching to others they know everything and you will miss out on paradise if you don't agree with them.

Let me put it this way to you -- I believe Jesus appeared to some (not all) after his resurrection. I believe there is a way of life that is approved by God and beneficial for those walking in it. It may not be accepted by all, and obviously not all believe in God. And there are also different opinions about how to worship God. Just as some go by expert majority opinion, others may not. Therefore, have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly. Without evidence, we may never know. We don’t get to just make up stuff to answer questions. There has to be evidence and stability of our answers.

I've been thinking...I do, you know. Even though I'm a woman... I do think sometimes. (Have a good one...)