The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[Super Universe]

There were specific predictions on element abundance of the universe, the temperature and anisotropy profile of the microwave radiation and temperature of the neutrino background, that the hot past condition of the universe necessitated. These predictions were confirmed by observation decades after they were made, and no other theory predicted these.

The rate of expansion is an input to the Big Bang theory and not a prediction of it. As the links in my earlier reply shows, the Big Bang theory provides three solutions. One for a universe where expansion is speeding up, one where expansion rate is constant and one where expansion rate is slowing down. The observations determine which of the three cases is actually happening for our universe. The predictions of the Big Bang works for any of the three cases.

When a new nebula is formed it's formed with about the same elements that you can find in any other nebula. Each new nebula does not get all unique elements.

The temperature of the microwave background radiation simply means that space is uniformly cold. That does not mean it was formed hot and then cooled evenly. It was always cold. Also, if you've worked with hot gasses or hot metals or even hot food in the microwave you would know that things do not cool evenly. Outer areas cool more quickly than central areas.

As for the neutrino's, the scientists used to debate whether the universe was open or closed or that it would be stable. If it was open it would continue expanding until everything was so far away from each other that galaxies would just burn out. If the universe stopped expanding and began to collapse then everything would end in a large black hole. Figuring out the mass of the neutrino was supposed to tell the scientists how much mass is in the universe and help them determine whether it was open or closed. Then they found out the universe was not just expanding but accelerating it's expansion so the open/closed debate is out of date. It's not just open, it's very, very open. And, last I knew, they were still trying to figure out the mass of the neutrino.

These predictions were confirmed? Space being uniformly cold just proves that space is cold. Cold things are not proof of past heat.

The big bang works for an open, closed, or stable universe? No, it doesn't. How does the expansion rate increase? Other than the initial big bang what is the force causing it to increase in speed? The big bang was supposedly 13.8 billion year ago, how could it still be causing things to increase in speed?

I can tell you that the universe will continue to expand until it reaches a certain point and then it will stabilize. That point will be so far into the future that it is beyond your ability to comprehend.

 

[sayak83]

When a new nebula is formed it's formed with about the same elements that you can find in any other nebula. Each new nebula does not get all unique elements.

The temperature of the microwave background radiation simply means that space is uniformly cold. That does not mean it was formed hot and then cooled evenly. It was always cold. Also, if you've worked with hot gasses or hot metals or even hot food in the microwave you would know that things do not cool evenly. Outer areas cool more quickly than central areas.

As for the neutrino's, the scientists used to debate whether the universe was open or closed or that it would be stable. If it was open it would continue expanding until everything was so far away from each other that galaxies would just burn out. If the universe stopped expanding and began to collapse then everything would end in a large black hole. Figuring out the mass of the neutrino was supposed to tell the scientists how much mass is in the universe and help them determine whether it was open or closed. Then they found out the universe was not just expanding but accelerating it's expansion so the open/closed debate is out of date. It's not just open, it's very, very open. And, last I knew, they were still trying to figure out the mass of the neutrino.

These predictions were confirmed? Space being uniformly cold just proves that space is cold. Cold things are not proof of past heat.

The big bang works for an open, closed, or stable universe? No, it doesn't. How does the expansion rate increase? Other than the initial big bang what is the force causing it to increase in speed? The big bang was supposedly 13.8 billion year ago, how could it still be causing things to increase in speed?

I can tell you that the universe will continue to expand until it reaches a certain point and then it will stabilize. That point will be so far into the future that it is beyond your ability to comprehend.

If you have a new theory, write a manuscript showing all your Mathematics and predictions of your theory and submit it to a science journal. Certain points,

1)It has already been shown that early galaxies and stars have different composition from more recent galaxies and stars as the Big Bang theory predicts. So your proposition is false at the start.

2) The structure of the microwave radiation itself shows that it was hot once and cooled evenly. It was a straightforward prediction of the Big Bang theory that this radiation would exist and would be of that spectral shape due to the expansion of the universe. If you have a theory of how that radiation profile can occur without an initial hot universe, write the math and predictions of the math in detail and submit it to a journal.

Your analogy of cooling is false. In your example, heat is moving from the hot body to the cooler air by convection and radiation. But there is nothing outside the universe to which the heat can be transmitted to. Here is a more correct analogy. Consider a glass of water. Now pour the water from that glass into a large pan. Clearly the water level in the glass was higher than in the pan. Why? Since the water needs to occupy a larger volume of space. Similarly the total radiation energy content of the universe is constant, but as the universe expands, this energy gets spread over on a larger volume. Thus the radiation energy level per unit volume decreases with continued expansion. And this radiation energy level per unit volume is the temperature of the cosmic background spectrum.

3)An accelerating universe is an open universe. So the observation simply settled the question. Big Bang theory works equally well for a closed or an open universe. There was a debate in the first place because the Big Bang theory works well with either case and only observations could tell the scientist which is the case.

4) The Big Bang theory is not a theory that tells scientists anything regarding the cause of the expansion. It's a theory that predicts the consequences of such an expansion from an initial hot energetic state. Basically Big Bang theory predicts the consequences of the Bang and is not about the causes of the Bang. The causes of the Bang is handled by the Inflation Theory.

 

[Super Universe]

If you have a new theory, write a manuscript showing all your Mathematics and predictions of your theory and submit it to a science journal. Certain points,

1)It has already been shown that early galaxies and stars have different composition from more recent galaxies and stars as the Big Bang theory predicts. So your proposition is false at the start.

2) The structure of the microwave radiation itself shows that it was hot once and cooled evenly. It was a straightforward prediction of the Big Bang theory that this radiation would exist and would be of that spectral shape due to the expansion of the universe. If you have a theory of how that radiation profile can occur without an initial hot universe, write the math and predictions of the math in detail and submit it to a journal.

Your analogy of cooling is false. In your example, heat is moving from the hot body to the cooler air by convection and radiation. But there is nothing outside the universe to which the heat can be transmitted to. Here is a more correct analogy. Consider a glass of water. Now pour the water from that glass into a large pan. Clearly the water level in the glass was higher than in the pan. Why? Since the water needs to occupy a larger volume of space. Similarly the total radiation energy content of the universe is constant, but as the universe expands, this energy gets spread over on a larger volume. Thus the radiation energy level per unit volume decreases with continued expansion. And this radiation energy level per unit volume is the temperature of the cosmic background spectrum.

3)An accelerating universe is an open universe. So the observation simply settled the question. Big Bang theory works equally well for a closed or an open universe. There was a debate in the first place because the Big Bang theory works well with either case and only observations could tell the scientist which is the case.

4) The Big Bang theory is not a theory that tells scientists anything regarding the cause of the expansion. It's a theory that predicts the consequences of such an expansion from an initial hot energetic state. Basically Big Bang theory predicts the consequences of the Bang and is not about the causes of the Bang. The causes of the Bang is handled by the Inflation Theory.

If I have a new theory I can write it up and submit it? A specific angel goes out into new space and brings about what's called emergent energy that forms particles. I don't think that is going to be well received by a science journal.

It has already been shown that early galaxies and stars have a different composition from more recent galaxies? They do not have different compositions. They might be classified as spiral or elliptical but they all have the same elements. So my proposition is not false at the start.


EDIT: I think what you are trying to say is that young stars have different compositions in elements than older stars. This is correct, to some degree. But there is a mix of young and old stars in every galaxy. We don't see younger stars or younger galaxies the farther out we look. In fact, Hubbles 13.2 billion year picture showed fully formed galaxies where the scientists thought would be gas clouds.


The structure of microwave radiation shows that it was once hot? No, it does not. It shows that space is cold. Being cold does not prove that something was once hot.

Now, I absolutely agree with your statement that the cause of the uniform coldness is the expansion of space. Space is not formed hot. It's all cold so the more space you have the more uniform cold you have.

I could write this up and submit it to a journal? If I say that space was hot and cooled is the same as saying it was always cool. No one can prove it one way or another. I could tell you that your ear is made of atoms that used to be in a star and very hot, or I could tell you that those atoms never were hot, there's no way to prove one or the other.

My analogy about uneven cooling is false? So there is some EMR reflective material at the outer ends of the universe that reflect microwave radiation back inward? The earth gets radiation from every direction. What is this reflective material?

The total energy content of the universe is constant? Oh, the COE again. Name one test that proves that energy cannot be created? Just one. You can't invent laws and say it's a law just because it's something that is way beyond your ability. Humans can't create energy, that does not mean that it's impossible. You're basing this on your idea that everything came from a singularity and thinking the singularity always existed because you don't know where it could have come from. That's not what happened.

The radiation energy level per unit of volume decreases with continued expansion? I agree. So, space should actually be getting colder as it expands but since it's so cold already we're talking in incredibly small measurements over time. But that is caused by the expansion of space, not a big bang.

The big bang does not tell scientists anything about the cause of the expansion? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The discovery of the expansion did lead to the idea of the big bang. The INCREASING speed of expansion is not a result of the big bang, there is some other force at work that is not known.

 

[gnostic]

GR is GR. GR is not the big bang. It's GR. Saying that GR allows a big bang is like saying that our moon allows black holes to exist.

Lambda-CDM model provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:

-background radiation

-distribution of galaxies

-abundance of hydrogen and other

-the accelerating expansion of the universe

Super Universe. You really don’t know what you are talking about.

The Lambda-CDM model is the current (as in the most recent) and standard model of the Big Bang theory.

The Lambda-CDM model is the culmination of a lot of past knowledges of the Big Bang, including the 1948:

1. of Gamow’s Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Hot Big Bang model,
2. and of Alpher and Herman’s collaboration on the prediction of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

Gamow, Alpher and Herman have already predicted “background radiation” in 1948, and have already explained the “abundance of hydrogen”, about 40 years before the Lambda-CDM model.

The Lambda-CDM model, starting in the 1990s, is the extension of 1948 model, where new evidences provided better understanding of the Big Bang model, thereby increasing the scope of the model, to include how the universe is expanding, and why it has been accelerating.

For you, to bad-mouth the Big Bang theory, but find the Lambda-CDM model to be more acceptable, actually showed how ignorant you are on this subject:

The Lambda-CDM model is the Big Bang model!​

And the latest model (Λ-CDM) doesn’t disagree with hot dense beginning (Hot Big Bang model); no, it actually confirmed it.

Below, is another example that you don’t know what you are talking about:

Lambda is the big bang? No, it's background radiation which says that space is cold and it's the distribution of galaxies which says that "We don't know why they are separated" and it's hydrogen which says that "There are a lot of elements out there but mostly hydrogen" and it's the expansion of the universe which says "Big bang not likely the cause".

No, super universe.

Lambda isn’t the Big Bang and it is background radiation.

Lambda stands for “Dark Energy”.

And CDM is the abbreviation of the “Cold Dark Matter”. These are two new things introduced in the most recent model of the Big Bang theory.

Lambda has nothing to do with background radiation. Lambda or more precisely, Dark Energy, is what cause the universe to expand, and acceleration of expansion.

​

 

[Super Universe]

Super Universe. You really don’t know what you are talking about.

The Lambda-CDM model is the current (as in the most recent) and standard model of the Big Bang theory.

The Lambda-CDM model is the culmination of a lot of past knowledges of the Big Bang, including the 1948:

1. of Gamow’s Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Hot Big Bang model,
2. and of Alpher and Herman’s collaboration on the prediction of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

Gamow, Alpher and Herman have already predicted “background radiation” in 1948, and have already explained the “abundance of hydrogen”, about 40 years before the Lambda-CDM model.

The Lambda-CDM model, starting in the 1990s, is the extension of 1948 model, where new evidences provided better understanding of the Big Bang model, thereby increasing the scope of the model, to include how the universe is expanding, and why it has been accelerating.

For you, to bad-mouth the Big Bang theory, but find the Lambda-CDM model to be more acceptable, actually showed how ignorant you are on this subject:

The Lambda-CDM model is the Big Bang model!​

And the latest model (Λ-CDM) doesn’t disagree with hot dense beginning (Hot Big Bang model); no, it actually confirmed it.

Below, is another example that you don’t know what you are talking about:



No, super universe.

Lambda isn’t the Big Bang and it is background radiation.

Lambda stands for “Dark Energy”.

And CDM is the abbreviation of the “Cold Dark Matter”. These are two new things introduced in the most recent model of the Big Bang theory.

Lambda has nothing to do with background radiation. Lambda or more precisely, Dark Energy, is what cause the universe to expand, and acceleration of expansion.

​

When they say "We don't know what happened in the first moments of the big bang," that is telling you something. It's telling you that it's impossible. The evidence has been forced into the big bang idea. A big bang can't happen. Gravity won't allow it to happen and that's not how the galaxies were formed anyway.

The Lambda model is the current standard model of the big bang? None of the components of the Lambda model are evidence for a big bang and some of them are actually evidence against a big bang.

Nucleosynthesis describes what stars do. This is not evidence of a big bang because stars have been making heavier elements for billions of years. This is what stars do. If I show you an element can you tell me whether it was produced in a star or by a big bang? You can't.

What the scientists are trying to do is say that the early big bang did what we know stars do. There is no way to prove that the more complex elements came from a big bang or stars but we know that gravity will not allow a big bang to happen so, you guess which one produced the elements.

Some knuckleheads predicted background radiation in 1948? The background radiation they ended up finding is uniform very cold space. A lack of heat. You guys think this is some fantastic incredible discovery that proves the big band when all it is is cold space. Space has always been cold. It was never hot. The coldness of space is not evidence for a hot big bang.

The same knuckleheads found an abundance of hydrogen? Okay, hydrogen is abundant. How is that evidence for a big bang? What if helium was more abundant, or oxygen, or any element, they would not prove a different formation method for the universe. Hydrogen is not big bang stuff, it's universal stuff.

The new Lambda includes how the universe is expanding? Nonsense. No scientist knows why the universe is increasing it's expansion. None. They were completely surprised by it. You haven't got a clue. You think it's this dark energy and dark matter stuff but your Lambda stuff and big bang ideas and GR did not predict them so you're completely lost. You're trying to force the evidence to fit something that is impossible.

Lambda is the big bang? Anyone can force a square peg into a round hole with a sledge hammer.

The latest model confirmed a hot dense big bang? Or, it confirmed that the heavier elements were made inside stars. It's easy to get them confused, stars, and a big bang.

Lambda stands for dark energy? Okay then, what is dark energy? What frequency of EMR is it? I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Lambda and CDM are the two new things introduced in the most recent model of the big bang theory? Right, neither were predicted by Lamaitre or any big bang math. They were a complete suprise. I can print out any paper and put it in a folder entitled "Big Bang" but that does not mean it's correct.

Lambda is what causes the universe to expand? And Lambda is what, what frequency of EMR? What particle?

 

[Vouthon]

The Intelligent Design argument is pure pseudoscience.

What I consider to be highly regrettable is that some theists and apologists of Christianity, particularly in the United States, use the genuinely thought-provoking "cosmological fine-tuning argument" in conjunction with the anti-evolutionistic Intelligent Design argument.

As a consequence, a compelling philosophical argument deduced from scientific data (fine tuning) - certainly no less so than the "multiverse" proposition - can get tied at the hip with an argument from scientific ignorance (intelligent design), and therefore the former can sometimes get unfairly dismissed by atheists – guilt by association, courtesy of the scientifically illiterate/enemies of science.

The fine-tuning of the universe's physical laws under the present Lambda-CDM model has been recognised with broad consensus by leading cosmologists, many of them agnostic or atheist in belief. It is rather strange to me how some atheists can overlook or even on occasion dismiss this mainstream science when it comes to fine-tuning, thereby indulging in an error not all that dissimilar from that which they justifiably charge extreme creationists of when it comes to evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Never trust humans.

Rejected.

The scientists have been lying to the public.

Nope. It's the theists.

 

[Super Universe]

Rejected.



Nope. It's the theists.

So gravity wasn't until it was?

 

[gnostic]

When they say "We don't know what happened in the first moments of the big bang," that is telling you something. It's telling you that it's impossible. The evidence has been forced into the big bang idea. A big bang can't happen. Gravity won't allow it to happen and that's not how the galaxies were formed anyway.

The Lambda model is the current standard model of the big bang? None of the components of the Lambda model are evidence for a big bang and some of them are actually evidence against a big bang.

Nucleosynthesis describes what stars do. This is not evidence of a big bang because stars have been making heavier elements for billions of years. This is what stars do. If I show you an element can you tell me whether it was produced in a star or by a big bang? You can't.

What the scientists are trying to do is say that the early big bang did what we know stars do. There is no way to prove that the more complex elements came from a big bang or stars but we know that gravity will not allow a big bang to happen so, you guess which one produced the elements.

Some knuckleheads predicted background radiation in 1948? The background radiation they ended up finding is uniform very cold space. A lack of heat. You guys think this is some fantastic incredible discovery that proves the big band when all it is is cold space. Space has always been cold. It was never hot. The coldness of space is not evidence for a hot big bang.

The same knuckleheads found an abundance of hydrogen? Okay, hydrogen is abundant. How is that evidence for a big bang? What if helium was more abundant, or oxygen, or any element, they would not prove a different formation method for the universe. Hydrogen is not big bang stuff, it's universal stuff.

The new Lambda includes how the universe is expanding? Nonsense. No scientist knows why the universe is increasing it's expansion. None. They were completely surprised by it. You haven't got a clue. You think it's this dark energy and dark matter stuff but your Lambda stuff and big bang ideas and GR did not predict them so you're completely lost. You're trying to force the evidence to fit something that is impossible.

Lambda is the big bang? Anyone can force a square peg into a round hole with a sledge hammer.

The latest model confirmed a hot dense big bang? Or, it confirmed that the heavier elements were made inside stars. It's easy to get them confused, stars, and a big bang.

Lambda stands for dark energy? Okay then, what is dark energy? What frequency of EMR is it? I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Lambda and CDM are the two new things introduced in the most recent model of the big bang theory? Right, neither were predicted by Lamaitre or any big bang math. They were a complete suprise. I can print out any paper and put it in a folder entitled "Big Bang" but that does not mean it's correct.

Lambda is what causes the universe to expand? And Lambda is what, what frequency of EMR? What particle?

I knew this was going to happen.

You stated that...

Lambda-CDM model provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:

And then listed 4 different properties of this model, of which 2 of these properties were already predicted by 3 astrophysicists - Gamow, Alpher and Herman - in 1948 -

(A) background radiation and
(B) the abundance of hydrogen in the early young universe.​

The background radiation was first discovered by accident in 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, when they were working on radio astronomy telescope at Bell Labs. This was the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

A clearer detection of CMBR than 1964, were first given, first in 1988-1991 from Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), a space telescope used microwave ansiotropy to detect background radiation. This was then followed by WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Ansiotropy Probe) from 2001 (and still active), and Planck space observatory, 2009 - 2013.

Hundreds and thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers have looked and researched CMBR data from WMAP and Planck, not just by those whom worked at NASA.

And you think you are smarter than those who worked on it for years? You really are quite delusional, super universe.

You are also quite ignorant and hypocritical.

You say you accept the ΛCDM model as acceptable account for cosmology, but you have no idea that is simply the latest model of the Big Bang cosmological model.

The Big Bang model may have started independently in the 1920s, by Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1925-1926) and Georges Lemaître (1927).

Each one using their own metric with General Relativity, to solve the universe is expanding, but their works were continued in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, and later in the 1990s with the Lambda-CDM model.

You are in self-denial, that ΛCDM model is a Big Bang model. You didn’t even know what Lambda (Λ) stand for.

Λ is “Dark Energy”, and that is the 4th property of cosmos, that you have listed, the cause of acceleration of the universe’s expansion.

-the accelerating expansion of the universe

How did you miss this:

The letter Λ (lambda) stands for the cosmological constant, which is currently associated with a vacuum energy or dark energy in empty space that is used to explain the contemporary accelerating expansion of space against the attractive effects of gravity.

You really need to read and understand what the model is saying. ΛCDM model never refuted 1920s and 1948’s model, it just further confirmed their hypotheses.

It would seem that you got the 4 properties of the Lamda-CDM model from Wikipedia, but did not bother to read the whole article; did you just skim only the introduction of the article?

Why did you say the Lamda-CDM model is a “reasonably good account”, and yet you go about dishing the Lamda-CDM model, by ignoring that this account is about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

You really are absurd and ignorant.

 

[Super Universe]

I knew this was going to happen.

You stated that...



And then listed 4 different properties of this model, of which 2 of these properties were already predicted by 3 astrophysicists - Gamow, Alpher and Herman - in 1948 -

(A) background radiation and
(B) the abundance of hydrogen in the early young universe.​

The background radiation was first discovered by accident in 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, when they were working on radio astronomy telescope at Bell Labs. This was the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

A clearer detection of CMBR than 1964, were first given, first in 1988-1991 from Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), a space telescope used microwave ansiotropy to detect background radiation. This was then followed by WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Ansiotropy Probe) from 2001 (and still active), and Planck space observatory, 2009 - 2013.

Hundreds and thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers have looked and researched CMBR data from WMAP and Planck, not just by those whom worked at NASA.

And you think you are smarter than those who worked on it for years? You really are quite delusional, super universe.

You are also quite ignorant and hypocritical.

You say you accept the ΛCDM model as acceptable account for cosmology, but you have no idea that is simply the latest model of the Big Bang cosmological model.

The Big Bang model may have started independently in the 1920s, by Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1925-1926) and Georges Lemaître (1927).

Each one using their own metric with General Relativity, to solve the universe is expanding, but their works were continued in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, and later in the 1990s with the Lambda-CDM model.

You are in self-denial, that ΛCDM model is a Big Bang model. You didn’t even know what Lambda (Λ) stand for.

Λ is “Dark Energy”, and that is the 4th property of cosmos, that you have listed, the cause of acceleration of the universe’s expansion.



How did you miss this:


You really need to read and understand what the model is saying. ΛCDM model never refuted 1920s and 1948’s model, it just further confirmed their hypotheses.

It would seem that you got the 4 properties of the Lamda-CDM model from Wikipedia, but did not bother to read the whole article; did you just skim only the introduction of the article?

Why did you say the Lamda-CDM model is a “reasonably good account”, and yet you go about dishing the Lamda-CDM model, by ignoring that this account is about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

You really are absurd and ignorant.

I did not state "Lambda CDM model provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos." What I was doing was posting the components of Lambda so I could post my arguments about why they do not support the big bang. I'm sorry you got confused.

Lamaitre predicted cosmic rays to be leftover from a big bang. Cosmic rays are high energy radiation. Here's the thing, we have found cosmic rays in space so you would think that would support his hypothesis but, for some reason, the microwave background radiation (which is cold space) is attributed to being the radiation that Lamaitre predicted when that's not what he predicted.

I think this is because the background radiation is very uniform, coming from every direction as you might expect if there were a big bang whereas cosmic rays, they think, are produced by supernova so they are not leftover from the big bang.

When a teacher tells their students that Lamaitre predicted the uniform microwave background radiation and he didn't, that is lying.

Gamow, Alpher, and Herman wrote papers predicting the big bang would produce the elements that we see in the universe? Once again, stars produce those elements. Some of these guys are not intentionaly lying, some of them are just forcing the evidence to fit the big bang idea.

The background radiation was discovered by accident? QUESTION.

That should be a huge clue right there. Lamaitre predicted COSMIC RAYS, not microwave radiation. So when they found microwave radiation they assumed it was from the big bang and they thought, well, Lamaitre just got his radiation wrong by a few wavelengths.

Please provide a test or experiment that proves that cold space is created hot. We see it daily expanding and we NEVER see it produced hot. Space is increasing it's size on it's own and it's always cold. We see this daily. That's proof that cold space is forming on it's own, no big bang needed.

All the space probes detected and measured the microwave background radiation? QUESTION.

They did. That just means that space is uniformly very cold. Lamaitre predicted cosmic rays, not microwaves.

I think I am smarter than those who worked on it for years? QUESTION.

No, but I don't have the same agenda that they do. I don't care how God did it, I'm interested in learning the truth but I don't care if it really was a big bang or nebula's formed by angels. I used to agree with science when I was young and didn't know better, then I studied tribal societies and cultures and people and travelled the world. Scientists can't get it right. No one gets super complex things right the first time. They always put their desires into the evidence. Religion did and still does the same thing because humans can't stop being human.

To approve the big bang idea all the scientists had to do was to dismiss gravity. What would you think of a scientist who dismisses their greatest physical law for background radiation?

I'm delusional? QUESTION.

Okay, explain how gravity allowed the big bang to happen? Can't wait to hear it.

Once again, I do not accept the ACDM model. I accept the independant results but I do not accept that they are evidence of a big bang.

GR is not the big bang and it is not the expansion of space. Einstein had no idea that the universe was expanding and at first thought Lamaitre's idea of the big bang to be impossible. Later on he seemed to adopt the idea of cosmic rays in space and possibly even the big bang idea, people still debate which one Einstein was supporting.

Dark energy is the 4th property of the cosmos? QUESTION.

What? Explain.

 

[gnostic]

Lamaitre predicted cosmic rays to be leftover from a big bang. Cosmic rays are high energy radiation. Here's the thing, we have found cosmic rays in space so you would think that would support his hypothesis but, for some reason, the microwave background radiation (which is cold space) is attributed to being the radiation that Lamaitre predicted when that's not what he predicted.

Again, you are wrong.

It wasn’t Lemaître to predicted the cosmic radiation of the Big Bang. It were two American physicists - Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman who first brought the background radiation (CMBR), in 1948.

Gamow, Alpher and Herman were working together, revising and expanding Lemaître’s original theory. They were responsible for microwave background radiation, not Lemaître. Are you so blindsided, that you cannot see that I didn’t mention Lemaître at all, with regarding to background radiation?

To make it very obvious to you:

Lemaître did not mention background radiation,
Alpher & Herman predicted the radiation!​

You are not paying attention to what you are reading. You are like a child, who would only see what he to see, without understanding.

The abundance of hydrogen atoms in the young universe, was the result of bonding electrons to ionised hydrogen nuclei. This “bonding” resulting in the earliest visible photons being decoupled from the hydrogen atoms.

The only reason why this primordial photons can be seen by radio telescope is that as the light ages, it become more and more red-shifted, attenuating into infrared and microwave wavelengths.

That’s radio telescopes and space observatories, like COBE, WMAP and Planck can detect microwave anisotropry.

The 1948 model by Gamow, and his former student, Alpher, and their other colleague, Herman, is still a valid model, even with the newer ΛCDM.

I am definitely no astrophysicist, and yet you know less than me, and you are confusing very subject on the ΛCDM model.

Lambda is the big bang? Anyone can force a square peg into a round hole with a sledge hammer.

Again, more ignorance and straw man.

Lambda is the symbol for dark energy. That what it signified in the latest model. Can you not comprehend? Can you not read?

Dark energy isn’t the Big Bang, it is just one factor causing the acceleration of expansion.

You really have blind spot, because you are not reading what’s in front of you.

Re-read the whole article on lambda-cdm model, instead of bits and pieces, because you really are making a big fool of yourself.

 

[Super Universe]

Again, you are wrong.

It wasn’t Lemaître to predicted the cosmic radiation of the Big Bang. It were two American physicists - Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman who first brought the background radiation (CMBR), in 1948.

Gamow, Alpher and Herman were working together, revising and expanding Lemaître’s original theory. They were responsible for microwave background radiation, not Lemaître. Are you so blindsided, that you cannot see that I didn’t mention Lemaître at all, with regarding to background radiation?

To make it very obvious to you:

Lemaître did not mention background radiation,
Alpher & Herman predicted the radiation!​

You are not paying attention to what you are reading. You are like a child, who would only see what he to see, without understanding.

The abundance of hydrogen atoms in the young universe, was the result of bonding electrons to ionised hydrogen nuclei. This “bonding” resulting in the earliest visible photons being decoupled from the hydrogen atoms.

The only reason why this primordial photons can be seen by radio telescope is that as the light ages, it become more and more red-shifted, attenuating into infrared and microwave wavelengths.

That’s radio telescopes and space observatories, like COBE, WMAP and Planck can detect microwave anisotropry.

The 1948 model by Gamow, and his former student, Alpher, and their other colleague, Herman, is still a valid model, even with the newer ΛCDM.

I am definitely no astrophysicist, and yet you know less than me, and you are confusing very subject on the ΛCDM model.

Again, more ignorance and straw man.

Lambda is the symbol for dark energy. That what it signified in the latest model. Can you not comprehend? Can you not read?

Dark energy isn’t the Big Bang, it is just one factor causing the acceleration of expansion.

You really have blind spot, because you are not reading what’s in front of you.

Re-read the whole article on lambda-cdm model, instead of bits and pieces, because you really are making a big fool of yourself.

I'm not paying attention to what I'm reading? I've forgotten more than you ever knew. Human scientific thought was so pitiful. I've always found it absolutely amazing what you humans tell yourselves.

It wasn't Lamaitre who predicted cosmic radiation of the big bang, it was Alpher and Herman? In reality it was a very long list of people. Lamaitre predicted cosmic rays. Background radiation is not cosmic rays so he is not included on the Wiki Cosmic Background Radiation page list.

You may want to refresh your information and read up on stellar nucleosynthesis.

The abundance of hydrogen atoms was the result of bonding electrons to ionised hydrogen nuclei? And when did gravity activate? Even the angels cannot produce a big bang. It's impossible.

You say that the only reason that primordial photons can be seen by radio telescopes is that as light ages it becomes more red shifted? This is incorrect. The red shift is not caused by the age of light, it's caused by the transmitter of the light moving away from the receiver of the light. Light does not give it's age. The age of the universe is a guess based upon the speed and measured acceleration of the target moving away from where scientists "think" everything came from. A blue shift in the light means a target is moving towards us, not that the target is young.

You continuously insult me but you're the one getting the physics wrong.

The 1948 model is still valid? And gravity is or is not valid? Which is it? You can't just use it when it's convenient and then dismiss it when it stops your "theory" cold.

Lambda is the symbol for dark energy? You can worship Lambda symbol if you wish. When are you going to provide details on this dark energy, what kind of particle is it?

Can I read? Better than you. English is my first language unlike you.

Dark energy is not the big bang? Who told you it was? Oh, Lambda told you that? You're easily confused. Must happen a lot. Seems to happen two or three times each post.

You're no astrophysicist? In the US we have a saying "No sh**."

I really have a blind spot? Perfect vision there little Gilligan.

I should re read the Lambda article? No, what are you going to do about it?

What are you going to do when the James Webb finds galaxies over 14 billion light years away? Where are you going to run to? You can't go to religion, they have standards.

 

[Profound Realization]

I can't wrap my brain around the ignorance of people who cannot understand that "theory" in science is the equivalent of "fact".

Oh, it's just the "theory of gravity?"

By all means, jump off a skyscraper and see if gravity isn't real. Also, it's not as though you can throw a ball into the air and not expect it to come back down.

Natural properties of weight explain that just fine, no need for any superstition of gravity.
We already know that there is an up-down as well. It's not the Earth that is attracting the person falling from a skyscraper. The person jumping is simply heavier than the air.

The Earth doesn't attract an ant crawling on a ceiling nor does it attract rising smoke.

 

[Sapiens]

Natural properties of weight explain that just fine, no need for any superstition of gravity.
We already know that there is an up-down as well. It's not the Earth that is attracting the person falling from a skyscraper. The person jumping is simply heavier than the air.

The Earth doesn't attract an ant crawling on a ceiling nor does it attract rising smoke.

You are ever so wrong. The Earth certainly does attract an ant crawling on a ceiling and does attract rising smoke, there are just other stronger forces at work that overcome gravity.

 

[Profound Realization]

You are ever so wrong. The Earth certainly does attract an ant crawling on a ceiling and does attract rising smoke, there are just other stronger forces at work that overcome gravity.

Does gravity attract the ant on a ceiling to the Earth, or attract rising smoke to the Earth, or the person falling from a skyscraper to the Earth?

 

[Sapiens]

Does gravity attract the ant on a ceiling to the Earth, or attract rising smoke to the Earth, or the person falling from a skyscraper to the Earth?

Gravity attracts them all, but there are other force vectors at work, the strongest wins.

 

[Profound Realization]

Gravity attracts them all, but there are other force vectors at work, the strongest wins.

I'd ask for proof of that superstitious attraction of gravity, outside of anything that natural properties of weight/buoyancy/states of matter can't explain and/or the true/known forces at work, but that would be dishonest of me because there is none.

Would it be these other stronger forces at work that hold the oceans on the Earth as opposed to this "very weak" force/fictitious gravitational force? That'd be pretty impressive to keep the oceans attracted to the Earth but unable to attract rising smoke back to the Earth or attract an ant from the ceiling back to Earth.

 

[sayak83]

I'd ask for proof of that superstitious attraction of gravity, outside of anything that natural properties of weight/buoyancy/states of matter can't explain and/or the true/known forces at work, but that would be dishonest of me because there is none.

Would it be these other stronger forces at work that hold the oceans on the Earth as opposed to this "very weak" force/fictitious gravitational force? That'd be pretty impressive to keep the oceans attracted to the Earth but unable to attract rising smoke back to the Earth or attract an ant from the ceiling back to Earth.

Take a course in physics.

 

[gnostic]

Lambda is the symbol for dark energy? You can worship Lambda symbol if you wish. When are you going to provide details on this dark energy, what kind of particle is it?

That's what the model is called, and it is what the lambda mean.

I wasn't the one who gave the name to this model, but you really should investigate, read and understand the model yourself, because clearly you are not understanding it.

Gamow, Alpher, and Herman wrote papers predicting the big bang would produce the elements that we see in the universe? Once again, stars produce those elements. Some of these guys are not intentionaly lying, some of them are just forcing the evidence to fit the big bang idea.

Wow!

I didn't know that you would stoop as low as lying and making things up.

Gamow, Alpher and Herman didn't have the evidences at that time, when the CMBR was finally DISCOVERED IN 1964.

In scientific method, you make preliminary observation, you would explain and make some predictions. Then you would test it. But at that time, they couldn't test it, because they didn't have the technology yet. The radio telescope was invented in 1932, but it wasn't powerful enough to detect the background radiation.

For you to say, these men were forcing the evidences to fit their Big Bang concept, it is actually idiotic thing to say. They weren't the one who actually discovered CMBR in 1948, they only predicted it, from the limited data they had.

It was in 1964, when Arno Penizas and Robert Wilson discovered at Bell Labs, when they were testing their radio telescope.

The CMBR have been confirmed repeatedly since then, including those mapped out by COBE in 90s, WMAP (2001 to 2015, still active) and Planck (2009 to 2013).

It was evidences that came later, not before Gamow, Alpher and Herman wrote their papers. Wilson and Penzias got the Nobel Prize for their discoveries, but Gamow, Alpher and Herman didn't get it.

Lambda-CDM is the current model of the Big Bang, which started in 1990s.

And you are being foolish, baiting me with this lambda-worshipping nonsense.

I didn't make up the name for the ΛCDM model, and I wasn't the one who introduced dark energy into the model. And you are fool to think you know what this model is, when you haven't even read it.

 

[gnostic]

Take a course in physics.

You should tell this to Super Universe, because clearly it is out of his depth.