Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

[KL-666]

I am sorry Lydiot. As two nonos on the scientific area, we can not prove anything. All we can do is point at uncertainties they themselves take for sureness.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

I am sorry Lydiot. As two nonos on the scientific area,

Speak for yourself.

we can not prove anything. All we can do is point at uncertainties they themselves take for sureness.

Kind regards, Vincent

So your argument is essentially based on your self-professed ignorance. And this you say after skyboat wrote all those posts to you, went through all that effort...???

Of course you'd call things you willingly don't understand "fantasy", and those working on it "apes".

[KL-666]

Yes, Lydiot i do all those horrible things.

Kind regards, Vincent

[SkyBoat]

Hello KL-666-

I enjoyed reading your remarks. I think you are understating your understanding of astronomy and have a higher level of comprehension than you give yourself credit for.

I am puzzled, however, about your hypothesis regarding red shift, in which you wrote,

They say: "We measure the distance of far galaxies by the amount of red shift".

This is really turning things around in a way that can not be done. If you can say: "I measure more red shift at far galaxies", you can not simply turn that around in: "The more red shift i measure, the further a galaxy is". Then all following conclusions are based on self-fulfilling measuring. The universe then always expands.

I don't understand your rationale for red shift "turning things around in a way that cannot be done." If you could explain that more thoroughly and provide, perhaps some resources for your assertion, that would be helpful. Your conclusion, that the more an object is red-shifted the more distant it is, is the standard definition. That is what a spectrographic plate of a galaxy shows is a scientific metric, not a "self-fulfilling measuring." With a proper telescope and a spectrograph (say a 200mm/10" Newtonian Reflector telescope, easily available from any of various online companies catering to backyard astronomers, you could purchase a spectroscope (also available online) and photograph stars and galaxies for yourself and see the absorption lines shifting toward either red or blue depending on whether that object is approaching or receding from earth. It is like a litmus test in chemistry. If the test strip is pink, the solution is acid, if it is blue, it is base.

And your last sentence is correct, but with the condition that we now know the Cosmological Constant has the value that the amount of mass in the universe is insufficient to provide enough quantum gravity to slow it down (the so-called "Big Crunch Theory", where the gravity of the universe pulls itself back into another singularity, perhaps creating another Big Bang), so in fact the universe is going to expand to the point of the completion of Entropy (when Entropy = 1, by definition, all the energy of the universe will have been used up or converted to mass). That is what is called the "Heat Death of the Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe over half a googol number (10 followed by 100 zeros) of years in the future: . But that is a phenomenon we have only discovered with any certainty since the 1990s, when the technology to measure that mass using space telescopes caught up with the theory, when, as I showed in an earlier post, Einstein's Field Theory formula contained the value Lambda for the Cosmological Constant, but what that value really was remained hotly debated until it was finally defined about a decade ago.

I am very much looking forward to your reply and expansion on your thoughts about red shift, as well as other aspects of what we have been discussing.

[Lydiot]

I don't understand your rationale for red shift "turning things around in a way that cannot be done." If you could explain that more thoroughly and provide, perhaps some resources for your assertion, that would be helpful. Your conclusion, that the more an object is red-shifted the more distant it is, is the standard definition. That is what a spectrographic plate of a galaxy shows is a scientific metric, not a "self-fulfilling measuring." With a proper telescope and a spectrograph (say a 200mm/10" Newtonian Reflector telescope, easily available from any of various online companies catering to backyard astronomers, you could purchase a spectroscope (also available online) and photograph stars and galaxies for yourself and see the absorption lines shifting toward either red or blue depending on whether that object is approaching or receding from earth. It is like a litmus test in chemistry. If the test strip is pink, the solution is acid, if it is blue, it is base.

I think his reasoning was that the red shift can't, or doesn't work on a large scale, such as distances between galaxies. If red shift isn't applicable over a long distance, then the "standard definition" is no longer certain. And, because a presumed majority of astrophysicists keep promoting this thesis, and because KLM is right, they are apes, and the thesis is just fantasy.

I actually wouldn't expect much in terms of a response relying on "some resources for your assertion", and here is why:

He proposed that another scientist was "hushed up" because he proposed an alternate theory on it all, and that it then constituted evidence of a larger... well, not "conspiracy", but "tendency" to hush up those who don't agree. I then said (paraphrased), 'well, if his theory has actually been tested and proven false, will you then acknowledge that that proof (of this tendency) is actually shown to be false, because they did in fact test the theory?' The only response was that it wasn't about that particular theory, but about the tendency. But further evidence of that assertion wasn't given, and no evidence of what you're now requesting was given either. So, honestly, what could you possibly expect? And fair enough, if you have different amounts of knowledge then reciprocation might be difficult, but then even a 'high-level' (programming-speak) conversation should be possible. So I did for example ask the simple question, or pose the concern, that perhaps he's confusing the various levels to which principles can be "extrapolated" (as I believe he put it): meaning it's not that we can't extrapolate from red-shift to measuring galaxies (small to large), but rather from quantum mechanics to classical physics (VERY small to less small, and large).... at least not yet... and those in my opinion valid questions were just met with... well, see for yourself.

[SkyBoat]

@Lydiot,

Thank you for your analysis. You filled in some blanks in the story I had not read in earlier posts in the thread. We'll just have to see what he replies with. But I have known him for several years and we have always had a good relationship and friendship, so I think his comments will be more measured than they were in other parts of the thread.

[Lydiot]

For the record I'm actually open to other theories, should they be as likely. I just don't like the notion of describing scientists as "apes" as it to me indicates a complete lack of openness to serious investigation.

A couple of interesting theories are the parallel universe hypothesis, a universe in a different dimension in which matter interacts with our universe, but only part of it. The other, which I thought also was interesting, was the notion that if we're already slowing down the rate of expansion, that decreasing rate would be higher closer to the point of the big bang/origin, and lower towards the 'outside' of the universe, and as such we'd see our universe 'expand' because we're still in the expanding half of the process. Once we begin to contract again we'll see the opposite of course (though we'll all be dead then).

Those are just poor descriptions of quick reads though.

[KL-666]

"turning things around in a way that cannot be done"

It is a basic logical principle that when A implies B, you can not make B implies A out of it. "A seagull has feathers" does not make "something with feathers is a seagull" true. Another one: "When i walk in the rain, i get wet", "When i get wet, i am walking in the rain".

Red shift is a tool to measure velocity. With other tools you may measure distance. Combined Hubble came to:

- The further the galaxy, the faster it moves away (the more red shift measured).

Fine. But then it was turned around in:

- The more red shift measured, the further the galaxy is.

This statement postulates that red shift measures distance. By measuring distance with red shift instead of proper measuring methods for distance, there is no chance of finding galaxies with high red shift at short distance. They are by definition far, even if they really are not.

The turnaround of the statements is logically not proper, but worst of all astronomers are blinding themselves for new discoveries.

Think about this. A man knows a couple of buoys in a line outward the bay are half a mile in between. He starts measuring ships that pass the buoys at 1 meter from his eyes, and gets measurements in centimeters ship length when they pass each buoy. He puts it all in a nice linear graph. Now he can predict how many centimeters ship he will measure at each distance, and he concludes that "the further a ship, the less centimeters it measures"

One day a friend comes along and asks: How far is that ship there? Unfortunately the buoys are gone. No problem, let's turn the statement around in "the measured centimeters determine the distance". He measures the ship as 4cm and tells his friend that the ship is 2 miles away.

He teaches this wonderful new method of measuring distance to his two sons, and later they start measuring ships themselves. A new buoy has been placed at half a mile, and the boys measure ships passing the buoy as 4cm, so they state: The buoy is at 2 miles.

Now one of the boys says: Hey, that is odd, the waves near the ships look rather big. Maybe that ship is small, so there may be something wrong with the measuring method "the measured centimeters determine the distance". This really angers the other boy and he shouts: What do you know? It is proven by our infinitely wise dad. And what did you ever prove? Nothing! You do not even have proof for an alternative theory. So just shut up.

Sadly for the truth of the buoy being at half a mile and not 2 miles, no one is ever going to find out, because distance is measured in centimeters ship instead of a proper method that measures distance.

Kind regards, Vincent

[SkyBoat]

Hello Vincent.

I now understand your perspective. You are, however, missing a crucial piece of the puzzle when you write,

Red shift is a tool to measure velocity. With other tools you may measure distance. Combined Hubble came to:

- The further the galaxy, the faster it moves away (the more red shift measured).

Fine. But then it was turned around in:

- The more red shift measured, the further the galaxy is.

This statement postulates that red shift measures distance. By measuring distance with red shift instead of proper measuring methods for distance, there is no chance of finding galaxies with high red shift at short distance. They are by definition far, even if they really are not.

Hubble did not just measure the red-shift of the galaxies he was observing, he also discovered a very interesting characteristic in the behavior of type 1a supernovae. Others were studying this, too; he just beat them to the punch publishing his results first, so he got the historical credit. He discovered that the spectral signature of these supernovae were almost all identical from a chemical perspective (what we now supernova neucleosynthesis). To grossly oversimplify what a supernova is, it is either a twin star system, one of which is a white dwarf and the other usually a red giant, or a single supergiant many times the mass of our sun). In the more common case, the supergiant, it has reached the end of its lifetime and used up all of its hydrogen and helium available for nuclear fusion, creating a gigantic iron core that has such tremendous mass it collapses in on itself (and if it is large enough, it will create a black hole) and the energy produced by the collapse creates an outward explosion of a mulilayered shockwave of the stellar core, taking with it the atoms which once were the iron, but now are shattered by the nuclear forces and as they travel through the shockwave undergo nuclear fusion in a very regular process:

28Si + 4He ↔ 32S + photon; 32S + 4He ↔ 36Ar + photon; 36Ar + 4He ↔ 40Ca + photon; 40Ca + 4He ↔ 44Ti + photon; 44Ti + 4He ↔ 48Cr + photon; 48Cr + 4He ↔ 52Fe + photon; 52Fe + 4He ↔ 56Ni + photon; 56Ni + 4He ↔ 60Zn + photon

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis

In plain language this a cascade of elements that begins with Silicon:

Silicon28 -> Sulfur32 ->Argon36 -> Calcium40 -> Titanium44 -> Chromium 48 -> Iron52 -> Nickel56 -> Zinc60 (Note that the numbers are isotopes not the atomic number of the element.)

I take the time to detail this, because these elements become crucial in spectrographic analysis as the absorption lines to look for in a supernova. But really, this is only the beginning, because the shockwave goes on to create the entire periodic table of elements all the way to Uranium.

Once Hubble and others had established this regularity of supernova explosions, he knew he had a standard by which he would then interpret his spectrographic images. From that research he extrapolated how to both measure the velocity and the distance of the object he was observing. It is now known as Hubble's Law. His first calculations were not that accurate and have been revised several times over the decades, but is now refined to a high degree of reliability. It is written as Ho If you are interested, here is an article written on the subject that is fairly readable for us who are laypersons, that is, not very many math formulas: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173.full.pdf

Here is the Hubble Diagram:



Note: 1 Mpc = 10^6 parsec = 3.26 x 10^6 light-years Image courtesy: http://m.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Relating-Redshift-and-Distance

So, basically, beginning in 1929 with Hubble's publications on the expansion of the universe, he provided both the way to measure the velocity and distance of deep space objects. His work has been subjected to rigorous examination over the past decades by numerous scientists, whose works are available in any public library with a significant science section.

Anyone wishing to seriously suggest that Hubble and the subsequent research is wrong, would first have to do an exhaustive literature review, find one or more critical flaws that show up year after year, decade after decade and have never been corrected AND are clearly at odds with observational evidence presented at the same time. That is, something critical has been missed or misinterpreted, and therefore, everything else was wrong from the beginning. Access to professional observatory time probably is not even essential in this day and age with the availability of professional grade telescopes on the open market, with mirrors up to 40 inches https://project40.wordpress.com/ As an aside, the 100 inch Hooker telescope on Mt Wilson, where Hubble did his work is currently idle and not being used for observation. The smaller 60 inch Hale, just a few dozen yards from it is used for tour groups, and is where where the party (literally party; it was my friend's 65th birthday party present from his wife) I was privileged to be part of spent an enormously pleasant six hours exploring the the universe above Pasadena, California on a mild September evening.

From my perspective the scientific work that has been done since Hubble has been rigorous and that his methodology has withstood many challenges over the intervening years. Any new method of determining both the speed of the expansion of the universe and its age would have to be built on a foundation that would be equally experimentally reproducible by anyone who did the work based on both the hypothesis and the observations and then the formulas that knitted the two together. I see this issue distinctly different than the issue of dark matter where there is a huge degree of theoretical assumption and virtually no experimental evidence, along with a mathematical structure, as I said in my earlier post I find very inelegant.

I'll stop here, because this is a lot to digest, and I am, as always eager to hear your perspective on what I have written.

[KL-666]

I am quite sure Hubble did a great job in observing and proving his theory. It is probably the best we can get with the knowledge of this time and age. But we also know that how well observed and proved, over time there are always emerging theories that are also well observed and proved, but then with more knowledge and technique of that time, describing reality even better.

What worries me is that current astronomers embrace Hubble as if it is the final theory. That excludes any effort to improve our understanding of the universe. I see this behaviour in several aspects:

- They tell me that a galaxy is far, because it has much red shift. Then i think, fine, you are not a person that is ever going to observe anything that forces you to think beyond Hubble.

- Gaps are patched with rather dubious dark matter. A lot of time is spent on elaborating on that stuff, instead of looking for improvements for our understanding of the universe.

- Elaborate buildings like the big bang are placed upon Hubble's theory. And here also a lot of time is spent on elaborating on it, instead of looking for improvements for our understanding of the universe.

- Anyone that has a "Hey, that is odd" moment, is ferociously slashed down by disproving parts of what he says. The whole case is thrown out of the window under cries of victory. Which is sad because parts of the content may have genuinely set the astronomers to thinking.

To say the least, we are at a slowdown of developing our understanding of the universe. A sort of dark ages on the timeline of emerging theories.

Kind regards, Vincent