Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

[Olga]

The universe - by definition - did not exist before the Big Bang. So no, it is not possible to measure the movement of something that did not exist.

??? Дэйв, вы действительно считаете, что Вселенная возникла из "ничего"? Разве такое возможно? Это противоречит всем законам физики, и здравому смыслу.

 

[billvon]

??? Dave, do you really think the universe came from "nothing"? Is that even possible? It defies all the laws of physics and common sense.

"The universe did not exist before the Big Bang" does not equal "the universe came from nothing."

 

[billvon]

Okay, Pin, so let's say it "expanded rapidly." What caused this expansion?

Physics. It was VERY hot and dense, and so it expanded. The same way a blob of burning explosive will expand rapidly.

 

[Pinball1970]

??? Дэйв, вы действительно считаете, что Вселенная возникла из "ничего"? Разве такое возможно? Это противоречит всем законам физики, и здравому смыслу.

Lawrence Krauss wrote about the fact empty space has energy, it was pop Science based on some known physics and tangential physics.
Most cosmologists I have spoken to have said that the Universe most likely has always existed.
So the "from nothing" may not be applicable.

The hard facts are the CMBR, predicted element distribution, red shift, star spectroscopy, galaxy spectroscopy, star formation, star death and many other features of BB Cosmology.

 

[Pinball1970]

??? Дэйв, вы действительно считаете, что Вселенная возникла из "ничего"? Разве такое возможно? Это противоречит всем законам физики, и здравому смыслу.

What is nice Olga, even though you can be bloody infuriating, is that you have dragged the god forsaken creation nut job thread, back into physics.
You have done this as a theist, perhaps a creationist but at least in a smart way, an honest way, THE RUSSIAN WAY.

WELCOME BACK OLGA!

 

[Pinball1970]

Physics. It was VERY hot and dense, and so it expanded. The same way a blob of burning explosive will expand rapidly.

Not the best analogy as that blob would expand into a space, a lab, room or other space.
It's weird to think of that blob being the only thing in existence that expands and there is no space around it.
The blob is everything including all space.
It's not possible to think that we cannot observe it, imagine it because we would have to be in it dimension wise, we could not step outside and look.

 

[billvon]

Not the best analogy as that blob would expand into a space, a lab, room or other space.

Well there were two factors at work as I understand it.

One was simple expansion. That's still going on today. As photons move outwards at the speed of light, the universe expands.

Two was inflation of spacetime. As the initial singularity expanded and went from pure energy to a quark "soup" to actual nucleons, it expanded FAR faster than the speed of light, since there was a pretty complex interplay between the energies of the initial event and the very fabric of space itself. This is no longer a factor.

It's not possible to think that we cannot observe it

We could but we'd have to have a warp drive or some other means of going MUCH faster than the speed of light. We'd have to out-race the furthest photons out there (the first ones that emanated from the Big Bang once photons could form) and then stop to look around. We'd see absolutely nothing; no photons, no radiation, no anything. We'd sense no gravity. There would be no way to tell one direction from the any other (although an onboard IMU could still maintain a reference attitude for the ship itself.)

Once the universe expanded past us then we'd see first the initial photons, then gradually the rest of the universe.

But since we can't do that, that's a theoretical exercise at best.

 

[exchemist]

Well there were two factors at work as I understand it.

One was simple expansion. That's still going on today. As photons move outwards at the speed of light, the universe expands.

Two was inflation of spacetime. As the initial singularity expanded and went from pure energy to a quark "soup" to actual nucleons, it expanded FAR faster than the speed of light, since there was a pretty complex interplay between the energies of the initial event and the very fabric of space itself. This is no longer a factor.



We could but we'd have to have a warp drive or some other means of going MUCH faster than the speed of light. We'd have to out-race the furthest photons out there (the first ones that emanated from the Big Bang once photons could form) and then stop to look around. We'd see absolutely nothing; no photons, no radiation, no anything. We'd sense no gravity. There would be no way to tell one direction from the any other (although an onboard IMU could still maintain a reference attitude for the ship itself.)

Once the universe expanded past us then we'd see first the initial photons, then gradually the rest of the universe.

But since we can't do that, that's a theoretical exercise at best.

Except it can’t have been pure energy. It had to be energy of something, presumably radiation. But I admit when I’ve tried to look this up before, I have never found a clear answer as to what physical system (whether fields, radiation or what) this was the energy of.

 

[foghorn]

Except it can’t have been pure energy. It had to be energy of something, presumably radiation. But I admit when I’ve tried to look this up before, I have never found a clear answer as to what physical system (whether fields, radiation or what) this was the energy of.

Isn't it something like the energy is a property of the quantum fields in which particles are ‘waves’, we only ‘see’ those particles and their actions because they exist in Planck units of length and time.

But, because of the uncertainty principle you can’t 'pinpoint' what that field energy is doing at below the Planck units of length or time, that’s where it becomes undefinable.
The particles physics we 'see' are above the Planck scale and so definable.
So, the energy of the field is there, but what it is doing at below the Planck limits is uncertain.
Hence in short enough times and lengths ‘some’ people (like Krauss) take that to mean ‘NOTHING’.
Nothing because you can’t use physics to define distance and time below the Planck units.
**********************
Anyway...
Here is Ethan Siegel.(Ph.D. astrophysicist) saying the same thing in different words.
The second part is interesting "Ethan goes on to say..."
One.
“ Empty space. Think of all the "things" that exist in the Universe today. Think of every fundamental constituent of matter; every quantum of radiation; every black hole; every mass; every particle and antiparticle. Now, imagine removing them all. Imagine somehow taking them out of the Universe, leaving nothing but empty space behind. What would you have left? Some call that "nothing," and are quite happy with that definition.

The entity known as spacetime is still there, as are the laws of physics. All the fields present within empty space, from the Higgs field to gravitational fields to the quantum fields that we often visualize as particle-antiparticle pairs popping in-and-out of existence are still around. Physical laws like quantum field theory are still there; General Relativity is still around; the fundamental constants are not only still there, but they have the same values they do today. And the vacuum of empty space itself still has a zero-point energy that's non-zero.This manifests itself as dark energy today, and with a very different non-zero value in the distant past, was the driving force behind cosmological inflation“
********
Ethan goes on to say...
Two.
“Whatever you’re left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time, and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of “nothing” that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond “nothing” as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We’d have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of spacetime from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.“

Ethan Siegel Link

 

[James R]

Olga:

"Was the point at which the universe was compressed fixed or moving"?

A point doesn't have any space to move in.

"If it was fixed, how would you define it?"

You defined it as a point, I believe.

"If it were moving at a finite speed, then what is the reason for this limitation?"

Did you you know that the contents of the universe, after the big bang, was not all moving in the same direction or at the same speed? The contents of the universe today are not all moving in the same direction with the same speed, either. That much ought to be obvious to you.

"If it was moving at infinite speed, then what is the reason for its stopping, or slowing down?"

Nothing can move at infinite speed.

"If it were stationary, what would be its temperature?"

Very hot! Mind you, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of many particles, where the energy is measured relative to the centre of mass. Hard to define that, in the case of the universe.

So why did it explode, Pin?

The universe expanded initially due to a large value of the cosmological constant, I think. Dark energy made it expand, I suppose. After that, it was mostly just obeying Newton's first law of motion, although the general view today is that there is still a small cosmological constant accelerating the expansion.

This is already relativity, Einstein. It is not applicable everywhere.

Yes it is.

Well, the Universe is expanding relative to itself, right?

You can talk about one part of the universe moving away from another part, certainly.

And what about your "external", without which, according to you, "nothing makes sense"?

I don't know about anything external to the universe.

Dave, do you really believe that the universe came from "nothing"?

Not sure about Dave, but speaking for myself, I can say that I don't have any particular belief about that yet. There's no good data either way, you see.

Is this possible?

I don't know. It doesn't seem very likely to me.

This is contrary to all the laws of physics, and common sense.

Which laws of physics is it contrary to?

I don't really care about your common sense.

 

[Pinball1970]

Olga common sense does not help us much in some areas of physics.
Messing about as a child playing football things make sense, you kick a ball harder it moves faster, you kick the ball up it comes down again.
That kind of rationalizing works to an extent with classical mechanics but we can't use that "every day" sense with QM or Cosmology.
Those energies, times and distances are not something we can compare, equate or rationalize.

 

[Olga]

Olga:

A point doesn't have any space to move in.

You defined it as a point, I believe.

Did you you know that the contents of the universe, after the big bang, was not all moving in the same direction or at the same speed? The contents of the universe today are not all moving in the same direction with the same speed, either. That much ought to be obvious to you.

Nothing can move at infinite speed.

Very hot! Mind you, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of many particles, where the energy is measured relative to the centre of mass. Hard to define that, in the case of the universe.

The universe expanded initially due to a large value of the cosmological constant, I think. Dark energy made it expand, I suppose. After that, it was mostly just obeying Newton's first law of motion, although the general view today is that there is still a small cosmological constant accelerating the expansion.

Yes it is.

You can talk about one part of the universe moving away from another part, certainly.

I don't know about anything external to the universe.

Not sure about Dave, but speaking for myself, I can say that I don't have any particular belief about that yet. There's no good data either way, you see.

I don't know. It doesn't seem very likely to me.

Which laws of physics is it contrary to?

I don't really care about your common sense.

Джеймс, почему Вы считаете, что сжатая до состояния неподвижности Вселенная должна быть очень горячей? Разве не наоборот? Вы считаете, что частицы двигаются при абсолютном нуле? Я думаю, что они должны быть неподвижны. Вот вам первая проблема: бесконечно сжатое, не может быть очень горячим. Следующая проблема: чтобы стать бесконечной, Вселенная должна была расширяться с бесконечной скоростью. По вашему собственному утверждению, это невозможно. Значит, она(Вселенная) уже была бесконечной изначально. Поэтому я предположила, что это "нечто" не было сжато, а наоборот, двигалось очень быстро в пространстве, и что то заставило "его" остановиться, возможно, столкнуться. И уже с этого момента начинается БВ. При такой модели у нас не возникают противоречия.

 

[Olga]

Lawrence Krauss wrote about the fact empty space has energy, it was pop Science based on some known physics and tangential physics.
Most cosmologists I have spoken to have said that the Universe most likely has always existed.
So the "from nothing" may not be applicable.

The hard facts are the CMBR, predicted element distribution, red shift, star spectroscopy, galaxy spectroscopy, star formation, star death and many other features of BB Cosmology.

Пин, энергия сама по себе не является сущностью. Это свойство чего либо. Следствие нарушения равновесия.

 

[Olga]

Physics. It was VERY hot and dense, and so it expanded. The same way a blob of burning explosive will expand rapidly.

За счёт чего он расширялся, если не содержал в себе ничего, кроме себя самого? Я могу взять каплю воды, и превратить её в пар. В этом случае мне понятно почему увеличился объём. А здесь каков механизм расширения? Вещества столько же, но объём становится больше. Каким образом? Вакуума становится больше? А где он был до расширения, этот вакуум?

 

[Kermos]

Kermos:

And what about with me?

It seems quite rude of you not to even acknowledge the response that I posted to your earlier posts.

You're not ignoring me, are you? Did I, perhaps, say something you found a bit too challenging to deal with? If so, you'd be better off being honest and just admitting you don't know about it, or that you have no answer. It's what a good Christian should do. Right?

Hi again James R,

Your post was December 3rd, but my chronological progression through SciForums territory landed my first reply to you on the 4th followed subsequently by my quadruplet posts to you of the 9th. I didn't neglect you.

I dedicate appropriate time to examine arguments and compose a sufficient response.

Perception (theory of rudeness) is not reality (fact of orderliness).

While I wait for your considered reply to my earlier posts, I will try to help you to correct some new errors and misconceptions that have appeared in your more recent posts.

This seems to be the main point you want to make: that we can't know anything about the past unless we were personally there to witness it. But that suggests to me that, maybe, you don't understand how science (or history!) is done.

Do you believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? He was born in 356 BCE and he died around the age of 30, having established an empire in the interim.

Now - obviously - you weren't there to see Alexander or his empire. Neither was I. Neither was anybody who is alive today. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted by scholars that Alexander the Great was as real an ancient Macedonian king as you can get, and that he really did conquer lots of nations (Israel included, if you're interested in that).

Why do you think that historians accept that Alexander the Great was a real person? Do you believe he was real? Why - or why not?

Are you familiar with the time span differential between Alexander and the Big Bang? See the Zenith Model (temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan post #111) posted to you.

Are you familiar with the eyewitness historical records of Alexander?

Are you familiar with the lack of eyewitness historical records of the Big Bang?

Are you familiar with Alexander's conquest during which he constructed the causeway in the Mediterranean Sea from the Phoenician sea empire city of Tyre's mainland to island - leaving the mainland Tyre city portion looking like an atomic bomb detonated over Tyre (pictures are available)?

Are you familiar with the prophecy from a couple hundred years prior about the specific circumstances regarding this geopolitical change "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock" (Ezekiel 26:4) and "they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water" (Ezekiel 26:12)?

Thanks for bringing up Alexander!

Turning to a different topic, do you believe that the Grand Canyon is real?

How long ago do you think the Grand Canyon was formed? And how do you think it was formed? And why do you believe it was formed that way?

Hint: the scientific consensus is that the oldest parts of the Grand Canyon were formed about 50-70 million years ago and not (in case you're interested) in a global flood that happened less than 6000 years ago. Do you know why that is the scientific consensus? As in the case of Alexander the Great, you will note that nobody was around to see it happen. Nevertheless, we can be confident that the consensus age range is accurate.

I suspect the Grand Canyon resulted from the flood of Noah's time of about 4,400 years ago. In a fashion similar to the rapid canyon development during the Mount St. Helen's eruption of 1980, but on a much larger scale (pictures are available). The flood of Noah's time occurred because of God's judgment against mankind, and another judgment by God approaches whether you are ready or not (science will not save you because Jesus who was crucified for crimes against God is the only Way (John 14:6) to be saved from the wrath of God for crimes against God).

The term "scientific consensus" is bandied about like a samurai sword. It threatens livelihoods and endowments and grants and etc. See the Pharmakeia Principle in post #179.

Your "scientific consensus" seers have visions of an event dating back "50-70 million years ago" without any eyewitness testimony (in your time-line, people do not exist yet, so there isn't anyone to be a witness), so your "scientific consensus" population is engaged in a leap of faith. Hey, that sounds like the Big Bang Theory leap of faith.

Thanks for bringing up the Grand Canyon!

To summarise: it is a mistake to think that no historical event can be verified unless there are eyewitnesses alive today.

Human eyewitnesses were available at the time of Alexander, James R!

Human eyewitnesses were not available during your "50-70 million years ago" Grand Canyon creation time-line.

You divert from the concepts of presence of human observation and absence of human observation regarding history and science.

I know that you do believe that at least some historical events occurred, even though you weren't there to see them. We'll get to one of them a little later.

You go, James R! (read excitedly)

You are correct that the later is more complicated than the former. That doesn't mean it can't be done and, as a matter of fact, it has been done.

That 13,800,000,000 years ago target model is an illusion, slight of hand. See the Zenith Model (temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan, post #111) posted to you.

Physics - not to mention common experience - can confirm that when you compress a gas, it gets hotter, and when it expands it gets cooler.

Please take a moment to think about that.

Your gas example fits the scientific method with hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, and repeatability. A physics model can replicate this gaseous phenomenon which satisfies the scientific method, so the physics model can simulate the science of the gas heat and volume differentials of a real world phenomenon captured characteristics.

That 13,800,000,000 years ago target model is an illusion, slight of hand. See the Zenith Model (temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan, post #111) posted to you.

Key word: simulate

Please take a moment to think about that.

Science, in general, assumes uniformity and regularity, both in time and space, unless there is evidence that suggests something different.

You're correct that, in principle, the galaxy next door to the Milky Way might be made of weird, exotic matter that is completely different to the matter our galaxy is made of and which obeys completely different laws of physics. However, there's no evidence that supports that hypothesis, and quite a lot of evidence against it.

Please take a moment to think about that.

Your word "assumes" is fundamental to the Big Bang Theory.

Your word "assumes" means:

to take for granted; accept without proof; suppose

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 obtained from www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
​

Take particular note that your clause can be rewritten "Science, in general, accepts without proof uniformity and regularity, both in time and space" which, in fact, disqualifies your clause from adhering to the scientific method.

A person looking at the canyon by Mount St. Helen's one month after the eruption of 1980 might accept without proof (assume) that the canyon had been there for millions of years, but there's documentation of the forest that occupied the region before the eruption.

You cannot scientifically explain whether an Interstellar event occurred 1,000 years or less ago and 300 light years or less away that might have influenced the medieval mini ice age starting about 1300 AD which coincided with the end of the black death (bubonic plague). This is for relative comparison purposes to The Big Bang Theory's 13,800,000,000 years ago with HDI's 13,500,000,000 light years away.

I find it fascinating that the very thing, absence of proof, which you accuse me, you openly admit to committing.

You have a leap of faith in The Big Bang Theory.

Please take a moment to think about that.

Continued to post #236

 

[Kermos]

Continued from post #235

It sounds like you don't understand what is meant when we talk about a "predictive" scientific model. What it means is that the model says, in effect, "If you measure X, you ought to find Y." The most respected scientific theories make predictions not just about things that we already know, but about things we have yet to test, and get both of them right.

It sounds like you don't understand what is meant by a "predictive" scientific model because you explicitly decoupled it from the scientific method in your explanation with "The most respected scientific theories make predictions" "about things we have yet to test".

Key point: predictive model = untested

You shifted from scientific simulation model over to unscientific predictive model, but you Illegitimately call both scientific.

In the case of the big bang theory, it doesn't just predict the expansion of the universe. It doesn't just predict the existence of the observed cosmic microwave background radiation (which, by the way, it predicted before the CMBR was first measured). It also makes numerous other predictions. For example, it predicts the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe as a whole, and the observations agree with those predictions. That's just a few examples. There are many more.

The Big Bang Theory philosophers prestidigitate modeling of early rapid "expansion of the universe" (see the Episcopic Model post #113 which demonstrates that you do not observe the Big Bang), no knowledge of "cosmic" "radiation" (see the Zenith Model post #111 which includes evidence of man's prior knowledge), and being keyholders of the "relative abundances of hydrogen and helium" (as if no other explanation exists).

You are correct that the flat earthers try to shoehorn what they see into their model. They fail because their model is not predictive of what we observe (for instance, they fail at trying to explain where the sun goes at night time).

Similarly, Creationists try to shoehorn their model of a 6000 year old Earth into their model of special creation by a deity, but - as with the flat earth model - their model is not predictive when it comes to scientific observations in the fields of geology, biology, physics and such.

When theories such as flat earth and Creationism fail so badly at making correct predictions, science dispenses with them - which is what it has done with both the mentioned models. Instead, science uses models that are predictive in the sense I explained.

The Big Bang Theory adherents and flat Earth enthusiasts have a commonality, which is, both are a leap of faith.

(continued...)

Cosmologists are well aware that the early universe could not have been completely homogeneous from a short time after the big bang. If it had been, then we wouldn't see the stars and galaxies distributed as they are today.

I recall you explaining to me that "Science, in general, assumes uniformity and regularity, both in time and space" in your associated post, but, now, you explained to me that the Big Bang which initiates from a homogeneous very hot, dense region followed by unbalanced heterogeneous explosion called the Big Bang followed by a homogeneous CMBR in a heterogeneous universe of unbalanced galaxies. Your "uniformity and regularity, both in time and space" are a logic discrepancy.

Big Bang Theory adherents illogic indicates a leap of faith.

Fortunately, the evidence - for example, the CMBR again - supports the conclusion that the universe was not homogeneous in its earliest eras.

Again, you seem to misunderstand what "predictive" means in science.

Cosmologists accept the theory of inflation precisely because it is predictive of what we observe today.

You might, naively, think that inflation was an ad hoc assumption tacked onto the vanilla big bang theory. But it's a lot more than that. It solves, simultaneously, several completely different problems that the vanilla big bang theory does not solve. It has also made predictions about things that were not known when it was proposed but which have turned out to be correct. These reasons all help to explain why expert cosmologists think it is a good theory.

I noticed you didn't deny the Big Bang Theory was tweaked.

Tweaking the Big Bang Theory is a new leap of faith inflating ovwr an old leap of faith.

It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about, here. Of course we can observe things that are 100 light years away. That's a short distance in cosmic terms - our local neighbourhood, practically. Who told you we couldn't observe things at that distance?

You clearly missed where I wrote of observations at the source. You cannot observe at the source, even a mere 100 light years from Earth.

One light year is about 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000 miles), so 100 light years away is 600,000,000,000,000 miles away.

As of Feb. 1, 2020, Voyager 1 is about 13.8 billion miles (13,800,000,000 miles) from the Sun.

The ratio is 13.8:600,000. Now, let's check whether this ratio equates to an Earthly model of "our local neighbourhood". We can't use miles which would be a very large neighborhood at 600,000 miles with no two places on Earth for the non-repetitious starting and ending points for the 600,000 miles (well beyond the moon - a very different environment, indeed - which is the very point I am attempting to convey to you). The 600,000 represents the distance to 100 light years from Earth, and the 13.8 represents man's longest range exploration instrument in space. What happens when "our local neighbourhood" has a 100 light years radius? The ratio changes to 13.8:1,200,000. Should I give the ratio for a 200 light year radius?

100 light years away is not "our local neighbourhood".

As for the assumption, it isn't made on a scale as small as 100 light years. Also, don't get the wrong idea - there is no assumption of absolute homogeneity or uniformity. Who told you that there is?

The assumption is made on a large scale which includes 100 light years from Earth.

Do you believe Sagan's timeline? I thought you said you didn't.

Why bring up Sagan, then?

Yes, if you like.

Sagan brought up the Big Bang Theory, and his work is very conducive to illustrating an important point in the Zenith Model post #111.

Continued to post #237

 

[Kermos]

Continued from post #236

It's worth noting, here, that the 13.8 billion year figure has been narrowed down over many years. When the big bang theory was first proposed, we didn't have enough good data to be able to nail the age of the universe down anywhere near as accurately as we know it now. The difference has come from making lots more observations, collecting more data, and carefully testing hypotheses.

This is how all science works, Kermos. We start with a speculative hypothesis. Then we gather data and compare the predictive model with real-world observations.

What alternative do you propose? Just guess, or believe stuff on faith?

Your guesses about history ("speculative hypothesis") are untested regarding the Big Bang Theory.

I suggest the scientific method as illustrated with the iodine clock experiment in post #113 (see post post #137 for more details about science and evidence).

Do you know the Word of God?

You said you're a Christian, so I assume that you think the bible is the Word of God.

Perhaps you can explain how you came to know that the bible is the Word of God. And what makes you confident that it is, in fact, the word of God, rather than, say, just a collection of the writings of some ancient Hebrews?

Did you do hypothesis testing and data gathering on the bible? Or do you, as you say, just believe based on "faith"?

Did you know there are people who say there is no evidence for the Bible? That the fall of Jericho after the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt is just a Bible story with no real world city? The video Jericho Unearthed: The Archaeology of Jericho Explained is an excellent source for Biblical evidence.

I believed the Word of God before I saw the video.

How do you know what the likeness of God looks like?

Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26).

Correct. It evolved to work like that, over hundreds of millions of years.

Unscientific.

Beyond being your faith based statement, you have no mechanism for disconnected brain and eyes to interconnect. What came first, James R, the brain, the eye, or the optic nerve? Your imaginary thing couldn't see to obtain food with just a brain, so it would just die off. Of course, food needs to be digested, so bringing up food feeds a whole other conundrum into your "It evolved to work like that, over hundreds of millions of years". Everything that composes mankind had to simultaneously exist, and God started with a complete human about 6,000 years ago.

I'm not aware of a superior scientific theory that attempts to account for all the things the big bang theory attempts to account for. Are you?

How far away do you think the stars we can see are, Kermos? What about, say, the Andromeda galaxy? I'm interested to find out. And - more importantly - why do you think your distances are approximately correct?

For me, whether VY Canis Majoris, is 4,000 light years distant or 8,000 light years distant, it makes little difference because God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain" (Psalm 104:2). The same applies for galaxy candidate HDI.

I'm not worried about the actual cosmic distances, James R. I can use the Big Bang Theory to explain the error of the Big Bang Theory without believing in the Big Bang Theory, myself.

I joyfully believe The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows His handiwork (Psalm 19:1), and this is fully satisfying for me.

The Big Bang Theory is not science as delineated in this post; therefore, the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Maybe we could discuss the details of your claim in a different thread. It is completely off-topic for a thread about the big bang theory. And we all know how you hate for things to go off topic, don't we?

Maybe another thread, maybe this thread.

It's fine. I know. But I also know that triangulation is just the first step in assembling the cosmic distance ladder that astronomers use. And it works just fine at the distances to which it is applied. We can measure small angles very precisely these days, you know.

Look it up, please.

You don't have the instrumentation required to triangulate the angles identified as approaching parallel in the Episcopic Model post #113, so your star bible ("cosmic distance ladder") is founded on faulty faith.

Look it up, please.

It would be logical to conclude, then, that astronomers probably don't use triangulation to measure the distance to VY Canis Majoris. Wouldn't it?

An interested person might then use google to learn more about how astronomers actually measure such distances.

Are you an interested person, Kermos? Do you want to learn some science? Or just creationist sermons?

I look forward to your eventual responses.

So, you admit triangulation fails for such 3,900 light year distance to VY Canis Majoris, so the logical conclusion is that the angles are to small for your "We can measure small angles very precisely these days, you know".

Would you like to discuss the discredited Cepheid variable contribution to the Big Bang Theory collapse as described in
post #155?

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions are not science.

James R, the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you familiar with the eyewitness historical records of Alexander?

Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable form of scientific evidence.

This is why, for example:
- UFOs are not considered to have a scientific basis, since they are primarily supported by hearsay
- Jesus' tomb being open and empty, and his alleged resurrection and ascension, is not considered to have a scientific basis since it is exclusely supported by hearsay.

So, hearsay may be great for your faith and your personal beliefs, but it makes for poor science.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't have the instrumentation required to triangulate the angles identified as approaching parallel in the Episcopic Model post #113, so your star bible ("cosmic distance ladder") is founded on faulty faith.

This is a repetition of your previous ignorance of the subject. You have been disabused of the above notion, but you continue to let your entire argument be founded on the same kind of subject matter ignorance. Any conclusions are thus invalid.

Point of order:

It is you who are making a claim in this thread. The onus is on you to educate yourself on the methods we use to learn about our universe. Without understanding how the methods work (as you show, in one of many examples, quoted above), you cannot intelligently debate them. You cannot make any conclusions. And the conclusions you are trying to make are thus invalid.

Please, before you make claims about what can't be scientific, be sure educate yourself on what science is, and what science has been done. You have been given many suggestions in this thread about where to start with your education. Stop ignoring them. don't make a bigger fool of yourself by contuing to repeat things you now know to be false.


Requesting this thread be temporarily closed while the OP brings himself up-to-speed on basic astronomy. A year ought to do it.

 

[Pinball1970]

A year ought to do it.

A year!? Have you read his posts??