A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:06 pm
Reply
Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppositi

Like this post
The calculations behind the Big Bang theory presuppose that the gravitational constant "G" had always remained the same.

Question for debate: Is that a groundless supposition that has no place in a theory worth the name?

Perhaps "G" oscillated or fluctuated wildly in the earliest decade or century or millennium, etc., producing swirling effects in a way that might better explain variations in the motion of distant galaxies (as perceived from Earth, of course).

Perhaps instead of a big bang, the origin was a "pop and swirl."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:26 am
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
John Human wrote:

Perhaps instead of a big bang, the origin was a "pop and swirl."


To the best of my knowledge there are no confirmed theories of precisely how the universe unfolded in the early stages. This particular area of science is still open to new ideas and hypotheses.

However, science doesn't work by just guessing what you think might have happened. You would need to offer up some precise mathematical models that match observation along with your physics proposals of how and why these things must have occurred.

If you can do that I'm quite sure the scientific community would take a look at what you have to offer and either find some promise in it, or point out to you why your hypotheses aren't making a lot of sense.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:35 pm
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

However, science doesn't work by just guessing what you think might have happened.


Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:07 pm
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
John Human wrote:

Divine Insight wrote:

However, science doesn't work by just guessing what you think might have happened.


Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."


The constancy of G is not a doctrine. it is an assumption because there is no reason to think otherwise. Observation of distant Type 1a supernovas, that is, those that happened in the distant past, point to negligible detectable variation in G over time. Ref If it were a 'doctrine' as you claim, nobody who investigated it would get published.

In any case, G is simply a measure of how much mass produces how much gravitation. Changing the value would not result in things 'swirling around'. The observed expansion would simply be at a different rate. But changing G would not produce the expansion.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:40 pm
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
John Human wrote:

Divine Insight wrote:

However, science doesn't work by just guessing what you think might have happened.


Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."



It's hardly an idle guess. You seem to have forgotten (or perhaps never fully understood) that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time. Therefore we can actually see how the universe was behaving billions of years ago.

So we have actually observed that G has remained constant for at least billions of years. So the current Big Bang theory is accurate to an extremely early point in time in the birth of our universe.

Even our current Big Bang theory does not claim to know precisely what happened at the very earliest moments of the formation of the universe.

So your complaints about Big Bang theory seem to have far more to do with your misunderstanding of what the theory actually covers rather than having anything to do with any actual problems with the theory itself.

May I ask why this is important to you?

What conclusions have you made based on the Big Bang theory that you would need to change if G was not constant during an extremely early phase of the universe?

Perhaps you should visit those assumptions that you are making and question whether they are warranted?

Apparently the "Big Bangers", as you call them, have not come to any conclusions that would be problematic even if G were permitted to be different at very early stages of the formation of our universe.

Obviously those difference could not affect anything that we have currently observed, otherwise we would have visually seen the discrepancy.

So I'm not sure why you have even bought this up.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:02 am
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

John Human wrote:

Divine Insight wrote:

However, science doesn't work by just guessing what you think might have happened.


Good point, and it underscores the fact that what passes for "science" is often doctrinally-motivated guesswork. For example, the "Big Bangers" made the idle guess that "G" has stayed constant through the history of the universe, and that passes for "science."



It's hardly an idle guess. You seem to have forgotten (or perhaps never fully understood) that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time. Therefore we can actually see how the universe was behaving billions of years ago.

So we have actually observed that G has remained constant for at least billions of years. So the current Big Bang theory is accurate to an extremely early point in time in the birth of our universe.


No, if currently-accepted calculations are correct, we can "see back" about 9 billion years, with the age of the universe estimated at 13 billion years. 13 minus 9 equals 4 billion years' worth of idle presupposition. Combined with the apparent discovery a few years ago that "G" actually isn't completely constant, it seems unscientific to blithely assume that "G" remained constant during the first year, or first century, or the first billion years.

Quote:
Obviously those difference could not affect anything that we have currently observed, otherwise we would have visually seen the discrepancy.


It was recently reported that a distant galaxy was observed to be moving TOWARD us. This is inconsistent with simplistic "Big Bang" theory. One way to explain this discrepancy is the supposition that early on "G" varied from region to region, leading eventually to a distant galaxy heading toward us.

Another way to explain it is with the paired supposions that the initial universe event did not create proto-matter of uniform density, and that periodic reversals in the value of "G" (pop and swirl) led to gravitational interactions that led eventually to the disorderly complexity that we now see, including a distant galaxy heading toward us.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:32 am
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
John Human wrote:

we can "see back" about 9 billion years,


So no more then 9 billion.

Q: Can you support this with evidence please?

Please provide the evidence for your claim.Cool

John Human wrote:

It was recently reported that a distant galaxy was observed to be moving TOWARD us.




Q: A galaxy other then Andromeda?

Q: Can you support this with evidence please?

Please provide the evidence for your claim.Cool

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:19 am
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
Imprecise Interrupt wrote:

Observation of distant Type 1a supernovas, that is, those that happened in the distant past, point to negligible detectable variation in G over time. Ref If it were a 'doctrine' as you claim, nobody who investigated it would get published.


He is going to ignore your post( your points about distant Type 1a supernovas(shows G was the same(differences are negligible) in distant past) and the study(shows the openness and transparency of science, no doctrine or other nonsense)) as he did mine. Cool


https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35501&start=20

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:04 am
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
alexxcJRO wrote:

Imprecise Interrupt wrote:

Observation of distant Type 1a supernovas, that is, those that happened in the distant past, point to negligible detectable variation in G over time. Ref If it were a 'doctrine' as you claim, nobody who investigated it would get published.


He is going to ignore your post( your points about distant Type 1a supernovas(shows G was the same(differences are negligible) in distant past) and the study(shows the openness and transparency of science, no doctrine or other nonsense)) as he did mine. Cool


https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35501&start=20


Whether he ignores it or not, other people will read it. And ignoring a post, if that should be the case, is itself a statement.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:03 am
Reply
Re: Does "Big Bang" include a groundless presuppo

Like this post
alexxcJRO wrote:

Imprecise Interrupt wrote:

Observation of distant Type 1a supernovas, that is, those that happened in the distant past, point to negligible detectable variation in G over time. Ref If it were a 'doctrine' as you claim, nobody who investigated it would get published.


He is going to ignore your post( your points about distant Type 1a supernovas(shows G was the same(differences are negligible) in distant past) and the study(shows the openness and transparency of science, no doctrine or other nonsense)) as he did mine. Cool

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35501&start=20


@Imprecise Interrupt, if you go back and read what I actually said, you may see (perhaps with the help of a request for clarification) that you have misinterpreted what I was referring to with the use of the word "doctrine."

@alexxcJRO, I often have limited time and limited internet access, and fail to follow up quickly on interesting discussions/debates, and some of them fall through the cracks, including old threads that I have started and still intend to pursue. (For example, the original intent in the "Debate with a Scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419, which I still intend to get back to -- and there I refer to the pseudo-scientific "doctrine" that Imprecise Interrupt confused with my discussion of G.)

alexxcJRO wrote:

So no more then 9 billion.

Q: Can you support this with evidence please?

Please provide the evidence for your claim.


"Gravitational Constant" at wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#cite_ref-54

wikipedia citing Mould et al. (2014) wrote:
Under the assumption that the physics of type Ia supernovae are universal, analysis of observations of 580 type Ia supernovae has shown that the gravitational constant has varied by less than one part in ten billion per year over the last nine billion years according to Mould et al. (2014). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/publications-of-the-astronomical-society-of-australia/article/constraining-a-possible-variation-of-g-with-type-ia-supernovae/70513C64971B60C22A8232B64C37243B


alexxcJRO wrote:
Q: A galaxy other then Andromeda?

Q: Can you support this with evidence please?

Please provide the evidence for your claim.


Per "Come a Little Closer" at https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1920a/: "Messier 90 is remarkable; it is one of the few galaxies seen to be travelling toward the Milky Way, not away from it."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version