On 8 Sep 2005 10:05:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1126199115.117126.218700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[snip]

OK. Dark matter is postulated to exist because cosmic bodies were seen
to be moving in ways that were not logical. That is, the gravity of
nearby visible cosmic bodies could not entirely explain the motion of
other bodies in space. Thus, something invisible was theorized to be
exerting force (gravity?) on these cosmic bodies.

Yes, I understand that the whole concept of "dark" means that there are
no detectable (including radiation) eminations coming from this dark
matter.

My point here is this. If scientists can theorize dark matter out of
thin air to explain gaps in their other theories, then why can't I
theorize a different kind of dark matter, albeit less "dark" than
scientists' dark matter?

It is my view that science is the same process we all use to
understand the world except that scientists use *rigor*, they follow
through the implications of their ideas. So, Jim, of course you can
postulate some other material. Let us call it light matter, that is it
is "light", exerts no gravity, and "light" because it gives off
radiation. This is your proposed explanation for CBR, right?

So what properties does this light matter have to have to fit the
observations? Well, the CBR is almost universally distributed, so the
matter has to be universally distributed. The CBR has a very narrow
frequency range. This is a major problem for some universally
distributed matter since all regular matter shows various frequency
shifts, either normal Doppler or Hubble. That itself would reject the
notion of some matter giving off the CBR. Then we have problems with
relativity. This light matter is not merely light, it seems to have no
mass at all. IIANM anything with no mass should move at the speed of
light. So now we have to explain why this light matter does not seem
to move. (Again, if it were moving we would see frequency spread
and/or shifting.) This matter also seems to have no resistance. That
is, there is no apparent drag on any objects from moving through this
matter.

So, yes, you can postulate some other form of matter to explain the
CBR, but it does not seem to fit the evidence. The Big Bang does not
require any new matter with arbitrary qualities, it fits with all of
our previous understanding of physics.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

On 2 Sep 2005 08:32:41 -0700, in talk.origins , "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> in
<1125675161.027731.86970@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

The Last Conformist wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

widsith wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

AC wrote:

I have no desire to mock Jim's faith, but I do think that he is
extraordinarily inconsistent in what he accepts from science and what he
doesn't. Now I learn he rejects Big Bang cosmology (or at least a strawman
of it) and yet has no problem with physics being used to determine the age
of the Earth. It's as if there are two Jim Spazas, one who is keen to
understand science, and the other that just wants any science that doesn't
confirm his religous beliefs to go away.

The difference between the Big Bang and the age of the universe is that
age is directly measurable while the Big Band is a conclusion created
because there is no other explanation acceptable to scientists.

This is simply not true. The age of the universe is deduced from the
same model that produces the Big Bang. If Big Bang cosomology is
wrong, the age of the universe is wrong. But they are not. Big Bang
cosomology rests, nay, is a _necessary_ conclusion, from two
principles:

1) That General Relativity is accurate. This is supported by a large
body of evidence and is constantly re-affirmed (including everytime
someone uses the GPS direction computer in their car.)

You mean general relativity things like doppler shift of visible light?

I read from a recommended webpage
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
that matter might have travelled faster than light. Wouldn't this have
serious implications if general relativity is accurate?

No it wouldn't. I can't be bothered to explain enought cosmology and
physics to make you understand why - go find some introductory texts on
cosmology and go on from there if you want to learn.

[snip]

2) The Isotropy of the Universe, IOW, that the universe is
substantially the same at all locations. This is supported by all of
our astronomical observations. (It looks the same in every direction,
galaxies and clusters are fairly evenly distributed, the CMBR is the
same in all directions, etc.)

I'll agree that physics and chemistry is the same everywhere in the
universe. You seem to be saying that, because every area of the
universe appears similar, everything came from a single source. Now,
this doesn't sound unreasonable. But, it certainly is not quite the
concrete evidence for a Big Bang that, say, the discovery of a leftover
particle from a singularity found in every molecule in the universe
would be. I'm not saying that the Big Bang couldn't have happened. I
just don't believe that the evidence is solid enough to make that
conclusion.

Frankly Jim, you malign scientists when you claim that they conclude
something "because there is no other explanation acceptable." They
conclude something because that is what the evidence, as interpreted in
light of our best theories indicates.

If you want to claim that there was no Big Bang, you can either, a)
demonstrate that one of the two above claims is wrong, or b) show that
these two claims do not lead to the FRW models. Short of that, you are
simply blowing smoke up your own posterior.

Agreed. I'm not saying the Big Bang didn't happen. Really.

Elsewhere, Matt S. laments that this thread has evolved into a
discussion of your religious beliefs rather than a discussion of the
evidence. As I see it, that seems to because when you disagree with
something, you ignore the evidence and rely on your religious beliefs.
So Im putting the onus on you: Discuss the Evidence. Ive given you an
outline above, if you want more information, Im happy to either oblige
or point you in the right direction. But tell us why you dont think
the above evidence leads to the conclusion of a Big Bang. Be specific,
dont just say, "It depends on how you interpret it." Explain how to
interpret it differently, explain which steps are flawed or not
necessary and why.

OK. Is it possible that the Big Bang didn't actually happen? Yes.

The background cosmic radiation may have come from this mysterious dark
matter which was theoretically created to deal with gravitational
issues with the original Big Bang theory.

What part of "dark" do you not understand?

The part that says it is purely a theoretical construct designed to
solve the problems with the original Big Bang theory.

That is not what darm matter explains. BTW, the core of the Earth is
the same kind of "theoretical structure". We haven't been there, we
have not touched it, it is just one of those things we "assume" to fit
our theories.

If scientists
can imagine dark matter out of thin air

Like they "imagine" photons and electrons and Pluto and fusion out of
"thin air". It is not particularly modest to try to make fun of
scientists like this.

and use it to fix the problems
with the Big Bang theory, then why can't I theorize that maybe there is
some dark matter which actually emits some radiation?

Why? Because you don't know the material, you don't understand the
math, you are don't have a clue. They do it because they have a full
grasp of the relevant known physics and they have the data and they
can go and test their ideas against the data. You just, well, imagine
it out of thin air.

Scientists are
not playing well with others when they invent aspects of the universe
to help THEIR theories under scrutiny but then deny skeptics the same
consideration when alternative theories are created.

If you can invent something that has the same necessary properties go
ahead. That is, it has to be predictable in action, it has to be
testable, it has to be consistent. (That is actually one property
explained in three ways.) Let us take the familiar example. Copernicus
notes the path of various objects and proposes that they orbit the
Sun, not the Earth. Brahe carefully watches and documents that motion.
Kepler gives an arbitrary formula that happens to explain those
motions and nothing more. And then Newton "invents" an aspect of the
Universe, gravity. This invention operates universally across time and
space. That is, he asserts that matter has this gravity and it does
not matter where or when we look at it, it still has this pull. (The
proposed Intelligent Design creator or God, does not have this
property. Instead you assert it has will, that it can do whatever it
wants whenever it wants.) By "inventing" this "aspect" he makes
Kepler's laws non-arbitrary (it was astounding how long I knew that
before I understood the importance). It also explains things like
falling rocks and the path of a bullet. We can make and test
predictions of this "gravity". When you can do that, you can stand up
with the big boys.

You claim to draw different conclusions form those of mainstream
science on the basis of the same evidence. The catch is, you have
little clue about the evidence. You apparently didn't even know that
the cosmic background is very close to constant across the sky when you
entered the discussion!

I knew that it was considered constant and uniform when I began. Now,
you say that it is "very close" to constant. Then I saw and posted a
link to a graphic showing that it isn't uniform at all.

http://timeline.aps.org/APS/resources/85_06a.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/sim/img/cmb.jpg

Did you understand that link? Was their an article attached?

Here is a page with that picture and some accompanying text:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

" In this image, red denotes hotter fluctuations and blue and black
denote cooler fluctuations around the average. These fluctuations are
extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only
about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background
radiation."


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

"In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a
brightness that was astonishingly uniform in every direction. The
picture at left shows a false color depiction of the temperature
(brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected onto an oval,
similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is uniform to better
than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason
to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would
be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this
uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative
explanations for the source of this radiation but none have
succeeded."

But you think you can succeed in an alternative, absent the knowledge,
absent the math.

If this is what scientists consider constant and uniform, no wonder
they have little problem with critiquing the supernatural aspects of
the Bible but then dreaming up dark matter and conveniently that the
laws of physics do not apply to the necessary-for-the-Big-Bang-to-work
singularity.

I'm not saying that the above never existed, but geez...

Geez indeed. At what point do you start to realize that you don't
understand this, you don't understand the process, and that those
scientists really do have a grasp on the material?

The visible universe is expanding. The rest is outside the reach of
investigation.

No problem. Of course, if we know how this galaxy is moving in
relation to other surrounding galaxies, then we should be able to
compute a vector along which the original Big Bang singularity had to
be situated.

Nope. In terms of the size of the Universe we are too close together.
But you still have this (understandable) incorrect notion. Once upon a
time, some 14 or so billion years ago *space* was very small and very
hot. *Space* then expanded and *space* is still expanding. The *space*
between us and Andromeda is expanding, but the local motion is larger
than that expansion. The net result is that we are getting closer to
them.

I hope that someone has give you the raisin bread metaphor or, at
least, the balloon. Think of a lump of raisin bread dough. The raisins
are close together. Now bake it: all of the raisins move away from all
the other raisins. No imagine a raisin bread the size of the Universe.
That is, no matter how big it is, 1 lb loaf or whatever, it is the
observable Universe. From anywhere inside this loaf it looks like
everything is moving away. But there is no meaningful center to the
expansion, all is moving from all.

Isotropy? The fact that all the universe appears similar? If so, why
do we find clusters of stars and black holes in some areas and
relatively none in other areas? Random chance?

Tiny primordial variations in density (probably due to quantum
fluctuations) getting applified by gravity.

Nice theory.

Yep, it is. Accurate to many decimal places. Able to help us build
nuclear plants and microchips and PET scans and understand the history
of the Universe.

[snip]

The Big Bang happened when all cosmic matter exploded from its initial
state as a singularity. All matter, apparently, was in a very hot,
highly compressed form about the size of a dime. Now, scientists
readily admit they have no clue how this came into being. They admit
they have no idea how everything was held together. They admit that
the laws of physics, gravity, and nuclear forces didn't apply to this
singularity.

The last is not correct, but again an understandable error. The
assumption, and this is an interesting question, is that the *laws*
apply the same then and now. But some of those laws look very
different at very high speeds and very hot temperatures. Take the
Newton/Einstein distinction. Newton's laws and Einstein's laws explain
a tossed rock just fine, but toss that rock at an appreciable fraction
of the speed of light and Newton's laws give bad answer. Einstein's
laws, OTOH, still produce accurate results, but the calculations look
different. The laws *we know* don't work well at the initial
temp/conditions, but that just means that the laws we know are as good
as we would like of a representation of the way things actually work.

This, like QM, btw, is what we want and look for, btw. What we want,
in a real sense, is to examine the world until we find where it looks
different than this world. Atoms as little particles is really just
mechanics written small. But QM is something different, it is where
the world is not what we expect. Same for the early Universe, it is
different that this world.

So, we have this singularity which exploded and resulted in this entire
universe which is now boung by the laws of nature and general
relativity. By what rationale do scientists say that general
relativity did not apply to this singularity? Because a singularity
could not exist with general relativity in place?

No, because *our formulae* don't work. Our formulae are not the
binding conditions on the Universe, they are human developed
representations of our best guesses about how things work. As we learn
more and more we expand the conditions upon which our models produce
accurate results. One of the goals of modern (high energy) physics is
to produce some unifying models that push back our understanding.

When I say that God did something supernatural, I am immediately beset
with demands for evidence. I am shown how such things could never
occur naturally (global flood, for example). Yet, these same skeptics
say, with a straight face, that the Big Bang theory is contingent on a
supernatural singularity. [Sigh] Whatever!

Sigh indeed. Let me explain the radical difference. There is
inherently, since you assert that God is a willful entity and we
pretend, at least, that will is not regular, non-regularity to God's
actions. We can't, by the nature of the assertion, have a predictive
model to say what else God will do. This singularity is quite
predictive, quite constrained in scope. We can say that when such and
such conditions occur X will happen, when other conditions occur, Y
will happen, and when yet other conditions (the singularity) occur we
don't know. It is, in terms of parsimony (the Razor) a single entity,
one that falls out from the formulae we do know. God, OTOH, is
multiple entities (from the perspective of parsimony). If I accept,
for whatever reason, that God brought about the initial known
conditions I know nothing else. I can't predict the previous moment or
the next moment.

Or lets take the darm matter issue. This is proposed to explain the
rotation and cohesion of galaxies (not the Big Bang). I propose a
single definable entity, dark matter, with specific properties (has
mass like other stuff, but no charge and is cold and/or does not
normally interact with normal matter). With this entity I can explain
all of the galaxies. But what do you have? I look at Andromeda and you
say "God holds it together". How about our galaxy? When you say "God
holds it together" you are making a new assertion. God is a willful
being, we have no particular reason to expect that God will hold both
galaxies together nor that God would hold any other galaxies together.
You have to make a new assertion, a new entity by the Razor, for each
galaxy. And if we find one that acts differently you just say "God
does not hold that together". We, OTOH, have to work to explain the
anomalous data. We might be wrong, but we can find out and modify our
models or develop new ones. Your answer is the same for any data. The
same text that is, "God does it", but each time it is a purely
arbitrary claim. If the data was different you would say "Oh, God does
that instead". It fits everything, true and untrue, because it really
says nothing.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/