Yesterday, we noted that a big announcement was expected re gravitational waves (Have astronomers picked up echoes of the Big Bang?), expressing the hope for a return to a cosmology based on fact, not on what dope the guy smokes. Well, it’s been made and here are physicist Rob Sheldon’s comments on it:
Okay everybody, the announcement has been made, the speculation was accurate.
BICEP (a telescope at the South Pole), has made careful measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) coming from the Big Bang, and thinks they have a real polarization signal. Just like the blue sky, in which there is a polarization signal that birds can see and use for navigational purposes which you might be able to observe with the right kind of sunglasses, so also the CMB has a tiny tiny bit of polarization in it.
Now the rest of the press release is all speculation, or theory, or whatever you call it when people breathlessly tell you that the sky is falling because something hit them on the head.
One (out of very many) theories holds that the way the CMB can get polarized, is if gravity waves from the original BB are amplified by this idea of “inflation” that expanded the universe by a gazillion times right after it banged. So this observation is being touted as a double-header—the first observation of gravity waves, and the first observation of inflation. We could toss the Easter bunny in there too, at this point it looks like it’s the first observation of all sorts of invisible things.
Now the probability that two unproved theories are confirmed by one observation is close to nil. I don’t know how strongly I can say this, but lightning doesn’t strike twice in the same spot, and these press reports are claiming that.
So what else could this polarization signal in the CMB mean? I’m no expert in these matters, but I happen to know that starlight is also polarized. In the case of starlight, the polarization is caused by scattering off of spinning dust grains in a magnetic field. It would seem to me that the same process that polarizes starlight would work just as well on CMB and it has nothing to do with either gravitational waves or inflationary cosmology. Just plain ordinary dust.
That would be where I put my betting money.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: 
The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).
So: someone who admits he isn’t an expert in these matters, decides it’s probably due to something that people who ARE experts in these matters spent three years working on to make sure it wasn’t due to that “something”.
At the moment, I think the experts get the benefit of the doubt. Doubtless another team will work on confirming the results.
… or not, as the case may be.
By and large experts don’t have too good a record. It generally seems to be those who don’t follow the herd, and the dilettantes, such as LeMaitre, who make the break-throughs.
O’Leary probably has more scientific nous in her little finger than the majority of materialism’s finest ‘experts’.
Milton Freedman recounted in a newspaper article that he was once button-holed in the elevator waiting-area of their apartment block by a fellow-resident, an author, who proceeded to give Friedman his views on economics.
Friedman, told him that if he, Freedman, ever wanted to write a novel, he would seek his advice, and perhaps he would reciprocate, if he wanted to learn about economics, evidently considering this advice, the height of wit.
The world currently seem to be facing an unparalleled economic catastrophe largely as a result of Freedman’s neoliberal, economic brain-waves. History can turn on sixpence, but its difficult to imagine that author’s economic input reaching Freedman’s abyss of folly.
‘It’s a funny old world’, as La Thatcher once observed, after her purblind pursuit of money and power had led her to follow the neoliberal economics of Freedman and the Chicago boys, and what had ‘gone round’ had eventually ‘come round’.
22 ‘Do not rob the poor, because he is poor,
or crush the afflicted at the gate,
23 for the Lord will plead their cause
and rob of life those who rob them.’
– Proverbs 22-23.
Pardon the digression.
A criticism about the fine-tuning problem for inflation by Roger Penrose is here:
As far as I know (and I very well may be wrong), the fine tuning problem has only gotten worse since Penrose made his criticism and is not dealt with by this new finding. Steinhardt, one of inflation theory’s creators, commented just last year on the trend in evidence:
Various inflationary models are discussed here:
So which model did they strengthen and which one did they weaken? I’m certainly not qualified to know which ones were supported and which ones were weakened, but what I do know is that a unguided (atheistic/materialistic) inflationary model would lead to the epistemological failure of science itself, as one of the chief proponents of multiverses himself admits:
Thus, while this may be an important discovery, I hardly think it resolves any of the serious shortcomings that a purely materialistic/atheistic inflationary model would possess! But that is just my initial unqualified hunch. I’m sure much more qualified people than I will be taking this finding apart with a fine tooth comb.
Also of note: A physicist(?), named Robert L. Oldershaw, in the comment section under this article announcing the finding, commented,,
As to the ‘intrinsic dipole anisotropy’, the following paper was recently brought to my attention:
Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles were actually verified by Planck.
of related interest:
Psalm 89:11-12
The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.
The north and the south, You have created them;
Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name.
(commentary on Tabor and Hermon: ,,,that is to say, east and west are equally formed by thee, and therefore give thee praise.,,,)
Axel,
I’m afraid you have the wrong end of the stick. LeMaitre WAS an expert, a trained physicist who worked with many famous scientists including Eddington. That his idea was not accepted at first is hardly surprising, the evidence for it wasn’t apparent . But it came in time and was accepted when the evidence backed it.
Unfortunately your views of O’Leary’s scientific nous are also sadly mistaken. She has none. Not surprising, since that isn’t her background. The fact that you think she has, suggests you haven’t any either. But you can prove me wrong: if you point me to a post of hers that shows otherwise I will happily retract.
Stop quoting Sheldon on cosmology. He would fail Cosmology101:
http://letterstonature.wordpre.....oductions/
Inflation doesn’t require a multiverse, but that is the easiest
solutioncop out when it comes to the fine-tuning of our universe. Since they haven’t come up with a good combination of gravity with quantum theory, they can’t explain the Big Bang. This is an alternative: the “big bounce.”The WMAP provided extremely high quality data that directly and dramatically confirmed the Big Bang hypothesis, or more generally the idea that the universe as we know it had a definite starting point. It had huge and immediate social and philosophical implications for society at large. It has been called the most accurate scientific measurement ever taken (the error bars they used in their centerpiece graph used 400-standard deviations, the norm is two).
This work is scientifically impressive, but it’s impact is going to be of a much more technical nature. This isn’t going to fundamentally change how we see the universe overnight.
Well, Henry, I’ve made no secret that the last thing I learnt about physics at school was something about a thermos flask.
You may be correct concerning O’Leary’s scientific expert- knowledge being limited. I’ll have a brief look, but it probably is nowhere near as germane as you seem to think, since so much of the problem with materialists is that their foundational assumptions are haywire; indeed, sometimes, just insane.
And this is an area, as it relates to scientific topics, in which O’Leary leaves you all for dead. I know enough about thermos flasks to see their folly at a more primordial level, but her writing has always given me the impression that she is more than sufficiently literate and numerate in scientific matters, for her analyses to be interesting. I have a nose for intellectual integrity and competence, even in areas I know next to nothing about.
Re LeMaitre, I was under the impression that he was ‘ministering’ as a parish priest, but presumably his day-job resembled that of our Jesuit astronomers.
Nevertheless, experts do have a wretched record. It is obvious from the writings of both Planck and Einstein that they both had an extraordinary contempt for the myrmidons of the materialist, scientific Establishment, Planck going so far as to say that science advanced one funeral at a time. Also, remarking:
‘New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.’
Einstein was less direct in his animadversions, tending rather to convey his scorn a tone of great weariness. His dictum about looking for a simple explanation, but not to simple, was one example! Another was his stricture that an elegant hypothesis still needed a technical underpinning. Words to that effect.
To this day, to materialists, elegance and beauty must be figments of the imagination, and imagination, itself, a form of particles in motion. Yet, they still routinely refer to the panentheist Einstein’s aesthetic touch-stone.
Dunno how this thread ended up a discussion of the merits of the news desk, as the post was only introduced, not written by me. That said, when cosmologists decided to promote multiverse theory, one outcome was that they obliterated any important distinction between physicists and informed laypeople. Or maybe even uninformed laypeople.
Ironically, I’d have been the last to recommend that.
‘… even uninformed laypeople.’ Watch it, O’Leary!
But seriously, you couldn’t have stated it more tellingly. Game, set and match to St Patrick’s daughter (or maybe daughter-in-law: the O’Leary, of this parish), Henry.
Multiple universes, wormholes, black holes, Big Bang, etc. It all sounds like crackpottery in high places to me. Has anybody ever provided a reason that the cosmic background radiation is necessarily the result of some speculatory Big Bang that occurred billions of years ago.
We should remind ourselves that some of the most famous proponents of this cosmology (Sagan, Hawking, etc.) are also believers in time travel and other Star Trek voodoo physics. This stuff is not even wrong.
Moreover, those naive Christians among us who have fallen in love with the Big Bang hypothesis because it seems to point to evidence that the universe had a beginning, should note that the universe does not have to start with an explosion. In fact, there are many contradictions with the hypothesis and there is excellent evidence to suppose that it’s all hogwash.
Henry, here are two articles to read that put this “discovery” into a more realistic perspective:
http://crev.info/2014/03/has-c.....iscovered/http://www.answersingenesis.or.....een-proved
The discoverer of this himself is cautioning people not to jump to conclusions, but the propaganda media cannot be bridled! Even if the discovery of polarization is accurate and fits one of the inflationary models, that does not make it true. There might be other causes or explanations that also fit the observations. The most that should be said now is that it is a possible confirmation. But the default answer in science should be “No” until it is confirmed.
But instead, headlines proclaim confirmation and the general public is led to believe inflation has literally been confirmed. When the retraction is printed, it won’t be headline news and many people will be left with a false impression. But it is part of the way the propaganda machine works to build confidence in the hypotheses of historical science.
Read those two articles for a more balanced view of the discovery.
I stand with O’Leary on this one. Don’t forget the bias of the experts you are lauding. Is there any motivation for them to see this as confirmation? I’m not saying it isn’t, but just remember, experts have been known to be wrong, especially in the area of cosmology.
As a side note to all this, I think it is interesting that people are very quick to jump on this evidence, no matter how tentative it may currently be, but, as far as I can tell, people ignore the much stronger evidence we have for a higher dimension above this one.
This following confirmation of special relativity is my favorite since they have actually caught it on film:
(of note: light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):
It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in both special relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:
Besides direct physical evidence, and direct ‘observational’ evidence, this higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal point of reference. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
It is also important to note that higher dimensions would be invisible to our physical 3-D sight:
As well we have ‘observational evidence’ from Near Death Experiences confirming the ‘tunnel effect’:
Moreover, in General Relativity we find that temporal time slows down the further down in a gravitational well a person is:
As well, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any ‘hypothetical’ observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. This is because the accelerative force of gravity at black holes is so intense that not even light can escape its grip:
— But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that the entropic decay (Randomness) of the universe, which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternity of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternities of decay and/or eternities of destruction’. Just how intense the destructive power of black holes are is captured in the following quote:
i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. And all this is straight up physics as far as I can tell that is accepted pretty much across the board, by atheists and Theists alike. I would think such evidence for a higher dimension above this one would receive far wider appreciation that it has! In what should be needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion! In light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics, special relativity, i.e. QED, with Gravity, I consider the preceding nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:
Music:
Thanks BA77, that was a comprehensive post analyzing this discovery. We can understand why the “evidence” for cosmic inflation is important to the Big Bang theory.
However, it’s not lost on us that after nearly ten days, with experts from more than 25 countries , with sophisticated technology, scouring the face of a portion on planet earth are still not able to track an airplane the size of a triple seven jet, but yet can be certain about evidence about what happened eons ago, in the vast expanse of the cosmos.
Your quote from Psalms was spot on!
Psalm 89:11-12
The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.
The north and the south, You have created them;
Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name.
(commentary on Tabor and Hermon: ,,,that is to say, east and west are equally formed by thee, and therefore give thee praise.,,,)
Axel, I’m afraid your comments come across as a celebration of ignorance. To claim to see folly in flasks is ridiculous. Science, and the discipline of its application, engineering, are tools for human betterment. Sneer at them if you like, but these facets of “materialism” are all that allow these posts, this discussions and O’Leary’s scribblings to be conveyed between our distant lands.
I’m still scratching my head wondering how anyone can think they make a point using Einstein and Planck against science! Of course science progresses one funeral at a time – knowledge and understanding are advanced by discarding theories disproved by evidence. Sometimes the privations are that cherished beliefs are discredited too. Too bad. If your beliefs say one thing, and the evidence disproves it, then your beliefs are wrong.
Which came first supposedly – a Big Bang or a Multiverse?
It shows that even evolutionists have a bias and are prone to interpret the evidence in their favor. Translated that means evolutionists are not the objective scientists they are always portrayed to be.
Tj guy,
This discovery has nothing to do with “evolutionists”. It was made by astrophysicists. The only biological aspect is the red herring you just landed.
Henry Crun
I don’t blame you at all in trying to distance astrophysics from Darwinism. Indeed astrophysicists would do well to distance their theories as far as they can from the materialistic pseudo-science that is Darwinism. It is interesting to note that many times Darwinists like to claim that their theory is as well supported as Gravity. What you never hear is a astrophysicist returning the compliment to a Darwinist:
bornagain77,
I think the statement “I don’t blame you at all in trying to distance astrophysics from Darwinism” says it all, really.
Henry Crun,
and how so?,,, I like to think I’m a reasonable guy in terms of evaluating evidence. Can you show me any substantiating evidence for Darwinism as you can show me substantiating evidence for Gravity?
I’ve looked high and low for any evidence that would validate, or at least lend credence to, Darwinian claims for purely material processes ‘randomly’ generating the unfathomed levels of functionally integrated information we find in life,,
,,and the evidence that Darwinists put forth to explain such unfathomed complexity always falls apart upon scrutiny. In fact there is a null hypothesis in place stating that purely material processes will never create functional information. Care to falsify that null?
Does this purported “recent discovery” not point to a definite beginning of the universe? Isn’t this good news for theists or anyone who suspects a Deity kicked the can to start the process? I’m just not sure where the materialist is able to dictate that the universe was the result of some sort of inflation process. I get that the universe is expanding, but how does one automatically assume the can was kicked via the process of inflation? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Has anyone observed this so-called “inflation process” or multiverses that are purported to exist by the materialist? The last question is rhetorical, I already know the answer. 🙂
BA77,
I’m tempted to leave you to your delusions. Anyway, I’m not big on isms, I’m more interested in functionality. However, if you define for me what you mean by Darwinism then I’ll give it a shot once around the block. What I don’t want to do is have a go at it, submit it to you, then have you tell me that’s not what you meant by Darwinism.
Glad to see comment #13 confirming that all this breathless reporting is taking the authors aback. But I would offer that the authors started this hyperventilation even before the paper arrived, with “leaks” and “dated press releases”. And since when is a data paper some sort of diplomatic missive from the intelligentsia to the public that paid for it?
I confess #7 Mr Luke took me aback, so I patiently went to his blog and read all of my errors. I was underwhelmed. Evidently I forgot to bow to the right authorities and use the right jargon.
Let me simply point out to Mr Luke that the “Standard Model” doesn’t go back to 1922 and George Lemaitre, as George himself would have agreed, it goes back to at least 1500BC and this fellow named Moishe. So I hope you will pardon me if I use the more ancient terminology for the big bang, and not the latest fad from “Cosmology 101”.
Luke, before Cosmology101, and long before even George was born, they used to teach metaphysics in the University. And if you have not mastered Genesis, then there is no point to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler as Misner himself made clear to us in our Gravitation 101 class. May I recommend a book by Stanley Jaki (PhD’s in physics and philosophy) called “God and the Cosmologists”. Very worthwhile reading, and an antidote to all these “multiverse” and “inflation” and “vacuum energy” speculations. Jaki would have said “its all metaphysics.”
You want my prediction? When the Planck consortium publishes their version of polarized CMB, all this hoopla will go very quiet, while the original authors protest “One sigma is still significant. It is highly suggestive. We stand by our work….”
Henry Crun
“I’m tempted to leave you to your delusions.”
Says the one in the materialistic straight jacket sitting in a naturalistic rubber room! 🙂
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ
The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLvldINiGI
corrected link:
The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson – video
https://vimeo.com/75897668
Does this inflation process have anything to do with multiverses? Is this the first real proof that a multiverse does exist or just the mechanism for the expansion of the universe?
#29
Inflation is independent of multiverses, though of course, in a multiverse you can have anything you want. Except God, of course. That you pay extra for.
The “inflation” hypothesis was invoked to explain the exquisite balance (1 part in 10^60) between expansion (bang) and gravity (crunch). During the bang, some unknown force field suddenly went critical and like flash-boiling water, caused the universe to expand faster than the speed of light. The number of suppositions is staggering, and after 20 years of fiddling with the “inflation field” we are now told it required a precision of, wait for it, one part in 10^100 to achieve inflation. The cure is worse than the disease! And now, supposedly, a polarization in the CMB is supposed to prove everyone right. I give this conclusion a 1 in 10^60 chance of proving correct.
BA77,
Nope, first YOU define what you mean by “Darwinism”. Not just another pseudorandom dump of videos by the usual suspects.
Robert Sheldon,
Sorry – are you offering odds of 10^60 to 1 ?
Henry Crun, what I mean by “Darwinism” is what Darwinian evolutionists themselves mean by Darwinism, in that they hold as a presupposition in their theory that all life, in all its unfathomed complexity, arose by ‘undirected’ random processes:
There is simply no empirical evidence that ‘undirected’ random processes are up to the formidable task attributed to them for creating all the wondrous integrated complexity in life on earth:
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of ‘unguided’ Darwinian processes EVER producing a single molecular machine, here is an example that intelligence can do as such:
Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,
,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
Supplemental notes:
It seems discovery refutes cyclic multiverse, so Stephen Hawking won his $100 bet with cyclic multiverse guy.
But a multiverse generated by a Big Bang still in the running.
@ppolish
“But a multiverse generated by a Big Bang still in the running.”
Has anyone seen a multiverse? I’m just curious that’s all….
Henry, I did Google O’Leary, and discovered that a neuro-scientist evidently thought sufficiently highly of her knowledge and intellect, that they co-authored a book.
On the other hand, I saw some blogs full of risibly immature invective directed at her. I believe you Americans graduate from your pubic high-schools, while the rest of the world graduates from a tertiary institution, but really her ‘critics’ were so dim they couldn’t grasp that they sounded like angry adolescent Mr Beans.
Anyway, it’s clear to me that, with her intellect (one of the most impressive on here, to me; not as encyclopaedic as some, but gaining in other areas as a corollary), she needs no-one to defend her. But why are we arguing, when your assumptions as an atheist are too remote from mine for any mutually intelligible exchange to occur?
Here’s the biggest problem with the Big Bang hypothesis, IMO. If the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate that was caused by the Big Bang, and if this acceleration can be computed by observing the degree of redshift in the light coming from distant galaxies, then the farthest galaxies are moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. This alone falsifies the hypothesis.
The second biggest problem is that the redshift data puts the earth right at the center of the universe.
There are many other problems with the theory but these two will suffice. It is obvious that astronomers and cosmologists are milking a barren heifer and they don’t even have a decent stool to sit on. It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
@KRock, the only place a multiverse has been seen is in the models. And per Guth/Linde the multiverse is a more robust model than universe. All share the same big bang it seems.
“Not of This Wold” appearing more and more scientifically valid:)
A model that puts Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell outside of this universe (as opposed to within this universe) seems more robust per the multiverse theory.
Science now needs to figure out how to travel between multiverses. Theology can help there:)
Ah well, BA77, there’s the problem. Darwinism, as you call it, says absolutely nothing about the way in which life arose. Darwinism only addresses the origin of species, not the origin of life. And no biologist thinks it’s random: the selection element is the opposite of randomness, it is, as it says on the tin, selection. You may care to think of it as guided if you wish.
Since we see this from completely different angles, there is little point in us continuing this dialogue. Thank you for your time.
Henry Crun, I was not talking about the origin of life either (although PZ Myers himself calls it a ‘cop out’ for Darwinists to ignore it). I was talking about the fact that Darwinian processes, even though life is brimming with sophisticated molecular machines,,,
I was pointing out the fact that Darwinian processes operating within already existent life, have never been observed to generate even one molecular machine by what are presupposed to be ‘unguided’ Darwinian processes. In other words, in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system much less an actual demonstration.
The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
There simply is no empirical evidence backing up Darwinian claims!
All Darwinian explanations turn out to be ‘just so stories’ with no real empirical support!
Henry Crun, it might also interest you to know that natural selection is a eliminative process not a generative process:
Supplemental Note:
@ppolish
“Not of This World” appearing more and more scientifically valid:)”
I agree, but I am more inclined to think inter-dimensional than multiverses, but who knows.
*Dr Barnes, if you must use a title.
The point of my post is that, before you can criticise something, you must first learn what it is. There is no evidence, in this post or your previous one, that you actually understand modern cosmology. There are too many errors in presenting the basics to believe that you understand anything about the more advanced topics like CMB B-modes.
I’ve read Genesis. I’ve read “God and the Cosmologists”. The standard model I’m referring to are the Friedmann equations: derived in 1922, still used today. If you see a parallel to the Bible then make that case. But learn some cosmology first. Inflation is science in progress: it is mathematically formulated, it makes some confirmed predictions, another one seems to have been confirmed. We’ll keep investigating.
‘Funny sort of “factory” that, with the “machinery” itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..62691.html’
Ah, but the unicorns and pink pixies of materialist lore are canny creatures, BA77, as any of their elders will tell you, as they sit around the camp fire of a night.
Hello,
First time I am commenting here, but I am curious as to why so many people are against the discovery of this cosmic inflation. Are there theologic issues that it raises. Like KROCK, I thought all this simply confirms the big bang….which means, a “beginning.” So why all the skepticism revolving around it. I thought this would be good news.
Mapou @37,
The two points you claim are both utterly wrong. If you are going to claim that the redshift values for the furthest galaxies mean that they are moving from us faster than light, then I think you had better show us the math.
The geocentric claim you make about redshift is also wrong. The point about cosmic expansion is that all of space is expanding so everywhere is expanding away from everywhere else. So everywhere in the universe will see red shifts in distant bodies (except locally, where the rate of expansion is less than the relative local speeds, such as the local group of galaxies).
Erroneous claims such as yours do not help your case.
Axel @36,
At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.
Oooh! That one had a sting in its tail, Henry! These lads and lassies on here will be very disconsolate to read your devastating put down.
Not quite in the class, I’m afraid, of the quip to the effect that no-one would, henceforth, be able to sully the name of Jacqueline Kennedy – after she had reviled the memory of late Martin Luther King!
But top marks for trying. It’s not the winning. It’s courageous effort that counts. I’m sure that, when Christianity is vindicated, possibly in a not too distant future, you’ll quietly thank me for trying to enlighten you.
Crun @46:
It is a known fact that some of the farthest quasars have a redshift value greater than 4. This means that they are moving faster than light, that is, if the redshift interpretation is correct. Look it up. The redshift interpretation is just that, by the way. There are other equally valid interpretations.
The idea that space is expanding everywhere is just an assertion without substance since space (distance) is an abstract mathematical entity. Besides, if expansion started with a Big Bang, it should be obvious that, as with any explosion, there must be a center to the explosion. The whole things is beginning to sound like Ptolemaic epicycles. Every discrepancy in the theory is explained with additional just-so stories that are themselves in need of explanation.
By the way, your know-it-all pomposity does not make you right. It just makes you sound pompous and self-righteous. It does not impress me. I’m a rebel at heart and I refuse to let anybody do my thinking for me, especially self-appointed elitists. Speaking of scientists, Paul Feyerabend wrote in Against Method, “the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society.” That’s the way I feel about scientists in general.
Axel, what is it that makes you think I’m not Christian?
Henry Crun, in case you don’t know, not offering any real time empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, and then ‘attacking the man’ instead of the argument, is a tactic we have seen countless times before here on UD by Darwinists. Perhaps instead of just proclaiming yourself to be so much wiser than everybody on UD you could actually humble those who may doubt your self exaltation of wisdom with some actual wisdom instead of chest puffing rhetoric??? (just a suggestion before you get the boot):
Argument Ad Hominem ? (William Lane Craig)- video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg
Mapou@49,
Hopelessly wrong. A red shift of 4 corresponds to a recession velocity of about 0.92 of the speed of light in vacuo. And your explosion issue is also grossly incorrect. The Big Bang isn ‘t a bomb going off – that was always an ironic sneer – it’s a massive and rapid expansion from a hot dense state, more like a sudden inflation of a balloon . Space isn’t just an abstract either, it’s space-time and it comes with real physical characteristics.
If you want to write about this stuff with any credibility, take a course.
BA77 @ 51,
I’m not commenting on evolution, I’m commenting on the latest astrophysics evidence.
Mapping, re: your last paragraph @ 49, you ought to check out the plank in your own eye before commenting on the mote in mine. I would point out that many scientists have spent years working on this, and years checking it, and put it out for peer review and checking: yet somehow you and the likes of Axel, with no understanding of the field whatsoever, seem to have spotted defects in the work, in just a few minutes, that teams of experts missed over several years. Frankly that – like you – is just not credible.
Henry Crun stated:
“O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.”
Indeed no further comment is needed!
Crun @52:
More pomposity and deceit. You people are a bunch of con artists and you got nothing of value to teach. You are weavers of lies and deception. You are about as ignorant about the cosmos and its origin as the man on the street.
The .92 C velocity is just a piece of turd that some jackass in the physics community pulled out of his asteroid orifice. It was obtained by applying Special Relativity formulas to the redshift measurements. The actual truth is that relativistic corrections are already inherent in the redshift (as per relativity) and applying it after the measurement is about as deceitful and backasswards as one can get.
Your point about spacetime being some physical entity is also based on total ignorance. The truth is that nothing can move in spacetime. Go learn your own crappy Star Trek voodoo physics.
PS. No need for you to reply, Crun. I can’t stand throwing my pearls at swines.
See #51 immediately below your post, Henry. I don’t – often couldn’t – follow the technical arguments adduced by posters, but the fact that you are described as a Darwinist, seems to sit oddly with your question.
Your #17, Henry:
‘I’m still scratching my head wondering how anyone can think they make a point using Einstein and Planck against science! Of course science progresses one funeral at a time – knowledge and understanding are advanced by discarding theories disproved by evidence.’
You seem to sincerely believe that you have a logical mind, Henry. Yet you completely invert my point, that Einstein and Planck were beacons of scientific integrity and logic, crucially based on sound assumptions – claiming that I use their insights against science. Science is knowledge. Period.
It used to empirically-based I believe, but that seems to have gone by the board, now that the corporate minions of atheism rule the roost more than ever, and have seemingly initiated a process in distant Japan that would put an end to all of us, failing divine intervention. And you think it worth it, so that we can communicate across the pond? It didn’t have to happen, of course, but atheist-driven materialism has seen to it.
”Sneer at them if you like, but these facets of “materialism” are all that allow these posts, this discussions and O’Leary’s scribblings to be conveyed between our distant lands.’
Moreover, we may be comfortable according to our respective needs and desires, but there are all too many people, surely hundreds of millions in the West, who have been marginalized (to put it mildly) by the greed of the same moguls of corporatism that are now dictating the mandatory scope of scientific research with totalitarian force. Very much in line with US public policy generally, if it comes to that: ‘cluborlov.com’
You think Planck wasn’t the sharpest tool in the box, then? No, even Neddy Seagoon would tell you one shouldn’t have to wait for a generation of scientists to expire (perhaps a tad hyperbolical), and for their successors to accept the math!
Read Aldous Huxley’s ‘Perennial Philosophy’, Henry. Or if you have, already, read it again, and you may begin to understand why O’Leary’s intelligence is of such a high calibre, notably, it seems, in comparison with yours, but atheists, generally. (no such thing as a Christian materialist, Henry).
That towering genius of economics, (of all subjects!), together with J K Galbraith, J M Keynes, but perhaps more astonishingly prophetic expressed the matter very pungently, if a little wryly, in his review of a book by Hayek:
‘The book, as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it beginning with page 45 [Hayek provided historical background up to page 45; after that came his theoretical model], and yet it remains a book of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.’
That, alas, as I mentioned above is your plight; but will never be one suffered by O’Leary. But odd to think that Keynes was an atheist, albeit one who felt very lucky to be living in a christian society. Apparently, Bertrand Russell remarked that he never came away from an argument with Keynes without feeling a little foolish.
Incidentally, I happened to come across, just above the above quote in Wikiquotes, this endorsement of your criticism of my jest about a thermos flask:
‘There was an attraction at first that Mr Baldwin should not be clever. But when he forever sentimentalises about his own stupidity, the charm is broken.’
Skidelsky quoting Keynes, apparently. Shades of Dubya being ‘the kind of guy you could have a beer with!’
Had Stanley and I been contemporaries, we might have compared notes. Though I would surely have had to call out to him from the tradesman’s entrance.
Mapou @ 55,
“Relativistic corrections are already inherent in the redshift” means what exactly? Perhaps you would share the math with us to show what you mean.
“The truth is that nothing can move in space time” will come as a surprise to those of us who are doing just that (you too).
Axel@ 56,
Sorry, man, didn’t catch any of that.