Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Guest

On 27 Jul, 00:07, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Please give me a citation to where they predicted the microwave
background in advance of its being found..
[/quote]
Fred Hoyle predicted 2.78 Kelvin in 1955 didn>t he? But I don>t
believe in the steady state model. I believe in the pulsating model,
without any big bang and big crunch.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<b6743441-662d-47f2-b4fc-f3da2ef93e2e@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Zanthius <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]On 26 Jul, 10:40, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
I>m not sure how to answer that. First, faith in Jesus is religious
because it is about claims that cannot even in theory be verified
experimentally. I believe what scientists tell me for several reasons:
One, their basic textbooks often contain experiments I can do myself to
verify what they say. Two, I know some of them, and they>re honest
people who think like I do. Three, the work they>ve done has improved my
live a whole lot, so they>re doing something right.

Is there more evidence for dark energy being related to the expansion
of the universe, than there is evidence for the big bang being related
to the expansion of the universe? Yes.

Is expansion of the universe evidence that the universe originates
from a point/singularity? Nope.
[/quote]
Yes, actually, there is.

[quote]Can it be verified experimentally that the universe originates from a
point/singularity? Nope.

Are all scientists necessarily honest people? Nope.
[/quote]
You seem to be saying that scientists are lying about the Big Bang.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are lying about the Big Bang.

Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis
that the universe once was a point/singularity.

If the expansion was driven by energy from the big bang, then it would
be decelerating, not accelerating.

The expansion of the universe is driven by dark energy, not by energy
from the big bang.

That is why the expansion is accelerating and not decelerating.
[/quote]
I think you don>t know as much about this as you think you do. At what
university did you study physics? What makes you any kind of authority
on this subject? What makes your opinion worthwhile?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Hagar · Guest

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are lying about the Big Bang.

Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis
that the universe once was a point/singularity.
[/quote]

Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation, also known as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists (as
opposed to you, the hack) to conclude that its origin came from one single
event, appr. 13.5B years ago.

For now, if I were you, I>d put the comic books aside and cut a bee-line to
the library and read up on some real science.

Dismissed.

Saul Levy · Guest

The steady state cosmology died a long time ago.

Please give me a citation to where they predicted the microwave
background in advance of its being found..

Saul Levy

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT), zanthius.dxun@gmail.com
wrote:

[quote]On 26 Jul, 22:00, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation, also known as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists (as
opposed to you, the hack) to conclude that its origin came from one single
event, appr. 13.5B years ago.

There were many astrophysicists who believed in alternate cosmology,
like in the steady state model, who predicted the cosmic microwave
background before it was discovered. Even with a higher accuracy than
the predictions made by the big bang believers.

Of course we know a lot more about the cosmic microwave background
today, and it seem to fit pretty well with the inflationary Big Bang
model, but I don>t think it is the only model capable of fitting with
the observed cosmic microwave background.

I think there has been used a lot of resources on making the Big Bang
model fit with the observed cosmic microwave background, and that you
easily make the model of a pulsating universe fit with the observed
cosmic microwave background as well.[/quote]

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<696f12ff-5a84-4849-809a-6e53633b4877@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]On 27 Jul, 00:07, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
Please give me a citation to where they predicted the microwave
background in advance of its being found..

Fred Hoyle predicted 2.78 Kelvin in 1955 didn>t he? But I don>t
believe in the steady state model. I believe in the pulsating model,
without any big bang and big crunch.
[/quote]
Nope.

"In 1965, Hoyle abandoned for a period his theory, writing in Nature
magazine that it "is widely believed that the existence of the microwave
background killed the 'steady state' cosmology, but what really killed
the steady-state theory was psychology . . . Here, in the microwave
background, was an important phenomenon which it had not predicted>"."
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

"For some years the Big Bang and Steady State theories, although
completely opposed to each other, both seemed able to explain the
observations made by astronomers. Gradually however more evidence was
discovered that seemed to support the Big Bang, especially when the
cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1964. This
"echo" of the Big Bang convinced most scientists but Hoyle persisted in
trying to make his Steady State Theory fit the facts."
http://www.longman.co.uk/tt_secsci/resources/scimon/hoyle/hoyle.htm

"Hoyle>s Steady State theory could not adequately explain the presence
of the background radiation and so was abandoned by most astronomers."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm

Hoyle denied that the Big Bang theory predicted the cosmic background
radiation, but he never showed how his stead-state theory would account
for it.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what¹s accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<9e8539cc-3767-41bd-b8c7-2b0c60211207@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]On 26 Jul, 21:45, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
I think you don>t know as much about this as you think you do. At what
university did you study physics? What makes you any kind of authority
on this subject? What makes your opinion worthwhile?

Sometimes the authorities are a little too stuck in their models to
see beyond them.

Some things you see more clearly when you see from the outside of the
model.
[/quote]
It>s even easier when you have no data to work with.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what¹s accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.

Saul Levy · Guest

That matches what I>ve read about it, woof!

Beware the DAMN revisionists! lmao!

Saul Levy

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:12:41 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:

[quote]In article
696f12ff-5a84-4849-809a-6e53633b4877@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com wrote:

On 27 Jul, 00:07, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
Please give me a citation to where they predicted the microwave
background in advance of its being found..

Fred Hoyle predicted 2.78 Kelvin in 1955 didn>t he? But I don>t
believe in the steady state model. I believe in the pulsating model,
without any big bang and big crunch.

Nope.

"In 1965, Hoyle abandoned for a period his theory, writing in Nature
magazine that it "is widely believed that the existence of the microwave
background killed the 'steady state' cosmology, but what really killed
the steady-state theory was psychology . . . Here, in the microwave
background, was an important phenomenon which it had not predicted>"."
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

"For some years the Big Bang and Steady State theories, although
completely opposed to each other, both seemed able to explain the
observations made by astronomers. Gradually however more evidence was
discovered that seemed to support the Big Bang, especially when the
cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1964. This
"echo" of the Big Bang convinced most scientists but Hoyle persisted in
trying to make his Steady State Theory fit the facts."
http://www.longman.co.uk/tt_secsci/resources/scimon/hoyle/hoyle.htm

"Hoyle>s Steady State theory could not adequately explain the presence
of the background radiation and so was abandoned by most astronomers."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm

Hoyle denied that the Big Bang theory predicted the cosmic background
radiation, but he never showed how his stead-state theory would account
for it.[/quote]

D. Ismay · Guest

Hagar wrote:
[quote]zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are lying about the Big Bang.
Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis
that the universe once was a point/singularity.

Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation, also known as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists (as
opposed to you, the hack) to conclude that its origin came from one single
event, appr. 13.5B years ago.
[/quote]
No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a signature. The most that one
can say is that a given noise power spectrum follows an envelope or
shape that is similar to a noise spectrum emitted by some other,
well-characterized event. "Similarity" alone is not sufficient proof of
origin.

[quote]For now, if I were you, I>d put the comic books aside and cut a bee-line to
the library and read up on some real science.
[/quote]
....wrote the 'tard whose long-term, primary contribution to general
understanding is a widely-publicized obsession with Art Deco.

[quote]Dismissed.
[/quote]
Indeed. If you actually plan to start reading, don>t forget the chapstick.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear D. Ismay:

"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote in message
news:h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
[quote]Hagar wrote:
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof
timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are
lying about the Big Bang.

Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence
supporting the hypothesis that the universe
once was a point/singularity.

Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation, also known
as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists
(as opposed to you, the hack) to conclude
that its origin came from one single event,
appr. 13.5B years ago.
[/quote]
That event was a self-excited hydrogen plasma, that filled all of
space, and had a mean free path of 3.5 parsecs (give or take).
NOT a singularity.

[quote]No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a
signature.
[/quote]
This "noise" does.

[quote]The most that one can say is that a given
noise power spectrum follows an envelope
or shape that is similar to a noise spectrum
emitted by some other, well-characterized
event. "Similarity" alone is not sufficient
proof of origin.
[/quote]
It is not "proof" of anything. It is a black body light source,
that was successively hotter temperatures as you go back to
different ages in the past. So it tends to support some
cosmological theories, and knocks the legs out from under others.

A "recycling" creation has the problem of ending up with just
iron in the Universe in infinite time (assuming the cycle does
not pass through "singularity", or the second law of thermo
reverses also). A problem this Universe does not have.

David A. Smith

chosp · Guest

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e06cfa3-fa3b-4787-b242-205b8e6d45b0@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

I think there has been used a lot of resources on making the Big Bang
model fit with the observed cosmic microwave background, and that you
easily make the model of a pulsating universe fit with the observed
cosmic microwave background as well.

Please do.
Who or what is preventing you from doing so?
And, when you do, please show your work.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article <h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote:

[quote]Hagar wrote:
zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f255e27-c606-46b9-adba-92aa55a01ead@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Jul, 20:08, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
You seem to be saying that scientists are lying about the Big Bang.
Yes, I don>t there is sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis
that the universe once was a point/singularity.

Except for one pesky little fact: the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation, also known as CMBR, is proof enough for real scientists (as
opposed to you, the hack) to conclude that its origin came from one single
event, appr. 13.5B years ago.

No, it is not. "Noise" does not carry a signature.
[/quote]
Yes, it does. Its frequency distribution, for instance, can be measured.

[quote]The most that one
can say is that a given noise power spectrum follows an envelope or
shape that is similar to a noise spectrum emitted by some other,
well-characterized event.
[/quote]
That>s actually quite a lot for not having a signature.

[quote]"Similarity" alone is not sufficient proof of
origin.
[/quote]
In the case of the cosmic background radiation, its spectrum matches
blackbody radiation of a specific temperature, and that matches what one
would expect from the Big Bang hypothesis. It>s not "proof" of the kind
that teenaged boys are required to produce for geometry teachers, but it
contributes in an important way to the Big Bnag theory.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article <GJ3jk.640$3l5.39@newsfe06.iad>,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

[quote]A "recycling" creation has the problem of ending up with just
iron in the Universe in infinite time
[/quote]
Of course! (Light comes on!) Since fusing atoms lighter than iron
releases energy and fusing atoms heaver requires it, iron is the
equilibrium point. Cool.

[quote](assuming the cycle does
not pass through "singularity", or the second law of thermo
reverses also). A problem this Universe does not have.
[/quote]
But if there was a singularity, it would wipe out all evidence from
previous cycles. (For example, it would destroy the previous cycle>s
distribution of chemical elements.) Another effect would be that it
would make no difference to the present universe whether it was just one
more in a cycle or "the" universe.

So, either it>s cyclic with a singularity or it>s "it"; either way makes
little difference to our theories.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
message
news:timberwoof.spam-3F053D.13375227072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <GJ3jk.640$3l5.39@newsfe06.iad>,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com $dlzc$" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:
....
(assuming the cycle does not pass through
"singularity", or the second law of thermo
reverses also). A problem this Universe does
not have.

But if there was a singularity, it would wipe out
all evidence from previous cycles.
[/quote]
Depends on what has to be done to the laws of physics, but yes I
tend to agree with you.

[quote](For example, it would destroy the previous
cycle>s distribution of chemical elements.)
[/quote]
Might even switch from matter to anti-matter on inflection.

[quote]Another effect would be that it would make no
difference to the present universe whether it
was just one more in a cycle or "the" universe.

So, either it>s cyclic with a singularity or it>s
"it"; either way makes little difference to our
theories.
[/quote]
True. However with an evident gamma of 1000+ (for the CMBR) on
an expansion phase, can you imagine what an equal gamma for the
compression phase might do to life? The infrared glow of an
ancient dinosaur fart would become a short burst of gamma
radiation...

Expansion to a diffuse "singularity" holds the promise of more
time for life to exist.

David A. Smith

Odysseus · Guest

In article
<timberwoof.spam-87B240.13314727072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:

[quote]In article <h-2dnXzPOf1uKBHVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"D. Ismay" <!@a.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]
[...] "Noise" does not carry a signature.

Yes, it does. Its frequency distribution, for instance, can be measured.
[/quote]
Hence the distinctions that can be drawn between "white", "pink",
Brownian, Gaussian, &c. types of noise.

--
Odysseus


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - Amateur Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 2 of 7