Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Thanks for posting this video which demonstrates the fundamental point quite well in as much as this theorem is based squarely of the Hubble expansion (red shift) and no other.So I feel no need to argue against somethingg with a crumbling foundation.I must assume that he is working with http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_modelThis my be applied to this model.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universePerhaps it is just language but I find it interesting that he says beyond infinity. The kind of thing I expect theoretical physists to say since anything whatsoever is possible.When people go in search of further proofs to a pet theory you can bet that they will always find them. The weight of "evidence" for evolution demonstrates this point.All of the 3 main observations have other interpretations.Here is another issue.https://sites.google.com/site/scalinguniverse2011/But you will note that the majority of the theories out there sit squarely on the Hubble expansion & ignore the other supposed lines.
The notion that the universe is expanding is in no immediate danger of crumbling. I just don't see how that statement can be verified when the majority of cosmologists/physicists subscribe to it. Secondly, the universe's origins are not just about red shift. What about inflation theory and microwave cosmic background radiation? Furthermore, there are complex mathematics associated with all of these ideas.
See this link: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
Pure theoretical maths, as the observations have become far more complex and puzzling but the maths remains based on the simple model. Search:-On the Interpretation of Red-Shifts:A Quantitative Comparison of Red-Shift Mechanisms IILouis Marmet4th December, 2014And take his concluding advice.10 ConclusionsThis paper was written to collect as many red-shift mechanisms as possible in a single, coherent presentation. Manyquestions arise: “Which one of these best describes the observations?” “Which one, if any, is right?” There are somany proposed mechanisms with even more adjustable parameters, it is possible that a few might fit experimentalresults within measurement errors. However, this doesn’t mean that the model is right. Another method mightbe required in the future to decide which, if any, of these provides a good explanation for the red-shift.During the great depression of the 1930’s, it was observed that men wearing gold watches were in better healththan other people. The correlation between gold and the weight of these men was explained with some assumedproperty of gold. Although the theory explained the observations very well, it was certainly incorrect - richer menwho could afford to buy gold had enough money to feed themselves. This anecdote is to be remembered whenconsidering the above models and how well they fit experimental data.correlation is not causation.
The Princeton link above shows that the Ekpyrotic universe model does not disprove or count against Big Bang theory.Point conceded that correlation is not causation. The expanding universe is a very likely reason for red shift, but it's not the only possible reason. As I've said earlier, I'm not committed to the Big Bang or to the red shift of light/expansion suggestion. The important concern for me is whether there's plausible scientific evidence that suggests the universe had a beginning, which would harmonize with the scriptural account of matters. I don't need one human theory to sustain that belief.
As for the UNC piece, it seems dodgy to me. I did not see an author's name attached to the research; furthermore, there may be a serious agenda going on there.I have a little more trust in the second link you posted, Duncan. While I may not agree with the author, at least he's bringing forth what seem to be plausible suggestions. Spoken from a non-astronomer's viewpoint.
Plenty of sites out there on this subject, but here's one that from a relaible source, yet the approach is not technical: http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q56.html
This is from a person who has spent much of his career "studying" black holes. Something that has still not been proven physically to exist. There are agendas all over the place. Including where and how to get funding. It is no coincidence that it is called the evolution of the expanding universe. Right from its inceptionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1076329/?page=1http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.75.1089I look at the data & it is just not as uniform as he would like & that is why his explanations are so simplistic. They need to be.All this, as you say, does not stop the universe having a beginning.
Duncan, it's been a long but enjoyable day at our assembly here, so I'm not doing much on the blog today. I just got back home. Yes, the main point is whether there's plausible scientific evidence for a cosmic beginning. That's all I was trying to establish. The new book written by Roger Penrose (on cycles of time) is good, and inexpensive. He also discusses entropy, the Big Bang, its dissenters and the basis for affirming it.
Duncan,did you listen to the lecture by Penrose? He says there's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. While he's not speaking ex cathedra, Penrose does represent the mainstream consensus of cosmology/physics.
Post a Comment