Cosmogenesis .

[unbeliever]

You haven't posted any overwhelming evidence to support the your claim, you have posted other peoples speculation which I countered.

 

 

 

 

 

Based on your opening post you wanted to know what formers thought, here's a reminder.

 

 

 

You asked this question whilst another topic about the universe was running.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1454732

 

That appears to the the topic for people reading up on science and quoting large chunks of stuff that very few people could ever understand.

 

 

 

Having a brilliant idea doesn't require any reading first, I can't hope to ever understand the maths and science behind the big bang theory, but some very brilliant people do understand it and like me they question its validity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've looked at the evidence and based on my limited understanding of it I disagree with it.

 

 

You asked for our opinions, and even included "Sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure" as a possible explanation for the universe.

 

So are you interested in what others think or do you just want to try and shoot people down with scientific jargon that very few people understand?

 

 

I've indulged you at great length.

The maths behind the measurements showing the expansion of the universe is not that complicated.

The evidence is quite overwhelming. I've given you links which show this very clearly. This forum does not have the facility to reproduce plots etc but my links show them for you.

 

It is not remotely plausible, based on the data, not based on theory or "speculation" but actual measurements, that the universe is doing anything other than expanding at en ever increasing rate. If you choose to believe differently (i.e. if you choose to be pointlessly wrong), that's your prerogative.

 

I'm a sceptic when it comes to climate change. But I look at the data and I put forward what I hope are informed objections. If somebody gives me something to read which would demonstrate that I've misunderstood something, I read it.

 

I genuinely do not understand why you would pick an implausible hypothesis, refuse to look at simple data which goes firmly against it, and then try to make out that because it's not been absolutely disproven by the data you've chosen selectively to include then it's equally valid.

It's not equally valid. And to describe the work of others who have actually done their due diligence on these matters as "speculation" is insulting and daft.

 

Oh and pardon me for having a sense of humour. I didn't expect people to actually vote for the Hitch Hikers' reference, but I assume the few that have are just joining in the joke.

Edited May 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

I've indulged you at great length.

If you say so.

 

The maths behind the measurements showing the expansion of the universe is not that complicated.

It should be easy for you to explain then.

 

 

The evidence is quite overwhelming. I've given you links which show this very clearly.

And I posted links that contradict your three wiki links. If we are measuring dicks I posted more links than you and my links came from reputable sources.

 

It is not remotely plausible, based on the data, not based on theory or "speculation" but actual measurements, that the universe is doing anything other than expanding at en ever increasing rate.

The links I posted along with the quotes from some very clever physicists and cosmologists contradict your claim.

 

 

 

If you choose to believe differently (i.e. if you choose to be pointlessly wrong), that's your prerogative.

 

You started to topic asking for the opinions of others, now you appear unhappy to discuss the topic you started.

 

 

 

I'm a sceptic when it comes to climate change. But I look at the data and I put forward what I hope are informed objections. If somebody gives me something to read which would demonstrate that I've misunderstood something, I read it.

As do I, it doesn't change the fact that some very clever people with significantly more knowledge than you and me disagree with each other.

 

 

I genuinely do not understand why you would pick an implausible hypothesis,

I don't understand why you ask for the opinions of others and then spend the next several pages trying unsuccessfully to prove them wrong. It's not implausible.

 

refuse to look at simple data which goes firmly against it,

The data doesn't go firmly against it.

 

 

and then try to make out that because it's not been absolutely disproven by the data you've chosen selectively to include then it's equally valid.

 

It's what you asked for, its simply my opinion and whilst I can't prove it to be correct you can't prove it to be incorrect, some physicists and cosmologists think it is a plausible idea.

 

 

It's not equally valid. And to describe the work of others who have actually done their due diligence on these matters as "speculation" is insulting and daft.

 

What's dark matter if not speculation necessary to support their idea.

 

 

Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter composing the approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter, and neutrinos.

 

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

 

hypothesis

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

 

supposition

a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.

 

 

 

So something they invent in order to make their hypothesis work.

 

 

 

 

Oh and pardon me for having a sense of humour. I didn't expect people to actually vote for the Hitch Hikers' reference, but I assume the few that have are just joining in the joke.

 

So why did you start this topic if you didn't want to discuss the thoughts of other members?

Edited May 9, 2016 by sutty27

[unbeliever]

If you say so.

 

It should be easy for you to explain then.

 

 

And I posted links that contradict your three wiki links. If we are measuring dicks I posted more links than you and my links came from reputable sources.

 

The links I posted along with the quotes from some very clever physicists and cosmologists contradict your claim.

 

 

 

 

 

You started to topic asking for the opinions of others, now you appear unhappy to discuss the topic you started.

 

 

 

 

As do I, it doesn't change the fact that some very clever people with significantly more knowledge than you and me disagree with each other.

 

 

I don't understand why you ask for the opinions of others and then spend the next several pages trying unsuccessfully to prove them wrong. It's not implausible.

 

The data doesn't go firmly against it.

 

 

 

 

It's what you asked for, its simply my opinion and whilst I can't prove it to be correct you can't prove it to be incorrect, some physicists and cosmologists think it is a plausible idea.

 

 

 

 

What's dark matter if not speculation necessary to support their idea.

 

 

Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter composing the approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter, and neutrinos.

 

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

 

hypothesis

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

 

supposition

a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.

 

 

 

So something they invent in order to make their hypothesis work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why did you start this topic if you didn't want to discuss the thoughts of other members?

 

In the absence of dark matter, the gravitational attraction between the galaxies is weaker and it becomes even less plausible (if that were possible with the data we have) to suppose that they will start coming together.

Didn't think that one through did you?

 

Dark energy is a hypothesised explanation for why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. It could indeed be something else causing the accelerating expansion. What's not in doubt is that the expansion is accelerating and there isn't a chance in hell of gravity stopping it. This comes directly from data and requires no supposition, hypotheses or speculation what so ever.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge that it becomes reasonable to assume something is true when the clear bulk of evidence indicates as much is completely unreasonable.

Reason does not work that way. It is quite irrational to say that when there is vast evidence pointing one way, but room for a tiny sliver of doubt, that both propositions are somehow equal.

In science you never get proof. You can only get compelling evidence. If you choose to ignore it just to be contrary then you will spend you life being needlessly wrong about a great many things.

 

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2016 at 13:55 ----------

 

Just a thought.

 

If time is dependent on gravity and the universe is expanding that must mean that the overall relative gravity now must be weaker. If that is the case then time now must also be going slower which would mean that the universe would also seem to be expanding quicker. The trouble is there is no way of knowing if time is changing or can change..

 

Can anybody help me understand? as I need help on this one..

 

The effect on time of the strength of gravitational fields in outer space is small.

 

When you measure the doppler (red) shift of an astronomical object what you actually see is the gravitational shift plus the velocity shift. This is fairly easy to correct for but does have to be taken into account.

 

The red shift caused to light by passing through open space is tiny. As is the time dilation.

Edited May 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[apelike]

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2016 at 13:55 ----------

 

The effect on time of the strength of gravitational fields in outer space is small.

 

When you measure the doppler (red) shift of an astronomical object what you actually see is the gravitational shift plus the velocity shift. This is fairly easy to correct for but does have to be taken into account.

 

The red shift caused to light by passing through open space is tiny. As is the time dilation.

 

Thanks. When I posted that last night it was just an idea that I had not researched into but it now seems it may hold some merit. Scientists in Spain have also concluded that it may be time that is slowing down thus giving the impression of accelerating expanding Universe. But they also link it in part to string theory..

 

There are several links on this but I am only posting one here.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626354-000-is-time-slowing-down/

 

If we are looking at light that is billions of years old then the difference in time dilation could be significant over that period of time I would have thought. As said the trouble is even if time for us is slowing we would never know as we don't have a reference point.

[unbeliever]

Thanks. When I posted that last night it was just an idea that I had not researched into but it now seems it may hold some merit. Scientists in Spain have also concluded that it may be time that is slowing down thus giving the impression of accelerating expanding Universe. But they also link it in part to string theory..

 

There are several links on this but I am only posting one here.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626354-000-is-time-slowing-down/

 

If we are looking at light that is billions of years old then the difference in time dilation could be significant over that period of time I would have thought. As said the trouble is even if time for us is slowing we would never know as we don't have a reference point.

 

It's not completely out there. We still don't completely understand how space-time works and what effect its expansion would have. To my mind it's not the simplest explanation.

That said we haven't the slightest clue what is actually pushing the galactic clusters apart so at this point any ideas are worth looking at.

[sutty27]

In the absence of dark matter, the gravitational attraction between the galaxies is weaker and it becomes even less plausible (if that were possible with the data we have) to suppose that they will start coming together.

Didn't think that one through did you?

 

That's just more unprovable assumptions though, its one unprovable assumption supporting other unprovable assumption, the whole theory is one big assumption supported by other assumptions.

 

Dark energy is a hypothesised explanation for why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Yes its an assumption that is necessary to support the assumption that its actually expanding.

 

 

It could indeed be something else causing the accelerating expansion.

Or could just not be expanding.

 

What's not in doubt is that the expansion is accelerating and there isn't a chance in hell of gravity stopping it. This comes directly from data and requires no supposition, hypotheses or speculation what so ever.

But it is in doubt and I posted links that support that doubt.

 

 

Your refusal to acknowledge that it becomes reasonable to assume something is true when the clear bulk of evidence indicates as much is completely unreasonable.

Why would anyone acknowledge something to be true that isn't proven to be true and requires many unprovable assumptions in order to make it possible.

 

 

 

Reason does not work that way. It is quite irrational to say that when there is vast evidence pointing one way, but room for a tiny sliver of doubt, that both propositions are somehow equal.

But there isn't vast evidence pointing that way, there are some assumptions supported by other assumption.

 

In science you never get proof. You can only get compelling evidence.

Assumptions that something that we can't see must exist in order to support the assumption that the universe is expanding isn't evidence though.

 

If you choose to ignore it just to be contrary then you will spend you life being needlessly wrong about a great many things.

 

I accept that I might be wrong, just as your opinion might be wrong.

 

 

Why did you ask for opinions when you are 100% confidant that the Big bang theory is a certainty?

 

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

 

Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all.

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html

 

According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Edited May 9, 2016 by sutty27

[unbeliever]

That's just more unprovable assumptions though, its one unprovable assumption supporting other unprovable assumption, the whole theory is one big assumption supported by other assumptions.

 

Yes its an assumption that is necessary to support the assumption that its actually expanding.

 

 

 

Or could just not be expanding.

 

But it is in doubt and I posted links that support that doubt.

 

 

Why would anyone acknowledge something to be true that isn't proven to be true and requires many unprovable assumptions in order to make it possible.

 

 

 

 

But there isn't vast evidence pointing that way, there are some assumptions supported by other assumption.

 

Assumptions that something that we can't see must exist in order to support the assumption that the universe is expanding isn't evidence though.

 

 

 

I accept that I might be wrong, just as your opinion might be wrong.

 

 

My opinion is based on measured facts. Yours is based on nit-picking and misunderstandings.

Technically you might be right that I'm wrong. You're not right. You don't even have a consistent position so there's nothing to be right about.

 

You're what's known in science as "not even wrong". That's why you're not getting the kind of debate which I'm having no trouble engaging in with anybody else.

[sutty27]

It's not completely out there. We still don't completely understand how space-time works and what effect its expansion would have. To my mind it's not the simplest explanation.

That said we haven't the slightest clue what is actually pushing the galactic clusters apart so at this point any ideas are worth looking at.

 

Assuming they are being pushed apart which isn't clear or proven.

[unbeliever]

 

Why did you ask for opinions when you are 100% confidant that the Big bang theory is a certainty?

 

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

 

Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all.

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html

 

According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

 

I'm not 100% confident. I just don't find your arguments useful or constructive. I have no problem engaging with anybody else.

Look closer and you'll find that these ideas you link to are not being put forward as fact or even more likely. They're ideas thrown into the mix for people to consider.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2016 at 14:52 ----------

 

Assuming they are being pushed apart which isn't clear or proven.

 

I keep telling you. No it's not proven. It's just extremely likely based on the data.

 

Once again, you fail to grasp the vital premise of reasoning that 2 propositions are not equal if one has more evidence supporting it.

[sutty27]

My opinion is based on measured facts.

 

These so called fact are in doubt though.

 

 

Yours is based on nit-picking and misunderstandings.

 

No it just my opinion based on my own thinking.

 

 

Technically you might be right that I'm wrong. You're not right. You don't even have a consistent position so there's nothing to be right about.

My opinion is that the universe is infinite with no beginning. I have no idea if its expanding, contracting or static, what I don't do is accept assumptions which are based on other assumptions.

 

 

 

You're what's known in science as "not even wrong". That's why you're not getting the kind of debate which I'm having no trouble engaging in with anybody else.

 

You asked for the opinions of other forum members, if you didn't want opinions you should have asked us to just to copy and paste the opinions and assumptions of others.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2016 at 15:01 ----------

 

I'm not 100% confident. I just don't find your arguments useful or constructive. I have no problem engaging with anybody else.

I do understand that some people don't like to be told they are wrong, you should get over it because you will be wrong many many times during your life.

 

 

Look closer and you'll find that these ideas you link to are not being put forward as fact or even more likely. They're ideas thrown into the mix for people to consider.

 

I don't presume for one moment that they are facts, but they do show that there is no scientific consensus that the big bang and the expansion of the universe are facts, which is something you claimed.

 

 

 

 

I keep telling you. No it's not proven. It's just extremely likely based on the data.

Its no more likely than many of the other explanations, and you did say it was fact several pages ago.

 

 

 

Once again, you fail to grasp the vital premise of reasoning that 2 propositions are not equal if one has more evidence supporting it.

 

I'm not saying they are equal just pointing out to you that you was wrong when you said the universe is expanding, and it had a beginning.

 

You should have said it might be expanding and it might have had a beginning, something that is very unlikely by the way.

Edited May 9, 2016 by sutty27