Loves_Truth
Yes I chose the Angelfire site because it has links to many of the more impotant refutations of the Big Bang theory, such as:
As I think you know, my comment about angelfire sites being well-known depositories of scientific truth was ironic (meaning 2a at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irony).
That you would judge the contents of a site in such an off the cuff and abrupt manner reveals volumes about you.
Of course, if someone was advancing a crack-pot theory about the ruling elite of the Earth actually being reptiles (and there are people who believe that), YOU would use the fact the science they linked to was poor and their websites home-made and unprofessional in your appraisal of them.
My initial (and I did make it obvious it was initial) appraisal was based on the evidence you presented, so don't whine if it gets slammed, choose better evidence to support your theories. That's how it works.
I showed with little effort yesterday that Kierein's threoy about Compton's Effect causing red-shift was plainly wrong on both rather obvious and theoretical levels, and provided an alternate and unrefuted explanation of the red-shift seen in the sun's light.
Have good enough grace to accept that Kierein's theory is not true... or will you now insist that it's 'turtles all the way down'?
The link you provided for the day is this one;
http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
Just to give some frame of reference; you know how I complained earlier that many supposed refutations of evolution et.al. were often written by educated people, right enough, but people with educations in different subjects?
Thank you for proving my point, yet again!
http://stm1.phys.cmu.edu/durint/mitchel.html
Mr Mitchell is a materials scientist. He is not a cosmologist. Do you go to the vet to have your yearly medical? If not, your standards od selecting experts are fast and loose.
Now, there are instances of cross-disciplinary work being ground-breaking; Feynman took a sabbatical from Physics and actually made some advances in biological sciences whilst doing so. But that's Feynman, the sort of scientist other scientists have photos of on their wall... how many bongo-playing Don Juan poly-maths do you know?
Of course, the fact that Mr Mitchell doesn't have experience in the subject (note the list of articles at the above link; see anything other than materials science?) doesn't mean he's wrong.
It just means it is more likely he is wrong, as he's no an expert on the subject he's writing about. Think of it as looking at a wine label and knowing whether that wine is likely to be any good. The label doesn't auger well. But let's pull the cork, eh?
He basically take half-a-dozen different theoretical models and looks at the bad points of each. He is doing no more than cosmologists do, as second to coming up with theoretical models, what cosmologists like the most is poking at other ones. No problem there, it's how science keeps healthy.
He also curiously observes;
Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem.
Could you explain to me exactly what purpose this statement serves? Unless someone is demonstrating the existence of god in a science paper (it's not been done yet), refering to what peoples' religious expectations may or may not be seems to be an irrelevancy that indicates a possible presupposition on the author's part.
He is also, plainly and unarguabley wrong;
Inflation theory,(3,4) which will be discussed further on, has claimed to solve the singularity problem (and other BB problems as well) but it requires an enormous quantum theory vacuum fluctuation(2) and, according to some, an enormous cosmic repulsive force to provide for a BB. These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.
He states that quantum theory vacuum fluctuations have no known means of experimental verification.
Ooops;
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6
It would seem Mr Mitchell is in error.
He also needs to seriously update his understanding of the issue of smoothness; perhaps this article will help illustrate his misconceptions?
http://www.nature.com/nsu/990128/990128-1.html
I also think he needs to be more honest or clearer. Statements like "there is noexperimental [sic.] evidence in support of a muon neutrino of 2500 MeV" are actually rather deceptive; there's no equipment that can get to 2500MeV with meuon neutrinos... yet. If he phrased it differently like; 'it is not yet possible to experimentally verify a Muon neutrino of 2500 MeV', and a link to something like this;
http://www.cap.bnl.gov/mumu/info/intro.html
... it would eliminate any possibility of him being accused of presenting data in a way that made something that was unverified appear to be proven false.
He also (as a fallacy watcher this should interest you) appeals to authority; "No references to negatively curved space can be found in Einstein's Relativity, The Special and General Theories, or in other early books on Einstein's work such as Biography of Physics by George Gamow or Understanding Relativity by Stanley Goldberg."
Yeah, and, so, what? Einstein isn't god.
I'm no cosmologist, but I know enough physics and have enough ability in research to see the paper you posted is flawed, as it definately contains errors. It also seems to regard the flaws of theories in progress (no one has ever said otherwise) as proof that the direction those theories take is wrong.
You select evidence that says what you want to hear, evidence that doesn't stand up to examination.
You also seem to feel disproving a scientific theory proves god; if you had cosmological theories that proved god, I'm sure you'd post them, but there are none, so you have to try to assert that because science, which is barely two hundred years old, can't explain everything, the theory of god (which has not once been proved in thirty thousand years) must be right.
Turtles all the way down.
And it is fine; you can believe that, but if you seriously want to prove that the basic ideas about how a naturalistic universe came about are in error and that you can prove this, you need to try harder.
Evolution does not threaten a theist's world view. I've stated as much previously in this thread.
No it doesn't. But it does prove that all creation accounts in all supposedly holy books are all inaccurate, and therefore man-made, and that therefore all the other contents of these holy books are as liable to error in other areas.
drwtsn32: Good question.
Hey, Loves_Truth, Little_Toe, rem, drwtsn32, etc., pity we can't do this over a pint...
Oh, yeah, the other links on the angelfire page;
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
"The material from dying galaxies is recycled into new galaxies."
Okay. How?
The following link in no way supports the science being advocated on the angelfire page, yet is quoted in support. Why?
http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1999b/n99139.htm
The new measuring technique reported here is used as a way to attack ages based upon older measuring techniques, but is reported on in a way that suggests science says both things at the same time using the same measuring techniques. It doesn't. Why the distortion?
http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1999b/n99139.htm
You are attacking 'cosmology' as if it were a single thing. It isn't. It is monolithic at times, reluctant to consign textbooks to the shredder despite problems... but hey, if you treated the Bible the same way, if would have been shredded a long time ago.
You also don't know enough to realise that what is being attacked here is the accuracy of dating with red-shift. The expansion of the Universe from a central point is not being attacked here. Thus, rather than proving the big bang is wrong, you at most indicate dating methods may need revision.
You claim you have revealed truth, yet cannot prove it, whereas science claims to have a good understanding given what we know, and can prove it from the evidence to hand at that time.
Scientific understandings may change if new evidence comes to light. This is good and natural.
With your beliefs however, understanding does not change as new evidence comes to light, even if that evidence contradicts former understandings.