Zorro: what about the Big Bang (new evidence)? [Archive]

Fobra

03-21-2006, 08:49 AM

I'd just like to get your comment about this, any criticisms or supports?
Posted on Yahoo news.

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found By MATT CRENSON,
AP National Writer 1 hour, 22 minutes ago

Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the
smoking gun that shows the universe went through
extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big
bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume
larger than all of observable space in less than a
trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery — which involves an analysis of variations
in the brightness of microwave radiation — is the first
direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory
that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped
together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe
that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took
place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for
mathematics and physical sciences at the National
Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."

Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, said:
"The observations are spectacular and the conclusions
are stunning."

Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking
at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow,
known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced
when the universe was about 300,000 years old — long
after inflation had done its work.

But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about
long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic
microwave background offers clues about what came before
it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle
brightness variations that give images of the microwave
background a lumpy appearance.

Physicists presented new measurements of those
variations during a news conference at Princeton
University. The measurements were made by a spaceborne
instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy
Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001.

Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the
universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few
hundred thousand years. WMAP also measured variations in
the cosmic microwave background so huge that they
stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier
observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no
smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the
research.

The new analysis looked at variations in the microwave
background over smaller patches of sky — only billions
of light-years across, instead of hundreds of billions.

Without inflation, the brightness variations over small
patches of the sky would be the same as those observed
over larger areas of the heavens. But the researchers
found considerable differences in the brightness
variations.

"The data favors inflation," said Charles Bennett, a
Johns Hopkins University physicist who announced the
discovery. He was joined by two Princeton colleagues,
Lyman Page and David Spergel, who also contributed to
the research.

Bennett added: "It amazes me that we can say anything at
all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a
second of the universe."

The physicists said small lumps in the microwave
background began during inflation. Those lumps
eventually coalesced into stars, galaxies and planets.

The measurements are scheduled to be published in a
future issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Fobra

03-21-2006, 08:50 AM

Posted On Yahoo.

Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe
Ker Than Staff Writer SPACE.com Thu Mar 16, 3:00 PM ET

Scientists announced today new evidence supporting the
theory that the infant universe expanded from subatomic
to astronomical size in a fraction of a second after its
birth.

The finding is based on new results from NASA's
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite,
launched in 2001 to measure the temperature of radiant
heat left over from the Big Bang, which is the
theoretical beginning to the universe.

This radiation is known as the Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB), and it is the oldest light in the
universe.

Using WMAP data, researchers announced in 2003 that they
had pieced together a very detailed snapshot of the
universe as it was about 400,000 years ago, and that
they had determined things like its age, composition and
development.

The previous data showed that the universe was about
13.7 billion years old. It also revealed that it wasn't
until about 200 million years after the Big Bang that
conditions were cool enough for the first stars to form.
Scientists were also able to conclude that the universe
is composed of about 4 percent real matter, about 23
percent dark matter, and about 73 percent dark energy.
Nobody actually nows what dark matter or dark energy
are, however.

The new WMAP observations, announced at a NASA press
conference today, reveal what the universe was like in
the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.
From the microwave background, researchers teased out a
new signal called the "polarization signal."

"This new signal is roughly 100 times weaker than the
signal we analyzed three years ago and about a billion
times less than the radiant warmth we feel from the
Sun," said Lyman Page, a WMAP team member from Princeton
University.

The researchers collected observations of this
polarization signal to create a map of the early
universe, allowing them to test a sub-theory within the
Big Bang theory, called "inflation."

Inflation theory states that the universe underwent a
rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.

"During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no
larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second
to become larger than the visible universe," said WMAP
researcher David Spergel, also from Princeton
University.

The new observations reveal that the early expansion
wasn't smooth, with some regions expanding faster than
others.

"We find that density fluctuations on the 1- to
10-billion-light-year scale are larger than density
fluctuations on the hundred-million-light-year scale,"
Spergel said. "That is just what inflation theory
predicts."

These fluctuations are thought to have led to clumping
of matter that allowed the formation of galaxies.

Brian Greene, a physicist from Columbia University who
wasn't involved in the research, called the new findings
"spectacular" and "stunning."

"A major question that people have asked for decades is
where do stars and galaxies come from? The answer coming
from WMAP data supports the idea that quantum
fluctuations are the answer," Greene said. "WMAP's data
supports the notion that galaxies are nothing but
quantum mechanism writ large across the sky."

The new findings brings humanity closer to answering one
of its oldest questions, that of where we come from,
Greene said.

"WMAP certainly doesn't answer this question, but its
data is taking us one giant step closer to the answer by
giving us a precise quantitative look at the universe's
earliest fraction of a second," Greene said. "It's a
tiny window of time, but it's a critical one in our
quest to learn what happened at time zero itself."

The new findings have been submitted to Astrophysical
Journal.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-21-2006, 09:04 AM

god made that happen, I have a paper that proves how scientist Brian Greene doesn't exist and therefore prove stars are made of tiny particles of apple cores, burnt bologna, and old phonebooks

zorro

03-21-2006, 01:26 PM

I'd just like to get your comment about this, any criticisms or supports?
Posted on Yahoo news.

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found By MATT CRENSON,
AP National Writer 1 hour, 22 minutes ago

The inflationary Big Bang model fits very nicely with the theistic cosmology. Both say the universe had a beginning.

Allow me to post a link:

Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/astroevid.shtml

It shows how the big bang and theism fit.

Z

black02mustang

03-23-2006, 12:59 AM

The inflationary Big Bang model fits very nicely with the theistic cosmology. Both say the universe had a beginning.

Allow me to post a link:

Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/astroevid.shtml

It shows how the big bang and theism fit.

Z

Maybe you should read this...

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/face.txt

zorro

03-23-2006, 10:53 AM

Maybe you should read this...

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/face.txt

Maybe you should read this:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#beginner_expert_guide_big_bang

And this:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/origuniv.html

And this:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/rk_incompatibilitynatreal.htm

And listen to this:

http://www.hisdefense.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Audio%2fPlantinga+-+Evolutionary+Arguments+against+Naturalism.ram&tabid=136&mid=939

Z

Hollywood

03-23-2006, 12:05 PM

Maybe you should read this:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#beginner_expert_guide_big_bang

And this:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/origuniv.html

And this:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/rk_incompatibilitynatreal.htm

And listen to this:

http://www.hisdefense.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Audio%2fPlantinga+-+Evolutionary+Arguments+against+Naturalism.ram&tabid=136&mid=939

Z

LMAO. He posts a link to a non-partisan author and you post links from biased christian websites, created, written and published by christians. Thats like asking the CEO of McDonalds if their food is bad for you.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-23-2006, 12:29 PM

Maybe you should read this:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#beginner_expert_guide_big_bang

And this:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/origuniv.html

And this:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/koons/rk_incompatibilitynatreal.htm

And listen to this:

http://www.hisdefense.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Audio%2fPlantinga+-+Evolutionary+Arguments+against+Naturalism.ram&tabid=136&mid=939

Z

maybe you should read this:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

lol

zorro

03-23-2006, 12:42 PM

LMAO. He posts a link to a non-partisan author and you post links from biased christian websites, created, written and published by christians. Thats like asking the CEO of McDonalds if their food is bad for you.

I guess, given your position that Christians should never read anything atheists have to say, because they are biased; and atheists should read anything Christians have to say, because they are biased.

I find it interesting that you think something that was published in "Free Inquiry" and by Promethus Press is non-partisan. Nice double standard.

This is called a fallacy of relevance. If a Christian says that 2+2=4 is it any less true than when a atheist says it? If you can't deal with the argument, attack the source.

Z

black02mustang

03-23-2006, 12:44 PM

Hollywood

03-23-2006, 01:01 PM

I guess, given your position that Christians should never read anything atheists have to say, because they are biased; and atheists should read anything Christians have to say, because they are biased.

I find it interesting that you think something that was published in "Free Inquiry" and by Promethus Press is non-partisan. Nice double standard.

This is called a fallacy of relevance. If a Christian says that 2+2=4 is it any less true than when a atheist says it? If you can't deal with the argument, attack the source.

Z

Getting through to you is hopeless. You only listen to information provided by someone of christian belief and assume that anyone who analyzes outside of it has an agenda against your beliefs, never opening your mind up enough to understand or question your own beliefs.

TexasDevilDog

03-24-2006, 11:59 AM

Universe could be contracting.

A.> B..> c...> X

If the universe is contracting toward the X. C is moving faster than B, than faster than A. Every point is receding from every other point too.

01WhiteCobra

03-24-2006, 12:09 PM

zorro

03-24-2006, 06:18 PM

Getting through to you is hopeless. You only listen to information provided by someone of christian belief and assume that anyone who analyzes outside of it has an agenda against your beliefs, never opening your mind up enough to understand or question your own beliefs.

So far you haven't offered a real argument. You know premises, conclusions, inductive or deductive forms. If you have any, please share them with us.

Z

zorro

03-24-2006, 06:20 PM

Hugh Ross???? Give me a break.

Do, you have any counter arguments or just snide comments?

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-24-2006, 10:25 PM

Do, you have any counter arguments or just snide comments?

Z

I'll ask you one question before I tear into your beloved Hugh Ross. Do you believe everything Hugh Ross believes in?

(this actually might be shorter work than I thought)

Most people who are Hugh's audience know little about science thus accept him verbatim. This lack of understanding certainly allows him to play with the scripture very loosely.

Shall I place you in that category, all mighty Zorro?

zorro

03-24-2006, 11:11 PM

I'll ask you one question before I tear into your beloved Hugh Ross. Do you believe everything Hugh Ross believes in?

(this actually might be shorter work than I thought)

Most people who are Hugh's audience know little about science thus accept him verbatim. This lack of understanding certainly allows him to play with the scripture very loosely.

Shall I place you in that category, all mighty Zorro?

Well, I do know something about science. So, let's start with the basics: Can you justify the scientific method or do you just blindly believe it?

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-25-2006, 08:21 AM

Well, I do know something about science. So, let's start with the basics: Can you justify the scientific method or do you just blindly believe it?

Z

Jesh, Zorro.

I see you are incapable of providing a direct answer to anything. The original question has little to do with the scientific method. It has to do with understanding the teachings of Hugh Ross and how the teachings relate to the gospel.

"Your honor the witness is being argumentitive and not providing answers to the most basic of questions."

Again, since I believe your short term memory to be fading... Do you believe in all of the teachings of Hugh Ross do you pick and choose what suits you?

zorro

03-25-2006, 11:05 AM

Jesh, Zorro.

I see you are incapable of providing a direct answer to anything. The original question has little to do with the scientific method. It has to do with understanding the teachings of Hugh Ross and how the teachings relate to the gospel.

"Your honor the witness is being argumentitive and not providing answers to the most basic of questions."

Again, since I believe your short term memory to be fading... Do you believe in all of the teachings of Hugh Ross do you pick and choose what suits you?

This may come as a shock to you, but most people do not agree with every thing that others have to say. The question is how do we arrive at what we affirm? Is it the subjective proccess of picking and choosing what we like, as you suggest? For instance, would you agree with absolutely everything that Einstein believed? If no, did you just subectively pick and choose what you liked, or do you have a reasoned basis for your disagreement?

So, there are some things that Ross and I disagree on theologically, and those disagreements have their reasons. Scientifically, he has presented arguments that are inductively and deductively sound. Is it possible I am in error on my judgement concerning his arguments, yes. But to show any error, you have to present counter arguments and evidence in a justified system. So, far all you have given is your opinion that you don't like Ross. Sorry, that is not very compelling.

Therefore, if you can't even answer a simple question like, "How do you justify the scientific method"? I doubt if you are going to be able to present a strong argument based on the scientific method. Any argument based on an unfounded principle is unfounded itself.

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-25-2006, 12:02 PM

This may come as a shock to you, but most people do not agree with every thing that others have to say. The question is how do we arrive at what we affirm? Is it the subjective proccess of picking and choosing what we like, as you suggest? For instance, would you agree with absolutely everything that Einstein believed? If no, did you just subectively pick and choose what you liked, or do you have a reasoned basis for your disagreement?

So, there are some things that Ross and I disagree on theologically, and those disagreements have their reasons. Scientifically, he has presented arguments that are inductively and deductively sound. Is it possible I am in error on my judgement concerning his arguments, yes. But to show any error, you have to present counter arguments and evidence in a justified system. So, far all you have given is your opinion that you don't like Ross. Sorry, that is not very compelling.

Therefore, if you can't even answer a simple question like, "How do you justify the scientific method"? I doubt if you are going to be able to present a strong argument based on the scientific method. Any argument based on an unfounded principle is unfounded itself.

Z

New flash, zoro the great, the Big Bang theory is based on a non-scientific assumption that is ultimately naturalistic and atheist. Introducing the creator into it is nothing more than an ad hoc argument at best. Your ultimate belief in Hugh Ross and his "sound scientific poop" shows you are not ground in science whatsoever.

The big bang theory is nothing more than a way to provide for the Universe without a Creator. Ross is doing nothing more than trying to put his spin on it for the acceptance of a Creator within the concept of the Big Bang.

While I can fill this entire posts with rebuttals to Hugh Ross, I'll start with one. You can either disprove my critique of his understandings or, well, shut up.

Critique Number 1:

Hugh Ross believes (or tries to make others believe so that his theories can be justified) that general relativity doesn't allow for an absolute reference from which velocities can be measured.

I won't be long winded in this but only have to point to Mach's principle.

Hugh Ross sees what he wants to see and then bends accepted theories, principles and physical laws to fit what he sees.

I see this all the time when I trade stocks and currencies. The donators (i.e. those donating money to the people on the correct side of the trade) always fitted data and charts in attempt to justify their positions instead of looking for the obvious... they were wrong.

I see the same from you and Hugh Ross.

zorro

03-25-2006, 12:36 PM

New flash, zoro the great, the Big Bang theory is based on a non-scientific assumption that is ultimately naturalistic and atheist. Introducing the creator into it is nothing more than an ad hoc argument at best. Your ultimate belief in Hugh Ross and his "sound scientific poop" shows you are not ground in science whatsoever.

The big bang theory is nothing more than a way to provide for the Universe without a Creator. Ross is doing nothing more than trying to put his spin on it for the acceptance of a Creator within the concept of the Big Bang.

While I can fill this entire posts with rebuttals to Hugh Ross, I'll start with one. You can either disprove my critique of his understandings or, well, shut up.

Critique Number 1:

Hugh Ross believes (or tries to make others believe so that his theories can be justified) that general relativity doesn't allow for an absolute reference from which velocities can be measured.

I won't be long winded in this but only have to point to Mach's principle.

Hugh Ross sees what he wants to see and then bends accepted theories, principles and physical laws to fit what he sees.

I see this all the time when I trade stocks and currencies. The donators (i.e. those donating money to the people on the correct side of the trade) always fitted data and charts in attempt to justify their positions instead of looking for the obvious... they were wrong.

I see the same from you and Hugh Ross.

Thanks for sharing! But, frankly my dear, I don't give a **** about your mere opinion. Can you answer the question or not? I repeat: Therefore, if you can't even answer a simple question like, "How do you justify the scientific method"? I doubt if you are going to be able to present a strong argument based on the scientific method. Any argument based on an unfounded principle is unfounded itself.

Will you answer the question this time? I don't think so. You can't and that should be obvious to all who read this. Your inability to answer any basic question about reality or knowledge is getting rather boring, both to me and for our readers.

So, unless you have a real argument...

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-25-2006, 02:57 PM

Thanks for sharing! But, frankly my dear, I don't give a **** about your mere opinion. Can you answer the question or not? I repeat: Therefore, if you can't even answer a simple question like, "How do you justify the scientific method"? I doubt if you are going to be able to present a strong argument based on the scientific method. Any argument based on an unfounded principle is unfounded itself.

Will you answer the question this time? I don't think so. You can't and that should be obvious to all who read this. Your inability to answer any basic question about reality or knowledge is getting rather boring, both to me and for our readers.

So, unless you have a real argument...

Z

LMAO. Thanks Zorro for proving you are nothing but a follower.

Here is the critique again. It is not my opinion but what the common beliefs of today tell us.

Hugh Ross believes (or tries to make others believe so that his theories can be justified) that general relativity doesn't allow for an absolute reference from which velocities can be measured.

I won't be long winded in this but only have to point to Mach's principle.

Hugh Ross understanding of General Relativity is flawed. Since it is a basis for many of his "scientific" conclusions, his conclusions are suspect.

Prove to me it is my understanding of the relation of Mach's Principle to General Relativity that is wrong and not Hugh Ross' assumption that General Relativity does not allow for any absolute frame of reference for measuring velocity.

According to Mach's Principle you don't need an absolute frame of reference as supposed by Hugh Ross and that you can measure velocity with respect to the sum of all material in the universe (which is the widely held opinion).

No opinion there, Zorro the Great.

Please enlighten everyone on this board o' Mighty Zorro.

Wait until I attack your wonderful Mensa paper. I love putting the Mensaites to shame.

First we'll talk about:
1. The true nature of time (which you have totally wrong)
2. Then we'll get into how you prove the existence of something called "God" with some flawed logic. Clever trick. God is anything outside the universe, the masses will consider God to be of the theistic variety and not just some extra-universal concept.
3. Then we'll get into how you are only appealing to your own ignorance.
4. Which will conclude with my basic assumption that if there was a creator who wanted to be known by his creation he would do so in such a way there would be no plausible explanation otherwise.

Your paper is so full of gaping holes in logic and science it's a good thing you sell computers for a living. You'd never make it as a cosmologist or philospher.

Fobra

03-25-2006, 03:47 PM

2. Then we'll get into how you prove the existence of something called "God" with some flawed logic.
In what sense is it logically flawed, as in, what logical fallacy has been committed?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

zorro

03-25-2006, 10:02 PM

LMAO. Thanks Zorro for proving you are nothing but a follower....

How pitiful, no response to the most basic of questions. You want to attack Ross, but you can't even justify your sense perceptions. What makes you think that you have any idea what Ross or anyone else has said? Since the only way you have to know about Ross' position is through your senses and that remains unjustified, your accusations remain unjustified. Doesn't take someone with a mesa IQ to figure that out. That is a basic categorical syllogism. Do you think that ignoring the real questions make you smart? I don't think you are very smart.

Regarding my paper, let's start with the question that Forbra mentioned. A deductive argument is made of a valid form and true premises. Do you think the form of my argument is valid? If not, show and name the formal fallacy. You do know the difference between a formal and informal fallacy, don't you? So, please you try to present an alledged informal fallacy at this point. You will only be showing your ignorance.

Regarding the rest of your post: You can write as many paragraphs of nonsense as you like, I know the difference between an argument and piffle. So far you have only offered up the latter.

What do you have against Mensa? I have nevered mentioned it here. I really don't think much about it or go to many events. If you are so smart, take the test and get in. Please don't give us the old saw about how you can get in if you wanted to, but you don't want to show off, or you don't want to be in an orginization for people with high I.Q. or some other such nonsense. I am tired of hearing those old tired excuses. You keep telling us all how smart you are, prove it. You sure haven't done so with your arguments or your logic. I am still waiting for a real argument from you. How many post have you written? As I said before, pitiful.

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-25-2006, 10:10 PM

[QUOTE=01WhiteCobra]LMAO. Thanks Zorro for proving you are nothing but a follower....

How pitiful, no response to the most basic of questions. You want to attack Ross, but you can't even justify your sense perceptions. What makes you think that you have any idea what Ross or anyone else has said? Since the only way you have to know about Ross' position is through your senses and that remains unjustified, your accusations remain unustified. Doesn't take someone with a mesa IQ to figure that out. That is a basic categorical syllogism. Do you think that ignoring the real questions make you smart? I don't think you are very smart.

Regarding my paper, let's start with the question that Forbra mentioned. A deductive argument is made of a valid form and true premises. Do you think the form of my argument is valid? If not, show and name the formal fallacy.

Regarding the rest of your post: You can write as many paragraphs of nonsense as you like, I know the difference between an argument and piffle. So far you have only offered up the latter.

What do you have against Mensa? I have nevered mentioned it here. I really don't think much about it or go to many events. If you are so smart, take the test and get in. Please don't give us the old saw about how you can get in if you wanted to, but you don't want to show off, or you don't want to be in an orginization for people with high I.Q. or some other such nonsense. I am tired of hearing those old tired excuses. You keep telling us all how samrt you are, prove it. You sure haven't done so with your arguments or your logic. I am still waiting for a real argument from you. How many post have you written? As I said before, pitiful.

Z

What the heck are you reading? I gave you the most basic of reasons not to believe the spew of Hugh Ross.

You fail to provide a rebuttal to this simple fact. The simple fact that your paper in based on the falacies of Hugh Ross makes your paper suspect.

Once you provide and substantial evidence to the contrary I'll continue with you. Until then your inclusion in Mensa is meaningless.

I have nothing wrong with Mensa per se. In fact I did take the test when I was in my 20s. I met alot of Mensa people. I decided it was best if I didn't spend my time there. That simple.

Again, I'll repeat it for you once again since it appears your Mensa brain cannot read a simple, yet profound, criticism of Hugh Ross:

Hugh Ross understanding of General Relativity is flawed. Since it is a basis for many of his "scientific" conclusions, his conclusions are suspect.

Prove to me it is my understanding of the relation of Mach's Principle to General Relativity that is wrong and not Hugh Ross' assumption that General Relativity does not allow for any absolute frame of reference for measuring velocity.

According to Mach's Principle you don't need an absolute frame of reference as supposed by Hugh Ross and that you can measure velocity with respect to the sum of all material in the universe (which is the widely held opinion).

No opinion there, Zorro the Great.

There ya' go Zorro the Great. Prove me wrong. Please continue to be argumentative and show your general lack of understanding of the most basic of cosmological principles. The reason I decided not to join the great Mensa was because people like you.

edit: maybe that one is too hard for you at the moment (maybe you can grab some insight at the next Mensa meeting). How about this one. Ross tells his followers that string theory involves nine space and two time dimensions. This would seem to support his interpretation of God. String theorists believe there are ten space and one time dimensions. Are the string theorists right or is Hugh Ross right?

zorro

03-25-2006, 11:23 PM

What the heck are you reading? I gave you the most basic of reasons not to believe the spew of Hugh Ross.

What paper are you citing Ross from? Since you cannot justify your sense experience, I not sure it really matters, everything you say is suspect.

You fail to provide a rebuttal to this simple fact. The simple fact that your paper in based on the falacies of Hugh Ross makes your paper suspect.

What a blatant use of the Guilt by Association fallacy. Have you had any training in logic? Do you have any idea how it works? Or do you just throw logic out the window when you don't like its outcome?

I have nothing wrong with Mensa per se. In fact I did take the test when I was in my 20s. I met alot of Mensa people. I decided it was best if I didn't spend my time there. That simple.

Yes, sure you did. Of course, you don't have to be around the people to have the card in your wallet, do you? Oh, I know that would have been too pretentious, wouldn't it? You are such a modest person.

Again, I'll repeat it for you once again since it appears your Mensa brain cannot read a simple, yet profound, criticism of Hugh Ross:

Hugh Ross understanding of General Relativity is flawed. Since it is a basis for many of his "scientific" conclusions, his conclusions are suspect.

Prove to me it is my understanding of the relation of Mach's Principle to General Relativity that is wrong and not Hugh Ross' assumption that General Relativity does not allow for any absolute frame of reference for measuring velocity.

If we must get into this, fine. Which version of Mach's principle are you referring to? The one from Einstein? If so, you first need to address Barbour's argument that Einstein chose a wrong way to incorporate the Machian idea into the theory of general relativity.

Barbour also argues that there is a second Mach's Principle with respect to time. Is this the one you are talking about?

Perhaps you mean the one from Mach's own writing? And if this is the form you are talking about, "inertia" is ambiguous. Please state if you are using inertia to mean inertial mass, or the property expressed by the law of inertia? Mach never states it.

And while you are at it, defend your view of Mach's principle against all the others mentioned.

Thanks!

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-26-2006, 09:23 AM

Like I said I do not necessarily dislike Mensa. I wasn't impressed with the members I interviewed twenty years ago. That is all. After watching you here, I see that impression has held the test of time. You do bring up a very interesting observation regarding Mensa. You state, "you don't have to be around Mensans to carry the card" (not exact but your meaning.) How arrogant of you.

Sorry I don't need the acceptance of some organization to prove my worth. The more I read from you the more I am convinced that you were the kid that was always picked last and/or was continously beat up on the elementary school yard playground.

I don't hold a CISSP or CTA (and a few others) because I wanted to carry the card. I hold them because I wanted to obtain the knowledge required to hold them and I enjoy being around people that hold these designations (and in the case of CTA, regulatory reasons). Not because I feel the need to carry a card (I couldn't even tell you where those cards are but I do know the pertinent details contained on the card)

As far as me using a critique of Hugh Ross to dispel your work... well... let's put it into a different context. Hugh Ross says square wheels are the way to go (flying once again into the face of reality). You, the Great Zorro, decide to make a car with square wheels. You blindly followed Hugh boy and you were wrong. Seems logical enough for my little brain.

I have found nothing in my readings of Julian Barbour that would correct what I believe to be wrong with Hugh Ross' interpretation of GR. Please cite some references for me and I'll be glad to read them over.

Ross (and it appear you also) do not accept scientific evidence when it fails to confirm your religous beliefs. A true scientist will always accept evidence which is sufficiently justifiable. I'm am also quite certain that no future observations will validate Hugh Ross and Hugh Ross will continually tweak his model and not he reverse (others tweak their models towards Hugh Ross.)

All one has to do is study Hugh Ross work (I have) and study modern cosmology such as Peacock (you'll need to brush up on your math and physics o' Great Zorro, I'm sure years of selling computers has dulled that great physics mind of yours)

Hugh Ross has many errors in his book, for example, his thermodynamic explanation of the universe's cooling during expansion.

That's the big difference between Hugh Ross, you and myself. I come to this argument as an agnostic. You come to the argument as a believer. You curve fit available information to support your idea. I take available information and create the idea.

Again, although I know it bores your Mensa mind, I'll go back to my trading analogy. A trader decides without looking at the range of available information and decides the Euro will decline against the dollar despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As the Euro continues to strengthen against the dollar the trader continues to reject overwhelming new evidence that should change his viewpoint and decides to concentrate on the the underwhelming evidence (or contortion of the overwhelming evidence) to support his position.

01WhiteCobra

03-26-2006, 10:05 AM

In what sense is it logically flawed, as in, what logical fallacy has been committed?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

To quote the great one:

"To summarize: If all past events could be traversed, then the past is
not infinite. If the past is infinite then all past events could not be
traversed to get us to the present event. Since the latter is patently
false (we are at the current event), and the former denies the main
premise of the infinite universe, which makes the proposition false, we
can conclude that the two options that maintain an infinite series of
past events are both false."

This is a false dilemma. The great one is totally ignoring the possibility of time being circular. His impressions are that time can only be linear.

I could go on and on for example his whole reasoning for negating an entire leg of his decision tree. He assumes time is linear and not circular and the Big Bang was the beginning of time. There is no need to have a point "logically prior" to the beginning of time. But yet, he tells us there is (in his own special little world.)

We can continue on with his "Since somthing exists, something has always existed..." argument which is based on his "logically prior to" spewing. His is incapable of wrapping his Mensa Brain around the fact that time can be a variable.

He refuses to accept that fact that time may not be constant which doesn't have any support (unless of course your entire reasoning is based on the flawed works of Hugh Ross.)

Again, a classic case of "I cannot understand it, thus it must be impossible, therefore there must be a God."

I cannot believe Mensa didn't tear this paper apart, unless Mensa is grossly overrated.

All in all, the conclusion that our being is so improbable that there must have been a creator has yet to be proven. Pointing out some abritrarily selected probabilities certainly leads us to some speculation but it doesn't point to any significance to a creator.

zorro

03-26-2006, 12:39 PM

Like I said I do not necessarily dislike Mensa. I wasn't impressed with the members I interviewed twenty years ago. That is all. After watching you here, I see that impression has held the test of time. You do bring up a very interesting observation regarding Mensa. You state, "you don't have to be around Mensans to carry the card" (not exact but your meaning.) How arrogant of you.

Yea, I know what you mean. I could have won the Nobel Prize, but after Arafat won, I didn't want it. I don't need that organization or its money.

I have found nothing in my readings of Julian Barbour that would correct what I believe to be wrong with Hugh Ross' interpretation of GR. Please cite some references for me and I'll be glad to read them over.

In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Of course it matters which version of Mach's principle is being used. Even for you, it should be clear that if a person accepts one version, he must reject the other three, DUH! So, when you accuse Ross of rejecting Mach's principle, it is only fair to ask, "Which versions." As it is fair to ask, which ones do you reject? And why? But you refuse to answer, because you have no answer.

In your original post dealing with this matter you said, "I won't be long winded in this but only have to point to Mach's principle." Your obvious unfamiliarity with the controversy involving the understanding of Mach's principle shows that you really don't know the material, but are probably just quoting someone else. Who could that be?

The fact is that even today, what Mach's principle consists of is still being disputed. See Volume 6 of Einstein Studies, J. Barbour and H. Pfister, eds., Mach's Principle, Birkhaeuser (1995).

Also, Misner et al, Gravitation (1973), ch. 21

Regarding this conversation, you might also check out Dicke, Robert H. "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle," in Nature, 192. (1961), pp.440-441.

Ross (and it appear you also) do not accept scientific evidence

Evidence? You have offered no evidence, other than evidence for your ignorance of the subject.

You have offered no citations form Ross and you failed to define what you mean by Mach's principle. You call that evidence?

Now, here is what in poker is called the kicker: The paper you stole this argument from regarding Ross and Mach's principle, was written by Danny Faulkner, a creationist, who believes in a young earth. He attacks Ross because Ross concurs with modern science that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, where Faulkner in his other papers argues for a young earth (between 6,000 and 100,000 years old).

Z