See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

Talk:Universe

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

A couple of issues.

Was Hubble actually a cosmologist? He was certainly an astronomer, but I don't know if cosmologist is accurate. Also, the description of the conclusion that the universe is unbounded is incomplete at best (it lists 3 possibilities & then says that because one was eliminated the other was concluded). I had a look around and it appears that the Copernican Principle was already a fundamental assumption before the observations were made. Thus it was not the case that a central position was considered and discarded, but that a central position could not be considered and thus "unbounded" was the only conclusion that could accommodate the assumption and the available observations. BradleyF (LowKey) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

it lists 3 possibilities & then says that because one was eliminated the other was concluded Because the other reason ("because they didn't want to accept the existence of God") was removed? I'm putting that back in.
Regarding the Copernican Principle, it's named after Copernicus, but it doesn't date back to him. He "started" it by proposing that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, and that the Earth orbits the sun. However, he considered the sun to be the centre of the universe. So at some time this idea that there was a centre (and the sun was at it) was accepted, then discarded. But perhaps I'm missing something about what you're saying.
Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
What I am getting at is that the article currently gives the impression that modern cosmologists looked at the astronomical data and considered but ruled out a central POV, whereas in actual fact the "Copernican Principle" (really just a maxim that the Earth cannot be considered to be at the centre of the universe) was already accepted prior to considering the the observations. "Boundless" was the only acceptable conclusion because the only alternatives required a conclusion of centrality which must not be considered. (IIRC the Copernican Principle was named in the early 20th century). BradleyF (LowKey) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it troubling, though predictable, that this article contains only CMI sources over legitimate scientific articles. It's not funny, but really really sad, that you people can only refer to guys like Hartnett and Humphreys to discuss the work of a guy like Edwin Hubble. In 30 years both Hartnett and Humphreys will still be nobodies. Hubble will still be a giant among men. I also find it less predictably troubling that PJR and others are edit warring over the phrase "because they didn't want to accept the existence of God.[1]". I read the Humphreys article. It made my eyes hurt. What it didn't do is contain anything directly supportive of that phrase. The closest it gets is a quote from Hubble in which he refers to the Earth being the center of the universe as an unacceptable conclusion. You Christian zealots are the ones assuming it's unacceptable because he "didn't want to accept the existence of God." If you can't think of other reasons more germaine to a cosmologist than god, you've no business talking about science. Bradley's recent attempt to substitute the concept of design for the existence of god, referring to the same article as support, is equally unacceptable and I will be removing it. Teh Terrible Asp 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • There are three posibilities spelled out. One is explicitly excluded and then one is concluded. Do the maths. Interestingly you justified cosmologists not addressing design, and then criticise the fact that the article says that they did not address design. I did not say that they rejected design or a personal God, I simply said they didn't address the issue. I even changed "so" to "and" to remove the causal link. I was simply stating the facts. You have instead restored to a version that makes cosmologists look either intellectually dishonest or gnostic in some fashion (and used the edit summary for a justification of the facts as I stated them).
  • Check your GR equations and Big Bang models. An unbounded universe is an assumption. That is not a criticism. It is merely an accurate description. Actually it looks like it is redundant description.
  • "Pseudoscientists" is completely innaccurate. Both meet the extremely self-serving redefinition of "scientist" that anti-creationists usually trot out. I can imagine the reaction should someone refer to you as a "pseudolawyer". The referenced papers were published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, regardless of your untrue edit summary. I aim to reference one of Hartnett's papers published in a secular journal, but it could take a while to find the right one; there are many of them after all. I don't have Carmeli's book either, so I can't quote from that. Nevertheless you have shown no evidence to support your edit summary assertions. I will be restoring the earlier content. BradleyF (LowKey) 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course you will. It's all stuff from CMI. Teh Terrible Asp 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing is pretty bizarre. Not only is there not a great Biblical case for being at the center of the universe, but being near (whatever that means) the center of the universe is meaningless, as it wouldn't imply anything. This reminds me a lot of the old creationist argument for design that the sun is 97% covered by the moon during an eclipse. SallyM 17:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
They didn't address the issue because it's irrelevant as, at best, bad science. Cosmologists not addressing your pet issue is about as intellectually dishonest or "gnostic" as a lawyer not addressing natural law or divine law in his legal practice. Big yawn. As for whether Hartnett and Humphreys are actually scientists in this context, just look at where the articles you cite appear - that's not a peer reviewed science journal in any even charitable use of the phrase. Neither article cited is anything more than religious pontificating. They present no original research. They don't survey others' research. They merely present an opportunity for 2 religionists with axes to grind to cherry pick others' words and misrepresent or criticize the positions of more competent men. Were you perhaps referring to some other articles and not being very clear about it? I've supported my case, it just happens to not jibe with your religious bias in wanting real scientists to either (a) have failed to address your religious concern or (b) justify your position. Teh Terrible Asp 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
SallyM, a "great Biblical case" is not presented because centrality is a scientific case. Saying "at or near" is simply being accurate (i.e. the apparent features can be observed near the centre as well as precisely at the centre). A conclusion of being exactly at the centre would not be necesary from the evidence.
Asp, I haven't read all of Hartnett's cosmological papers, so I haven't referred to a specific one. I am going to look through those with likely sounding titles and come back with a specific paper to cite. I present no criticism of cosmologists not addressing design arguments; I am simply pointing out that if the observations can be explained 3 ways, then it is absurd to mention ruling out 1 and concluding 1 but failing to mention what happened to the third! You again justify cosmologists not addressing the design possibility (which I haven't rejected in any way that I can see), but you object to mentioning this in the article. That doesn't make sense. To say "they did not address x" is simply descriptive and neutral, and I can't see why it is a problem. I am becoming pretty sure that you really know very little about Drs Humphreys and Hartnett or the Journal of Creation. Both do survey others' research. Both do present original research. Please explain Journal of Creation's peer review process and why it does not qualify as peer review. That assertion is really your only grounds for claiming that these men are not scientists, which is highly prejudiced and ignores their research published in other peer reviewed literature. Also your "more competent men" shot is very cheap, and rather unworthy of you.
I am not sure what to make of your last sentence. Did you perhaps start one thought and finish another? BradleyF (LowKey) 12:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
At Asp again. On re-reading your post above I see that you made statements about the papers that I originally thought to be about the scientists who wrote them. Sorry about that. I still disagree, but you were making a point that is distinct from the one I was addressing. BradleyF (LowKey) 09:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
"at or near"? I'm not sure how that's accurate at all. We're not even close to the center of our galaxy (~164,601,640,000,000,000 miles from the galactic center according to NASA), much less the universe. What point are you trying to prove by insisting we're "near" the center? SallyM 12:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about being at or near the centre of the galaxy? (Oh, and by the way, you could have tried to make the straw-man claim seem more ridiculous by using kilometres; you're slipping.) As for not being near the centre of the universe, is this simply because you say so? I mean, Bradley's pointed to evidence that we are, and you're response is to assert that we are not. As for what point he is trying to prove, how about none (other than evidence)? You criticise us for supposedly looking at everything from a "narrow" biblical view, which then confuses you when you see evidence that we do not always do that. Perhaps it's your perception of our motives that is at fault? Philip J. Rayment 13:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you trying to prove by insisting we're "near" the center? SallyM 13:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you not read this bit: " As for what point he is trying to prove, how about none (other than evidence)?" Philip J. Rayment 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you believe that the Milky Way Galaxy rotates? SallyM 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Philip J. Rayment 13:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you believe we're in the center of our galaxy? SallyM 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No. But I wish you answered direct questions so directly. Philip J. Rayment 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to try and understand what you're talking about, I have to ask: Do you believe that the Milky Way Galaxy rotates around our solar system or earth? SallyM 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) What point am I trying to make? None at all. We have observational evidence that indicates a specific position, and an encyclopædia should mention that. Strictly speaking, the question of what revolves around what is a matter of viewpoint, but I don't think that is what you are asking. The earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the galactic COG. The observations indicate that our viewpoint is at or near the cente of the universe. Although our galaxy is many orders of magnitude larger than our planet, the features we observe are many orders or magnitude larger than our galaxy. "Near" the centre indicates a volume that itself is many times the size of our galaxy, so it makes no difference whether we say the Earth is in this volume or the Milky Way is in this volume. My home is in Australia, but it makes no difference on the scale of the solar system whether by "home" I mean my house or my city. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For my answer, see Bradley's answer. Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
SallyM as you apparently still don't understand what we are getting at - since you scare quoted "near" without bothering with further discussion - try an illustration. Imagine you could draw a circle 1km (1,000 metres) in diameter, and let's call this circle "Universe". Using the same axis you draw another circle 1 meter in diameter. Everythin within this inner circle is within 0.1% of the centre of the "Universe" circle. Keeping with that scale the Milky Way galaxy would have a diameter of about 1 millimitre (1/1000th of a meter). That would be full stop from a Sharpie pen. So a biggish fullstop within a 1 meter circle would normally be referred to as near the centre of the 1km circle without any argument at all. Scaled back up, if our galaxy is within a million lightyears of the centre (about .001% of the diameter of the visible universe - about 100 times close than the illustration, i.e. a 1 centimetre central circle) there should be no quibbling over whether it is near or not. At that scale, it is near the centre. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It was "scare quoted" because you're being misleading. If it's "relatively near" then put "relatively near". It's definitely not near. SallyM 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
In universal terms, it is "near"—very near—, as Bradley has explained, and you've simply dismissed. Philip J. Rayment 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC)You didn't address anything from the previous posts. Where are they misleading. Please provide an explanation, not simply the assertion above. "Relatively near" is redundant. Near is always relative. My PC is near my printer, New Zealand is Near Australia, Mercury is near the Sun and we (the Earth, Solar System, Milky Way) are near the centre of the universe. If you think "near" is being misused, you better get in touch with those who came up with the name Local Supercluster and Local Group, and take note that the Virgo Cluster of galaxies is near the COG of the Local Supercluster. The Sloan Great Wall is over a billion lightyears long and about a billion light years from here and is described as nearby (not relatively nearby) so if we are speaking in terms of distances that are 2 or 3 orders of magnitude smaller than "nearby" then "near" should not need any further qualification. Please explain exactly why this is misleading; in other words why it is "definitely not near" - but while you are at it please also show how my PC is definitely not near my printer, New Zealand is definitely not near Australia, and Mercury is definitely not near the sun. I will also ask what point you are trying to make by arguing over the definition of "near". BradleyF (LowKey) 13:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thousands and thousands of light years is near. I get it... You can have it. SallyM 13:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit break for re-started discussion

hmmm, I seem to remember having this same discussion with Phil a while back. There is a map of the universe basically that clearly shows no center and no series of shells unless you misinterpret the map. I have an email somewhere that confirms that. Odd that those references aren't adequate for this article and the CMI sources only are used. I suppose if you want a specific outcome , only show those sources. What does it show that Earth is NEAR in astronomical terms to anything. What IS at the center is the issue, and at least one paper claims the physical throne of God is what is there. Hamster 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Your references, if I recall, merely asserted that same assertion (that the map is misinterpreted). The map (in 2D) showed rings around a centre. Did we get anywhere with 3D data in that discussion? Do you recall where the discussion is? I thought your source mentioned a re-map from another location resulting in the same "features". I think I proposed a method to re-map from another location, but doing so in my head a) didn't work, b) gave me headache and c) showed me why it is not actually possible to construct such a map (without a second set of data, or a major assumption). I would rather continue that discussion wherever it currently is, for continuity, and because this discussion here has gone down a different path. LowKey 05:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
the guy doing the mapping explained that the perceived features were an artifact from compiling a two dimensional maps from a 3d wedge of data. Since the discussion tended toward "the creation scientists understand the map better than the guys creating it" I left it there , and giggled for hours if I remember correctly (but thats really not relevant" The site I referenced had enough info on what they were doing that anyone with a basic grasp of 3d euclidian geometry wouldnt have a problem with it. The raw data is available but I think it was around 27 terrabytes in a nasty file format which isnt really a problem but I dont have that much disk Hamster 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the discussion tended toward "the creation scientists understand the map better than the guys creating it"... That sounds more like spin than an accurate description of our comments. The rest of your post is no better.
the guy doing the mapping explained that the perceived features were an artifact from compiling a two dimensional maps from a 3d wedge of data. "Explained"? Or asserted. Yes, I think he did claim that, but that doesn't refute Bradley's comment that it was mere assertion.
Philip J. Rayment 06:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
so Philip you are saying the head of the mapping team that did all the research to create the map,understands it less well, or is deliberately lying ?? He explained how he made the maps. Its public record on the site if you bother to read it. But because he is not a creationist he MUST be a lying cretin. Good to know where you stand. [offensive comments removed by Umpire] Hamster 04:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To be fair Philip said none of that. Nor was it implied. You are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting. LowKey 05:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, Hamster's source may well have explained, but Hamster was not given permission to reproduce it so we effectively only have access to the assertion and not the explanation. LowKey 00:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
an assertion is an unsupported statement. So which of us is lyong Bradley. Me or the guy running the sdss project. read Phils comments again , what I said is precisely what Philip said. Yes, I think he did claim that, but that doesn't refute Bradley's comment that it was mere assertion. so the guy who devised the mapping method for the sdss project has made an unsupported statement about it ? you dont believe he knows as fact what he did or how he did it. ? Yet you accept enyrhing from Hartnett about the sdss maps even when it conflicts with the guy who created the maps and the methods used to make them ? so who is the liar Bradley me or Dr X, I really would like to know And again , proof of non-centricity is a astronomy 101 class , try the public library for a book, I believe it has been done for at least 60 years Hamster 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I found the other discussion (in Extraterrestrial alien - maybe here is more appropriate). You mentioned finding proofs of non-centricity but didn't provide any. You also mentioned that your source indicated confirmation by replotting for another location. There was no more detail on that, and I would like to know how that was done. I would like to know because it should be impossible with just the observational data. LowKey 10:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


k, take the location of any galaxy in the ephemeris. Simple geometry will allow recalculation using any other reference point assuming you have that reference point from earth. You need to also have relative velocity vectors to correct for the time issue, but thats known so not really a problem. A computer program with suitable data can calculate these out in minutes, depends really on how many points you want to generate. That the universe has no center and appears the same from each vantage point is a basic of current cosmology (no edge, no center). It may be that we cant see enough to know whats really happening but thats another topic. Hamster 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If Hamster's source is cited, why does it matter? Usually, when people are writing academic works or encyclopedias a source is given but that doesn't mean it's available to the reader. And God is hidden to us, and He is invoked all the time here. Sigh. Sterile 13:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


The reason that Hamster's source's argument matter is because much of this stuff is based on assumptions, and often on assumptions that biblical creationists don't accept. For example, the idea that the universe is unbounded is an assumption which is itself accepted because to think otherwise means that the Earth appears to be in a special position. That is, the odds of Earth being close to the centre by chance are so small that one has three choices: (a) think that it is the result of an extremely unlikely co-incidence, (b) think that we are near the centre by design (which, of course, implies a designer, and that implies God), or (c) come up with some model that makes it appear that we are not near the centre. An unbounded universe satisfies (c), and that is why an unbounded universe is believed to be the case—because (a) is unrealistic and (b) is unacceptable to atheists. But as we (biblical creationists) are not atheists, we are happy with (b). So when we see claims of refutation of (b), we like to know whether the arguments behind those claims really are scientifically supportable or are based on assumptions we don't agree with. That's why it matters. Philip J. Rayment 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
since there is the horizon issue anyone claiming to be able to find a universal center is either deluded or lying through his teeth. The visible universe has been mapped and remapped from multiple origin points to verify the big bang model of an expanding universe. That mapping is a fact which has not been demonstrated to be wrong in a very long time. Its a first year astronomy topic. The maths gets a bit complex but you are only working with one geometry equation set so its teachable in a day. But your assumptions dont permit anything that contradicts the bible , so its back to showing pregnant cattle painted sticks to get spotted calfs, and dont fire off probes into space because you will break the crystal spheres holding up the stars. Welcome to the 1400's . Hamster 19:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
...anyone claiming to be able to find a universal center is either deluded or lying through his teeth. Or has a way of doing it. You've not shown that it is not possible, only produced a counter-claim.
The visible universe has been mapped and remapped from multiple origin points to verify the big bang model of an expanding universe. This illustrates one reason we don't take scientists' word for their claims, without seeing their reasoning and evidence, as sometimes their claims are based on their theories, and sometimes they are based on not understanding the argument they are trying to counter, as is the case here. Nobody is disputing that the universe is expanding; they are disputing that it has no centre.
But your assumptions dont permit anything that contradicts the bible , so its back to showing pregnant cattle painted sticks to get spotted calfs... Back to making long-disproven claims about the Bible? And other straw-man arguments? Yes, typical of critics.
Philip J. Rayment 13:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of cosmology is very poor Philip. Ace McWicked 07:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
OK Philip, since you dont agree with modern cosmology there is no point in showing my source because he simply states what is obvious to any working astronomer dealing with cosmology, and that is that the evidence shows no special viewpoint for earth that is not the same as any other point in the universe (apparent center of expansion) and no directionality, ie the universe has no up or down , or center or edge and a statistically even distribution of matter. He states that the map because of the method used to make it emphasizes features at 90 degrees to the line of sight but explains why the situation occurs. Heres a quote to give you an idea of the tone of his response. "Your conversant may be referring not the expansion itself but to the "shell like" appearance of the distributions of galaxies in our maps. This is just a visual illusion that arises from the way we make our diagrams." He then goes into a brief explanation which is very interesting but not able to be simplified by me to less than a degree in applied mathematics or astronomy. The mapping method is explained in detail at the website and should be easily understood by any astronomer. If Sterile would like to read my source email I can release it to him for review Hamster 05:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to also have relative velocity vectors to correct for the time issue, but thats known so not really a problem. No that's not known; it is assumed. We have redshift. That is then used to derive both distance and the receding component only of the velocity. I am not saying that this is so only for Big Bang model, but I am saying that it renders correct replotting impossible without some major assumptions. LowKey 05:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

some simple geometry with a baseline of 186,000,000 miles might work as well (earths orbital diameter for parralax measurements). The location of many galaxies are available in the catalogs, and if readings were taken a few years apart the vilocity vector relative to earth is known as well. Star maps have been around a lot longer than the sdss data.This is actual measurement of the actual galaxies not some model. Actual measurement led to the identification of some redshift anomolies. Hamster 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of cosmology is very poor Philip. Pure ad hominem, the resort of someone who has no argument.
OK Philip, since you dont agree with modern cosmology ... No, I don't agree with secular cosmology. If modern-ness has any merit (it doesn't), Humphreys' and Hartnett's cosmologies are very modern, more so than the Big Bang.
...he simply states what is obvious to any working astronomer dealing with cosmology... Including creationist ones?
...that the evidence shows no special viewpoint for earth that is not the same as any other point in the universe... And yet creationists argue that there is such evidence.
This is just a visual illusion that arises from the way we make our diagrams. That comment actually raises more questions than it answers. It basically claims that there's something about their methods that result in misleading diagrams; that their diagrams don't represent reality.
If Sterile would like to read my source email I can release it to him for review But not to a creationist?
Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
well certainly not to you Phillip, there would be no point. You have already stated here that he doesnt understand his own project and in any case Hartnetts interpretation of the data is the correct one. What would be the point of showing you his email except for you to further attack his credibility and character ? The person in question has a few dozen peer-reviewed papers on cosmology with several thousand citations in other peer reviewed papers. Harnett on cosmology seems to have a dozen papers, cited less than 10 times each, and cited by creation journals only. In terms of scientific credibility its not even close. You also from your comments here obviously dont understand mapping, perhaps you should consider the accuracy of your atlas before you state star diagrams are misleading. Epic fail at a basic information interpretation bye now Hamster 16:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Pure ad hominem, the resort of someone who has no argument. Absolute rubbish! Not an ad hominem in slightest! Your understanding is poor because you are completely out of step with modern cosmology. So everytime you state that someone doesn't undertand modern creation science is that an ad hominem also? Ace McWicked 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty clear that Philip's conceptualizations of entropy, information theory and cosmology are poor. Sterile 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You have already stated here that he doesnt understand his own project and in any case Hartnetts interpretation of the data is the correct one. I have done neither.
What would be the point of showing you his email... So that his reasoning can be understood.
... except for you to further attack his credibility and character ? I have attacked neither.
...cited by creation journals only. You say that as though that's a bad thing. Your bias is showing.
In terms of scientific credibility its not even close. Hartnett on time is very credible, and his cosmological research has been to do with time.
You also from your comments here obviously dont understand mapping, perhaps you should consider the accuracy of your atlas before you state star diagrams are misleading. I do agree that there are some cases, such as atlases, where the mapping can be misleading. But that's why atlases have maps of different forms so that we are not relying on just one (misleading) version, plus the limitations are well known and don't need explaining all the time.
Absolute rubbish! Not an ad hominem in slightest! Because....?
Your understanding is poor because you are completely out of step with modern cosmology. No, I have a different view than the mainstream, that's all.
So everytime you state that someone doesn't undertand modern creation science is that an ad hominem also? Yes, if that's my entire answer. But it's not; I also respond to the argument with rational argument. Unlike Actually, it's pretty clear that Philip's conceptualizations of entropy, information theory and cosmology are poor.
Philip J. Rayment 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Age

I have made a slight change to the "Age" section, but I am still not happy (Jan!). According to the YEC cosmologies that incorporate time dilation, it is accurate to say that the universe was created about 6000 years ago as measured on Earth, but that is not the same as saying that all parts of the universe are about 6000 years of age. The cruci of the time dilation cosmologies (as I understand them) are that the far reaches of the universe could well be billions of years of age, and that only 6000 years have passed on Earth. LowKey 02:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

have you got a mechanism for that level of time dilation ? Hamster 03:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Not on me :) Humphreys and Hartnett have both enumerated relativistic mechanisms of appropriate order. LowKey 04:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
you might try youtube for Jason Lisle, he has a video where he raises time dilation and admits that there is not enough change to permit a 6000 earth year creation to show billions of years of remote galaxy. If you do the maths for gravity time dilation of the required magnitude the entire universe disappears so fast you would hardly notice you arent there anymore. Hamster 05:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't youtube. Quote perhaps? I do know he has said "Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth." But then again I haven't always agreed with what he says in any event. Humphreys' model invokes gravitational time dilation, and from what I understand the maths works (involving a universal white hole). Hartnett's model of time dilation is not gravitational (from memory). LowKey 10:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) Getting back to my original point, should we really be referring to the age of the universe as circa 6000 years? LowKey 10:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jason Lisle on Youtube, I presume that you are referring to this video. Lisle doesn't admit what you say he admits. Rather, he points out that this objection has been raised, and admits that we don't know enough yet to say.

There is one potential problem that I have seen in the literature, and that is questioning the amount by which this effect happens. Is the gravitational time dilation significant enough to get starlight here in 6,000 years? And there have been papers written which suggest that maybe it's not. ... the question is, "Can this model be adapted in such a way that it gets starlight here in 6,000 years in a way that is compatible with known redshifts?". And that has not yet been determined. ... This may indeed be on the right track, but the details have not yet been resolved. So this is definitely a potential solution to the distant starlight issue, but there are some details to be worked out. It has not been rigorously shown to get light here in 6,000 years, but it will definitely get light here in less than what is assumed in the Big Bang scenario.

I will add that I got the impression that he was not talking about Humphreys' model in particular, as he seemed to be talking about time dilation being due entirely to Earth being in a gravitational well due to being near the centre of the universe. In part of the quote I omitted above, Lisle also says, "Of course if the universe is smaller, that rate would be different, because that would make that gravitational well steeper, and so that could potentially solve the problem..." This is what makes me wonder if he is not talking about Humphreys' model, as Humphreys proposed just this: that the universe was smaller to start with, and that God expanded it at the beginning (Isaiah 44:24 and various other places).
As I understand it, Humphreys' model is based on gravitational time dilation, whereas Hartnett's also includes time dilation due to velocity, in this case the velocity of the expanding ("stretched out") universe.
Bradley, yes, you have a good point. I don't think we should.
Philip J. Rayment 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
So what do we do with the whole "Age" section?LowKey 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made some changes to content of the section, but not changed the heading. Now the section doesn't really address age at all. We need to either change the heading or address the issue of age. I would prefer to address the issue, but haven't come up with a well-parsed statement yet (although the above discussion has helped). LowKey 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have just rolled back Ace McWicked's latest edits, as they seem to have ignored everything discussed here - at the very least they return to the article the incorrect "age" statements that this discussion was attempting to correct. They also refer to the age being calculated from background radiation. I would like to see a source for that. The point is that from a Biblical POV the universe was created about 6,000 years ago but due to relativity it doesn't follow that that is the age of the whole universe. Since gravity and velocity effect time, different parts of the universe have different ages simply because velocity and gravity are [not] homogenous. As per Hamster's comments, there is disagreement over the magnitude of the differences. LowKey 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This section explains nothing. So this article is not even going to mention the mainstream, accepted age of the universe? Ace McWicked 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I dind't state that it was correct! I just stated what the mainstream says! Ace McWicked 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I apologise. I was still working on re-incorporating some of your additions, but hadn't got it sorted yet. Yes we should mention age, and yes we should explain the "how" of both the mainstream accepted age and the the stuff above about universal "age" from the POV of YEC cosmologies. I do (currently, pending further information) dispute that the mainstream age is derived from CBR measurements, but that's my only real objection to the "mainstream" content at this stage. LowKey 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reinserted a very basic version of your addition. Feel free to add detail. I am wondering if we should have subsections by cosmological model, so that each can be explained properly. LowKey 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The background radiation is used to measure how the universe has cooled over time and gives an idea of size/temp. I'll give it some thought and do some searching when I have time to look. Also, whether you believe the age of the earth to be 1000's or billion's, surely the age of the universe can't be disputed? Light from Billions of years away reaching earth and the fact that some relativistic jets are one million lights year long mean that it must be over 6000 years. Nothing goes faster than light remember. Ace McWicked 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not actually disagreeing about the age. Initially the section said that the Biblical POV puts the age of the universe at 6000 years, which is not correct. I didn't want to simply excise the material that had been added, so I changed it but my changes meant that section then did not address age. Likewise I didn't want to simply excise your additions, but I got caught up elsewhere halfway through. Current YEC cosmologies accept >6000 years away from Earth.
Nothing goes faster than light remember Bad news would have to come close. I think gossip might get over the line. LowKey 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If gossip went faster you'd hear about it before it happened! Ace McWicked 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I remember reading about Fergie's (the princess, not the singer) pregnancy for about 3 years before the birth. Does that count? LowKey 08:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The time dilation due to gravity can be calculated with pretty good precision because we know the rate difference between Earths surface and orbiting satelites, and betwen earth and the probes sent to saturn etc. since gravity slows time, the weaker the gravity the faster light travels. My understanding is that it is many orders of magnitude too small to allow a universe time of billions of years with an earth time of 6000 , thats a 14,500,000,000 :6000 ratio or 2,416,666 : 1 required rate Hamster 03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I will look for Humphreys' numbers, but in the meantime I will point out that at about 9 million lightyears diameter (chosen arbitrarily for ease of mental calculation) the universe would have been about 10,000x10,000x10,000 (1012) times denser than now. By 9 thousand lightyears the density would be 1021 greater than now, and any given pair of objects would be 10 million times closer together. LowKey 13:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
and your point is ? are you claiming gravity effects in a plasma (all quarks) prior to the higgs field ? Hamster 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You people are all idiots, the universe was created last January. Prove me wrong. ħuman Number 19 07:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Twins. Ace McWicked 07:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
the good fairy got tired of recreating everything weekly. Its now Feb 29. Hamster 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Human, you haven't said what sort of evidence would constitute proof, so I can't prove you wrong. I would think that both you and I believe that there is no supernatural being who has created everything last January with a manufactured history. That is a 'working assumption' that we both make, but one that is not scientifically testable if we accept the hypothetical possibility of such a supernatural being. In contrast, biblical creationists have the belief that there is a supernatural being Who created everything six thousand years ago (Earth time). We have numerous pieces of evidence in support of this belief, but just like your hypothetical suggestion, we can't prove it scientifically (but then science doesn't claim to be able to "prove" things anyway). In contrast to that, many scientists have the belief that the universe came into existence by chance, i.e. without any intelligent input. Just like the other two scenarios, that belief cannot be scientifically proved either. Yes, both biblical creationists and materialists (those that believe that matter is all there is; there is no supernatural) can produce scientific arguments in support of their beliefs, and us biblical creationists believe that the arguments (both scientific and non-scientific) in support of biblical creation are better than the arguments the other way. But all views remain beliefs at heart, and posing a challenge to biblical creation by likening it to belief in last-Januaryism ignores the point that all views have beliefs (or assumptions) at their core.
Regarding Hamster's arguments about the amount of time dilation, Humphreys (I think; or perhaps Hartnett) have said (I read it somewhere recently) that the amount of time dilation does not mean that parts of the universe are as old as the Big Bangers claim. Yes, much older than the 6,000 years as measured from Earth, but not 14-billion-odd years old.
Philip J. Rayment 05:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Some references science and creationist views - the Great white Throne of God

  • Science:
  • Creation science

Hamster 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've mislabelled the first one: it should be Naturalistic Science. Also, the topic of your links in the second one are hardly the best examples of creation science that could be used.
Further, if that first one is supposed be an answer to the claims of a centre as made by Humphreys et. al., then it shows that you've misunderstood the claim, as the apparent centre illustrated by that page is not what Humphreys et. al. are talking about.
Philip J. Rayment 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hartnetts Cosmology

"I propose a new model of type 3. During Creation Week, all clocks on Earth, at least up to Day 4, ran at about 10–13 times the rate of astronomical clocks. Actually the rate is a parameter of the model. All astronomical clocks in the cosmos run at the same rate that we would measure any normal clock today. They have always done so except under special circumstances where they might have been affected by gravity. During this time the rotation speed of the newly created Earth was about 10–13 times the current rotation speed as measured by astronomical clocks, but normal by Earth clocks. By the close of Day 4 the clock rates on Earth rapidly speeded up to the same rate as the astronomical clocks. All of this was maintained under God’s creative power before He allowed the laws of physics to operate ‘on their own’ at the end of Creation Week."
This of course leaves no inconsistencies and no method of falsification, except perhaps the young age of the solar system.This seems to be a God-did-it argument that is by definition not science. It does not address radiometric dating, the Hawaiian island chain or plate tectonics and it leaves the young earth, old rocks and creosote plants issues unadressed Hamster 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that that's 10^-13, or ten to the negative thirteenth power, rather than a range of ten to thirteen.--Martin Arrowsmith 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
noted and fixed, thanks Hamster 02:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
now it's fixed :) LowKey 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This of course leaves no inconsistencies and no method of falsification, except perhaps the young age of the solar system.This seems to be a God-did-it argument that is by definition not science. Then why propose it? It can't be as an analogy/parody of creationist arguments, as creationist arguments have more science and falsifiability than that. Philip J. Rayment 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Dr Hartnett proposed it. The thing is he wasn't writing a technical paper on the maths and physics of a model, but proposing a kind of model. Sort of "how about if we ...?" He was not really making an argument so much as laying out what he thought a viable model needed (at least that's how I read the article, which was essentially a wrap-up of types of models). Lack of inconcistency is no real criticism, though, and lack of falsifiability would leave it in the company of the Big Bang. LowKey 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
big bang theory is falsifiable. try again. Hamster 02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is? So why is it that it hasn't been dumped despite some of its predictions not being true? Philip J. Rayment 03:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
does a prediction not being true falsify a theory ? perhaps you have a specific falsifier ? Hamster 04:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If a failed prediction doesn't then what would? I was specifically thinking of the mass of the universe. The Big Bang model requires 20 times as much matter as we can actually find. Rather than accept that the Big Bang has been falsified, dark matter and dark energy have been proposed. These are entities which by definition cannot be directly observed (being invisible and intangible) and have the single property required to un-falsify the Big Bang model. LowKey 04:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
dark matter and dark energy have been proposed. These are entities which by definition cannot be directly observed (being invisible and intangible Thats a whole bigger issue! If Philip would actually respond to me instead of ducking I would shed a bit of light (mind the pun) on Dark Energy. Ace McWicked 05:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
very punny! LowKey 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking more of a very complex galaxy, perhaps showing a collision , at a distance near the limit of observation. That would give the big bang a bit of a headache. There is the plasma theory waiting on the sidelines that posits electrical field interactions rather than gravity. It gives some very good results on the rotations of spiral galaxies. Its also an endless Universe theory. Dark matter has been observed , or at least the effects of it. Ace is waiting very patiently to get on with his bit though , sooooo *throw to ace* Hamster 06:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is the sort of thing I was getting at, although it's not the only problem.
does a prediction not being true falsify a theory ? As it says in the origins science article:

In principle, if a falsifiable hypothesis is falsified, the hypothesis is rejected. In practice, however, many hypotheses can be modified and retested. Although this is legitimate to some extent, a claim that is so flexible that it can be modified to accommodate almost any observation is useless scientifically.

The more that an idea can be modified to account for contrary data, the less that it can be considered falsifiable. So your question has a "yes and no" answer: no, an untrue prediction will not always falsify a theory, if that theory can be modified to account for the observations, but yes, in principle, an untrue prediction does falsify a theory. A group of (mostly?) secular astronomers wrote:

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.[1]

In the case of the Big Bang we have the "fudge factors" of dark matter and dark energy (and these are huge fudge factors), we have the cosmic microwave background not fitting the prediction of the Big Bang[2], and we have inflation, for which the evidence is lacking.[3]
Philip J. Rayment 06:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Dark energy/matter is not a fudge factor (Dark energy has been "observed"!), they are descriptions of very real quantities. Inflation has much evidence. Please learn about inflation before making such claims. Would you kindly respond to my questions on your talkpage. Ace McWicked 06:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The links I provided said otherwise, and you've only provided your assertions by way of counter-argument. Philip J. Rayment 09:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I will comment on this link though as it does not relate to our Inflation conversation. The article makes a fundamental error, the background radiation is everywhere, it is the furtherest away that we can see but that doesn't mean it only exists that far away. The radiation permeates the universe. See here. In fact, about 2% of the static on a TV set inbetween channels is the radiation! Ace McWicked 09:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Philip, you are deflecting. I can explain myself, on your talkpage, where I have asked for an explanation repeatedly. I am not, as you accused me of, opening a new "front" here on a seperate talkpage when you have repeatedly failed to back your assertions on inflation theory. Dark Energy is instrumental in Inflation Theory and I will explain to you, in detail, if you would show a modicum of intellectual rigour. So please, if you want to throw accusations of me "making assertions" then put your money where your mouth is and respond to my questions. Ace McWicked 09:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that obnoxious habit of citing something when you can't explain yourself is getting old. Sterile 12:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The article makes a fundamental error, the background radiation is everywhere, it is the furtherest away that we can see but that doesn't mean it only exists that far away. You comment implies that the article claims that the background radiation is the "furtherest" thing away, but I don't see it saying that. It does say that it's coming from far away, but that does not meant that it does not exist everywhere.
So please, if you want to throw accusations of me "making assertions"... I take it that you are not denying making mere assertions, but are trying to justify that?
Philip J. Rayment 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I take it that you are not denying making mere assertions No Philip, you are ducking my questioning on your talkpage without valid reason. You seem willing to demonsrate your knowledge of Inflation and Dark Energy elsewhere so why are you ignoring me on your talkpage. Please demonstrate your knowledge. Ace McWicked 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have provided reason for declining to answer your question at this time, and I believe my reason is valid. Philip J. Rayment 14:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the content...

It's very easy to get caught up in ongoing discussions (or arguments) about the merits of what the content relates to, but can we instead concentrate on the content itself? I'm not pointing fingers; I have been as involved as anybody. I initially asked about the innacurate content regarding the age of the universe. Philip has answered that (and I have made changes accordingly), and Ace has added some info and is looking into more detail (as am I). Can we pick it up from there? LowKey 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ace has now added some more detail. I must say I preffered the first version (this one), as it seemed to better reflect the process involved. The current version makes it seem more like CBR was used to independently support the calculated age, but there is some level of inter-dependence apparent. It's difficult to know what level of detail to go into in this article, though, in an attempt to clarify the whole process including the input assumptions and the methodology. I have had a quick read of one of the linked articles, but I will have a better read of both before commenting further. LowKey 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A bit more. One link says "If current ideas about the origin of large-scale structure are correct, then the detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations will depend on the current density of the universe, the composition of the universe and its expansion rate." So the age could be said to be confirmed within the Big Bang model but not actually "raw data" confirmed due the fact that BB is an input assumption (as is "the composition of the universe"). So the age appears to be internally consistent within the BB model (which is not a small deal itself) but not objectively supported as the actual age (if you see what I mean). I have no idea how to turn that into coherent article content at the moment. LowKey 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
from a science perspective the age of the universe is a minimum of 3.5 billion years from radiometric date of craton rock. Then you add the time required for stellar nucleosynthesis of heavier elements and supernova events. That adds somewhere between a few hundred million to a few billion years, then add time for that matter to drift, combine by gravitation and for an acretion disk, form a planet and so forth. Most of the hypothesis for forming a universe start with a plasma cloud, so the timing outlined wont be much different. The current collapsing black hole concept may permit matter being dumped into a new spacetime frame and could eliminate the plasma and nucleosynthesis phases. I dont know if this helps or just confuses things further. The only paper I have on the collapsing black hole is a theoretical mathematics paper for which I only have an abstract. Hamster 00:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know either :). Actually, this is why I want to break the Age section into subjections, so some explanantion of the age derivation for each model can be included. LowKey 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)p.s. not that "science" is the correct distinction :) LowKey 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence removed

plus those galaxies being more densely arranged nearer to us than further away, the opposite of what the Big Bang would predict. I removed this sentence because it didn't seem to make sense where it was and also there are many galaxy clusters much denser than our local group. Ace McWicked 02:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Philip J. Rayment 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

unbounded due to curvature

I changed the statement about the universe being unbounded due to being circular because I thought "circular" was innacurate and a little clunky. I originally mentioned positive curvature, but realise that a finite universe could be unbound if negatively curved as well. It's the "saddle" that can't be both finite and unbounded IIRC (not considering the YEC partial-hypersurface for now). I have changed it again but it still seems a bit clunky. Any suggestions? LowKey 04:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

last I read they were tending toward tetrahedral and looking for signs of wrapping , that is light from one source having gone around the universe more than once , thereby leaving two images in different places. Hamster 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
All the wrapping is in my mother-in-law's hall closet, neatly folded for future re-use :) LowKey 01:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The universe is flat, that's been known for sometime now. Ace McWicked 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That's still not universally accepted (my turn for puns). The article is not attempting to advocate curvature, but describe the concept as held (now or previously) by some/many. Although if flat, doesn't it need to be infinite to be unbounded? If flat and finite, is it not thus bounded (and possesed of a centre)? I am thinking that perhaps Ace and Hamster are working with different models (observation, not criticism). LowKey 03:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The universe is unbounded. The flat geometry of the universe is as accepted as the earth is round. Ace McWicked 03:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
A short brief but, as you can imagine, there is far more out there. Ace McWicked 03:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am mainly working from stuff like http://plus.maths.org/issue48/reviews/book5/index.html and simolar websites that discuss various topologies, scale , and how you would try to prove which one is valid. I defer to ace on latest evidence. Hamster 03:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is another simple explanation of how we know the universe is flat though note there are other factors in play but this is the main one. Also, it beautifully shows that dark energy, far from being a "fudge factor" to support the big bang is in fact a necessary construct to match the observation. What dark energy actually is is another matter however the term merely represents a quantity to match the observation and calculation. Its really quite elegant. But I am sure Philip could have told you that :-) Ace McWicked 04:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
um..."a necessary construct to match the observation" is pretty much the definition of "fudge factor", as is "a quantity to match the observation and calculation". From WP "Fudge factors are invented variables whose purpose is to force a calculated result to give a better match to what happens in the real world". I certainly don't mean the term in a derogatory sense, but it is accurately descriptive. My own position (cogent to the article as a whole, but not necessarily to this particular discussion) is that a theory/model/calculation that matches observation without such an addition (however we describe it) is superior to one which needs the additional factor. There's a name for that principle :). I am not actually disagreeing about the "flat" part, either (although I wasn't aware it was so broadly accepted). I keep thinking "Bistromathics" LowKey 05:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it another way, without using the term "fudge factor" because creationists see that as "made up". Say we didnt know of nitrogen. We would take samples of the air and deduce that it was 21% oxygen, .5% argon and .5% other gases but there was still 78% missing. Thats dark energy. Ace McWicked 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Say you were doing some experiments in basic mechanics and you kept finding that projectiles moved more slowly than expected. You might deduce that some unexplained phantom force was slowing them down, and add a fudge factor to your calculations accordingly so that your predictions reflected your observations. Then you'd do a bit more investigation and eventually discover air resistance. Mystery solved. The trouble in the case of dark matter and dark energy is that they are still at the fudge stage. Maybe they are real, or maybe some of the other assumptions that the whole model is based on are wrong. We need more investigation to find out which it is. If they are discovered, I imagine they will get a more descriptive name than dark this and dark that.--CPalmer 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ace, I understand the rationale, but your analogy breaks down (as all analogies eventually do, I guess). We have not found a whole bunch of universal matter while only identifying some small percentage thus leaving the majority unidentified (and thus called "dark" rather than "Shirley"). The fact is that something is wrong or missing from the "basic" equations and dark matter/dark energy are one method of correcting that. Another is to use a different metric. Applying Occam's Razor means that the model which invokes fewer additional entities should be preferred. In this particular case I believe that to be Carmeli's metric (as used by Hartnett) because it gives a better match to the real universe without invoking "dark energy of the gaps". LowKey 04:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what you misunderstand, the universe is flat - all our observation and calculation shows the universe is flat. But matter alone cannot account for the flatness so there must be something we can't see - enter dark energy. Where's the problem? Are you suggesting the universe isnt flat? Also Carmeli's metric works by assuming the big bang being the beginning. How can creationists claim Carmeli's metric rather than Dark Energy but also deny the big bang? Ace McWicked 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I don't misunderstand it :) Actually, Carmeli assumes a Cosmological Constant but does not require it to work. I will see if I can find the right paper (of Hartnett's). LowKey 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, dark energy can be considered a cosmological constant. Fact is there isn't enough matter to produce a flat and accelerating universe. Hence there needs to be something else in order to produce what we see. I can't see why creationists are so opposed to the idea of Dark Energy. Ace McWicked 05:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Sorry, I was unclear there. Yes the current "cosmological constant" is named "dark energy". The opposition is not to dark energy so much as to Big Bang, which invokes dark energy with no evidence beyond its own critical need for it. I'll be back with more when I have found that paper (the gist of which is that Carmeli's calculations can result in a flat accelerating universe with the observed amount of matter). LowKey 06:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


I believe dark matter has been observed , and that it is a layer surrounding galaxies. I like the term luminiferous aether but I think thats been done. Hamster 03:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
They claimed to have detected it but the evidence is dubious. Ace McWicked 03:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Dark Matter Map There is so much new happening is hard to keep up :) Hamster
You're right, it's damned exciting. I can't wait to see what comes out of the LHC. Ace McWicked 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it another way, without using the term "fudge factor" because creationists see that as "made up". Who wrote the following?

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.

Hint: It was not a bunch of creationists.
I don't see what you misunderstand, the universe is flat - all our observation and calculation shows the universe is flat. But matter alone cannot account for the flatness so there must be something we can't see - enter dark energy. Where's the problem? The problem, as Bradley has pointed out, is that instead of there being energy and matter that can't be seen, there might be a different explanation altogether. Your analogy with atmospheric composition and CPalmer's analogy with air resistance both had the "fudge" turning out to be correct. Another example might be the geocentric model. Observations didn't match the basic theory, so fudge factors of cycles within cycles were applied to explain the observations. But the solution was a different explanation (heliocentrism), which didn't need these fudge factors. That's what we are saying here: the Big Bang requires certain fudge factors to work, whereas a different explanation doesn't require them, and is therefore more elegant, and preferred by Occam's Razor.
Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) astronomers are mapping dark matter by looking at gravity lensing. If dark matter doesnt actually exist then theres a giant whoopsie on the way :) , ockhams razor is a purely human invention which has some support in the real world but isn't a law. The simplist answer may not be the right one. You would need to look at both hypothesis and see which one better describes all the evidence. Hamster 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hamster, can I quote you on Occam's Razor? I actually mostly agree with your summary of that, by the way, but see some minor circularity (in determining "better"). Currently, Carmeli's space-velocity continuum better describes all the evidence by accounting for it without needing additional entities. It also correctly describes the evidence with both the mainstream "unbounded" assumption and the minority "bounded" assumption. As to what astronomers are mapping, they are mapping "gravity lensing" and interpreting it as dark matter. Not everyone is interpreting it that way, as it fits other theories' predictions.
Ace, I found some papers, but haven't read them through yet. I found them via cw:Cosmological_relativity, which has lists of papers by both Carmeli and Hartnett. "Carmeli's accelerating universe is spatially flat without dark matter" caught my eye though, as did "Finite expanding white hole universe without dark matter". LowKey 02:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As to what astronomers are mapping, they are mapping "gravity lensing" and interpreting it as dark matter. Its not interpreting, it is something. What ever it might be it is still something they have found and labeled, tentatively, as dark matter. Whether or not Carmeli's is better or not I would have to go with consensus of the experts. Ace McWicked 02:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is something; "labelling" it is interpreting. Really, I think we are down to arguing semantics here. As such I am probably going to leave it at that until I have read and considered some of Hartnett's and Carmeli's papers. LowKey 02:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do creationists dislike the idea of dark matter/energy so much? Ace McWicked 02:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I already answered that question. LowKey 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you show me where? I don't seem to have seen it..? Ace McWicked 03:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Here it is, typos and all. LowKey 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second Bradley...Dark Energy isn't invoked to support the big bang, it is invoked to investigate why the universe is expanding at a accelerating pace in repulsion to gravity. It has nothing to do with supporting the big bang. It is obvious that Creationists here do not understand what they are against! Ace McWicked 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
@lowkey, I phrased ockhams razor as I did because its often misstated. I learned it as part of a logic course in circuit design as "the simplist explanation rhat correctly fits all observations is preffered". There is a similar rule applied in programming. I believe , but would need to check a textbook that a flat universe can have multiple topologies in n-dimensional space. If it were significant I would read more to determine in what sense "flat" is being used by Ace. That is not to say that I disagree but there are many pits in which to fall when discussing topologies. Certainly some of these points exceed the audience of many general encyclopedias. Hamster 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Flatness is determined by geometry. So geometrically (and observationally) we live in a flat, expanding universe. For that ? must equal one but it doesn't hence there must be something missing we haven't found yet...enter dark matter and energy. Interestingly and, slightly off point, not only is most of an atom empty space but most of the atoms weight is the empty space! Ace McWicked 03:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
See here Hamster. Ace McWicked 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
ockhams razor is a purely human invention which has some support in the real world but isn't a law. The simplist answer may not be the right one. You would need to look at both hypothesis and see which one better describes all the evidence. You know, it's usually me telling the evolutionist that it's not a law! I fully agree, but then you go on to describe what it is in a simplified-but-essentially-identical way to the way I was using it. I'm criticised by RW types for responding to details but missing the main point, yet that is what you've done here: you've picked a non-existent issue regarding Occam's Razor and missed the main point of my comment that the explanation that doesn't require the fudges is the preferred one.
The point I was trying to make was that the simplist solution is not always the correct one, its just the one to try first. I have lost track of the various papers that were mentioned. One of them requires the Earth to be at the center of the universe for the maths to work out. Since that position is questioned then a theory that does not require it but fits all the evidence may still be correct. Hamster 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Dark Energy isn't invoked to support the big bang, it is invoked to investigate why the universe is expanding at a accelerating pace in repulsion to gravity. Which is part of the whole Big Bang cosmology.
Philip J. Rayment 12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Which is part of the whole Big Bang cosmology. Incorrect - Big Bang cosmology would predict a gradually slowing expansion. Ace McWicked 20:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that the simplist solution is not always the correct one, its just the one to try first. Nobody mentioned the "simplest" solution; we were talking about the one that best fitted the data without invoking additional factors. And the point I was trying to make is that Hartnett's model is better than the Big Bang in that regard, as it doesn't invoke those extra, unobserved, factors.
I think Bradley has adequately answered Ace's comment, in the section below.
Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes Bradley answered and the end of it was that the big bang can operate with, or without, the existence of Dark Energy. The fact that it was a great surprise to find the universe expanding at an accelerated pace(hence the need to introduce a quantitative factor to explain it) obviously shows that Dark Energy wasn't needed in order for the Big Bang to operate. I take it you'll now reflect on it and not use Dark Energy as an example of something introduced to support the big bang. Ace McWicked 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that wasn't the end of it. The standard model as it was could not operate with or without the existence of Dark Energy. The fact that it was a great surprise to find the universe expanding at an accelerated pace(hence the need to introduce a quantitative factor to explain it) obviously shows that Dark Energy was needed in order for the Big Bang to operate, because the Big Bang did not predict that and alone could not explain it. Dark Energy is something introduced to make the standard model (Big Bang) fit observations because without it the standard model fails. More later (and below in the next section). LowKey 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
If big bang were chucked tomorrow then there's still a need to explain the accelerating universe. Dark energy was introduced to account for the acceleration, not to make the big bang fit. If the big bang were proven false tomorrow the universe would still be accelerating and you'd still need to account for the reason. Ace McWicked 00:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
If big bang were chucked tomorrow then there's still a need to explain the accelerating universe Yes, but the explanation would either be integral to the rest of the model (like Carmeli's can be), or an addition just to account for the accelerating expansion (like Dark Energy is).
Dark energy was introduced to account for the acceleration, not to make the big bang fit Almost. Dark energy was introduced to account for the acceleration that big bang could not account for. It was to make the standard model fit. Fine, it (or something so like it to be essentially the same) may be needed in some other model, but surely a model that doesn't need it as an ad hoc factor (because it explains it as an integral part of the model, or actually identifies its cause) would be superior to a model which does need it as an ad hoc factor to describe an effect that is not explained. Actually I think that is a big point there. "Dark Energy" is a factor within the standard model describing accelerating expansion without explaining it. We need a model that explains it or at least integrates it. I think I need some time to cogitate on this, also. We seem to be "orbiting", in that we are going around and around but not drawing any closer. LowKey 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. Of course the model describes it instead of explaining it because an explanation hasn't been adequately raised! Caremli's doesn't that's for sure because Caremeli just introduces Dark Energy under a different name (he calls it Effective Matter Density). Not only that but you keep mentioning thata model that doesn't need it as an ad hoc factor....would be superior to a model which does need it as an ad hoc factor Its not an ad hoc factor! For [goodness]Edited by umpire sake what is wrong with you! It is a real observable quantity that is independent of the big bang. Ace McWicked 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
LowKey: ...we are going around and around but not drawing any closer. Ace: This is going nowhere. I'm glad you agree with Bradley!
Its not an ad hoc factor! We've explained why it is; you've rejected that, but haven't given a good explanation why it's not. Rather, you've simply explained it in other terms that mean the same thing.
It is a real observable quantity... Not according to this article: "We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. ... The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data."
Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
[This article? The one that backs up every point I have made so far? I am glad you agree with me. Ace McWicked 08:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Typical sweeping generalisation that fails to show anything. I made a point that it didn't back your claim of dark energy being observed, and you've not even attempted a refutation of that. What other points have you made? That dark energy is not ad hoc? No, it doesn't say that either. It's explanation of it amounts to an ad hoc explanation. Philip J. Rayment 09:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Its not a generalisation Philip, actually it's very specific. Nothing I have stated about Dark energy in anyway conflicts with the NASA article you have raised. Unless you are confusing my use of "observed" to mean "seen". Ace McWicked 09:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) dark energy has been "observed" in the movements within a global cluster. THIS LINK gives the youtube video on it. Hamster 15:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I provided a specific article, provided a specific comment of yours that I was replying to, and provided specific quotes from the article to reply your comment. In return, you provided (the same) specific article, but gave no indication of what specific points you were supporting and gave no specific indication of what part(s) of the article supported your comments. So no, your reply was not specific, but a generalisation.
Hamster, that video says that something is preventing galaxies from merging, and they are attribiting this to dark energy. It's hardly an observation of dark energy, even ignoring that they are not observing movement but deducing movement from comparing closer and further clusters.
Philip J. Rayment 12:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to repeat myself Philip, your dragging things into obscure tangents is getting tiresome. Every comment I have made on the topic of dark energy is entirely consistent with a) the NASA article and b) the nature of Dark energy. You quote from the article - We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. ... The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data but I fail to see, given all my comments on Dark energy, how this is somehow a challenge to anything I have said so far? Ace McWicked 12:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Every comment I have made on the topic of dark energy is entirely consistent with a) the NASA article and b) the nature of Dark energy. So you assert, but fail to show. Those unsubstantiated assertions are getting tiresome.
I fail to see, given all my comments on Dark energy, how this is somehow a challenge to anything I have said so far? Then reread my comment where I quoted it and pointed out how it didn't fit with your argument. This is where you and I are differing: I'm giving specific responses, while you are hand-waving my comments away.
Philip J. Rayment 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not giving me specific responses, you are uttering gibberish. You haven't given anything that refutes what I have said. I don't kow how this ""We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. ... The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data." refutes anything I have said. You have to tell me why because I can't see it. Ace McWicked 13:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if it's gibberish (it's not), it's specific gibberish, in that (as I have already explained) I quoted a specific piece of text in reply to a specific comment of yours. If you want further explanation, I'm normally happy to give it, but not so happy if my efforts are denigrated and misrepresented in the process. Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, for all your specific gibberish there is still nothing in the NASA piece the conflicts with anything I have said regarding Dark energy. The comment that you quoted, in fact, directly supports what I have said on Dark energy hence my confusion surrounding why you posted it. Ace McWicked 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You said that it was a "real observable quantity" (my emphasis). The NASA article said that apart from being able to figure out how much there must be, "it is a complete mystery." That doesn't fit with your claim that it is observable. Philip J. Rayment 04:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable! Really Philip? Really? You have obviously not been reading anything I have said because I have been very explicit on the point that dark energy has been introduced to explain the fact that the universe is expanding rapidly. I even said to you - Unless you are confusing my use of "observed" to mean "seen" and have made it abundantly clear that Dark energy is a term to explain what ever is causing the rapid expansion of the universe. I said, several times, that it is an observed quantity missing and dark matter is introduced as a name for this missing quantity. I was specific in stating that the observable portion was the quanity missing, not that Dark energy was observable. Which is exactly what the NASA article says. I cannot see how you could read my multiple comments in any other way unless you were deliberatly misreading them. Particulary as you commented on this quote of mine where I make it clear that Dar energy isan exotic form of gravity, an unknown energy source, or even just a plain mistake in the calculation! Exactly as NASA says. Ace McWicked 05:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, I've been saying that dark energy is nothing more than an ad hoc explanation, or fudge factor, to explain that the theory doesn't fit the evidence. That is, the "observation" that you refer to is the observation that the evidence doesn't fit the theory. But you've been disagreeing and arguing that it's more than that. Philip J. Rayment 06:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit break

This here is what I want to addres when I get back to this. There is a fundamental equivalence between the accelerated expansion and the "dark energy" factor that you, Ace, assume/conclude to exist but we (at least Philip & I) assume/conclude to not exist. That is where the "orbiting" begins, and until we address this fundamental divide the conversation is going to continue going in frustrating circles. I intend to attempt addressing it at the dark energy talk page, but not yet as I am still ordering my thoughts and gathering information. LowKey 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that you don't belief that the universe is accelerating in expansion? What is it you are saying doesn't exist? You can't say "yes we believe that the universe is accelerating but dark energy doesn't exist" because dark energy is whatever is causing the universe to expand. Ace McWicked 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I repeat - I intend to attempt addressing it at the dark energy talk page, but not yet as I am still ordering my thoughts and gathering information. I know it is frustrating, because I find it frustrating, too. Please be patient while I sort out the best way to explain my position and my understanding of your position. To my mind, taking a step or two back and re-approaching slowly and methodically is the only way forward. LowKey 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me help clarify then. - The universe is expanding at an ever speedier pace, science does not know why this is. The mystery cause of this could be an exotic form of gravity, an unknown energy source, or even just a plain mistake in the calculation! The answer is really totally up in the air. Science has named this mystery answer "Dark energy". Dark energy refers to whatever it is that is causing the accelerating expansion. Depending on what is causing the expansion the term is open to change - maybe changed to reflect whoever discovers exactly what it is? Or even dropped completely if it is shown that the universe isn't expanding at speed. But nonetheless the mystery reason is named "Dark energy". Therefore, no matter what you think is causing the expansion, it is still named Dark energy. Ace McWicked 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you want a resolution or do you just intend to keep arguing pointlessly? If you don't want a resolution, then I won't waste time and energy attempting one.
  • Do you want to understand my position or are you happy to denigrate it in ignorace? If you are happy to remain ignorant then I won't waste time and energy on information that you don't want.
  • Do you want me to accept your position, or are you happy for me to think you are blind to your own assumptions? If you don't care for me to appreciate your viewpoint then I won't bother laying out my perception of it for you to correct. LowKey 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Why so aggressive Bradley? I was helping you understand my position, giving you a summary. You said sort out the best way to explain my position and my understanding of your position. so I was summarizing to assist you in understanding. Jeez man, no need to get all crazy - I thought it easier to condense everything I said into a paragraph for you so you didn't have to trawl those heaps of pages. I thought I was doing you a favour. Ace McWicked 01:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apologise. Chalk it up to the frustration I mentioned. LowKey 01:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Have a beer or something. Ace McWicked 01:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I blame Pim Verbeek, and poor reffing. It seems the thing to do for Aussies at the moment. LowKey 01:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Have a beer. I should note though that my above summary is more a dictionary definition because there are many theories (one I happen to prescribe to myself) on exactly what Dark energy is however to avoid confusion I have detailed the definition as opposed to theories on what it could be. Ace McWicked 01:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ace, this is a comment on your description in your paragraph beginning with "Let me help clarify then." But first I'll clarify my position.

I accept that the universe has expanded. I have no problem with the idea that it may still be expanding. But I don't think that we have hard evidence that it is still expanding, nor do I believe we have hard evidence on the rate of expansion, especially of any acceleration or otherwise in that rate. However, I'm not saying that it's definitely not accelerating either; just that we don't know.

You say that the universe is expanding at an ever speedier pace..., but how do we know this? We have not been able to measure its size accurately enough and for long enough to actually measure its rate of expansion. From what I gather, the claimed change in the rate of expansion is a calculation based on observations and the model. If the model is wrong, then perhaps there is no change in the rate of expansion.

The mystery cause of this could be an exotic form of gravity, an unknown energy source, or even just a plain mistake in the calculation! Assuming that there is a change in the rate, then yes, there are alternative possible causes, such as you have given. However, what do you mean by a "plain mistake"? Is this "cause" really one of saying that it may not be accelerating after all? I can see how "dark energy" can refer to some unknown repulsive force, but to say that the term could be applied to a "mistake in the calculation" is bizarre. It's like saying that you have a box which you weigh and find is six kilograms, and you know that there's only four kg of dice in it (we'll ignore the weight of the box itself), so you say that there's 2kg of "other matter". That "other matter" may be marbles, packing material, or almost anything. But if the true explanation is that your scales are wrong (the box only weighs 4kg), it's not reasonable to call that error "other matter". As you go on to say yourself, Dark energy refers to whatever it is that is causing the accelerating expansion. (my emphasis). But it can't refer to an error in the conclusion that there is acceleration.

So, in summary, Therefore, no matter what you think is causing the expansion, it is still named Dark energy. Granted, but not if there is no accelerated expansion. That is, someone could have another explanation for the observations, one that doesn't have an accelerated expansion. In that case, "dark energy" is a furphy, not just a name for the unknown factor. As this remains a possibility, and as the acceleration is not measured, it is therefore fair to describe "dark energy" as a fudge factor.

Philip J. Rayment 04:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously if it is a mistake in the calculations then Dark energy will be dropped but no error has been found and no other explanation has been forthcoming as of yet so in the meantime we need a term to describe the rapid expansion. Besides which you have totally missed the original point Philip. The original debate started because you stated that dark energy was a "fudge factor" introduced to support the big bang. You now seem to contradict your own, orginal, statement. Ace McWicked 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The error has been found: the discrepancy between the theory and the evidence! And no, dark energy is not a description of the rapid expansion, but a term for the unknown factor causing the (apparent) rapid expansion. "Fudge factor" is a perfectly legitimate term for this.
I'll try and explain it differently. Theory BB says that X should be the case. X is not the case. So is theory BB discarded, or modified? No, it's not discarded (in this case), it's kept, by proposing an unknown factor (DE) to account for the discrepancy. That's the very definition of "fudge factor"!
Philip J. Rayment 06:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry Philip but neither one of your comments deserves nor requires any response. I can't help you, help yourself. You make so many fundamental errors that I can't carry on. My comments stand and yours betray an absolute and total lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic. Please, carry on and debate what you, quite obviously, are totally ignorant of. Ace McWicked 07:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Argument by denigration. Typical. Philip J. Rayment 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dark Energy

The above section has splintered so I'll make a new section - Brad says here that The opposition is not to dark energy so much as to Big Bang, which invokes dark energy with no evidence beyond it own critical need for need of it. This is incorrect. Dark Energy is invoked to explain the ever accelerating expansion of the universe in repulsion to gravity, not the big bang. It amazes me that creationists can be so against something without actually understanding what it is they are against! Ace McWicked 03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was summarising. There are other logical steps involved. YEC's are not against dark energy. I am out of time, but I will get back to this. Give me a bit to get some reading done. LowKey 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just be clear though, I am not arguing the validity of dark energy but what it actually relates to. Ace McWicked 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Check. Watch this space. LowKey 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm back. I still haven't read those papers, but I wanted to confirm my understanding of Dark Energy before moving on. I'll work backwards here, as it is clearer that way. Dark Energy is essentially the proposed physical "stuff" behind the cosmological constant (i.e. the cosmological constant is describing the effect of dark energy). The cosmological constant is a factor introduced to account for observations of accelerating expansion which FLRW otherwise couldn't explain. FLRW assumes the Cosmological Principle. I'll stop there for now and see if we agree, because it is after this step that I think we part company. It is easier to explain why we disagree if we can establish where we disagree. LowKey 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You should watch the clip below for a better explanation by a proper physicist. Anyway Dark Energy is a placeholder term to describe the force that seems to be countering the gravity of the universe - thereby pushing things apart at an ever increasing rate. If the expansion were slowing down, remained the same speed or had ceased then we wouldn't need dark energy. But is speeding up hence there must be something causing the acceleration. It is named, for lack of a better term, Dark Energy. Ace McWicked 00:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I don't know how you can debate that Dark Energy means something different. Wikipedia states it as "Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate." I mean, that's what it is! I already said I am not debating its validity or what it is made off, I merely trying to advise of its correct meaning so people like Philip don't say things like "it's a fudge factor to support the big bang" because it isn't! Ace McWicked 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ace, I am not arguing that it is something different. We went over this; the WP explanation still means “fudge factor”, which is not a pejorative term. The bit that is left of in the WP explanation is “within the Big Bang cosmological models.”
Dark Energy is an integral part of Big Bang theory because it is the Big Bang theory (Lambda-CDM to be precise) which needs it. Some other model or metric may well explain the accelerating expansion without the need for such a factor. YEC's take issue (or at elast this one does) with Big Bang on three points; the sequence, the Cosmological Principle, and its poor fit. The Big Bang sequence disagrees with the Biblical sequence, so one must be wrong. The Cosmological Prinicple is a misapplication of the Copernican Principle. The Copernican Principle is that a special position or state must not be assumed (but does not rule out such position or state being concluded from evidence), whereas the Cosmological Principle is that isotropy and homogeneity are facts, and observations that would normally indicate otherwise are explained away. The poor fit is that Big Bang assumes unboundedness to make observations of isotropy fit the Cosmological Principle, cannot explain observations of non-homogeneity essentially because unboudedness has been assumed, assumes Dark Matter where there is not enough gravity, assumes Dark Energy where there is too much gravity. There is the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the baryogenesis problem, the lack of dwarf galaxies. In short Big Bang doesn't explain the facts that have been observed without over-reliance on factors that have not been observed. A model or metric without these problems would surely be better, cosmic relativity does not seem to have these problems. Another way to look at it is that while others keep trying to make the Big Bang fit observations by proposing additional factors, YECs are free to look for another model. Lamda-CDM may be the standard model, but there are plenty of qualified dissenters.
On another note, you mentioned (I think you may have later deleted it) the universe being flat, unbounded and finite. Can you explain that? I thought perhaps you meant "open" (will continue to expand) instead of unbounded, or perhaps you were referring to finite matter within an infinite plexus. Otherwise I don't see how finite and unbounded can work with a spacially flat universe.
Anyway, I am a little ill and may be rambling. I'll re-read that when I feel better. LowKey 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Dark Energy is an integral part of Big Bang theory because it is the Big Bang theory (Lambda-CDM to be precise) which needs it. Therein lies the issue. Its not only the big bang that needs Dark Energy, any theory would need to explain the accelerating universe somehow. And any theory would also need to explain the gravitational anomalies associated with Dark Matter. These two issues are not exclusive to Big Bang theory. Big Bang is irrelevant so I don't know why the two are conflated. Ace McWicked 02:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact you said it yourself Some other model or metric may well explain the accelerating expansion without the need for such a factor. The explanation is missing no matter what model or metric you use so until solved it is named Dark Energy. Ace McWicked 02:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Carmeli's cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter nor dark energy LowKey 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but do you have anything less technical? Are you able summarize what it proposes? I have never been good at the math you see, I can only grasp concepts as opposed to raw mathematics. Ace McWicked 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still working through it myself. The title just seemed so topical :) Also, I was making a point that looking for a new model may be more fruitful than repeatedly adding ad hoc parameters tot he old one. I think I can find a summary or two. I'll get back to you. LowKey 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
HERE BE A LINKY I have some issues with the curve fit diagrams but cant find the source data. :) Hamster 04:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That book was one of the places I was going to look for a summary. LowKey 04:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
While this is all very interesting I just want to clarify before we get into explanations of what, if anything, Dark Energy is that Brad undertands the Dark Energy is a term to describe the acceleration in expansion rather than something conjured up to solve a (perceived at least) big bang issue. Ace McWicked 05:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I found the link Hamster posted very interesting there are some points I'd like to raise. Under the section tiled "Carmeli’s Theoretical Assumptions" it states First, CSR assumes the universe is never empty of matter, but has a property that Carmeli called effective matter density that makes it expand. Inflation theory and Quantum theory both state that empty space, nothing, is in fact a "foam" for lack of a better word wherein particles pop in and out of the vacuum. Empty space is, in fact, energy (I know that's not "matter" in in its strictest sense but I feel this is what Carmeli is, or at least very near to, saying). Ironically enough one of the explanations of Dark Energy is exactly what Carmeli is suggesting and Carmeli's "Effective Matter Density" sounds like Dark Energy under a different name!
It says all galaxies displayed various amounts of redshifted light. None showed blueshift. This meant all galaxies, in every direction were moving away from the earth. This could only happen if the earth, or at least the Milky Way, was at the every epicenter of the universe! which is a misunderstanding. It is actually space that is expanding rather than the galaxies rushing away. Imagine drawing dots in a deflated ballon, each an inch apart. When you blow the balloon up the spots dont move but the surface expands. From each dot it would appear that everything is rushing away from you. It should also be noted that Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards our galaxy.
Big Bang theory vigorously denies the possibility that this creation of new matter can take place, positing instead that all matter was created at the initial Big Bang. A tough one however virtual particles have been observed to pop out of the vacuum but hard to say whether this is "new" matter because it is formed using the vacuum energy but to say it is "vigorously denie(d)" is a bit of a generalisation.
Big Bang theory assumes the opposite due to most matter being on the leading edge of the inflation of expanding space. Again this is a misunderstanding because most of the matter, according to inflation theory, created during the Big Bang was all, at one point, in a space the size of an atom. When inflation occured it didn't so much push everything out but in fact expanded everything out so, aside from clumps of density, it should more or less have evenly distrubuted matter and not all at a leading edge. It is then said later that the big bang does predict stretching in opposite to the previous statement of it being on the leading edge.
There is more, a central point in fact, that I'd like to say but I need to think about it first - get my thoughts in order. the above were just things that I noticed on first thought. Ace McWicked 06:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That review was reasonable, but not great. It does get some basic issues wrong (I recall they seemed to get isotopry and homogeny a bit muddled). I will try for a better summary. LowKey 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a good 6 minute long clip of a Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture that sums it up nicely. Ace McWicked 08:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is all very interesting. Would someone like to make an article about Dark energy?--CPalmer 09:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we're heading that way.  :) LowKey 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
...Dark Energy is a term to describe the acceleration in expansion rather than something conjured up to solve a (perceived at least) big bang issue. I think you are playing semantics here. Dark energy is not merely a term to describe something, but a reference to an undetectable energy, which energy must exist if the Big Bang cosmology is correct. I would also ask, how do we know that there is an acceleration in expansion? I'm guessing that we have not directly measured that acceleration, and that it is a deduction to explain observations. I raise this not to reject the deduction, but to point out that a different explanation could also explain the observations in a way that doesn't require the dark energy.
I found the link Hamster posted very interesting there are some points I'd like to raise. Keep in mind that this is a layman's review of Hartnett's book, and may not represent the book completely accurately.
It says all galaxies displayed various amounts of redshifted light. None showed blueshift. This meant all galaxies, in every direction were moving away from the earth. This could only happen if the earth, or at least the Milky Way, was at the every epicenter of the universe! which is a misunderstanding. You have taken that out of context ("quote mining", anyone?). The context is that this conclusion is the one that one would naturally draw, and he then goes on to explain that Hubble came up with a different conclusion.
It is actually space that is expanding rather than the galaxies rushing away. Yes, but in layman's language, the galaxies are still "moving away", even if that movement (i.e. that increasing distance) is due to the galaxies moving with the expanding space rather than moving through space. Perhaps it's poor wording on the reviewer's part, but it doesn't affect the point he is making.
Philip J. Rayment 12:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a much larger point I want to make here but I need to dwell on it and get my thoughts in order. As to your accusation of quote mining that sounds like mere bluster. The fact is the reviewer or whoever is making the positive claim that this could only happen if the earth/galaxy was at the centre which is incorrect for a number of reasons. Also they state none are blue-shifted, which is also incorrect. Ace McWicked 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As to your accusation of quote mining that sounds like mere bluster. I'm just giving you critics a taste of your own medicine. When I quote something that someone thinks is done out of context, the "quote mining" accusation is freely tossed around. So why shouldn't I do it in return?
The fact is the reviewer or whoever is making the positive claim that this could only happen if the earth/galaxy was at the centre which is incorrect for a number of reasons. You've missed my point that The context is that this conclusion is the one that one would naturally draw, and he then goes on to explain that Hubble came up with a different conclusion.
Also they state none are blue-shifted, which is also incorrect. No, he doesn't. You are again out of context. He states that Hubble faced the problem that they were all blue-shifted. So what he is saying is that Hubble didn't know of any blue-shifted ones. Whether he is correct in this or not I don't know, but that's all he's saying; he's not saying that we today don't know of blue-shifted ones.
Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll reserve all further opinion until such a time as more information on this is presented as, we can all agree I am sure, we are tearing to pieces a review of someones work as opposed to the actual work. Ace McWicked 10:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

we are tearing to pieces a review of someones work as opposed to the actual work Yep. I will probably take a fresh bash at this after some more reading, but I will likely do so at talk:Dark energy. LowKey 05:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining changes to the Age section.

I reworded the comment about "scientific methods that do not appeal to the authority of the Bible.", as it obscures the point that we are discussing events that occurred in the past, and so are talking about history, not measurement (you can't measure time past).

I don't see the improvement, but I can live with your version. --Awc 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence which included "the mere fact that we can see objects a distance of 13 billion light years aways means that the universe must be at least 13 billion years old." because it's simply not true. Objects can be further away in light years than their age measured in years.

I don't follow you here, but I think it is an important point. If you want, we could make a reference to Starlight problem and go into detail there. I originally referred to the time rather than the distance because the object observed was closer to us when the light was emitted and is farther from us now, when we observe the light. The light, however, has been traveling for 13 billion years. Please explain your reasoning in more detail, or propose an alternate wording. I think you will find that most scientists would accept this argument, and in this section we are trying to present their reasons for believing in an old universe. --Awc 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the (italicised here) word in "If the galaxies have always been moving at their current speeds from a common point" because this is an assumption of the point being made. That is, if, hypothetically, the objects began some distance apart only, say, one billion years ago, and have been moving apart ever since, then they have "always been moving at their current speeds". Think of two trains headed in opposite directions away from each other. You can work out from their speed (assuming they have both always been travelling at their current speed) when they both departed from their originating station assuming they both started their journeys from the same station and not from separate stations. That the galaxies started from a common point may be true, but it is nevertheless an assumption of the calculation, not a given.

Yes, of course, the galaxies might have been created in mid-flight or otherwise have an unexpected velocity history. But if we simply do a linear extrapolation of their positions into the past, they all meet at a point. Your formulation makes it sound like we are assuming our conclusion, which is not the case. If you understand my point, then we will be able to find a formulation that satisfies us both. --Awc 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip J. Rayment 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

on the common point bit, is that from a paper ? because I could not identify a source. If they did a vector analysis of the galaxy movements you dont need a common point only the positions at two known times, the results will be from a viewpoint of Earth unless adjusted. for two trains if you know the speed and location at a time , and the track length , you can wind back the positions and determine where and when the two would meet, if in fact they did meet.
if we start with light speed as a constant then if we can see an object 13 billion light years away means it existed 13 billion years ago or it would not be visible now , the light would still be in transit for a younger object, the object could of course be older Hamster 04:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We have to work on quantized redshifts, too. When Hartnett talks about shells of galaxies, he is always referring to their position as measured with redshifts, so I see only one line of evidence, not two. As far as I can tell, these studies are not recent, but rather outdated. They are certainly not taken seriously by the community of professional astronomers. If you insist on presenting this otherwise, then we will have to get into the sources in more detail. --Awc 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you here, but I think it is an important point. My point is that the measure of distance (13 billion light years) is not synonymous with the measure of time (13 billion years). Converting one to the other assumes that (a) light has always travelled the same speed, and (b) space has not expanded. Both creationists and evolutionists have proposals whereby (b) is not true.
The light, however, has been traveling for 13 billion years. How do we know? That is, how was this time measured? Is it in fact distance that was measured?
Your formulation makes it sound like we are assuming our conclusion, which is not the case. Which conclusion? That they began from a common point, or that that common point was 13 billion years ago? If the first, you are assuming your conclusion, aren't you? If the latter, no, my wording does not make it sound like we are assuming the time period.
on the common point bit, is that from a paper ? No, that's straight logic.
If they did a vector analysis of the galaxy movements you dont need a common point only the positions at two known times... You can use the trajectories to determine where that common point is (i.e. it doesn't need to be known beforehand), but you do need to know that they started from a common point and not some point part way along the trajectory.
or two trains if you know the speed and location at a time , and the track length , you can wind back the positions and determine where and when the two would meet, if in fact they did meet. And that last phrase is the key: if in fact they did meet. I'll expand the train analogy. Assume you have a railway with five stations, each 100km apart, called A, B, C, D, and E. Assume that train 1 is half way between A and B and is and has been travelling at a constant 100 kph towards A. Train 2 is halfway between D and E, travelling towards E, and is and has been similarly travelling at a constant 100 kph. So how long have they been travelling? If you assume that they started at a common point, you can calculate (a) where that common point is (station C), and (b) how long they have been travelling. But if you don't know that they started at a common point, you can't determine where they started or how long they have been travelling. What if train 1 started from B and train 2 from D? My point is that in order to know how long they have been travelling, apart from assuming their speed throughout their journey, you also have to know where they started, and you can't assume that it was from C unless you know that they started from a common point. Similarly with the galaxies; you can't work out how long it has been since they left that common point unless you know that they did start from a common point. We can't "know" that of course, so that is one of the assumptions that is made, just as we assume their velocity throughout time.
if we start with light speed as a constant then if we can see an object 13 billion light years away means it existed 13 billion years ago or it would not be visible now... That assumes no stretching of space, constant speed of light, etc. Both evolutionists and creationists have proposed an expansion of space.
Philip J. Rayment 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
in your train example you reach a figure of 1.5 hours to a collision. The trains may have started then or they may have collided, since they reached the positions indicated it would be a fair assumption that they started at C. In a example of a galaxy you would look for evidence of a collision. The movement of galaxies is not primarily a movement through space but rather an expansion of space and the rate is known (hubble constant from WMAP) of 73.5 (km/sec)/Mpc +_ 3.2 If you rewind the movements then you get everything at a point demonstrating that the common point is really everywhere. (confusing isnt it ) Hamster 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you use "kph" (similar to "mph") in English-language countries converted to SI? In continental Europe it is "km/h". Just curious, not a member! 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Both kph and km/h are used. I think it may vary regionally (and over time), but km/h currently seems more common where I am. In informal usage, we usually just write k, and say "kay" ("kilometers per hour" is for newsreaders and law enforcement). LowKey 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(a) light has always travelled the same speed, and (b) space has not expanded. There you go denying fine-tuning again. Sterile 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and PS. You are incorrect. If you assume that the trains are travelling at the same speed, you can show mathematically that they started at the same point, C, with the set-up you give. You do not need to "know" that they started at the same point. (Ignoring relativity, of course, and assuming you are not a velocity denialist.) And, of course, as a scientist, I would replace the word "assume" with "measure," as the cosmologists do indeed measure speeds through redshifts. After all, what magical power has change things? Did gravity not function right now?Sterile 01:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
in your train example you reach a figure of 1.5 hours to a collision. Trains travelling away from each other will not collide with each other.
...since they reached the positions indicated it would be a fair assumption that they started at C. No, it's not a fair assumption at all (in the case of the trains. In the case of the galaxies it may be, but my point is that it's an assumption, not that it's an unreasonable one).
If you rewind the movements then you get everything at a point... Only if you "rewind" it back to a point, rather than stop short of that point.
Do you use "kph" (similar to "mph") in English-language countries converted to SI? I don't know what the official standard is here in Oz, but I've seen and used both.
There you go denying fine-tuning again. Errr, right.
If you assume that the trains are travelling at the same speed, you can show mathematically that they started at the same point, C, with the set-up you give. No you cannot. If you disagree, please show how.
And, of course, as a scientist, I would replace the word "assume" with "measure," as the cosmologists do indeed measure speeds through redshifts. Redshift is a measure of how much the light has shifted; it's not a measure of how it came to be in that shifted state, or whether that shift occurred slowly, quickly, or etc.
After all, what magical power has change things? Why is it if there is some unknown force proposed by mainstream scientists, it's given a name such as "dark energy", but if someone else proposed some unknown mechanism, it's labelled "magic", as though if you don't know what it is and didn't invent it, it mustn't be possible?
Philip J. Rayment 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In the train example you can reach some conclusions if you know there is a single track. using the velocity vector and working back in time the two trains must start somewhere between C and their last position or a collision would occur. In galaxies we take the vector and calculate backward in time to see if there is a common point , although with expansion its a bit different because everything goes back to the same undefined point.
Science attempts to provide the best, most complete explanation of natural events that provides a framework for making predictions. If a theory fits most of the evidence but is not quite right , it is permissible to make a correction and look for the reason for it. If someone comes up with a hypothesis that fits the evidence better then it gets looked at and eventually will supplant the original theory. If a hypothesis is put forward that leads to no predictions or an ad-hoc explanation for a specific event it will generally be rejected since it leads nowhere. There are a bunch of alternative hypothesis for the universe. At the moment the consensus is the big-bang theory. Other ideas are discussed at conferences or even local meetings. The electric Universe was seriously looked at but had more flaws at the time. Some things will have to wait for someone to figure out how to observe things happening much further out into space. Its possible there never will be a complete explanation, and that's fine too. Hamster 03:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Is or is not the speed of light a fundamental constant of the universe, the value of which is important for life. How could the speed of light not be a part of fine tuning. Photosynthesis couldn't occur if the speed of light were different.
Are you really that bad at word problems? Well, if you insist. On a number line, A, B, C, D, E are at -200, -100, 0, 100, 200, resptectively. Train 1 is at -150 travelling with a velocity of -100 (the negative sign being there to account for direction) and Train 2 is at +150 travelling with a velocity of 150. There are all your "assumptions."
The position of train 1 at any time is -150 + -100 t train 2 is 150 + 100 t provided you are not a velocity denialist. Setting those equal to each other, you get 300 + 200 t = 0. Solving, you get t = -300/200, or -1.5 hours. And plugging -1.5 hours back into position gives 0, where C is. It is a conclusion, not an assumption, if you assume that the speeds are constant. Sterile 11:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have two objects (trains) in one dimension (tracks) with a relative velocity, then extrapolating their motion far enough into the future or the past always leads to a "collision". Trivial. What's interesting about the cosmological redshift, is that the extrapolation to 13.7 billion years into the past leads to a collision, no matter which two objects you consider. Look right, look left. Look up, look down. Look near, look far. The trajectories of all those gazillion galaxies will intersect at one point, at one time. There may be another explanation, but the most natural one, covering all these observations with a single, simple hypothesis, is that they really were all together 13.7 years ago. (Or at least they were very close together 13.6 billion years ago. To test the hypothesis that the expansion was already occurring in the 0.1 billion years before that, you have to look at other phenomena, namely the CMB and nucleosythesis.) This is a non-trivial result that scientists and other old-Earthers recognize as highly significant, and it should be clearly stated in the article. The phrase "from a common point" waters this down. By gum, I'm going to remove it! --Awc 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(@ sterile) Philip makes the point correctly that in his train setup the trains may have started at c or at any point between c and their final position , depending on how long they were moving. I dont understand the relevance to the movements of galaxies within the universe though. Hamster 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I get that, but Philip is assuming that we're starting at the same point and the the speed is not constant. My point is you only need one of those "assumptions." Sterile 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
k, he has forgotton gravitational binding in the local cluster too, that is no expansion within that area, which covers a few million light years Hamster 21:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Although I correctly identified an unstated assumption, I failed to state it unambiguously, and have realised that I gave the impression of claiming a point as an assumption when I was actually claiming a differing point.
Before I get back to that, Hamster has correctly pointed out that Sterile has overlooked the point I was making. And as for Philip is assuming that we're starting at the same point and the the speed is not constant., no I'm not. I'll also point out that I was not trying to argue or even suggest that the speed of light might have changed; merely pointing out that it was an assumption that it hadn't.
The conclusion (not assumption) is that the trajectories of the galaxies, traced backwards, all intersect at a common point. That is something that may not have necessarily been the case. However, just as the calculation involved a stated assumption that the speeds have remained constant, they also involve an assumption that the movement began at that common point, and not at some other point along those trajectories. Again, I'm not arguing that this is the case, merely that the assumption is there.
Philip J. Rayment 13:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. That was always covered by the word "always", as in "If the galaxies have always been moving at their current speeds, ..." --Awc 14:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe so. Nobody suggests that they were always moving that their current speeds (i.e. for infinite time past). They suggest that they were always moving at their current speeds since they began moving, or perhaps since they have existed. But if they began to exist (were created?) part way along their trajectories, then this "always" is true without them starting from that common point.
Philip J. Rayment 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To summarize, Philip is assuming that all time starts at 6000 years ago and therefore you can't extrapolate that far back. Sterile 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How about sticking to rational argument instead of saying things about me that are not true? Philip J. Rayment 07:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Age Section Split1

There are two components of an objects movement that needs to be considered. They are the component caused by Expansion and movement caused by gravitation effects. When winding back the clock the expansion component will be common to all objects while the remaining vector will change according to the presence of other objects. Since reversal of expansion will always result in reverting to a point the only other option is for it to have popped into existance fully formed. Reversing expansion also involves sorting out the gravitational collapses of clouds of gas to form stars and ultimately the cooling and creation of atoms from a cloud of elementry particles. Since the probability (quantum mechanics) of popping into existance fully formed through natural causes is virtually 0 it is not considered as an explanation.

that "common point" in current theory is every point in the existing Universe. Hamster 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't see that the common point is every point in the universe, almost by definition, as every point in the existing universe is a different point. What I think you mean is that the common point cannot be said to be any particular point in the existing universe, as to say that you would have to give it co-ordinates in a co-ordinate system that was external to the universe.
Since the probability (quantum mechanics) of popping into existance fully formed through natural causes is virtually 0 it is not considered as an explanation. So the alternative is...? Popping into existence not fully formed? And what is the probability of that? Or not popping into existence? In which case where did it come from and why?
Philip J. Rayment 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
visitor navigation