51% of Americans don't accept the Big Bang theory

^ The latter. Robitaille explained how one probe was not properly insulated. And there are problems with the "blackbody" reference.

Watch the video again. The data was tweaked to give the desired maps. Robitaille explained that it is impossible to extract a signal from noise that is a thousand times more intense, unless either 1) one has a priori knowledge of the signal, or 2) one has some way of manipulating the signal. We see this same problem in all the conjecture about the internal structure of the Sun. Except for the dark "holes" of sunspots, we cannot see below the photosphere.

Lots of NASA press releases talk about "helio-seismology" which is impossible without item two above. We cannot ping the Sun; all we can do is listen to its burps and rumbles. Suppose you're facing a door or wall and want to know whether it is solidly built, or hollow. You are not allowed to touch or rap on the surface. All you can do is look at it.

How about item one? That can best be summed up as "believing is seeing." The alleged CMB is only one tiny aspect of the Big Bang, a theory that has more evidence against it than for it. On more than one occasion I've seen professional astrophysicists in documentaries or quoted in books as saying, "I know the Big Bang is fatally flawed, but I will stick with it anyway because there is no alternative." How's that for scientific?

I guess this makes me a creationist, since I don't "believe" in the Big Bang, a theory originally proposed by a priest. (In logic, this fallacy is known as a false dichotomy; it must be either-or, black or white, as though no other possibilities exist.)

 

I've watched the videos. I don't see how Robitaille is incorrect in either. I find this more than a little disturbing.

It's sad as if one does not "conform" to the theory, they are placed in a camp. Pretty telling as well.

 

Yes, I caught that. What I'm wondering is whether or not the polarization of cosmic light is significantly different from foreground galactic sources, and if so, can that be used to tease out the background signal by filtering against polarity. My guess is, probably not.

Yes, I know all of that. Cosmology and astrophysics both have a track record of making incredibly far-reaching and specific claims from very ambiguous data. But a uniform shift in polarity from the CMB would be something highly unambiguous that would be pretty solid data, IF that's what they're actually seeing.

Doesn't sound like it, though. It sounds like they are, as usual, proceeding from some incredibly specific and elaborate assumptions about the early universe and then reinterpreting/reprocessing the data to fit those assumptions. I could be wrong, though, which is mainly why I asked.

Or a steady-state cosmologist. They do have them, you know.

 

They do, indeed. There are many cosmologies that fit within the classification "steady-state." Likewise, it is not The Big Bang; there are several Big Bang models that differ from each other significantly, although the general public would never know that. All those animations can't be wrong.

 

There are two points I would like to make.

First, the problem is that the education system is a joke. Not only is the Scientific Method is not even taught correctly, if at all, but critical thinking has been replaced with social promotion and political indoctrination. We are no longer taught how to think, but what to think, with the goal of never questioning those in a position of authority. So how can the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, et al, when the average American don't even know the make-up of the three branches of government?

Second, I have no clue why there is antagonism between Science and Theology. It seems like those people who promote Science over Theology mask their personal greivences towards religion in the name of enlightenment, when scientists, up until the 19th century saw the pursuit of science as a way of studying the 'hand of God', which is why they saw themselves as Deists than Christian. Besides, if Man can create life, who is to say that someone or something didn't create Man?

Ultimately, regardless of your opinion on this matter, we all should agree that the pursuit of science and technology should spark the imagination, least the mundane prevent us from discovering new ways to make life better for all.

 

^I think you are perhaps under valunig the average American when you say they don't know what their branches of Government are, Executive, Legislative and Judicial to answer the question. Or are you saying I as a Brit have a better understanding of how the US Government works than the average American?

And isn't part of the debate not about science vs theology but what should be taught in Science Lessons? Someone wants to put forward another idea about the creation of the Universe, Life etc.. Fine prove it.

 

1) Take a look at the statistics on the state of education in the US. Trust me, it is banal.

2) Here is where I stand, as a person of faith, based on something that Thomas Jefferson once said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” For me, religious or not, a person of reason should always be skeptical of orthodoxy, no matter what. As far as I am concerned, if what you believe in or embrace, cannot withstand the scrutiny of either rational or empirical, then those ideas should not be taken seriously. For me, I see no antagonism between science and theology (or with philosophy, for that matter), since these disciplines (for lack of a better term) seek to remove humanity from the muck that is our base human nature. Unfortunately, as history has proven, even the best of intentions can be fraught with opportunists who seek power to control others.

 

If there is a god that created the universe, he also created the laws of nature after which the universe works. He invented math, defined all forces, etc... I wonder why religious fundamentalists are afraid of the thought of understanding those laws their god created.

 

All due respect to Kepler, but Man invented math. It is a language, a precision tool, but it is not "truth."

 

It's the reverse engineered language of nature. If a god exists, he defined it. Addition, multiplication, prime numbers, rings, groups, etc...

You have to keep in mind that if a god created the universe, he did so from scratch. Math then works the way it does because a god made up these rules.

It's impossible for us to imagine a universe where, for example, 1+1 != 2, but that's because we are "trapped" in this specific one.

 

^ Using math to prove math. Kinda circular, don't you think?

Are you arguing that conclusions in "theoretical" physics cannot be wrong if math proves it? The problem I see is the translation to and from math. Ptolemy and Kepler both used math to plot the orbits of the planets. Despite the conflict between the models, are you saying they were both correct? That must be the case, since they were reverse engineering god.

I'm not making a philosophical or theological argument here. Not all of math is as simple as counting jelly beans, but even that simple act requires that we define our terms.

 

Well, I was making one. Math describes the patterns in the universe. If the universe were different, math would be different as well.

You can write programs that put basic logic, laws of nature, causality, whatever upside down and back to front. So for any "being" inside that program, the programmed universe would work according to that weird logic. So if those beings were to describe how their universe worked, they would come up with a different math. And they would not be able to understand the real world/outside world math their outside creator/programmer used.

Not sure were you're going with this. They used the same math on different models, didn't they? They had different assumptions and thus conflicting results, but they used the same language to describe their models. Kepler didn't go "I'm going to use a math where 1*2 = 3 do describe planet orbits", while Ptolemy went "I'm using math where 1*2 = 4 to make my calculations".

 

But saying 2 is just short hand for 1 and another 1.
Same as 4 is just short hand for 1 and another 1 and another 1 and another 1.

The same goes for all math. It's just definitions and labels.

Even in another universe jus 1 would not be more than just 1 because that's how we defined it.
Same as a bachelor won't be married in whatever universe.

 

Yes, because in our universe, there's sequence or linear causality. It's purely philosophical, but other universes could be totally different, to the degree where we simply couldn't comprehend it. We are not capable of thinking outside THIS box.

Unless our universe is really the ONLY way possible.

 

Yes, "describes" the patterns because math is a language with formalized structure to make it a precision tool. But math is not the patterns of the universe itself. That is what I meant when I said that math is not "truth."

That was also the intent of my Ptolemy and Kepler analogy—they both used math to model the universe. Both believed the universe to be mathematically perfect, and Kepler had the courage to question his own convictions when data from Tycho was stubbornly uncooperative. How could either of them be wrong if math was used to get the answer?

We may be missing each other due to imperfections in another language. The following article is food for thought. (Please note that the author is an electrical engineer, not a "theoretical" physicist):

The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics
By DEREK ABBOTT (PDF)

Ah, "they would come up with a different math," meaning math is a language and not some Pythagorean "truth" embedded in the "fabric of the universe," to use a Greene-ism.

The above statement suggests that you believe the universe is "intelligently designed" software, or maybe a hologram. Perhaps it is. But "we don't know" is a more accurate answer.

One of my gripes with many mainstream theories is the presentation of conjecture as fact. Such as, the universe had a beginning, exploding out of nothingness and creating space itself. Or the notion of superposed states of being—also known as alternate universes—derived from quantum mechanics. In the latter example, there is no way to test such an idea. Schrödinger's cat was intended as a parody of the multiverse idea, yet many actually use the analogy to teach the concepts of QM. "The cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box thus sending a particle backward in time to establish the observed state of the cat."

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMyD3TSXyUc[/yt]

 

To the extent mathematics is an abstraction of physical reality, the relationships it reveals between our physical laws owe more to the truth of those laws than to mathematics itself.

Things like Euler's identity are beautifully simple because they show the interconnectedness of our physical laws, for instance.

 

That doesn't make sense, does it?

I am a believer in God and Creation. I enjoy learning about scientific discoveries because it helps me appreciate the awe - inspiring wisdom of the Creator.

 

Metryq is pointing out, correctly, that math does not always ACCURATELY describe patterns in the universe, and in many cases it merely approximates it. The universe is what it is, and the underlying mathematics of theoretical physics is merely an attempt to describe it.

And again, they might come up with a different math just by virtue of BEING WRONG. There is a difference between a mathematical description of reality and reality itself.