Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tim Thompson · 05-06-2002, 06:13 PM

As you might recall from times past, the <a href="http://www.icr.org/" target="_blank">ICR</a> had set up a <a href="http://www.icr.org/discussion/boardpower.cgi" target="_blank">discussion board</a>, young-earthers only need apply. As you might also imagine, it has been a real hotbed of (yawn) activity; out of 35 folders, 10 have had something added in 2002, and only 4 of them are April/May. I noticed the "<a href="http://www.icr.org/discussion/discussion.cgi?forum=15&discussion=13" target="_blank">light and sound</a>" thread, in the astronomy general folder, had some comments on the big bang & the age of the universe. Having perhaps less to do at the moment than I should, I thought I would comment on how some things never change (i.e., they still don't bother to actually find out what they are talking about before talking about it as if they knew what they were talking about). In this case, the offender is one "gplant", but I will simply call him "yec".

yec: The problem for the BB people is a matter of chronology. When the theory was first developed it was based entirely off of the observation of the expansion of the universe. Objects that could be seen and measured gave us a rough date of about 15g years (give or take 5g).

Actually not true. The BB was first proposed before Hubble published his interpretation of galactic redshifts as indicating an expanding universe. The predictor in this case was the Belgian Jesuit cleric Georges LeMaitre. It was based entirely on the theoretical observation that general relativity does not permit a static universe, and LeMaitre thought that this was a clear example of the devine creation. It was only after Hubble came up with the expanding universe that Einstein was miffed over having failed to avail himself of the chance to join in and predict an expanding universe, along with LeMaitre.

Furthermore, the early estimates of the age of the universe were all around 2 billion years, not 15. This caused some consternation with cosmologists, as geologists had already figured that the earth was much older. But Hubble and the early expaning universe observers had a lot of observational problems to overcome, such as discovering that there was more than one kind of cepheid variable star, and that Hubble had even mistaken some HII regions for stars! There was no estimation for the age of the universe as high as 15 billion years until after 1970! Since 1995, estimates of the age of the universe have been tightly packed between 10 and 20 billion years, with 15 billion pretty close to the mean.

yec: But then, as our telescopes became better, we were able to look farther and farther into space. And what we saw (and, or course, still see today) were structures that can not be harmonized with a 15g date for the BB. Bolistic energy would not be enough to push them so far out. The only way they could get so far, and still have originated 15g years ago, would be if they were accelerating away, not slowing.

Wrong again. Nobody saw any structures that could not be harmonized with a 15 billion year age of the universe, nor for that matter, any other age either. It was the cosmic background temperature that was a problem, and it had nothing to do with the age of the universe. It did have to do with that rate of expansion of the early universe, and is the "horizon problem". In a simple big bang model, there is no opportunity for the various parts of the universe to reach the same background temperature, because they expand away from each other too fast. So, the theoretical solution was to let the universe sit around and stew for a while, so all of its parts could reach the same temperature. Then the bang takes off a lot faster than in previous models ("inflation"). Not only does it solve the "horizon" problem, but it makes the formation of large scale structure easier to understand, as the "inflation" grabs and expands primordial ripples, along with everything else.

But even in inflationary models, the universe was presumed to be slowing its expansion and not accelerating. No body predicted accelerating expansion, it was a surprise interpretation derived from high redshift supernova observations (and is still not an uncontroversial result).

yec: And that is the problem, and the origin of Dark Energy.

A little better. "Dark energy" is a euphemism for Einstein's "cosmological constant", usually assumed to be exactly zero until fairly recently. One of the beneficial side effects of high resolution observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is that the ripples in the CMB (aka "<a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html" target="_blank">CMB anisotropies</a>") allow one to model the geometry of space-time in some detail. Dark energy is used to balance dark matter, since there appears to be too much attractive matter in the universe to explain that fact that it is expanding at all, let alone accelerating.

So the part about "bolistic" force not being able to explain the expansion is correct (even though there is no such thing as ballistic "force", as the yec author intended to mean by "bolistic"). Dark energy is not a "problem" for BB cosmology, it's just one more ingredient needed to understand the fundamentals.

There. Now I can go home. Cheers.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tim Thompson ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex · 05-07-2002, 12:05 PM

So that is where Glenn Plant has been hiding. ;-)

He has made more garbage astronomy claim in <a href="http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=origintruths&msg=2.115" target="_blank">this two year old thread</a> that also include the following biological garbage:

Quote:

Unless I am much mistaken, the Cytochrome C molecule is the best mapped genetic sequence in any species. This is because it is passed from mother to daughter, free from the influence of the male gene. This means that it is passed without genetic variation. Variations in the gene are therefore the result of mutation (or design difference, depending on one�s view).

I do believe that the mapping of human families is done with that molecule, as well as the mapping for Neanderthal man.

Though there are other molecules mapped, the Cytochrome C is the most accurate.

That just what I found after just looking at a few messages. Teno Groppi was the host and after effective evolution opposition appeared he ran off scared from his own forum but not after posting lots of idiot things. If anyone wants to make a file on stupid things written by creationist bulletin board participants that forum is a good place to look.

Coragyps · 05-07-2002, 01:01 PM

gplant is also the guy who, maybe last fall, claimed on ICR's board that he had worked out all the errors in Einstein's work and might share his results with us if he got the time to post them. I guess he's been busy.

Vorkosigan · 05-07-2002, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:
<strong>gplant is also the guy who, maybe last fall, claimed on ICR's board that he had worked out all the errors in Einstein's work and might share his results with us if he got the time to post them. I guess he's been busy.

</strong>

Well, ironing out the kinks in his perpetual motion machine takes time.

Vorkosigan

05-06-2002, 06:13 PM	#1
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	Age of the universe and the slowly evolving ICR board As you might recall from times past, the <a href="http://www.icr.org/" target="_blank">ICR</a> had set up a <a href="http://www.icr.org/discussion/boardpower.cgi" target="_blank">discussion board</a>, young-earthers only need apply. As you might also imagine, it has been a real hotbed of (yawn) activity; out of 35 folders, 10 have had something added in 2002, and only 4 of them are April/May. I noticed the "<a href="http://www.icr.org/discussion/discussion.cgi?forum=15&discussion=13" target="_blank">light and sound</a>" thread, in the astronomy general folder, had some comments on the big bang & the age of the universe. Having perhaps less to do at the moment than I should, I thought I would comment on how some things never change (i.e., they still don't bother to actually find out what they are talking about before talking about it as if they knew what they were talking about). In this case, the offender is one "gplant", but I will simply call him "yec". yec: The problem for the BB people is a matter of chronology. When the theory was first developed it was based entirely off of the observation of the expansion of the universe. Objects that could be seen and measured gave us a rough date of about 15g years (give or take 5g). Actually not true. The BB was first proposed before Hubble published his interpretation of galactic redshifts as indicating an expanding universe. The predictor in this case was the Belgian Jesuit cleric Georges LeMaitre. It was based entirely on the theoretical observation that general relativity does not permit a static universe, and LeMaitre thought that this was a clear example of the devine creation. It was only after Hubble came up with the expanding universe that Einstein was miffed over having failed to avail himself of the chance to join in and predict an expanding universe, along with LeMaitre. Furthermore, the early estimates of the age of the universe were all around 2 billion years, not 15. This caused some consternation with cosmologists, as geologists had already figured that the earth was much older. But Hubble and the early expaning universe observers had a lot of observational problems to overcome, such as discovering that there was more than one kind of cepheid variable star, and that Hubble had even mistaken some HII regions for stars! There was no estimation for the age of the universe as high as 15 billion years until after 1970! Since 1995, estimates of the age of the universe have been tightly packed between 10 and 20 billion years, with 15 billion pretty close to the mean. yec: But then, as our telescopes became better, we were able to look farther and farther into space. And what we saw (and, or course, still see today) were structures that can not be harmonized with a 15g date for the BB. Bolistic energy would not be enough to push them so far out. The only way they could get so far, and still have originated 15g years ago, would be if they were accelerating away, not slowing. Wrong again. Nobody saw any structures that could not be harmonized with a 15 billion year age of the universe, nor for that matter, any other age either. It was the cosmic background temperature that was a problem, and it had nothing to do with the age of the universe. It did have to do with that rate of expansion of the early universe, and is the "horizon problem". In a simple big bang model, there is no opportunity for the various parts of the universe to reach the same background temperature, because they expand away from each other too fast. So, the theoretical solution was to let the universe sit around and stew for a while, so all of its parts could reach the same temperature. Then the bang takes off a lot faster than in previous models ("inflation"). Not only does it solve the "horizon" problem, but it makes the formation of large scale structure easier to understand, as the "inflation" grabs and expands primordial ripples, along with everything else. But even in inflationary models, the universe was presumed to be slowing its expansion and not accelerating. No body predicted accelerating expansion, it was a surprise interpretation derived from high redshift supernova observations (and is still not an uncontroversial result). yec: And that is the problem, and the origin of Dark Energy. A little better. "Dark energy" is a euphemism for Einstein's "cosmological constant", usually assumed to be exactly zero until fairly recently. One of the beneficial side effects of high resolution observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is that the ripples in the CMB (aka "<a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html" target="_blank">CMB anisotropies</a>") allow one to model the geometry of space-time in some detail. Dark energy is used to balance dark matter, since there appears to be too much attractive matter in the universe to explain that fact that it is expanding at all, let alone accelerating. So the part about "bolistic" force not being able to explain the expansion is correct (even though there is no such thing as ballistic "force", as the yec author intended to mean by "bolistic"). Dark energy is not a "problem" for BB cosmology, it's just one more ingredient needed to understand the fundamentals. There. Now I can go home. Cheers. [ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tim Thompson ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2002, 01:01 PM	#3
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	gplant is also the guy who, maybe last fall, claimed on ICR's board that he had worked out all the errors in Einstein's work and might share his results with us if he got the time to post them. I guess he's been busy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.