Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

[Immortal4life]

Many people believe the "Big Bang" theory in a literal sense, not just as a theoretical or vague framework used to explain something we can never really observe.

 

One of the main reasons some people take such a literal view, is because of the claim of background radiation in the universe as being evidence of it.

 

However, for every scientific "theory" that has had evidence collected and catalogued to allegedly support it, there is contradictory evidence, there is evidence that doesn't quite fit that scientists can only label as "anomalous evidence", or evidence that has to be "explained away" through elaborate word play and excuses.

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

"Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment.

 

"Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

 

 

Anyways, what it shows to me is that we must always remember that theories are just theoretical frameworks, to give us a general idea, to be able to conceptualize things we cant really understand. I don't feel we should ever take a theory and visualize it as literally true or being exactly like how things really happened. Regardless of what evidence a theory has, it can be an illusion and misinterpretation, and it can even be overturned by another theory eventually and proven wrong. All kinds of things can happen.

[ralis]

Many people believe the "Big Bang" theory in a literal sense, not just as a theoretical or vague framework used to explain something we can never really observe.

 

One of the main reasons some people take such a literal view, is because of the claim of background radiation in the universe as being evidence of it.

 

However, for every scientific "theory" that has had evidence collected and catalogued to allegedly support it, there is contradictory evidence, there is evidence that doesn't quite fit that scientists can only label as "anomalous evidence", or evidence that has to be "explained away" through elaborate word play and excuses.

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

 

 

 

Anyways, what it shows to me is that we must always remember that theories are just theoretical frameworks, to give us a general idea, to be able to conceptualize things we cant really understand. I don't feel we should ever take a theory and visualize it as literally true or being exactly like how things really happened. Regardless of what evidence a theory has, it can be an illusion and misinterpretation, and it can even be overturned by another theory eventually and proven wrong. All kinds of things can happen.

 

 

I read the article you are referring to. If you read carefully, their research is not complete and is being submitted for publication. Publication is part of the peer review process and without that process, anyone can claim anything to be absolute fact. That is the difference between pseudoscience and the scientific method.

 

Do you believe for one minute these researchers are attempting to overturn decades of work? Dr. Lieu and his colleagues found a phenomenon that requires further explanation and that does not mean what you think!

 

Do you believe Einstein's work on general and special relativity is just another fancy theory? His work continues to hold up to scrutiny.

 

I have provided a link to a NASA course on Einsteins work with references. BTW, I noticed you provided no references to prove your point. So if you are up to it, there are several here that will provide an excellent critique of your faulty assumptions.

 

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Edited March 23, 2011 by ralis

[Creation]

I have long considered cosmology to not be on the same level of scientific validity as the rest of physics. Too much guesswork, too many hidden assumptions that are as or more likely to turn out to be wrong as right.

[Immortal4life]

We can worship the authority of scientific orthodoxy and peer review methods...We can nit pick on what stages certain findings may or may not be in, or may or may not have gotten to... We can draw all the arbitrary lines defining what is "psuedo" or what is "good method" that we want. We can cling to authority, "popular consensus", and the opinion of "most scientists" in the "community".

 

What I'm talking about is beyond one example out of hundreds. There is something in science that some people have called a Knowledge Filter. It's just the way it works as a method. As scientists are indoctrinated in and learn about science, it's methods, it's conclusions and beliefs, etc., they gain a certain worldview and they gain certain biases. They learn to look at things in only one way; they get tunnel vision. An example of this is in anthropology, they are taught to asign a ritualistic meaning to any ancient relic that is found. They are trained to look at all ancient cultures as superstitous.

 

At the end of the day, the so called methods of science don't always eliminate their own biases. They end up ignoring, covering up, or labelling as simply "anomolous", as much evidence as they find.

 

As for the theoretical components, well, theories are interesting. I would suspect that when it comes to the origins of the universe, structure, energy, matter, and things like that.....the theories that truly govern and create these things are far greater and much more grand than what we have today and what humans today have conceived of.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

[Jetsun]

I saw a programme on tv a few weeks ago about a centre where many of the worlds experts gather to discuss the origins of the universe, when asked if any of them believe in the traditional big bang theory none of them raised their hands, many of them believed in similar theories like multiple big bangs, but I just thought it was interesting that none of the worlds experts agree they all have different theories.

[Marblehead]

Many people believe the "Big Bang" theory in a literal sense, not just as a theoretical or vague framework used to explain something we can never really observe.

 

This is why I still refer to the Big Bang as a theory (although I do hold to it) while I refer to Evolution as a fact.

[joeblast]

The words are not the thing, at any rate. Always will be an abstraction! How else you want to describe observations, a framework, consistent hypotheses thereof? Is there any reason NOT to do so?

[NeiChuan]

I read the article you are referring to. If you read carefully, their research is not complete and is being submitted for publication. Publication is part of the peer review process and without that process, anyone can claim anything to be absolute fact. That is the difference between pseudoscience and the scientific method.

 

Do you believe for one minute these researchers are attempting to overturn decades of work? Dr. Lieu and his colleagues found a phenomenon that requires further explanation and that does not mean what you think!

 

Do you believe Einstein's work on general and special relativity is just another fancy theory? His work continues to hold up to scrutiny.

 

I have provided a link to a NASA course on Einsteins work with references. BTW, I noticed you provided no references to prove your point. So if you are up to it, there are several here that will provide an excellent critique of your faulty assumptions.

 

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

 

oh it's awn nao.

[Encephalon]

Immortal4Life, forgive me for being so blunt, but I think you've given us reason to believe that your quarrels with science and theoretical physics do not emanate from a sincere desire to see the scientific enterprise conducted with more integrity. Rather, the undercurrent of all you posts attesting to weaknesses in the modern scientific method emanates instead from 1) a genuine disappointment with the failure of modern science to address long-simmering global problems, and 2) an unrecognized impulse to imbue the practice of science with a teleological mission. Whetether you are speaking of "Gaia" getting angry and unleashing earthquakes and tsunamis, or postulating that the highest science might be a hybrid of "astronomy and astrology," you seem to be wrestling with the conviction that science simply isn't spiritual enough for you, that it is impersonal and too blind to see the Lofty Goals of the Universe.

 

Teleological arguments, those that claim the Universe is actively working on behalf of human aspirations, are extremely enchanting notions for a species as lonely as ours, but we've worked very hard over the centuries to eliminate these emotionally charged premises from the scientific method because they create really bad science.

 

When you get around to it, I'd still like to know where you performed all this post-doc research.

[ralis]

Immortal4Life, forgive me for being so blunt, but I think you've given us reason to believe that your quarrels with science and theoretical physics do not emanate from a sincere desire to see the scientific enterprise conducted with more integrity. Rather, the undercurrent of all you posts attesting to weaknesses in the modern scientific method emanates instead from 1) a genuine disappointment with the failure of modern science to address long-simmering global problems, and 2) an unrecognized impulse to imbue the practice of science with a teleological mission. Whetether you are speaking of "Gaia" getting angry and unleashing earthquakes and tsunamis, or postulating that the highest science might be a hybrid of "astronomy and astrology," you seem to be wrestling with the conviction that science simply isn't spiritual enough for you, that it is impersonal and too blind to see the Lofty Goals of the Universe.

 

Teleological arguments, those that claim the Universe is actively working on behalf of human aspirations, are extremely enchanting notions for a species as lonely as ours, but we've worked very hard over the centuries to eliminate these emotionally charged premises from the scientific method because they create really bad science.

 

When you get around to it, I'd still like to know where you performed all this post-doc research.

 

 

Very well stated!

[ralis]

It is very disturbing that so called creation science is being allowed in a Biology class in Chicago. One speaker said there is no proof of evolution. I can state with certainty that he believes the earth is 6000 years old. What the hell are these people afraid of?

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/libertyville-creationism-_n_839533.html

Edited March 23, 2011 by ralis

[NeiChuan]

What the hell are these people afraid of?

 

Reality

[Marblehead]

What the hell are these people afraid of?

 

Reality

 

Absolutely correct, IMO. And if this effected only themselves this wouldn't be such a proble.

 

However, in the process of ignoring reality they also ignore the problems facing humankind and this results in them doing nothing to solve the problems or even slow the causes down.

 

Only the blind can see the unbelievable because if you can see you will understand that the unbelievable in just ... unbelievable.

[NeiChuan]

What the hell are these people afraid of?

 

 

 

Absolutely correct, IMO. And if this effected only themselves this wouldn't be such a proble.

 

However, in the process of ignoring reality they also ignore the problems facing humankind and this results in them doing nothing to solve the problems or even slow the causes down.

 

Only the blind can see the unbelievable because if you can see you will understand that the unbelievable in just ... unbelievable.

 

Implications like that should be taught in schools. Things that start vicious cycles like it.

[ralis]

Move these same flat earth types back in time and they would burn anybody at the stake that disagrees with them. I wonder if they still believe the universe revolves around them?

[Marblehead]

Move these same flat earth types back in time and they would burn anybody at the stake that disagrees with them. I wonder if they still believe the universe revolves around them?

 

And the saddest aspect of what you said here is that it is more true than not.

 

That may have been sound thinking a thousand years ago but it is total nonsense today.

 

These are the sam folks who don't belive in climate change (I don't like using the term 'global warming' anymore). These folks will never recognize the problems facing humankind until it is far too late to take action and then they will say it is God's punishment on humankind for not keeping the faith.

 

Keeping your eyes closed to reality is the problem.

[joeblast]

Boy, I was hoping to have come back and actually have some of the scientific particulars mentioned!

[zerostao]

Boy, I was hoping to have come back and actually have some of the scientific particulars mentioned!

in the meanwhile joeblast , you might enjoy looking at this, i know you like the solar stuff

http://assets.cambridge.org/052182/1169/frontmatter/0521821169_frontmatter.pdf

yeah i know it is just a teaser. but i did notice a bum around here(somewheres) that does seem to have insight about magnetic reconnection

are you doing your daily?

imo there is alot of evidence that does suggest a big bang, just sayin

Edited March 24, 2011 by zerostao

[zerostao]

Immortal4Life, forgive me for being so blunt, but I think you've given us reason to believe that your quarrels with science and theoretical physics do not emanate from a sincere desire to see the scientific enterprise conducted with more integrity. Rather, the undercurrent of all you posts attesting to weaknesses in the modern scientific method emanates instead from 1) a genuine disappointment with the failure of modern science to address long-simmering global problems, and 2) an unrecognized impulse to imbue the practice of science with a teleological mission. Whetether you are speaking of "Gaia" getting angry and unleashing earthquakes and tsunamis, or postulating that the highest science might be a hybrid of "astronomy and astrology," you seem to be wrestling with the conviction that science simply isn't spiritual enough for you, that it is impersonal and too blind to see the Lofty Goals of the Universe.

 

Teleological arguments, those that claim the Universe is actively working on behalf of human aspirations, are extremely enchanting notions for a species as lonely as ours, but we've worked very hard over the centuries to eliminate these emotionally charged premises from the scientific method because they create really bad science.

 

When you get around to it, I'd still like to know where you performed all this post-doc research.

i am gonna stay(my thoughts) out of this topic.

there is a William Tiller, professor emeritus @Stanford univesity,

dept of materials science who disagrees with you Blasto

[ralis]

i am gonna stay(my thoughts) out of this topic.

there is a William Tiller, professor emeritus @Stanford univesity,

dept of materials science who disagrees with you Blasto

 

In what way does he disagree?

[zerostao]

In what way does he disagree?

http://tillerfoundation.com/

[Encephalon]

i am gonna stay(my thoughts) out of this topic.

there is a William Tiller, professor emeritus @Stanford univesity,

dept of materials science who disagrees with you Blasto

 

You are confusing my point about the folly of teleological arguments with the notion, as expressed by Tiller, that human consciousness and the power of intention can be externalized, a subject all self-described Taoists take seriously. They are not the same. They are radically different.

 

This is the second time you have completely misinterpreted my arguments. The first time was when you got yourself tangled in the ideas of Thomas Kuhn. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate your powers of attention before you look for fault in what I am saying? I may not be a sweet and soft angel of light but I do make the effort to post sensible arguments.

 

I would also point out that Tiller has earned the right to speak of these matters, while it is commonplace in this forum to find people who bring up subject matter in an authoritative manner and yet have no formal background in the subject at hand.

[zerostao]

You are confusing my point about the folly of teleological arguments with the notion, as expressed by Tiller, that human consciousness and the power of intention can be externalized, a subject all self-described Taoists take seriously. They are not the same. They are radically different.

 

This is the second time you have completely misinterpreted my arguments. The first time was when you got yourself tangled in the ideas of Thomas Kuhn. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate your powers of attention before you look for fault in what I am saying? I may not be a sweet and soft angel of light but I do make the effort to post sensible arguments.

 

I would also point out that Tiller has earned the right to speak of these matters, while it is commonplace in this forum to find people who bring up subject matter in an authoritative manner and yet have no formal background in the subject at hand.

thanks for the clarification. we were in agreement on Thomas Kuhn, as i stated in my last post on that thread.

i think i went awry in this instance while reading into your paragraph on teological arguments , so , for a bit more clarification, you are agreeing or dis-agreeing, that the universe is acting with human aspirations? or you were not adressing this at all?

i respect your intelligence and knowledge and your view. each time it seems we are close to being on the exact same page so i look for a little more clarification is all. i just wanted to present Tiller into this thread. i didnt think you would mind or take it personal if i chose to do so, where i did. i would also like to put John Barrow and Paul Davies cosmological ideas into this discussion.

[Encephalon]

thanks for the clarification. we were in agreement on Thomas Kuhn, as i stated in my last post on that thread.

i think i went awry in this instance while reading into your paragraph on teological arguments , so , for a bit more clarification, you are agreeing or dis-agreeing, that the universe is acting with human aspirations? or you were not adressing this at all?

i respect your intelligence and knowledge and your view. each time it seems we are close to being on the exact same page so i look for a little more clarification is all. i just wanted to present Tiller into this thread. i didnt think you would mind or take it personal if i chose to do so, where i did. i would also like to put John Barrow and Paul Davies cosmological ideas into this discussion.

 

Here's what I think about this discussion -

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCn3W38iGXk&feature=related