linate wrote: If a skeptic asked for the strongest evidence for the Big Bang, I’d focus on the observations that are difficult to explain any other way. …snip
With a little scientific investigation, I discovered your use of the so-called artificial intelligence (a.k.a. AI) data processor, OpenAI, to compose your response. For example, your images are hosted on the images.OpenAI.com Internet server (sampling list of your visible first 3 and last image’s links: image 1, image 2, image 3, and last image). Since you employed augmented intelligence (a.k.a. AI) to your own intellect, then you incorporated that AI into yourself. That first personal pronoun “I” in your post becomes you joined to AI. Your evolution religion and transhumanism are tightly coupled!
Red-shift is one of your star bible’s pillar foundations.
First, let’s look at a examination of red-shift, which you base on the so-called doppler effect of light, in the light of the scientific method:
- Phase: activity
- hypothesis: red spectral light received from a star in space indicates the star’s direction of travel away and great distance from Earth.
- experiment: no test cases.
- observation: none of experiments.
- conclusion: stars receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion trail longer red spectral light.
- confirmation: no experiments to repeat.
Red-shift conjecturers abysmally failed to completely apply the scientific method. Red-shift as a distance determinant is not science.
You are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on your assumptions, not science.
Sound waves are atmospheric tightly localized particle vibrations passed from particle to particle; on the other hand, light waves are projectile particles.
As an example of the doppler effect, when a fast moving train blows it’s whistle while passing a person, then the pitch increases on approach to the person (sound wave compression) and the pitch decreases as the train races toward the horizon (sound wave decompression) as the train leaves the person; however, red-shift conjecturers have no such proof for the doppler effect of light except for their hypothesis pointing at their conclusion joined with their conclusion pointing at their hypothesis.
Astronomers discovered a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two celestial objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal). Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified.
Sirius was known as the Star of Isis in ancient Egypt and was described as red, but Sirius is blue, now. This change describes a stellar u-turn.
Stellar red-shift is really stellar red-spectral frequency production.
Red-shift is an observed phenomena without a scientific explanation of “why”.
I didn’t even dig into your ridiculously miniscule observational window in terms of space and time,.. yet.
The evidence contradicts your section “1. The expansion of the universe (strong evidence)”. You have very bad evidence for your faith in the Big Bang.
Your star bible’s red-shift massive star distances doctrine is a leap of faith.
You opened your second section with a discreet lie of “In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space”, and here is the proof of concept.
I present to you the history which reveals CMB was a known quantity decades before 1965. This directly derails your “fact” leaving a mere residual called “faith”.
Andrew McKellar used W. S. Adams’ spectroscopic instrumentation during 1941 to measure background temperature of 2.3 K of a B type star.
In 1948, cosmologist George Gamow led a group that calculated cosmic microwave radiation.
The vaunted Bell Telephone Laboratories had a facility atop Crawford Hill in Holmdel, New Jersey where Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson experimented in 1964. They detected a homogeneous, constant radiation. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their CMB work.
Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University believed the Big Bang emitted a tremendous radiation blast resulting in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), and they prepared to investigate microwave radiation levels in the year 1964.
But, Bernard F. Burke, professor of physics at MIT, introduced the two groups working a mere 40 miles from each other.
The two groups agreeably jointly published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Two notes were published, (1) Dicke et al substantiated the Big Bang based on CMBR, and (2) Penzias et al noted the existence of 3.5 K CMBR universally.
In essence, your history of
In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space. The Big Bang predicted decades earlier that if the universe began in an extremely hot state, it should leave behind cooled radiation filling the cosmos. That’s exactly what was found
deceives people, including you.
It is time to compare and contrast these data collections:
- McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
- Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K
Your manipulation of statistics (mathematical nonsense) to arrive at “It has almost exactly the predicted temperature (2.725 K)” is a deeper lie and malevolent representation.
The astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said of astronomer astrologers, “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”, so you keep his words in mind while reading the following.
Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to your argument.
- McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4}
- Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5}
M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.
M=P is false.
M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.
MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.
Proof samples:
- M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
- M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
- MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
- MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
- MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5
The exemplary intersection (M∩P) elements of 3.1 and 3.2 sufficiently illustrate the cancelation effect of the corresponding intersection elements.
The result is M<P.
The CMBR temperature increases going forward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory which indicates a lower temperature in the past.
Set theory applied to your star bible data upends your “the universe began in an extremely hot state” writing.
Scientists like averages (mean), or medians, or blind faith guesses, such as your “2.725 K” CMBR temperature, so I present the mean temperature values to test your conclusion that there has been a decrease in the temperature over the years.
The data averaged:
- McKellar (1941): 2.5
- Penzias and Wilson (1965): 3.5
2.5=3.5 is false.
2.5<3.5 is true.
1941<1965 is true.
3.5-2 5=1.0 is true.
1965-1941=24 is true.
The five factual statements directly above show a 1.0 K increase of heat on average over a period of 2 dozen years starting in 1941 AD until 1965 AD.
A decrease in heat temperature from 1941 to 1965 is the Big Bang adherent’s requirement, but it’s just not there, so your CMBR is very bad evidence for your Big Bang.
The above dissection of your data shows that these are each distinctly different surveys:
- McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
- Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K
McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K is not isotropic agreement with Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K.
Statistical consolidation of the points is unreasonable because reasonable doubt has been cast by the potential for decreased temperature in earlier time thus anyone claiming increased temperature is a person defying the logical conclusion from the data; in other words, you cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around your Big Bang timeframe which would make the differences in points statistically insignificant. The differences in points are statistically significant as a function of the recorded increase in temperature over the decades, yet astronomer astrologers exhibit Stephen Hawking’s quote, recorded above.
In other words, these measurements are in agreement with one another that the Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.
Deception of the CMBR is a very poor method to present your case.
Various sources of material for this whole CMBR section include “cosmic microwave background” of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Cosmic microwave background” of Wikipedia, and “A Review of the 1941 to 1961 CMBR Temperature Measurements” on ResearchGate.
Your section ‘2. The Cosmic Microwave Background (the “afterglow”) (arguably the strongest single piece)’ is very bad evidence for the Big Bang. Logically, “strong evidence” represents strong grounds for disbelief in the Big Bang.
A prediction exposes a future person, place, or thing. The Big Bang purportedly existed as a thing of the past.
In your “3. The abundance of the light elements” section, your broken linguistics wrongly utilize predict for your past thing (Big Bang).
I present a real example of a prediction. Unless you think differently after an encounter with the Word of God, you will surely die in your crimes against the Living God who created you. See, I’m referring to the future.
Your section 3 fails to adhere to the Scientific Method in all aspects. Your hypothesis and conclusion are the same which leads you to circular reasoning. Nobody observed a natural phenomenon that you call the Big Bang, so your hypothesis is null and void. You have no experimentation, so you have no observations of said experimentation. Repeatability exists not. You do not have science because you have sorcery about your light recipes which you presented.
You leap to faith for your abundance of light as support for your Big Bang.
Galaxies changing over time does not indicate that a Big Bang occurred. The Earth revolves around the Sun, so this results in change for the Milky Way Galaxy, yet the Earth’s orbit is by no means proof of your fantasy Big Bang Theory.
If you looked at a small galaxy, then all you science (know) is that you saw a small galaxy in relation to your location. You know (1) not whether the galaxy is truly large and very distant, (2) not whether the galaxy is truly small and very near, (3) not the luminosity at the galaxy, and (4) not the galaxy size as an age determinant. Your “Young galaxies look: ● smaller” is an astoundingly unscientific conjecture (theory) which makes your conjecture a leap of belief/faith.
During your Big Bang, the speed of light was greatly exceeded. You do not know whether current conditions conducive to exceeding the speed of light exist out in the vastness of space; therefore, your “When we look billions of light-years away, we’re looking billions of years into the past”, presented as fact by you, is truly your faith based statement.
I examine just how untenable it is to believe you can accumulate sufficient data to draw conclusions about an event 13.8 billion years ago.
Carl Sagan wrote Cosmos, and in Cosmos, Sagan presented his Cosmic Calendar representing 13.8 billion years as a conventional single calendar year with January 1st as the Big Bang and December 31st as the current time. Are you familiar with Sagan’s work?
Sagan’s calculations put the birth of Christ on December 31st at 23:59:55. That’s mere seconds before the end of the calendar year.
Each second on the Cosmic Calendar corresponds to 438 Earth years, According to historians, Hans Lippershey applied for a “telescope” patent in 1608, and astronomical observations were initiated by Galileo Galilei using an improved design. For your sake in this model, I’ll give you the more ancient date of 1608 which is 417 years of documentary evidence for telescopes which is one second at the very end of that Cosmic Calendar year.
You believe you collected sufficient data about the Big Bang through such a negligibly small window, one second out of 31,536,000 seconds as represented by Sagan’s Cosmic Calendar.
As an aside, Edwin Hubble is largely credited by the scientific community with discovering in 1924 that almost all galaxies are moving away from Earth, about 100 years ago, which is the last one-quarter second of 23:55:59 on December 31st. Further distilling the times into equal time segments, each unit being equal to 0.25 of 1 second, the ratio is 1:126,144,000 for your data collection since Hubble’s work.
Back to giving you the full second.
The model also needs to compensate for space, and I’m extending a beneficial handicap to you. I’ll only calculate for an X-axis, and I’ll skip the Y-axis and Z-axis. Light reportedly travels at 186,000 miles per second, so one light year is about 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000 miles).
Earth is 8 light minutes from the Sun, so the field of measurement is about 16 light minutes (2,976,000 miles diameter of orbit).
Scientists speculate the solar system is about 4 light years across (24,000,000,000,000 miles).
Our own Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light-years (600,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across according to NASA personnel, and they estimate that the observable universe is about 92 billion light-years (552,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across.
As of Feb. 1, 2020, Voyager 1 is about 13.8 billion miles (13,800,000,000 miles) from the Sun.
Let’s pretend CMBR data, telemetry data, and such continues to flow back to Earth’s scientists from Voyager 1 collected with instruments congruent with 2025 technology instead of 1977 technology; in other words, I’m giving you another big fat handicap.
Your data collection ratio is 13.8:552,000,000,000,000 miles. That ratio is a linear X-axis - excluding the compounding effect of the Y-axis and the Z-axis.
Scientists collected data across 13.8:552,000,000,000,000 distance units spanning 1:31,536,000 time units (a.k.a. 438:13,800,000,000 time units). This is conservatively favorable to your advantage.
I observe that you collected data over an insufficient time frame in an insignificantly sized sampling region.
In conclusion, the Big Bang Theory is not science, and the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.
Scientists had a leap of faith with a data reading in time - a sliver of time - in a sliver of space. No detailed temperature with path history embedded in the particles. That’s not science.
The above is titled the Zenith Model.
Your “4. Galaxies evolve over time” section is laden with assumptions, that is, your believing without proof (see thefreedictionary.com/assumption).
As you coalesced your prior four points into your “5. Multiple independent measurements agree on the universe’s age”, your astronomer astrologer cosmic distance ladder, which you as a scientist failed to specifically name, emerges with broken and missing rungs; in other words, your Big Bang is a leap of faith as evidenced above. In fact, the following obliterates your foundational rungs.
Now, I arrived at your cosmic distance ladder or your “star bible” as I put it. You have a book of your forefathers, and that book was developed with less mature technology as compared to your current instruments.
A galaxy candidate named HDI is pegged at 13.5 billion light years from Earth by astronomers who put HDI in the early universe.
The astronomer astrologers cannot use parallax in combination with the inverse square law because of the hyper super-small angles (even in arcseconds), the requirement to know the luminosity at the source, or the requirement to know the distance to the object.
Astronomers already claim to know the distance without visiting the source to determine the brightness.
This leaves telescopes for determining the distance.
Astronomers claim that telescopes provides evidence for you, even that telescopes enable you to determine the distance from Earth to celestial bodies many light years away.
If you take a first measurement to a particular object in space from a telescope on Earth on June 21 and a second reading on December 21 of the same year, then you can use the angle-side-angle geometric formula to determine the distance to the object.
For the purposes of this example, I’m switching to a much more manageable distance from 13,500,000,000 light years (HDI) to an object 1 (one) light year away from Earth.
I want to give you an idea of just how narrow that triangle is by way of a scale model.
A first person uses a red marking pen to put a dot on the TransAmerica building in San Francisco.
A second person sets up two street survey instruments on tripods 800 miles away on the Space Needle in Seattle, and the survey instruments are set 16 inches apart. These two points sixteen inches apart represent Earth’s orbit around the Sun for a triangulation base.
Now, the second person finds the red dot and collects the angle-side-angle data for calculating the distance to the red dot.
That is one NARROW triangle, and that is merely a single light year scale model.
The triangle with respect to the nearest solar system, Andromeda, at 4 light years away, is much narrower. Think of it, the first person leaves San Francisco California, 800 miles from Seattle, to travel south, past Los Angeles, past Mexico City all the way through Mexico, further south into Central America, into the northern outskirts of Managua in Nicaragua, 3,200 miles from Seattle, and tethers a red helium filled balloon to the top of the tallest tree; meanwhile, the second person keeps the two survey instruments in the same 16" separated locations on the Space Needle in Seattle of the USA, and the second person finds the red balloon and collects the angle-side-angle data for triangulating the distance to the red balloon. Those angles are ever so slight!
linate, if you don’t perceive your evidence disappearing, then that’s a shame.
Astronomers claim VY Canis Majoris, is approximately 3,900 light-years away from Earth. Could the second person place a red tarp over the descent stage of the Lunar Module Eagle sitting on the moon for this example? Not without being about 60,000 to 80,000 miles too close to those two survey instruments sitting 16" apart on the Space Needle in Seattle, WA, USA, Earth (312,000 miles required for the 16" surveyor scale model)! I’m giving you the benefit of the red tarp over the decent stage, yet the triangulation has the appearance of being parallel lines for a celestial object far less than 100,000 light years from Earth, and this example hasn’t even touched upon the 100,000 light years diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, so Astronomers are faith based regarding celestial bodies being 1,000,000 (one million) light years from Earth instead of science based. 1,000,000,000 (one billion) light years from Earth is a triangulation distance measurement nightmare leap of faith calculation.
Back to galaxy candidate HDI, the resulting triangle using telescopes on Earth to arrive at 13.5 billion light years from Earth is nonscience, definitely not the scientific method.
Your star bible fails to help you avoid the leap of faith because your star bible itself is a foundation based on faith.
I title this the Episcopic Model that proves you only have the characteristics of received particle emissions at the time of reception. Light particles contain (1) no date of production data, (2) no static location of production data, and (3) no internally recorded path of travel data. You do not have accurate origin object distance nor luminosity nor size nor age for celestial objects purportedly exceeding 6,000 light years from Earth.
Your “What doesn’t the Big Bang explain?” is irrelevant.
Your “How strong is the evidence?” is addressed in detail, above, so it’s redundant and irrelevant.
Your AI failed to establish fact for the Big Bang, so your AI (augmented intelligence) is ieft with a leap of faith for the Big Bang.
You possess bad evidence for the Big Bang. Your grounds for belief (evidence) is just shifting sand, and Lord Jesus says this about shifting sand:
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.
(Matthew 7:24-27)
