Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[joobz]

All I believe I said was that the big bang points to a beginning of time space and matter much like Genesis points to a beginning of the universe. This correlation couldn't have occurred with the steady state theory.

Actually, as far as I understand, that's really not the case. The bbt doesn't suggest a beginning so much as a boundary condition.

Also, as Firegarden pointed out, how much latititude do you allow in genesis' description of the universe when making your comparisons. Are you ok with the fact that there is no firmament?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Why would someone who is religious say the idea of a beginning (of the universe) is "repugnant". He also was a great proponent of Einstein. He wrote the book over 10 years after his eclipse experiment. You must have missed that post. Peoples religious views do sometimes change in their lifetime.

And are you saying the agnostic Jastrow; and also Robert Wilson, are religious.

All this talk of sources is important only this far: how well do you understand the theory you’re discussing? You’ve provided quotes from a small handful of scientists (out of context). But the vast bulk of your reading on the theory -- and at least some of those scientist quotes -- appear to come from a single source with a distinctly religious agenda.

In other words, you seem to have learned BB theory from non-specialists peddling some kind of oddball Christ-centered physics. As has been pointed out extensively in this thread, the Geisler brand of cosmology is critically different from real honest-to-goodness physics on many important points.

I probably haven't read every word of the bible, but that doesn't keep me from understanding it. Let's just say I've read enough to of had the top three threads in the religious and philosophy forum. I've also read enough to know that string theory has been severely criticized and I will bring in those criticisms of it when I get the time.

So you haven’t read any non-biased books on cosmology. Do you understand why that’s a problem?

It incidentally explains why your “science” threads are so active -- there’s so darn much to correct, and you appear to be highly resistant to correction.

Oh, and I have criticisms of string theory, too. So do many scientists actually working in the field. So what? The invitation of constant criticism is one of the most powerful tools in science. I'm wondering if you understand why that is. We should discuss it if you'd care to.

...snip...
All I believe I said was that the big bang points to a beginning of time space and matter much like Genesis points to a beginning of the universe.
...snip...

This is certainly not all you’ve been saying...

Time is a thing that had a definite [my bold --ed] beginning according to science.

Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.

Einstein for one. That's why he added his fudge factor. Because it was difficult for him to accept that the universe had a definite beginning.

And so on.

Lastly, you keep claiming a similarity between Genesis and BB theory. It might help if you gave us something more meaty than a vaguely stated assertion. I’d be very interested to know how deep you think the similarities go. Are they as trivially shallow as they appear? (Yes, I'm joining the illustrious joobz and FireGarden bandwagon.)

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Know what? I’ve changed my mind. I’m jumping off the illustrious joobz and FireGarden bandwagon (though I wish them luck ).

The BB theory of ten years from now could look completely different from today’s theory. Entire revolutions in physics could occur between then and now. No matter how many similarities you find between Genesis and today’s BB models, they could all vanish overnight.

Which is why I posted previously...

If your faith is dependent on the ever-shifting winds of science, then it could be undermined at any newly discovered fact, revolution, or paradigm shift. Worse, if it’s dependent on faulty or misunderstood science, then you’ve got much bigger problems, obviously.

And if it can’t be undermined by new discoveries -- if your faith transcends science and isn’t dependent on such facts at all -- then why are you arguing cosmology with us?

 

[FireGarden]

"By 1922, Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error. (Incredibly in his quest to avoid a beginning, the great Einstein had divided by zero - something even schoolchildren know is a no-no!)

Here is Einstein apologising to Friedmann: link

I have in an earlier note (Einstein 1922) criticized the cited work (Friedmann 1922).My objection rested however | as Mr. Krutko in person and a letter from Mr.Friedmann convinced me | on a calculational error. I am convinced that Mr.Friedmann’s results are both correct and clarifying. They show that in addition to the static solutions to the eld equations there are time varying solutions with a spatially symmetric structure.

Here's a biography of Friedmann which tells the same story:
http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Friedmann.html

Friedmann is quoted regarding Einstein's solution. Nowhere in the biography do I read that Friedmann thought Einstein's static solution was mathematically incorrect.

The stationary type of Universe comprises only two cases which were considered by Einstein and de Sitter. The variable type of Universe represents a great variety of cases; there can be cases of this type when the world's radius of curvature ... is constantly increasing in time; cases are also possible when the radius of curvature changes periodically ...

So I think we've found another error in your source. They say "Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error." You'll have to back that up.

What I've been able to find says that Friedmann showed there were other solutions. Einstein made an error in criticising Friedmann's work (I don't know the nature of the error). Einstein admitted that error, and accepted Friedmann's solution as being mathematically valid alongside Einstein's own solution.

 

[FireGarden]

Know what? I’ve changed my mind. I’m jumping off the illustrious joobz and FireGarden bandwagon (though I wish them luck ).

You may only have been aboard a short while, but we charge by the day.

You make a good point, however....
I don't think it's right to cherry pick one aspect of a theory to support one's own, while ignoring the other aspects. If Doc is going to pick and choose, then he should support his choices.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Sorry, one more thing.

Doc, I am glad that you now fully accept the big bang theory. Well done.

True enough, but he seems to have accepted a pretty corrupted theory (I take it you weren’t being sarcastic).

For the record, though, I would like to compliment DOC’s persistence in this thread. He’s responding to a good number of posts and managing largely to avoid personal insults, while getting battered on all sides. The last debate I had with a similarly emphatic JREF Christian, I was put on ignore two posts into questioning the extent of his scientific knowledge.

I could only wish that DOC respected the physics itself more. I really think we’d have a shot at some potentially very interesting conversations.

Perhaps this is a case where stubbornness is simultaneously a virtue and a vice.

You may only have been aboard a short while, but we charge by the day.

Right. I think I left my wallet in General Skepticism and The Paranormal. Be right back...

*sound of car door slamming... squealing tires...*

 

[Lothian]

Sorry, one more thing.

True enough, but he seems to have accepted a pretty corrupted theory (I take it you weren’t being sarcastic).

No, I was being very serious. It was not long ago that Doc did not accept the big bang theory. Now he appears to fully accept it but thinks the bible predicted it all.

Whether the bible words can be twisted to support the big bang theory is a red herring. The bible is an exceedingly poor science text book only slightly better than it is a moral guide and no sane person would rely on it for either.

The key is that Doc accepts the big bang created everything as opposed the traditional biblical idea that one day there was nothing the next day God snapped his fingers and a fully formed earth appeared.

We know that the big bang is all that is needed to form the universe including the earth.

Many Christians believe that God lit the big bang touchpaper. Perhaps he did then sat back and admired his work (obviously he couldn't interfere once the big bang was set off as tinkering would mean he made a mistake or didn't get the big bang right). If Christians want to place God before the big bang that is fine. It is when he comes in after that problems start.

 

[DOC]

Doc, I am glad that you now fully accept the big bang theory. Well done.

I accept the universe had a beginning, just like the BB and Genesis says. And I agree with Robert Jastrow's statement that the beginning was supernatural.

 

[Mark Felt]

And I agree with Robert Jastrow's statement that the beginning was supernatural.

Jastrow isn't speaking about the science when he says that. I'm just going to point this out. Again.

 

[DOC]

They say "Einstein's fudge factor didn't fudge for long. In 1919, ...." And go on about Eddington's experiment. Then they follow that with Eddington still not liking a beginning to the universe.


Look at this way: When you first read the quote, did you know that Eddington's experiment still permitted a static universe? If not, then you were misled. And I fail to see how any reader could avoid being misled, other than by ignoring what was written or already knowing the truth.

The bottom line is you wouldn't have made your post if you had read the whole chapter of the book. You only had a short excerpt from which to give an opinion.

While the wording of the paragraph wasn't the clearest when you look at it alone. It becomes much clearer when you read the next paragraph that talks about Friedman's exposure of Einstein's algebraic error.

 

[DOC]

Jastrow isn't speaking about the science when he says that. I'm just going to point this out. Again.

Well then what was he speaking about when he said this:

"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

 

[Mark Felt]

Well then what was he speaking about when he said this:

"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

His personal beliefs.

 

[articulett]

Indeed, I think if it was a "scientifically proven fact", the rest of the world would have heard about it. As far as I know, nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist in any way... much less in any way that distinguishes such a thing from a delusion of such.

 

[joobz]

The bottom line is you wouldn't have made your post if you had read the whole chapter of the book. You only had a short excerpt from which to give an opinion.

It was enough to show that there was an error. If you believe the "rest of the chapter" corrected this error, please feel free to present this.

 

[Mark Felt]

The bottom line is you wouldn't have made your post if you had read the whole chapter of the book. You only had a short excerpt from which to give an opinion.

While the wording of the paragraph wasn't the clearest when you look at it alone. It becomes much clearer when you read the next paragraph that talks about Friedman's exposure of Einstein's algebraic error.

There have been offers made to send you free books that will make everything that you've asked about in this thread much clearer. Why don't you follow your own advice?

 

[joobz]

I accept the universe had a beginning, just like the BB and Genesis says.

In other words, you accept science* when it agrees with your prejudices.


*in this case, I refer to the "science" as you understand it, which may or may not be an accurate portrayal of what the current scientific consensus is.

 

[FireGarden]

The bottom line is you wouldn't have made your post if you had read the whole chapter of the book. You only had a short excerpt from which to give an opinion.

Yes I would.
Answer my question: When did you first know that Eddington's experiment had nothing to do with testing that the Universe was static?

While the wording of the paragraph wasn't the clearest when you look at it alone. It becomes much clearer when you read the next paragraph that talks about Friedman's exposure of Einstein's algebraic error.

Here's that paragraph again:

"But Einstein's fudge factor didn't fudge for long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true- the universe wasn't static but had a beginning."

Even with everything that follows that...
They imply that Eddington's experiment was the first nail in the coffin of a static universe. It was not even a distant cousin of such a nail.

They even underline the point they're making by saying "the universe wasn't static but had a beginning." It was much too soon to reach that conclusion. Yet they do.

That is a mistake.

Friedman's exposure of Einstein's algebraic error.

"By 1922, Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error. "

Did you read my other post?
I think they made another mistake. Friedmann pointed out an error Einstein made in a criticism of Friedmann's own work.


Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#The_cosmological_constant

The cosmological constant term was originally introduced by Einstein to allow for a static universe (i.e., one that is not expanding or contracting). This effort was unsuccessful for two reasons: the static universe described by this theory was unstable, and observations of distant galaxies by Hubble a decade later confirmed that our universe is, in fact, not static but expanding.

[...] Despite Einstein's misguided motivation for introducing the cosmological constant term, there is nothing inconsistent with the presence of such a term in the equations. Indeed, recent improved astronomical techniques have found that a positive value of [the cosmological constant] is needed to explain some observations, like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Given that second paragraph, I don't see how the CC was an algebraic error.

 

[DOC]

There have been offers made to send you free books that will make everything that you've asked about in this thread much clearer. Why don't you follow your own advice?

This post is clearly flooding the thread. But I'm sure it will happen again. As it has many times in the past. I will complain to a moderator about this one.

 

[bokonon]

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[DOC]

It was enough to show that there was an error. If you believe the "rest of the chapter" corrected this error, please feel free to present this.

What was the exact error in your own words?