Posted on 05/25/2009 9:31:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Is 'String' the next big thing?: Theories about cosmic evolution dangle by a thread
by Gary Bates
Most people have heard of the expression ‘the big bang’. Its usage is so prevalent among mainstream scientists and the media that it has become the accepted ‘fact’ for how the universe began. However, there are an increasing number of secular scientists who are sceptical of this theory of cosmic evolution, and much of their scepticism has been caused by increasing discoveries that fly in the face of big bang theory. In May 2004 ‘An Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ signed by dozens of secular scientists was advertised in the renowned New Scientist. At the time of writing this article, the total number of scientists signing the letter who are sceptical of the big bang has increased to over 400.[1]
One of the great problems for those who believe that the universe came into existence by itself is...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
Fools.
My cat is fascinated by the string theory and would toy with it for hours if I would let him.
Generally, the same old stuff.
This is a good point, though. “Attempts to prop up this theory in the face of increasing problems have led to many weird hypotheses invoking mysterious unseen forces known as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to basically hold the universe together or to push it apart.”
Whenever your theory requires undetectable forces to work, you might want to re-examine your theory. Doesn’t mean the undetectable factors might not exist, but assuming their existence isn’t very scientific.
a lie by any other name is still a lie..
now a full blown self delusional lie....
Actually, most physicists are frustrated with String theory because it doesn’t predict anything that can be tested.
Until it can be tested even physicists will not accept it.
The authors apparently believe that Big Ban Theory assumes there is no God.
In fact, the theory itself says nothing of the kind. In fact, BBT is fully congruent with the idea of Creation. All it requires is the belief that God set off the Bang. What precipitated the Bang is not addressed in the theory.
String theory is just another useless theory that gives useless math professors addicted to working on endless equations something to do.
Yeah, just like general relativity. Never any application.. oh wait.
"...when he shouts, the world disintegrates." (Ps.46:6).
This “article” is an epic, Straw Man Wrestling Match.
Okay. But where was particle and who put it there?
==The authors apparently believe that Big Ban Theory assumes there is no God.
You may want to read the following, especially Point 7 to the end.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
What application does string theory have in YOUR daily life, other than to prove you don't have one?
In fact the big bang theory lead many scientists to declare their belief in God or at least intelligent design. If you believe the universe is 12 billion years old or somewhat, that simply isnt enough time according to the darwinists to evolve the structure and complexity of life and cosmos we see today
Hence the oscillating universe theory. Everytime science finds something that seems to indicate creation rather than natural processes, the theories get further out and more fantastic to try to counter any possibility of God. Those pushing the ever more contorted theories are fools.
scared.
Relativity was based on a progression of prior works. Hertz, Lorentz, Poincare, etc. weren’t just making things up. Incorporating things like dark matter and dark energy as fudge factor because your theories don’t work is a bit absurd. Relativity made specific testable predictions. None of the string theories currently do.
If string theory is true, then why string theory rather than nothing? And why is string theory the way it is rather than some other way?
The scientist's creed:
Must...Not....Cede.... ANYTHING..... to...... Creationists! MUST..... invent.....a...... Hypothesis..... which....... Excludes...... God......Entirely! Must..... NEVER...... Admit..... The...... Obvious..... If..... it......might...... look..... like....Creationists.....have....beeen.....right....all....along! ARRRRRRGH!
“If I knew God I’d be Him.”
Thanks for the latest installment of how to be ignorant.
I’m afraid the lesson is coming from your own head. As such, you have learned your lesson well.
I just love the outright hatred of science that poses absolutely no threat to their belief systems. Whatever fantasies they believe are not threatened by research into this area.
As usual, CS, you nailed it. I have pointed this out to the cosmic Evos many times, and all I ever get back is either silence, or insults.
There is also the hypothesis of an alternate universe which ‘passed through informaiton through black holes’ beleive it or not- I think it is Steve Hawkins who is gunning for that hypothesis- Time apparently stops at the rim of black holes, and somehow, according to him, allows info from alternate or parralel universes to seep through to ours dimension. His hypothesis was a radical departure from the idea that entities would be ripped apart if sucked into a black hole- can’t remember all the specifics now, but while an interesting hypothesis, it just shows hte lengths theorists go through to exclude God from the picture
lol- Hatred of science- by golly ya got us- by hte way, it’s not science when all you have to offer are assumptions - funny how creationsits are always attacked for their theory not being ‘testable, falsifiable, etc, but when it comes to secular ‘science’ proposing wild fantasies abotu past conditions for which they haven’t a clue, why all ‘requirements for science’ are out hte window- Hypocritical? Or heck no- after all- it’s ‘science’- and one dare not EVER question that ‘science’ lest they be labelled as ‘haters of science’ lol- what a crock!
Yeah, just like general relativity. Never any application.. oh wait.
Some things worth considering with respect to the Big Bang. See especially Point #7 to the end:
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
GPS for one. Wouldn’t be possible if they couldn’t correct for the time shifting due to the satellites’ velocities.
Usually an explosion creates disorder. Disaray. Winds down. What wound it up?
It's what they do..
It's ALL they do..
and they won't stop...
EVER!!
[[The fact that our physics can’t describe some of the things we observe tells me that we’ve got something wrong. It tells other people that there are invisible universes and they can only be described using mathematics that don’t work in practice. Fairies and toadstools anyone?]]
Actually, if htis fella is right, it can be evidenced, measured, and calculated, and it agrees with hte calculations:
“Standing waves imply the matter had an outer edge for the shock waves to rebound from. That would make the geometric centre be a centre of mass also. If we put those boundary conditions (an edge and centre) into Einstein’s equations of general relativity, we get the cosmology I presented in Starlight and Time. The centre of mass is a centre for gravitational forces, low in intensity but cosmic in extent. Then gravity causes large time dilation effects at the centre during one particular stage of the expansion.
Thus quantized redshifts are observational evidence for my cosmology, bearing out my preliminary claim in 1994:
‘In particular, the “quantized” distribution of galactic red shifts,3,22observed by various astronomers seems to contradict the Copernican principle and all cosmologies founded on it— including the big bang. But the effect seems to have a ready explanation in terms of my new non-Copernican “white hole” cosmology.’53 “
But apparently, this fella, according to some like Tolsti, this fella is nothign but a “Hater of science”- so any evidence he may come up with- regardless of how well it adheres to calculations and scientific observations, must be thrown out hte window apparently because it implies a designer-
Isn’[t that an application of Special Relativity rather than General Relativity?
A failed theory is not "science". Real scientists abandon theories when the evidence against it accumulated by scientific observation piles up, and move on to another theories.
Evo's don't follow scientific protocol. They just keep flogging the dead horse.
All this talk of “fudge factor” and “dark matter” reminds me of the time I was stuck in an elevator when I needed to have a bowel movement really bad and I am reminded the difference between theory and reality isn’t as sweet as some would think.
placemarker
This isn’t even about evolution though.
Time shifting huh ? And it's a real bugger when satellites shift over into another dimension altogether as well.
I guess the auther put 'cosmic evolution' in the title just for giggles.
Are you implying the universe is in some sort of static state and doesn’t ‘evolve’?
Trailer-Park Bob is a friend of mine.
You're no Trailer-Park Bob.
And no, the universe does not "evolve" in the sense you imply. Anything it does follows the laws of it's creator.
Did the universe have a beginning? Has it always been here? If so, why hasn’t it achieved entropic equilibrium? If it has not always been here, then from what and where did it originate? God knows.
A gross mis-characterization. String Theory is not a “replacement” for the Big Bang, it’s more of a new physics/mathematics able to work in the conditions of the early universe, very early.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.