Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

[2020hindsight]

As for Dawkins, he is a fundamentalist, the Taliban of athiests. Michael Ruse a noted athiestic apologist stated that Dawkins' last book, the God Delusion makes you embarassed to be an athiest.

Unfortunately dawkins pushes his beliefs and never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

ktrianta

there's an entire thread dedicated to Dawkins and his many and varied scientific pursuits.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8806&highlight=dawkins

we're up to post #141, and noone has yet posted an error that he has made.

"The Taliban of atheists" lol
what would you call that?

a cheap word-association maybe ?

you sure you're not a politician lol.

 

[2020hindsight]

but back to your post link re dark matter etc.
No question there are fudge factors to try to calculate gravity and the forces necessary to explain observed behaviour of the "majestic sweep of the universe", etc ...
Not sure that that changes the fact that (on simple elementary level) stars / galaxies can be observed to be travelling roughly away from each other and pretty much from some central region.

Heck - even Einstein ended up tied in knots trying to marry up the theories out there , (quantum mechanics, relativity, gravity, electromagnetism etc - all of which make sense individually, - and useful in themselves in their area of specialty , but difficult to combine into a single "equation") and was found wanting

We have some ways to go to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, I'm sure.
At this point in time I understand that there are too many crossed eyes and dotted teasers.

Speaking of the Unified Theory (that alluded Einstein) - this one from a few years back of course ( Carl Sagan,Stephen Hawking etc )

Carl Sagan - God, the Universe, & Everything Else 1988

Carl Sagan : "Those are interesting questions, maybe you will find the answer in your lifetime. It would be very healthy for the human species if there was less discouragement and more scientists " "

If you go to the 2m20s mark , Stephen Hawking seems happy with the general concept of Big Bang.

"15 billion years ago the galaxies were on top of each other"
"time began at the big bang"
"universe expanded in rapid manner"
"billions of billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second"
etc .

good enough for these blokes - who am I to argue, lol ? - I'm just a dumb engineer

Stephen Hawking - God, the Universe, & Everything Else / Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke (1988)
British journalist and TV host Magnus Magnusson tackles big questions about our universe in this educational colloquium that brings together three of the 20th century's leading scientific thinkers: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, astronomer Carl Sagan and author Arthur C. Clarke. They explore everything from the Big Bang Theory to the expansion of the universe, black holes, extraterrestrial life and the origins of creativity.

 

[2020hindsight]

the first youtube applies to the same interview ( excerpts only available possibly due to copyright etc)

Sagan Clarke and Hawking 1996

This one is Carl Sagan getting down to the REALLY tough questions - - his last interview before dying of cancer, interview May 27 1996, (died 7 months later on Dec 20 1996)

Carl Sagan's Last interview Part 2 (terrible voice/video synch)
"We should demand the most rigorous standards of evidence especially on what's important to us" , ..... "added reserves of scepticism etc" .. "does the evidence support it"; we conclude "unproved" ..... on things like Heaven etc.

Here's part1 if you're interested...
Carl Sagan's Last interview Part 1

 

[ktrianta]

ktrianta

there's an entire thread dedicated to Dawkins and his many and varied scientific pursuits.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8806&highlight=dawkins

we're up to post #141, and noone has yet posted an error that he has made.

"The Taliban of atheists" lol
what would you call that?

a cheap word-association maybe ?

you sure you're not a politician lol.

20/20,

No I am not a politician. I can cite one example off the top of my head where he is wrong for you. Where he talks in the blind watchmaker, that a hypothetical alien who lives 100 million years would expect to get a perfect hand of bridge dealt to him from time to time and would not think to write home about it. Well this is plain wrong. Do the maths, even if this hypothetical alien were to play 10 hands a day for the whole of his life, at the end of 100 million years, he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge.

Can't argue with maths. Was he sloppy or decitful?? Who knows, he is of course a zoologist and makes many statements outside of his field of expertise. Clearly maths is not one of them.

Heres another one, In the God delusion, he said that "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal". Irrespective of what one believes, does anyone seriously believe that the church has not believed this through the ages and that dawkins has now been privy to some special revelation. Next thing he will tell us is that the Pope aint Catholic.

Anyway, I posted this here as Dawkins was discussed (as was not aware of the other thread), so I added a few comments but my main aim was to show that many scientists belive that the Big bang is plain wrong and contradicted by the facts and new thinking is needed.

 

[2020hindsight]

20/20,

No I am not a politician. I can cite one example off the top of my head where he is wrong for you. Where he talks in the blind watchmaker, that a hypothetical alien who lives 100 million years would expect to get a perfect hand of bridge dealt to him from time to time and would not think to write home about it. Well this is plain wrong. Do the maths, even if this hypothetical alien were to play 10 hands a day for the whole of his life, at the end of 100 million years, he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge.

Can't argue with maths. Was he sloppy or decitful?? Who knows, he is of course a zoologist and makes many statements outside of his field of expertise. Clearly maths is not one of them.

Heres another one, In the God delusion, he said that "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal". Irrespective of what one believes, does anyone seriously believe that the church has not believed this through the ages and that dawkins has now been privy to some special revelation. Next thing he will tell us is that the Pope aint Catholic.

Anyway, I posted this here as Dawkins was discussed (as was not aware of the other thread), so I added a few comments but my main aim was to show that many scientists belive that the Big bang is plain wrong and contradicted by the facts and new thinking is needed.

I think he said ( on same theme) that when you drink a glass of water, there's a better than even chance that an atom of H or O or H2O molecule ( forget the details) probably passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell. Something about "more molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the world" - or something like that. - OBVIOUSLY that is extremely simple and "approximate".

PS I meant on something substantive I guess. - but I'll see if I can find it and get back .

PS I can tell you that my mum deals a perfect hand of bridge all the time lol - she just forgets to tell you that she's stacked the pack - but then when you're her age ( approaching the big ton), you can claim a bit of humourous senility I guess .

She'll ask, lol - what should I bid ? - and there she is holding all the spades - and her partner has all the hearts lol- she's funny man.

So I say " well how about slam spades mum?
she says " but . but , my partner has such lovely hearts!"

PS I read recently that quantum theory requires you to give a probability to every damned thing - including the miniscule probabilty of walking through a wall because the atoms all line up to pass each other etc.

 

[Wysiwyg]

My turn
So we know how organic things create organic things, and we know that (not how exactly,explosions or something?) inorganic things create inorganic things.Yes.
What we don`t know is how inorganic things created this planet.For Pete`s sake don`t say God,Jim,Frederick or Samantha did it.

By the way, there is a partial Solar eclipse this week ....

The Partial Solar Eclipse on February 7th 2008 will be visible from parts of South-Eastern Australia and all of New Zealand. The Annular Solar Eclipse is visible only in Antartica. It will not be visible at all for the rest of Australia or the world.

Partial Solar Eclipse

A Partial Solar Eclipse is when the Earth passes into the Moon's penumbral shadow. From Earth, the Moon only partly covers the Sun. This type of eclipse can be seen by a larger area on Earth because the broader Penumbral shadow is cast across a wider track of ground on Earth.

During a Partial Solar Eclipse, the Sun will appear to have a bite taken out of it. Depending on the amount of obscuration (how much of the Sun is obscured by the Moon), you may not notice any difference to the daylight. If a large part of the Sun is obscured, the Sun can take on a crescent shape and the daylight will be dimmed, similar to an overcast day.

It is extremely dangerous to directly look at the sun without special eye protection during a Partial Solar Eclipse.

I`m off to see the wise man in the cave on the mountain.

Bye.

p.s. ref. = iceinspace.

 

[2020hindsight]

quick comment from the peanut gallery
chances of being dealt all the spades is 6.25 E11
number of planets ? - about 1E21 (according to NASA)
so there are more planets in the unverse than chances of all spades - by a factor of 1.57E9 , or 1,570,000,000 times as many stars as chances.

It's all so humbling.

(don't forget a full hand of spades is like trying to win lotto with 52 balls, out of which they pick 13 (think I'm right there - just some quick thoughts whilst watching Kokoda on TV)

PS wys, Thanks for the advice - solar eclipse - 7 Feb you say
the Chinese will say it's something to do with Chinese NY (also 7 Feb) !!
year begins on 2/07/2008
Year of the Rat - you have to be cunning to win they say .

Kung (Koong) hay fut choy as they say in Cantonese

 

[2020hindsight]

Heres another one, In the God delusion, he said that "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal". Irrespective of what one believes, does anyone seriously believe that the church has not believed this through the ages and that dawkins has now been privy to some special revelation. Next thing he will tell us is that the Pope aint Catholic.

:topic
There was a post way back by Robroy...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=156205&highlight=virgin#post156205

The second or third paragraph ....

If it's the Christian God, allow me to add a layer to my previous post: the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, and an awful lot of miraculous New Testament stuff, was added to Christian scripture early in the fourth century when the Roman Empire took over the Church. (The Church version is that the Emperor Constantine was converted.)

There was no belief as to Jesus' resurrection before then - e.g. by the surviving apostles, in the years after his death - at least not according to the earliest Christian documents.

I've never really researched it further - although I should've and no doubt will - But it belongs on a different thread to this one.

 

[2020hindsight]

I can cite one example off the top of my head where he is wrong for you. Where he talks in the blind watchmaker, that a hypothetical alien who lives 100 million years would expect to get a perfect hand of bridge dealt to him from time to time and would not think to write home about it. Well this is plain wrong.

Do the maths, even if this hypothetical alien were to play 10 hands a day for the whole of his life, at the end of 100 million years, he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge.

Can't argue with maths. Was he sloppy or decitful?? Who knows, he is of course a zoologist and makes many statements outside of his field of expertise. Clearly maths is not one of them.

ok kt,
you are not correct. (speaking of sloppy maths lol)
you say 10 hands per day for 100 million years ... (only - we'll try a more sensible number below)

that's 10 x 365 x 100,000,000 = 3.65 E11 hands (with 10 per day - say 1 per 2 hours or thereabouts - pretty slow game of bridge)

there are 52 x 51 x 5 x..... x 41 x 40 / (13 x 12 x 11 x ... x 2 x 1) = 6.25 E11 hands of cards, and one of them is "the perfect hand " of all spades.

So he would have a 50-50 chance of getting a perfect hand in his lifetime.
You claim "he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion " .

might be time for YOU to do the maths kt.

But lets try a sensible amount of bridge hands - say 10 hands per hour x say 15 hours per day = 150 hands per day

In that case his chances go up by a factor of 150 yes?
i.e. he gets about 8 hands in his lifetime.

Not sure what Dawkins claimed - but your claims would appear to be wrong.

Double check me by all means - but I think you've been reading one of those anti-Dawkins books
and many of them are BOTH sloppy AND deceitful.

 

[2020hindsight]

he would only have a probability of 1 in a quadrillion of seeing a perfect hand of bridge

hell - he gets better odds than that for ONE hand !

chances per 1 hand = 1 in 6.25E11
1 quadrillion = 10E11

think you misread that chapter of your anti-Dawkins book.
I suspect it has been written by the Taliban of mathematicians.

E&OE - I've done this in a hurry lol

 

[ktrianta]

Hi 2020,

Appreciate that you did the calc's but you need to do them again.

Dawkins said that it would not be unusual for this hypothetical alien to see a "perfect" bridge hand where each player was dealt thirteen cards of the same suit. You calc's are based on only 1 player being dealt the whole suit not all 4 as Dawkins suggested.

Do the calc's again and you will see that my calcs are correct and that Dawkins was sloppy and/or decietful.

He has a history of being sloppy, why would Michael Ruse a noted athiestic apologist claim that the God delusion makes you embarassed to be an athiest? Even the Guardian had a review of the God delusion where they canned the work (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2006/09/post_387.html). You can fool some of the people some of the times, but really he is sloppy.

In 5 pages in the God delusion he claims that jesus did not claim that he was God, the writers of the Gospel probably did not meet jesus and that jesus may not have even existed. Each of these assertions is made without a shred of supporting evidence and amount to so much bluff and bluster. Surely if you are going to make such wild claims back it up with something more than empty words. It is like a person who has no basiis for saying something flaying about at anything and hopes that eventually if you throw enough mud something will stick.

Don't you agree that such assertions at least require reasoned argument? Why then has he not backed them up? Is he being sloppy and/or decitful????

Having read the other thread, i see that you are a Dawkins devotee, so I guess you would be a bit defensive, but really if somebody says something that is silly, lets not regurgiate it because we admire the person who said it. Let us use our reason and critical faculties against such extremism - hence my statement the Taliban of Athiests.

 

[2020hindsight]

Hi 2020,

Appreciate that you did the calc's but you need to do them again.

Dawkins said that it would not be unusual for this hypothetical alien to see a "perfect" bridge hand where each player was dealt thirteen cards of the same suit. You calc's are based on only 1 player being dealt the whole suit not all 4 as Dawkins suggested.

Do the calc's again and you will see that my calcs are correct and that Dawkins was sloppy and/or decietful.

holy bridge hands batman!!

I make the chances of getting the perfect hand (under your slightly crazy definition) as anything from 5.4E28 to 8.9E27 depending on the gobblegook-ness of the definition.

Then again your definition is so spurious as to be almost nonsensical.

You (as N) have to have 13 spades - agreed!
now
does E have hearts? or does S ? or W?
back soon ... (interesting show on TV)

PS when my mum deals - she does indeed have all the hearts, clubs, diamonds in the other 3 hands -
why ? I don't know
It is irrelevant !!
I mean , if you've got all the spades you are INVINCIBLE

PS she looks you in the eye and says that that's how they came off the pack - and the top of the pack at that
she's funny man

 

[ktrianta]

2020,

Not my definition but Dawkins, so know we finally have agreement.

I agree with you that a lot of what Dawkins says is so spurious as to be almost nonsensical.

2020 just remember Dawkins is not infallible, although as the Taliban of Athiests, i guess he probably thinks that he is.

We are better than that, we use reason and logic.

Dawkins is so intolerant in his writings that it is not hard to see why the Gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, Hitler's gas chambers, the cultural revolution of MAO and so on were all made possible in our so called enlightened societies.

 

[2020hindsight]

2020,

1. Not my definition but Dawkins, so know we finally have agreement.

2. I agree with you that a lot of what Dawkins says is so spurious as to be almost nonsensical.

3. 2020 just remember Dawkins is not infallible, although as the Taliban of Athiests, i guess he probably thinks that he is.

4. We are better than that, we use reason and logic.

5. Dawkins is so intolerant in his writings that it is not hard to see why the Gulags of Stalin, the killing fields of Pol Pot, Hitler's gas chambers, the cultural revolution of MAO and so on were all made possible in our so called enlightened societies.

1. Well - big bludy deal, we are arguing about the irrelevancies of what the other hards contain. So it was a typo! sheesh! - (giving you the benefit of the doubt here)

2. ahh kt - please don't twist my words (**)

3. You have yet to make a sensible significant dent in his logic

4. If you don't mind me saying so, you don't seem to be able to do the maths you claim to know so much about

5.. yeah yeah yada yada ...

not very conducive to a sensible argument.

(Note ** If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools )

PS Here's an actual quote of Dawkins .
Are you sure you're not taking liberties with the truth here ?

 

[2020hindsight]

Lemme tell you something kt

I have little time for the organised religions

But I find that "just plain honesty" is a pretty good substitute

 

[Pat]

At first I thought most of these posts should go in the new "I love/hate Dawkins thread".

Then reading on I thought it should be moved to the kt vs 2020 thread.

But look what its become.


Although quite entertaining :

 

[roland]

anyone wtach Top Gear last night? Can you believe they built a rocket - what a hoot? Great launch - terrible re-entry.

If they had of flown a little higher, they would have made "thread relavance", now that would have Astronomical

 

[Pat]

anyone wtach Top Gear last night? Can you believe they built a rocket - what a hoot? Great launch - terrible re-entry.

If they had of flown a little higher, they would have made "thread relavance", now that would have Astronomical

Nup didn' see it, is it on FOXTEL or SBS? I love that show, just forgot about it i guess, last time I heard about top gear was when the little bloke had that crash.

How high did the rocket go?

What was its fuel?

 

[BIG BWACULL]

Heh heh what a crack up i just you tubed it quality is a bit how ya goin but heres the link t have a look, love the last comment "how we suppose to use it again" LOL
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=[aylctl44BFQ]

 

[BIG BWACULL]

BLAST OFF :