Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38

    Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

    I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?

    Christian forums physical sciences has a thread of the same name. In case this one closes.
    Last edited by stardad; 2011-May-24 at 04:55 PM. Reason: link removed

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    From your link

    "The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic."

    So what about it?? An assumption and a dollar and a half might buy a cheap coffee.

    Now while you may not be able to prove the standard model, you are required to defend it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154
    Also from that link.
    To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10^−5 via observations of the CMB.The Universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?
    Actually, you need to prove that they don't. That's how the ATM forum works. Mainstream science is available in Universities, textbooks, on the net, whereever. It's not up to the members of BAUT to re-prove the mainstream every time the question is asked.

    If you think something is wrong, it's up to you to show that it's wrong.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2011-May-24 at 07:00 AM. Reason: More italics. All posts need more italics.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamotron View Post
    Also from that link.
    In what way is the creation remnant (CMB) measured to be homogeneous in a way that includes forces and laws?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    There's plenty of evidence that the laws of physics stay the same in different galaxies.

    First of all, using Occam's Razor it is more prudent to suppose that two things are the same than different.

    Then there's the fact that we have a wealth of observational data from thousands of galaxies throughout the Universe. They all look similar and appear to follow the same laws. They all seem to have stars and elements that behave in ways that can only be possible with the same set of physical laws.

    There are no apparent gradients of change in the laws of physics throughout the universe. The only example of that I can think of is that galaxies appear to be moving faster away from us the farther away they are, but that's not really an indication of different laws of physics in those locations (though it is interesting)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    There's plenty of evidence that the laws of physics stay the same in different galaxies.
    So you say...let's see it.
    First of all, using Occam's Razor it is more prudent to suppose that two things are the same than different.
    he was a Christian monk. If we want to use the monk's ideas, I guess we need God too? It is actually more prudent to be honest and admit what we know or not.
    Then there's the fact that we have a wealth of observational data from thousands of galaxies throughout the Universe. They all look similar and appear to follow the same laws. They all seem to have stars and elements that behave in ways that can only be possible with the same set of physical laws.
    Example?
    There are no apparent gradients of change in the laws of physics throughout the universe.

    How would you detect them if there were?

    The only example of that I can think of is that galaxies appear to be moving faster away from us the farther
    Red and blue shift require our light and laws. We do not know that they exist way out there. We assume so from this end.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    1. It has nothing to do with the man whose name is given to the idea, but everything to do with the idea itself. It is an important principle that i seek to use as an aid to help you better understand the universe. It is useful in the process of understanding things.

    2. An example would be the spectral lines of Hydrogen. These indicate that all galaxies have hydrogen, and that the hydrogen there has the same properties of quantum mechanics that causes its spectral lines to be where they are in the spectrum.

    3. We would detect them with our telescopic instruments

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    Red and blue shift require our light and laws. We do not know that they exist way out there. We assume so from this end.
    The Doppler effect is easily demonstratable here on Earth. When we observe the 21cm wavelength emissions from neutral hydrogen in the galaxy at a frequency below 1420.406 MHZ, how do you explain this other than Doppler shift?
    How would you detect them if there were?
    Because we are observing the universe and constantly using the observations to test our hypothesis. We're not so much interested in showing that we are right as we are in finding out what is actually going on. This is what astronomers do.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?
    There is lots of evidence they do. I don't know if you are unaware of it or just don't understand it. But that is irrelevant. It is not up to us to provide you with that "proof" (note that science doesn't deal in "proof", except in the old meaning of "test").

    If you want to argue that things are not the same throughout the universe, it is up to you to provide evidence of that and explain why all our models seem to work perfectly well when applied to observations.

    So, lets go. Where is your evidence?
    Last edited by Strange; 2011-May-24 at 08:11 AM. Reason: wording

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    In what way is the creation remnant (CMB) measured to be homogeneous in a way that includes forces and laws?
    You need to present some evidence that it is not.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    he was a Christian monk.
    More importantly, he was a philosopher. Do you want to present some evidence that Occam's rzor is not a good starting point for building models?

    Example?
    No. Do you have some evidence to the contrary??

    How would you detect them if there were?
    This is standard physics you can find in any textbook. Do you have any evidence that they do change?

    Red and blue shift require our light and laws. We do not know that they exist way out there.
    Do you have any evidence that they do not exist "way out there" And where, exactly, do they cease to exist?

    We assume so from this end.
    Wrong. Do you know how science works?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    To the thread: stardad has been infracted for not supporting his ATM claim. It would be best for members not to fall into the trap of explaining the standard model to him... without that at least being in reaction to actual effort on his part. It's his thread.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?
    You advanced the ATM, you need to prove that they don't. Let's see your proof.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamotron View Post
    The Doppler effect is easily demonstratable here on Earth. When we observe the 21cm wavelength emissions from neutral hydrogen in the galaxy at a frequency below 1420.406 MHZ, how do you explain this other than Doppler shift?
    Because we are observing the universe and constantly using the observations to test our hypothesis. We're not so much interested in showing that we are right as we are in finding out what is actually going on. This is what astronomers do.
    In case this thread gets closed because we can't do that in good faith, I suppose there would be other places to discuss it. http://www.christianforums.com/t7562694

    If the issue is whether the forces and laws are the same far away, why would you bring up how they work on earth?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    You advanced the ATM, you need to prove that they don't. Let's see your proof.
    Thanks. To discuss this we would need unbiased moderation. I hope we find that here. I would think that by science no proof exits either way. Either our laws apply far away or not. If we don't know fine. If we do, it will be proven or solidly evidenced here..or somewhere...[link removed]

    I do have reasons to suspect that the stars are more than physical only bodies, obeying physical only laws.
    Last edited by Jim; 2011-May-24 at 04:47 PM. Reason: link removed

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    More importantly, he was a philosopher. Do you want to present some evidence that Occam's rzor is not a good starting point for building models?
    I would think his monkness was more important.


    No. Do you have some evidence to the contrary??
    You have no example of stars being as was claimed and want evidence that they are not? Strange.


    This is standard physics you can find in any textbook. Do you have any evidence that they do change?
    The textbooks? Yes. They change like rolls of toilet tissue, very often. The laws? Yes. I have the history and ancient records of earth.

    Do you have any evidence that they do not exist "way out there" And where, exactly, do they cease to exist?
    There is no evidence that they do not or do that I am aware of using science as of yet.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    Thanks. To discuss this we would need unbiased moderation. I hope we find that here. I would think that by science no proof exits either way.
    Why would what you "Think" be relevant? What you can prove is relevant. So, prove your assertion or retract it.

    Either our laws apply far away or not. If we don't know fine. If we do, it will be proven or solidly evidenced here..or somewhere...http://www.christianforums.com/t7562694/
    Linking a religious forum is not a valid scientific proof.


    I do have reasons to suspect that the stars are more than physical only bodies, obeying physical only laws.
    How does this "belief" answer my challenge to your ATM?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Why would what you "Think" be relevant? What you can prove is relevant. So, prove your assertion or retract it.



    Linking a religious forum is not a valid scientific proof.




    How does this "belief" answer my challenge to your ATM?
    The spiritual has always been a part of the experience of man. Since science has such severe limits on what it knows, we must consider that the spiritual is also part of the far away universe.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    The spiritual has always been a part of the experience of man. Since science has such severe limits on what it knows, we must consider that the spiritual is also part of the far away universe.
    Would you please answer the direct questions? Proselitizing is not a valid answer.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    8,248
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    The spiritual has always been a part of the experience of man. Since science has such severe limits on what it knows, we must consider that the spiritual is also part of the far away universe.

    Please review our rules, linked in my signature line below. In particular, rule 12 places very narrow constraints on how religion may be discussed on this board. It will not suffice as evidence in this ATM forum.
    Brett's the name. Peters Creek is the place.
    ─────────────────────────────────────────────
    My moderation comments will appear in this color.
    To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
    .
    Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    If the issue is whether the forces and laws are the same far away, why would you bring up how they work on earth?
    You can't compare here and there without knowing anything about here, can you?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    I would think his monkness was more important.
    Apart from the fact it gave him the time to think, I think it is largely irrelevant. But, whatever.

    You have no example of stars being as was claimed and want evidence that they are not?
    No. I meant I am not going to give you any examples. There are plenty if you are interested in learning. It is up to you to provide evidence to support your view.

    The textbooks? Yes. They change like rolls of toilet tissue, very often.
    That is not true. Of course scientific knowledge changes - almost by definition - but to imply it is at an excessively high rate, or that black is replaced by white is just wrong. Unless you have some ... evidence.

    The laws?
    What are these "laws" of which you speak. As has been pointed out before, it is not really a term used in modern science.


    There is no evidence that they do not or do that I am aware of using science as of yet.
    So you are criticisizing something you have little or no awareness of? And to support your claim you have what? Doubts? Is that it?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    WA state, USA - Seattle area
    Posts
    2,277
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    The spiritual has always been a part of the experience of man. Since science has such severe limits on what it knows, we must consider that the spiritual is also part of the far away universe.
    Why? As someone else mentioned, what YOU personally believe isn't nearly as relevent as what can be proven scientifically.

    Another question-though now I'm digressing from the original question which you have yet to answer-Why do you think science has 'such severe limits' on what it 'knows'? Define those 'limits'.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?
    What would you be willing to accept as proof? It will help to know this.

    For example, do you believe that the laws and forces and light, etc. exist in the Sun as they do here on Earth? And if so, why? For that matter, do you believe that the laws of physics operate the same everywhere on Earth? And if so, why?

    Your answers to these questions will greatly help me in understanding what you might be willing to accept as proof.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,034
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    I doubt that earth laws and forces and light and space exist across the universe. Anyone have proof they do?
    The mainstream has observational data such as that provided by the Kepler telescope, what do you have to refute it?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    So you say...let's see it.
    [...]
    How would you detect them [changes in physics] if there were?
    How could you not detect them?

    Think through the consequences if physics varies between galaxies, and how it would change what we see. For instance, what happens if the gravitational constant is increased, so that, for the same mass, gravitational attraction is increased? In particular, what would happen to stars?

    For any change in physics you would propose, you should think through how it would affect observations. If you can make an argument for changed physics, and show observations support your argument, you might have something worth pursuing. On the other hand, if you propose a change in physics that would result in something different from what we observe, you would have a failed argument.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by stardad View Post
    In case this thread gets closed because we can't do that in good faith, I suppose there would be other places to discuss it. http://www.christianforums.com/t7562694
    I hope that was a joke!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Stardad managed to earn an infraction and resulting suspension.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

Similar Threads

  1. Could our present universe be embedded within a larger universe?
    By potoole in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-18, 01:46 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-04, 02:20 AM
  3. What would be the fate of the matter in the Universe, if the Universe carries on?
    By Frog march in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2008-Sep-16, 08:10 PM
  4. Another 'age of the universe' 'size of the universe' question thread
    By DyerWolf in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-26, 09:31 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-24, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: