re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

verbiage snipped.


Distant galaxies emit photons that travel eons before being received.
In the meantime the galaxies will have changed according to the powers
of change of its constituent parts.

That's irrelevant. We are seeing them as they were. We are seeing the
edge of an era when there were no stars, in fact no atoms (the
background radiation) If you believe the images change en route there's
no point in looking.


Whether the universe of the past was "totally unlike" the current
universe is a matter of fact only. Sure the particulars are changed
according to their forms, however, scientists have reported that the
ancient universe that is visible by means of photons that have traveled
the enormous distances across the universe is remarkably similar to our
current universe. Scientists are now constructing telescopes that will
be able to evidence even older photons, possibly including red-shifted
photons, in the IR and radio frequencies, for example, and thus will be
able to see even farther.

NO! The ancient universe as revealed in the Hubble Deep Fields is very
different to the universe we see now. And they are already seeing
red-shifted photons, at shifts of 5 and 6 (can't remember the current
record) They are seeing an era when quasars appeared, and a more recent
one with fewer quasars and not as many stars forming.


Only the facts govern what we can know.

Indeed :-)
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
Jonathan:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

[ clip ]
Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms?
All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very
distant past it was totally unlike its present form.
(Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.)


Of course, you are right. All science that is science is based on
evidence. On the facts that exist in the universe.

I should have clarified that.

Axioms are concepts that identify the facts of all of existence, and
they are very broad concepts. Axioms are universal concepts that are
derived by means of induction from particular facts of existents or
narrower or more specific concepts, for example, definitions, that in
turn may identify more particular perceptible facts.

Well in science all 'facts' are either provisional or incomplete, therefore
you can't induce any 'a priori' axioms from any set of observations.

I think you're mistaking science for maths, where it is possible to define a
set of axioms and then 'see what happens'.

The rest of your stuff is interesting but more from a philosophical
standpoint than anything to do with cosmology.

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
Jonathan:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

[ clip ]
Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms?
All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very
distant past it was totally unlike its present form.
(Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.)


Of course, you are right. All science that is science is based on
evidence. On the facts that exist in the universe.

I should have clarified that.

Axioms are concepts that identify the facts of all of existence, and
they are very broad concepts. Axioms are universal concepts that are
derived by means of induction from particular facts of existents or
narrower or more specific concepts, for example, definitions, that in
turn may identify more particular perceptible facts.

Well in science all 'facts' are either provisional or incomplete, therefore
you can't induce any 'a priori' axioms from any set of observations.

I think you're mistaking science for maths, where it is possible to define a
set of axioms and then 'see what happens'.

The rest of your stuff is interesting but more from a philosophical
standpoint than anything to do with cosmology.

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
Jonathan:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

[ clip ]
Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms?
All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very
distant past it was totally unlike its present form.
(Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.)


Of course, you are right. All science that is science is based on
evidence. On the facts that exist in the universe.

I should have clarified that.

Axioms are concepts that identify the facts of all of existence, and
they are very broad concepts. Axioms are universal concepts that are
derived by means of induction from particular facts of existents or
narrower or more specific concepts, for example, definitions, that in
turn may identify more particular perceptible facts.

yadda yadda yadda

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Big Bang.

RM

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
Jonathan:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

[ clip ]
Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms?
All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very
distant past it was totally unlike its present form.
(Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.)


Of course, you are right. All science that is science is based on
evidence. On the facts that exist in the universe.

I should have clarified that.

Axioms are concepts that identify the facts of all of existence, and
they are very broad concepts. Axioms are universal concepts that are
derived by means of induction from particular facts of existents or
narrower or more specific concepts, for example, definitions, that in
turn may identify more particular perceptible facts.

yadda yadda yadda

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Big Bang.

RM

Ron:

Ron Miller wrote:

[snip]
yadda yadda yadda

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Big Bang.



You apparently don't accept that everything in existence is existing.

You lie in the face of factual and logical evidence.

ALL EVIDENCE confirms the continuation of all existence.


Ralph Hertle

Ron:

Ron Miller wrote:

[snip]
yadda yadda yadda

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Big Bang.



You apparently don't accept that everything in existence is existing.

You lie in the face of factual and logical evidence.

ALL EVIDENCE confirms the continuation of all existence.


Ralph Hertle

In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

You apparently don't accept that everything in existence is existing.

You lie in the face of factual and logical evidence.

ALL EVIDENCE confirms the continuation of all existence.

Enough. Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears
it? You may find out.
Plonk.
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

You apparently don't accept that everything in existence is existing.

You lie in the face of factual and logical evidence.

ALL EVIDENCE confirms the continuation of all existence.

Enough. Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears
it? You may find out.
Plonk.
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ...
Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when no-one hears it?

Just BTW, of course it does.

You know, I'm never understood the supposed mystique surrounding
this question. A transmitter doesn't know or care whether there are
any receivers.

Rick