₦airaland Forum

@ JeSoul,

I saw your new rules and regulations and it made me laugh harder than when I saw the first one.

The last line made reality hit me in the face and I stopped laughing and started crying for Africa and the black race.

Anyway, good luck to you.

wiegraf: As for HD 140283, that is some juicy info indeed, thanks.

From glancing through though it seems it can be fitted into BB, and nicely at that.

Being the oldest start known (I think) it seems to burn in a way/constitute of elements which would sits nicely with BB, but of course you probably believe those results are doctored considering the initial results were different. I would say not necessarily, just like those guys were wrong about FTL neutrinos these guys could have been wrong as well. After the double checks better results was obtained. Again, of course, you no go gree, but you cannot deny that is a (very likely imo) possibility.

It is reasonable to be critical of results, that is science.

There you go again. It is not what I believe but what the big bangers are actually saying.
Did you read the result of their findings? That star is 14.5 billion years old. The universe is 13.77 billion years old. How do you fit a square peg in a round hole? Mathematically simple: approximated percentage errors. Except percentage errors as every statistician knows, is a double edged sword. Here they put in a percentage error of 800 million years, which if the error has to be the most extreme they can make (note that the most extreme errors in mathematics are the least probable), puts that star at almost the same age as the universe. However, and here is the double edge, it is equally conceivable, if you were to believe their calculations, that that star is 15.3 billion years old.

But for the time being, let us accept that the least probable answer is the correct one and that star is 13.7 billion years old. It means we had 700 million years between the big bang and the birth of that star. This creates another headache for big bangers.

According to recent top university researches, 750 million years after the big bang, stars have not started forming. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/12/the-first-stars-of-the-universe-new-discoveries-announced-by-mit.html

To compound this, it is well known that a first generation of stars formed and died out (exploding or collasping into black holes) and their gases had to cool before the birth of the second generation stars that we see today. Some big bangers would say that HD 140283 was part of the first generation. This is highly unlikely because the first generation stars had ridiculously short life spans ranging from 10 million - 400 million years. But even if the star was first generation, there is still the problem stated previously about the time of formation.

If you read the article on NASA website that I linked, you will see the magic they did in order to reduce the age to 14.5 million. Infact here it is:

With a better handle on the star's brightness Bond's team refined the star's age by applying contemporary theories about the star's burn rate, chemical abundances, and internal structure. New ideas are that leftover helium diffuses deeper into the core and so the star has less hydrogen to burn via nuclear fusion. This means it uses fuel faster and that correspondingly lowers the age.

Also, the star has a higher than predicted oxygen-to-iron ratio, and this too lowers the age. Bond thinks that further oxygen measurement could reduce the star's age even more, because the star would have formed at a slightly later time when the universe was richer in oxygen abundance. Lowering the upper age limit would make the star unequivocally younger than the universe.

"Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."

You know what that means, it means they got data from their observation which they didn't like, then they started applying theories, and "Bond's thinking" and lowering the age arbitrarily.

After all these lowerings, they still arrived at 14.5 billion years. Laughable.

wiegraf: Mockery? Che....

I'm no mathematician, so I don't know the technical details. But IIRC (and after a brief refresher), the basics are simple enough, you cannot see stars that are 47 billion light years away as they are at this moment in time.

What you see is snapshots from the past, perhaps even from billions of years in the past, when these stars were much closer to us. By observing the light from these stars they can now tell you if the star is moving away or towards us.

Using this info they can now calculate the real distance of the star as of this current time (as opposed to the distance in the past, which is what we actually see). From those numbers they are able to approximate that the observable universe, ie the size of the universe that we could theoretically see, is roughly 47 billion light years.

Waow! You did good. Refreshing ones knowledge before responding on some topics is a very advisable entreprise. (wink @ logicboy)

But this in itself, while sounding good when scientist proclaim it from their pulpits actually puts them in difficulty when questionned with relation to big bang. The bolded is true to the extent that we are talking of stars in the milky way. All other stars in other galaxies are moving away from us due to expansion of space. Do you agree?

[quote author=code_0]Brother stop this funs nah. I know you understand my problem and you know what am facing. I know you have something meaningful to tell me. This is not funny to me at all. Some night, I'll be sleeping late just to cut my sleeping time so that the day breaks fast. That's how serious it is if you think am joking. I don't need Satan but I know am not afraid even if he shows up now. I hate this hide and seek game. Anything that feels it powerful enough to look for my trouble should come out physically let's do it.[/quote]It is not fun. Satan is not who you think He is. Forget all those lies told about Him from the pulpits of deception.

Give your life to Satan today and see all your worries become a thing of the past.

Also go see a doctor and tell him to check your thyroid hormones.

thrugemaster: are d pen robbers in abuja better than him? Is yussuf of the famed police pension scam better than him...?

have you seen anybody robbed by a pen before?

Shekau's third wife.

Story story,
STORY!

Once upon a time,
TIME TIME!

[quote author=code_0]You have a point brother but I don't see myself being afraid of challenges or anything physically but I'll see my spirit with some elements of fears. For instance, if I hear a gun shot, my spirit jerk (shock) immediately from my head to toe. I'll feel this thing running like electricity all over me. Just within seconds and my heart beat would increase immediately. If you put your hand on my chest that time you may feel it heating up. You can imagine that. Do you understand pls. Any little happenings around me without my knowledge shakes me. But that doesn't mean am afraid physically: I can face anything I see confronting me without fear but at the same time I'll see my spirit responding to fear which most times put shock in me. And then it'll rise to my head. I just don't know what to do. But how can I be fighting the unknown? I don't understand.[/quote]You need Satan.

striktlymi: May be I am very slow in the head

Exactly.

Front pagers are full of derailers that multiply page numbers but don't add substance to serious discussions.

If people want to discuss religion, let them find their way here. Stop going looking for them.

musKeeto: Sounds like all the problem of the world today is because Nazareth didn't have an asylum..

LOTFLOL
Dear muskeeto. Please allow me to use this quote freely.

[quote author=code_0]Pls stop this. I wish you were in my shoes. Tell me something useful pls.[/quote]I can tell you something useful but only you can help yourself.

You need to stop being afraid. You are full of fear. Fear of the unknown and of a wonderful part of our life called death.
You are afraid of the struggles of this life. You are afraid to face challenges. You are simply made of fear matter.

Stop being afraid and see what a wonderful life you will have.

musKeeto: Does the family you are born to determine your religion?

Yeah. I've never heard any baby come out screaming Jesus or Allahu Akbar.. Give em a few years and their mind shall be 'trained in the way that they should go'...

But one did come out with a quran.

[quote author=code_0]I don't understand pls. Can't I stop these dreams?[/quote]Of course you can. Stop sleeping. Or die.

He lost me when he started calling on allah.

Wrong headline.

He was condemned to death because he is an armed robber.

Logicboy03: A christian made this statement to me when we were talking about a burial some days ago;

“our African traditional religions are man made. That is why they have ridiculous practices which were probably to satisfy one occultic king or chief.....what is the point of dancing and drinking alcohol during burials? Why must they sacrifice chickens and other things? These local religions are for savages. Thank God for Westerners who brought civilization and proper religion.”


I wonder how many nigerians agree with this?

Maybe you should stop trying to have intelligent discussions with christians.

You will still die one day afterall.

WTF is delect?

Haha! Adekunle's country.
One Nigeria.
So your papa fought for this?
Mumus.

wiegraf: Learn to differentiate between being critical and being close minded. I have not stated anywhere that BB could not be wrong, in fact I've done the opposite. I've stated it could be wrong, not likely, but this is a possibility. You, on the other hand, insist it is wrong. I am being critical of why you insist it is so, while you are being close minded by insisting it is so. Do you get it now?




Again, these are very reasonable assumptions.



I did, how many times now?

At higher temperatures (or energy levels) the strong/weak forces merge, they don't exist anymore, so to speak. Similar in a manner to how a gas would solidify to a liquid, then solid as temperature decreases. The hypothesis is that all energy (at least the bosons) "merge" at higher temperatures, so strictly speaking gravity wouldn't exist in those conditions. You do realize that the singularity proposed meets these conditions, yes? Extremely dense and extremely energetic (trillions of times hotter than the interior of the Sun!)

Physical laws, as we know them, break down in those conditions. They are different, this is a fact. All that whargarbl you spout about current laws not making any sense is just that; whargarbl. Because matter behaves differently as a gas does not mean the laws when it is a solid stop making sense. I hope you get that now.

The early stages of the BB are still being explored, very much so. It's an extremely complicated process. No one will tell you otherwise. So you drawing conclusions like there was nothing that could have counteracted gravity (when strictly speaking gravity probably doesn't even exist in these conditions as it would likely "merge" with the other forces) is completely unfounded.

I hope you get this now, not sure I could be clearer.




And you must have missed the part where I state you have your sources and I have mine, yes? Brian also happens to be with the mainstream on this issue, there's very good reason for a layman to at least consider his claims.

The italiced was a mistake, apologies.





Hold up, show me the fallacy, good ser. Don't just make $hit up.

I purposely chose the BBC because of its reputation and accessibility. If you want a strictly scientific treatise, here . And here's NASA's tv briefing announcement

Like I've said, far from complete, no one is saying this is DM for certain, but initial results certainly indicate so. And this is a very valid route to pursue.




Again, you have your sources, I have mine. I have a lot more btw. Doesn't mean they couldn't be wrong, but it's worth mentioning. And your sources look like bitter $hits




Own up to your folly, you'll feel much better I'm told. I never indulge in folly so I can't tell you for sure.




Really? So cosmic radiation didn't explain anything? Or the makeup of the universe including deutrinium? Interesting.

On a general note, did you miss my mentioning Einstein, the aether and Relativity?




Depending on context, nothing wrong here.




How in the world does this affect what I said. See above, for the nth explanation of how the forces combine at higher temperatures.



Regardless, it is a viable scenario.




Nothing wrong with complaining, that's how science works. Test and whatnot, but complaining the others are being myopic for ignoring them is ridiculously myopic as well.

For the nth time, the mainstream have good reason for subscribing (primarily) to BB. If the other scientists have a good case then they should do what every school supporting some nascent theory does, present their case as often as they can, reasonably.

Well, I guess we will never agree with each other, (until your scientists tell you otherwise, that is) so let us let these arguments go for now.
Even though you manifest a certain incapacity to understand a few scientific facts, at least you accept the possibility that I might be right, and that is good. You are not yet completely brainwashed.
I would urge anyone following to go through all the previous arguments and make up their mind which one makes more sense.

wiegraf: Where you saving this as your trump card? Some sort of secret last move you'd use only when your back is against the wall and there's seemingly no hope (like in anime) ? As I really can't see why you didn't bring this up earlier.

Anyways, here, finally, after all the headless chicken meandering, is an incidence of note (if indeed your claims are valid, can't check them atm). Your claims to some sort of conspiracy are still risible though. It's simple, they have to be very careful before they toss out known laws, for very obvious reasons. No glory hunting here.

Remember those guys at CERN that thought they found neutrinos that were FTL? How did that end up? You simply have to be careful with these things, that is all. Or you think even Einstein was accepted overnight? That is how the scientific method works, and again, it is extremely reasonable. If indeed their data checks out (after being vigorously examined) then of course a rethink will be needed, and contrary to you beliefs, even current day BB adherents like Brian will gladly accept they were wrong. That's how it has always worked, and it is very reasonable. Nothing dogmatic here...

Now, do note, if this implies a universe without a beginning, issues other than BB show up. For instance, if this universe did not have a starting point entropy would have made it useless by now. There are other issues that could show up as well, so again, proper care is required.

LOL @ the image of anime last stand hero.

No. I wasn't saving anything. I have a lot of points against the Big Bang. I started this thread so as to argue those points one after the other sort of but as you witnessed, enemies of progress hijacked the thread with their derailings.
It is just another point, like the questions I asked Area Boy which he couldn't answer but rather ran away. You at least, despite your limited critical awareness are making a commendable effort to argue.

I don't know if you had already watched the video I posted. Or if you had figured out if the Big Bang concerns only the observable universe as claimed by Area Boy.

I would urge you to read up on that HD 140283 star. It really shaked the BB community.

My next question is actually scientifically easy to answer but I want to see if you are analytical enough and if I should continue with my other points that make wholesome mockery of the BBT.

Here: How come we can see stars that are 47 billion light years away?

While explaining, please bear in mind the method of calculation that gave the Big Bangers the age of the universe at 13.7 billion.

In primary and secondary schools, one hour a week will be devoted to the teaching of "secular morality". But the subject will not be taught as a separate subject with dedicated teachers as was first envisaged by Peillon. Instead, the hour a week dedicated to the values will take the form of debates rather than formal teaching.

Teachers will be given special training on how to lead debates on issues where religions take a different stance.

Students will be evaluated individually based on their knowledge and behaviour.

In the past the minister has said that secular morality serves “to understand what is right and to distinguish good from evil”.

More http://www.thelocal.fr/page/view/minister-to-present-plan-for-moral-secular-classes#.UXeiY0qjv6k

Another nail in the coffin of religion. They just only yesterday legalised gay marriage. Up France!

OLAADEGBU: Who said that your master doesn't believe the scriptures? It's just that he doesn't obey it. He only quotes it for ingannation.

(James 2:19)

You should know that I don't believe James 2:19. How you want to use such lies to convince me is a bit surprising.

Quoting your nonsensical book to me is a waste of time.

wiegraf: DOHOHOHOHO

On a serious note, I did not think it capable for an atheist to harbor as much dissonance as you do. You accuse of being worse than a xtian while shouting LALALALALALALA?

I didn't think it possible for an atheist to be as close minded as you.

wiegraf: I'm not sure why you have a problem understanding this. It's real simple, at high temperatures it may behave differently or even be something else entirely. Just like the strong/weak forces are the same force at higher temperatures. Now, at even higher temperatures, would it be unreasonable to assume all the forces would behave differently? Actually, you're almost guaranteed they'd work differently, as they probably wouldn't even exist then! Their grand-daddy would, ie before cooling down, and, at the very least, it would behave differently to some of its offspring, likely most (if not all).

Until you show me a snake that barks, I still maintain that all natural forces behave according to their nature. Until then, all you are doing is assuming.

wiegraf: [img]http://mu2e.fnal.gov/images_v2/OT0082M.jpg[/img]

You should have explained this image because it makes no sense to me.

wiegraf: This is a valid possibility however you look at it. Quoting what I posted earlier, somewhat related



Do you now geddit?





An article about a discovery made earlier this month here ,



Still early days, obviously more work to be done, but note my focus on the word accuracy.

Now, from my earlier quote (which I'm not sure considered properly),




More accuracy, from predictions. Like...




The green is prediction, the red is confirmation.

Brian green is a big banger. And I don't see how quoting a big banger to support big bang is different from using the bible to validate the bible. I mean come on. And you attributed a quote I didn't make to me which I hope was not done out of malice.

Journalists sensationalist reports are not scientific confirmations. The BBC article you referenced said that: Dark matter accounts for most of the mass in the Universe.

It cannot be seen directly with telescopes, but astronomers know it to be out there because of the gravitational effects it has on the matter we can see.

Galaxies, for example, could not rotate the way they do and hold their shape without the presence of dark matter.

What a falacious statement to make. If you bring that paper to scientists (including big bangers), they will laugh you out of the room. Like I said before, let's stay with facts or at least factual hypothesis.

wiegraf: Again, same thing here.
Now, looking at all this, do you really think they are whimsically making predictions? Really?

Now, now, you have your sources, I have mine. But most agree with Brian on this, and I would think they have good reason to.

Considering all the predictions being confirmed, including unique ones, they are being very reasonable. Modifying equations does not mean the entire theory is wrong, this should be obvious. It's a fairly common practice sef. The scientific method is also about refinement, yes? You want them to ignore new data and discoveries?

From where I'm sitting it's reasonable to not assume it's broken, it just needs refinement.

Maybe you missed my previous quote from a link before. Here is is again.

the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

I will repeat it just in case: [size=14pt]the big bang theory has made absolutely no single quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.[/size]

wiegraf: In this discussion it matters little, and you well know what I'm trying to say, my good pedant.

There you go again misreading my post. I know it matters little here,but for clarity purposes especially for others following the discussion, I believe highlighting the distinction is appropriate. But I do understand what you mean.

wiegraf: Well.. You know this, how?

Because that's what happens to big bangers everytime a mystery is expalined and they realise they were wrong.

wiegraf: You have a problem with making predictions based on good reason? 'Backed up by objective evidence' sort of reason? See above for what I mean by it might not even have existed yet (ie, they could be unified at higher temps).

Even if you're not pushing for multiverse atm, if you ever do, what in the universe would you base your assertions on?

Do you have a problem with the prediction of gravitons btw?

No, I have problems with people accepting a flawed theory be it reasonable or not and unwilling to question this theory even as new evidence of its flaws are discovered almost daily.

wiegraf: Interesting. How in the world did you come to these conclusions? Does the merging of the forces at higher energy levels make "the laws of motion in space becomes useless, all laws of thermodynamics thrown out of the window"? What in the universe are you on about. This is akin to you telling me accept christ else I'll burn in hell for eternity. Completely baseless...

This is one of the reasons why I wanted us to differentiate between dark energy and dark matter. The universe is apparently made up of 68% dark energy. If we add the 27% dark matter, we are now talking of 95% DARK force that in the early start of big bang did not influence the universe. Or did the reverse and subsequently changed its nature. It is all suppositions that don't make sense. Let's leave it at that. OK?

wiegraf: Also, why don't you have a problem with this possible scenario, yet think the one above unlikely? The one above is just as likely as this one (actually, probably more so).

You misunderstand again. I do have a problem with that scenario. I was only praising the manner in which you structured your argument, not the substance of the argument.

wiegraf: Here we are. The nice, great, world conquering conspiracy/agenda by our scientific overlords. You may be spending too much time around theists.

Not me. These are scientist and university professors complainning of lack of funding for any project that might further reveal the flaws of the big bang.

wiegraf: Again, criticizing BB is very fine. Criticizing mainstream science and the scientific method (over this issue in particular) as unreasonable, irresponsible, etc, is really rather unreasonable, irresponsible, etc.

Edits; clarity mostly

Let me tell you a story.

In 2000, some scientists decided to measure the age of an intriguing star called HD 140283. This star is very near our galaxy, mind you. So they measured and remeasured and remeasured, and the data kept coming up. After everthing, they had no other option than to publish their finding: The star is 16 billion years old.

What?! Panic amongst the big bangers. That cannot be true, they said. So the big bangers decided to measure it themselves. They measured and measured but refused to publish their results, talking about anomalies.

Last year, NASA sponsored team of astronomers decided to measure it again but we have to await till last month before they could release the results. You know what else happenned last month? They told us they made a calculation in the age of the universe by 80 million years. Now you start putting two and two together.

Well the result of the latest measurement came out and guess what, our dear star is 14.5 billion years old. I guess those astronomers didn't want to put their reputation in line by saying it is younger than the big bang but they have a cop-out. Listen to this:

"Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."

Chei! See deer in a headlamp grammer.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/hd140283.html

There are quantrillions of visible stars in space and the only one that can give them the precise calculations of age is telling them that it born before their big bang happenned. They refused to believe him and kept spending trillions to somehow arrive at such a stupid conclusion that it is indeed older than but could also be the same age as the universe with a residual uncertainty. And that, after increasing their supposed age of the universe.
This is what you have faith in? It's laughable.

obadiah777: MAN INVENTED SWAHILI

ok. which languages did he cause people to speak then in genesis, when he came with his friends to confuse the one single language everybody spoke then?

obadiah777: HE DIDNT ASK TO BE WORSHIPPED AT THAT POINT HE HAD GIVEN THE WORLD TO THE GENTILES TO RULE EACH OTHER IN WICKEDNESS. ANCIENT BABYLONIA, THE KINGDOM OF NIMROD WAS THE FIRST GENTILE EMPIRE OUT OF THE GATE

so why the Bleep did he go inventing swahili?

I'm already in Hell, and it's soooo good.

I wish you could all join me for eternal barbecueing.

obadiah777: YOU ERR. THE TOWER OF BABEL IS NIMROD. TRYING TO BUILD TO HEAVEN MEANS A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT WHERE THE WHOLE WORLD WORSHIPS NIMROD. THIS IS WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO.HE WAS TRYING TO PLAY GOD MEANING HE WAS TRYING TO GET THE PEOPLE TO BUILD HIM UP TO HEAVEN. WHO IS IN HEAVEN ? GOD. SO HE WAS TRYING TO HAVE THE WHOLE WORLD WORSHIP HIM LIKE GOD

So inventing headache inducing languages is supposed to force us to worship him only? Jealousy too bad. Your god needs to pray to his son to cure him of the spirit of envy and jealousy.

Hehehe.

Genesis na wa o. Infant stories believed by grown ups.

OLAADEGBU: If you don't believe it then you shouldn't quote it, no?

When has lack of belief prevented agents of Satan from quoting scriptures?

Even our Master quoted such to your master in Luke 4: 10-11, (and Mathew 4:6) to remind him of his uselessness.

Ihedinobi: Honestly, man, I don't know what you want from me o.

I think he wants a simple answer to his question. If you can't answer it, say so. Stop being a dickhead.

ninja4life: U people like trouble dont u know dat God is omnipotent and omniscience so he only let u mere mortal know wat he wish cos u cant interprete d bible with ur fish brain u beta ask for d holy ghost so dat he cant teach u d things in d bible and u can ask him ur question.u must also know dat u cant interprete d bible literarily okay goodluck.
ROFLMAO

You should be sued for impersonation.

History ought to have taught nigerians that igbos no dey do half measure.

Anyway, let's wait and see.