This thread is a spin-off from a previous one in which the subject of the Big Bang was debated. It should be a short topic, since I cannot see how anyone can counter the refuting argument I have supplied against the ‘Big Bang’ theory. (You may take that – and I hope you will – as a challenge.)
Now there are, as always, people who cannot follow a plain logical argument. Indeed, some of us feel that in Education, nowadays, the teaching of Logic, as a subject, has practically dropped out of existence.
This is surely why so many subscribers to these forums see them as no more than opportunities for displaying their parrot-like knowledge of stuff they have read and heard about; erudite subjects such as ‘quantum electrodynamics’ ‘string theory’, ‘quarks’, ‘dark matter’, etc., etc., and who feel it obligatory to bring these things into a ‘scientific’ argument on every occasion, As I have said, somewhere, some contributors to these forums cannot add two and two without going into integral calculus and quantum theory,
In short, the aim of this thread is for ordinary sensible people, those who are not blinded by science and not mesmerized by the media, to look squarely at this altogether bizarre theory of cosmic creation and ask themselves whether or not it should remain a part of the Educational Curriculum. If they then see it for the scandal it is, then one hopes they would ‘stand up and be counted’. For who would want their children and grandchildren to be subjected to a teaching that is so palpably false?
Anyway, here is that refuting argument again.
The Big Bang Dogma
Logically speaking, a dogma is an idea which is held to and presented as fact when it is no more than an arbitrary opinion. Here is a dictionary definition:
Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. Latin, from Greek: ‘opinion’, ‘belief’, from dokein, to seem
By definition, then, the ‘Big Bang theory of cosmic creation is a dogma. Why? Because practically all the standard modern textbooks present it as a fact, whereas it is really only a theory, an assumption. The assumption is that all the distant galaxies are receding from us and from one another at speeds which are increasing with their distance, hence that the universe is expanding.
On what is that assumption founded? It is certainly not an observed fact that those galaxies are receding. They are much too far away from us to observe anything like that. Nor is it possible to gauge that motion in any of the normal ways for moving objects, For instance there is no diminution in size, over time, that can possibly be observed and, unquestionably, there is no other form of perspective or parallax. Nor are there any of the other natural accompaniments of the phenomenon which would normally suggest motion.
So, what makes scientists think that those galaxies are receding? It is nothing more nor less than the reddening in the appearance of the galaxies in proportion to their estimated distance, a phenomenon discovered by two astronomers, Edwin Hubble and Vesto Slipher in the early part of the 20th century. This has been interpreted as a ‘Doppler effect’, like the sound of a passing, fast-moving vehicle changing in pitch from higher to lower, as it approaches us and speeds away. And because the galaxies display that drop in pitch in their light spectra, as compared to what those spectra should be if their sources were relatively close by, it is inferred that this reddening is a ‘Doppler shift’, hence irrefutable evidence of recessional motion.
Now how many sensible people would argue that because all criminals are human beings, all human beings are criminals? Ridiculous, you would say. So why is it not regarded as ridiculous to argue that because all receding objects display a reddening of their light, any observed reddening in the appearance of the galaxies signifies the ‘fact’ that they are is receding? The logic, if it needs to be said, is the same.
Anyway, what a huge assumption that is, that the whole universe is expanding, based, not only on such scant evidence but also on an interpretation that is so obviously fallacious! But, it will be said, despite the logical fallacy, since there are no viable alternatives to the ‘Doppler’ interpretation of the phenomenon, then like it or despise it, they say, the interpretation of the reddening of the light as a galactic recession is a ‘Hobson’s choice’.
Strictly, however, that claim can be made only when all other possible explanations are exhausted. Anything less makes the claim a dogma, by definition. Moreover, there really are alternative logical explanations of the reddening phenomenon that have not been refuted. One of the new ones, for instance, interprets the reddening as a relativistic time-dilation due to motions that are omnidirectional, or random, increasing in speed with increasing distance in a universal nexus of angular momentum, as the theory explains. This theory predicts precisely the sort of general reddening that is observed in the case of the galaxies without any suggestion of an overriding Doppler effect, far less any hint of an ‘expanding universe.[1] The theory is that in the same way that the NASA space-probes are accelerated by the outer planets in what are called ‘slingshot’ manoeuvres, up to speeds far exceeding those with which they left earth, the random encounters with other stars and galaxies with one another accelerate those objects relatively to one another – so the theory goes – so that the prevalent effect, overall is to accelerate the galaxies, in more or less random directions, to relativistic speeds in proportion to the vastness of their distances apart, thus exhibiting time-dilational redshifts relatively to one another in proportion to their distance. Unless this and other such theories are fully addressed and refuted, the ‘expanding universe’ interpretation of the redshift can in no way be claimed as an ‘observed fact’.
Anyway, on the supposition that cosmical expansion is a fact, from the alleged ‘speed’ of the expansion the implication is unavoidable that, unwinding backwards some thirteen or so billion years, we come to – what? What else but the conclusion that the whole universe, with all its prodigious energy was once packed into single point, so that, unable to contain all that energy, the universe must have burst out, all those billions of years ago, in a colossal and unimaginable ‘Big Bang’.
Now how can that possibly be? In Science’s more rational days, that logical consequence would have been seen as the reductio ad absurdum of the whole ‘expansion’ interpretation, hence to be rejected forthwith! But, now, it is much more exiting to ignore the logical rule and embrace that absurdity as a scientific discovery. In this way, what is plainly scientific fiction becomes hailed as scientific ‘fact’.
However, setting aside all the populist hype, Let’s just sit and think, calmly and objectively, with our commonsense hats on, whether or not that highly entertaining theory is really credible.
The idea of the whole universe having started out as a ‘Big Bang’ at a single cosmical point of creation, is just logically and linguistically incoherent. For instance, where is that point supposed to have been situated, and in relation to what? And if that whole universe is expanding, then into what is it expanding and at what rate, since all space and time have to be, by definition, inside that theoretical point, with there being absolutely nothing outside it? And, by that same token, the answer to what the expansion is, ‘into’ has to be ‘into nowhere’, since outside that point has to be a dimensionless, property-less and quality-less, unspeakable nothing, not even empty space.
But how, literally, can something which is ‘expanding into nowhere’ be said to be ‘expanding’? As for the assumed punctiform ‘Universe’, with all the measuring apparatus being potentially, inside it and nothing outside, with reference to what can that ‘Universe’ possibly be gauged to be either small or large? Any talk of ‘size’ in this context is just pure nonsense. So, what sense can be made of the statement that the size of the ‘primeval atom’ was somewhere between the size of a pinhead and the size of an apple? Also, since there are no outside clocks or any other sorts of chronometers, mechanical, atomic or whatever, to register any passage of time, at what rate can that ‘point’ be regarded as ‘expanding’? The whole idea is a flagrant and meaningless misuse of language, like ‘Why is a mouse when it spins?’ Even as a figment if the imagination, the idea of the ‘expanding universe’, when we really think about it, is meaningless. The whole idea is simply a complete and utter shambles. What more can be said on that score?
But, of course, some scientists will claim that, despite how nonsensical it may appear, there are all sorts of bits of evidence that support the ‘Big Bang theory. For instance, there is the three-degrees Kelvin microwave background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, thereafter claimed to be a primordial relic of the ‘Big Bang’. Then there is the superabundance of helium in the universe which, it is claimed, cannot be made by stars, hence has to be another relic of the original ‘Big Bang’. Another, equally flimsy, bit of ‘evidence’ is claimed to be Olbers’ paradox, according to which, if the universe were not expanding, all the enclosed to-ing and fro-ing of light would make the sky infinitely bright, like a lamp inside a thermos flask, not dark as we know it. This ignores the fact that in quantum theory there is no to-ing and fro-ing of light in any way that could produce such a consequence.[2]And, last but not least, is the little girl’s eminently sensible but scientifically unanswerable question: ‘Where did the Big Bang come from?’ (Shades of the child’s innocent perception of the ‘Emperor’s new cloak’ in that well-known fable)
However, there is, in Psychology, the well known phenomenon of ‘dissonance reduction’, a prime example of which is the way defence lawyers, to convince themselves of the innocence of their client, have to grasp at all sorts of peripheral straws (‘facts’) that ‘prove’ the innocence of that person who, in their heart of hearts they may know to be guilty. Even in the best circles of science, there are numerous examples of that kind of self-deception, which is nothing alarmingly new [3]. So it is not so astounding that so many people can believe implicitly in the ‘Big Bang’ theory of cosmical creation based on ideas which are logically untenable. There are psychological reasons for this, also, such as, mainly, the need to conform. To be a socially well balanced social individual, one has to ‘go with the flow’. And if it seems that everyone believes the Big Bang theory, then best believe that theory oneself, for social acceptability. This is another logical fallacy, once known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy, the fallacy of ‘counting heads’ or using a clapometer as the measure of absolute truth.
But since Logic is so little a part of Educational curricula, nowadays, it is little wonder that the standard of scientific truth has become the sheer popularity of a theory in the commercially motivated public media and pop-science literature, in which such obvious fallacies go unnoticed or else studiously ignored. All of this signifies to any remaining logical reasoner that all traces of the Age of Reason in Physics and Astronomy are now definitely at an end.
Viv Pope,
June 15, 2008
END NOTES:
[1] See, e.g., Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, by A. D. Osborne and N. V. Pope, plus other related works by the same authors, listed on the website www.poams.org..
[2] See, e.g., the collection of international papers in the book Instantaneous Action-at-a-Distance, in Modern Physics, Pro- and Contra, and Immediate Distant Action and Correlation in Modern Physics, as also listed on the above website: www.poams.org
[3] See examples in Betrayers of the Truth, by Broad and Wade, Century Publishing, 1982.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jun 30 2008, 09:02 AM)
... only a theory ...
What a tired old fraud this is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).
...
If "only a theory" were a real objection, [damned fools] would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based)."
Observations:
1. If the universe were infinite and Euclidean and eternal, then the sky should not be dark. http://www.weburbia.com/physics/olber.html
2. Riess, Press and Kirshner (1996) plot Doppler speed against distance of Type Ia supernovae and get a linear relationship out to at least 500 Mega-parsecs.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
3. Not only are the supernova spectra Doppler shifted, they are time dilated as expected by GR predictions of a non-Euclidean expanding universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712212
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9707260
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9605134
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9602124
4. Peacock and Dodds (1994) demonstrate that the universe is largely homogeneous and isotropic out to at least 100 Mega-parsecs.
5. Penzias and Wilson (1965) measured a microwave background radiation spectrum at about 2.725 Kelvin. It shows the visible universe once was isotropic and thermal and hot.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
6. Roughly 3/4th of the universe is hydrogen and roughly 1/4 is helium which is a general prediction of many hot, quickly expanding theories of cosmogenesis.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
7. Deep surveys of the sky reveal the nature of the galaxies was quite different in the past, which is a prediction of a non-steady-state universe.
8. Reflections of the CMB at times in the past show the change of the CMB over time.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz
9. What anisotropy does exist in the CMB is consistent with specific models of the Big Bang.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html
10. The details of all of these are consistent with a single Big Bang theory, which is in tern consistent with what has been tested of GR and quantum field theory and other estimates of the age of the visible universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
What a tired old fraud this is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).
...
If "only a theory" were a real objection, [damned fools] would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based)."
Observations:
1. If the universe were infinite and Euclidean and eternal, then the sky should not be dark. http://www.weburbia.com/physics/olber.html
2. Riess, Press and Kirshner (1996) plot Doppler speed against distance of Type Ia supernovae and get a linear relationship out to at least 500 Mega-parsecs.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
3. Not only are the supernova spectra Doppler shifted, they are time dilated as expected by GR predictions of a non-Euclidean expanding universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712212
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9707260
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9605134
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9602124
4. Peacock and Dodds (1994) demonstrate that the universe is largely homogeneous and isotropic out to at least 100 Mega-parsecs.
5. Penzias and Wilson (1965) measured a microwave background radiation spectrum at about 2.725 Kelvin. It shows the visible universe once was isotropic and thermal and hot.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
6. Roughly 3/4th of the universe is hydrogen and roughly 1/4 is helium which is a general prediction of many hot, quickly expanding theories of cosmogenesis.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
7. Deep surveys of the sky reveal the nature of the galaxies was quite different in the past, which is a prediction of a non-steady-state universe.
8. Reflections of the CMB at times in the past show the change of the CMB over time.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz
9. What anisotropy does exist in the CMB is consistent with specific models of the Big Bang.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html
10. The details of all of these are consistent with a single Big Bang theory, which is in tern consistent with what has been tested of GR and quantum field theory and other estimates of the age of the visible universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
rpenner
Thank you for this most cohesive and thorough refutation of Viv's delusions. Her OP is so full of holes that there is no substance left. MASTERFULLY DONE!!!
For Viv and any others out there, this is how a premise is completely destroyed by the facts. Viv is a fraud, a poser, a pseudo-scientist of the first rank(her post is rank!!!) and she has come to the wrong place to strew her garbage.
The Big Bang is not DOGMA, many leading scientists question different aspects of the theory, but generally, in a non-detailed way, it is understood to be correct by almost all.
Here is an article about the latest thinking on the matter.
Grumpy
Thank you for this most cohesive and thorough refutation of Viv's delusions. Her OP is so full of holes that there is no substance left. MASTERFULLY DONE!!!
For Viv and any others out there, this is how a premise is completely destroyed by the facts. Viv is a fraud, a poser, a pseudo-scientist of the first rank(her post is rank!!!) and she has come to the wrong place to strew her garbage.
The Big Bang is not DOGMA, many leading scientists question different aspects of the theory, but generally, in a non-detailed way, it is understood to be correct by almost all.
Here is an article about the latest thinking on the matter.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If the universe were infinite and Euclidean and eternal, then the sky should not be dark.
This is absolutely incorrect.
The Universe should be all things possible, 'dark' being an obvious possibility.
g.
@Viv:
I missed the bit where you actually refuted the big bang theory. Could you explain just that bit again?
I think many philosophers would find your other arguments interesting though. Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.
Edit: increased font size to make the argument clearer
I missed the bit where you actually refuted the big bang theory. Could you explain just that bit again?
I think many philosophers would find your other arguments interesting though. Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.
Edit: increased font size to make the argument clearer
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 30 2008, 12:32 PM)
This is absolutely incorrect.
The Universe should be all things possible, 'dark' being an obvious possibility.
Not really...
Would the universe be Turnip? Or would it be "Smell-of-roast-beef"? No of course not.
Look, it's a simple thought experiment.
Take an empty tunnel of infinite length, It look black yes?
Take an infinite number of lights with a non-zero cross-section.
Spread the lights throughout the tunnel, in any random distribution you wish.
Wait an infinite amount of time for the light to reach you.
Now, the tunnel will be perfectly illuminated. So, if the universe is infinite and euclidean, the sky would be bright. It is not, therefore the universe is not.
QUOTE (Alcari+Jun 30 2008, 04:06 AM)
Not really...
Would the universe be Turnip? Or would it be "Smell-of-roast-beef"? No of course not.
Look, it's a simple thought experiment.
Take an empty tunnel of infinite length, It look black yes?
Take an infinite number of lights with a non-zero cross-section.
Spread the lights throughout the tunnel, in any random distribution you wish.
Wait an infinite amount of time for the light to reach you.
Now, the tunnel will be perfectly illuminated. So, if the universe is infinite and euclidean, the sky would be bright. It is not, therefore the universe is not.
Oh dear,
Is this supposed to make some kind of 'sense'?
g.
Would the universe be Turnip? Or would it be "Smell-of-roast-beef"? No of course not.
Look, it's a simple thought experiment.
Take an empty tunnel of infinite length, It look black yes?
Take an infinite number of lights with a non-zero cross-section.
Spread the lights throughout the tunnel, in any random distribution you wish.
Wait an infinite amount of time for the light to reach you.
Now, the tunnel will be perfectly illuminated. So, if the universe is infinite and euclidean, the sky would be bright. It is not, therefore the universe is not.
Oh dear,
Is this supposed to make some kind of 'sense'?
g.
uhh... yes it was... :s
Let me try again.
If the universe is infinite, and you can see infinitely far:
You should see a star no matter where you look.
So the universe would be light in all directions you can look.
Let me try again.
If the universe is infinite, and you can see infinitely far:
You should see a star no matter where you look.
So the universe would be light in all directions you can look.
Gorgeous
Actually Alcari is PARTIALLY correct. There are not an infinite number of stars, nor is their distribution uniform(they tend to clump), but in a static universe the sky would be much brighter(assuming many more years of existence beyond the 13.7 Billion). It certainly would be MEASURABLY brighter.
Grumpy
Actually Alcari is PARTIALLY correct. There are not an infinite number of stars, nor is their distribution uniform(they tend to clump), but in a static universe the sky would be much brighter(assuming many more years of existence beyond the 13.7 Billion). It certainly would be MEASURABLY brighter.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 30 2008, 10:48 AM)
Oh dear,
Is this supposed to make some kind of 'sense'?
g.
It made sense to me. It is a restatement of Olber's Paradox
Is this supposed to make some kind of 'sense'?
g.
It made sense to me. It is a restatement of Olber's Paradox
Again with the ganging up...why does it need three of you to defend something that makes no sense? 
I never said there were an 'infinite amount' (oxymoron, by the way) of stars. This is a physical impossibility. 'They tend to clump' ~ in 'galaxies' you mean?
The stars themselves have a finite life span...you surely know this, don't you?
How do you assume that one can 'see infinitely far'?
Try this...
Have you ever looked at a light source from across a river, seen the 'trail', looks like a long line...Well, if you move, the 'line' seems to follow your line of vision. It must be shining over the whole river at once, right? But you only see this trail that seems to move when you do!
Ah, you do the 'math'!
g.
QUOTE
There are not an infinite number of stars, nor is their distribution uniform(they tend to clump), but in a static universe the sky would be much brighter(assuming many more years of existence beyond the 13.7 Billion).
I never said there were an 'infinite amount' (oxymoron, by the way) of stars. This is a physical impossibility. 'They tend to clump' ~ in 'galaxies' you mean?
The stars themselves have a finite life span...you surely know this, don't you?
How do you assume that one can 'see infinitely far'?
Try this...
Have you ever looked at a light source from across a river, seen the 'trail', looks like a long line...Well, if you move, the 'line' seems to follow your line of vision. It must be shining over the whole river at once, right? But you only see this trail that seems to move when you do!
Ah, you do the 'math'!
g.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jun 30 2008, 09:02 AM)
Moreover, there really are alternative logical explanations of the reddening phenomenon that have not been refuted. One of the new ones, for instance, interprets the reddening as a relativistic time-dilation due to motions that are omnidirectional, or random, increasing in speed with increasing distance in a universal nexus of angular momentum, as the theory explains. This theory predicts precisely the sort of general reddening that is observed in the case of the galaxies without any suggestion of an overriding Doppler effect, far less any hint of an ‘expanding universe.[1]
But your bizarre hypothesis suggests that the spread in galactic velocities as measured by redshift would have a wide spread of measured speeds, including a proportion determined by simple geometry of blue-shifted galaxies and completely fails to account for the CMB and the primordial element distribution. Further, if there was this universal nexus of angular momentum, a separate mechanism for keeping the galaxies organized is needed, since galaxies collide many times over their lifetimes if the history of the Milky Way is any guide, and under the "random" hypothesis, far from the nexus all galactic collisions are expected to be relativistic which is also contradicted by observation.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jun 30 2008, 09:02 AM)
In Science’s more rational days, that logical consequence would have been seen as the reductio ad absurdum of the whole ‘expansion’ interpretation, hence to be rejected forthwith!
Where did you learn your logic? "Reductio ad absurdum" doesn't stop at non-intuitive results, or the so-called "Banach–Tarski paradox" would not be a proven theorem of mathematics. It is not absurdity, but self-contradiction which is required.
LOL, the Universe is infinite... and always has been
but you can only see so far... I refer you to the CMB...... light gets degraded the further it goes, ....and the more it transverses spin fields.....until even long wavelengths become flat......
The nature of light is the key to this puzzle, and with earthlings stuck in one place, they have no idea at all..... LOL
Of course there was no Big Bang... no expansion, no black holes, no relativity !!!!
its is all ramblings of delusion anthropogenic minds... stuck on a rock looking up their own uranuses
Why do earthlings think they can positively understand the Universe from their puny rock ?
totally barking mad, the lot of them.
and as far as theories go... yes they have evidence as support BUT THEY ARE ONLY an OPINION that fits the evidence... understand, many opinions can fit the same evidence..... and if the evidence is misrepresented here and there, a theory can become absurd. Such is the sate of earthling science at this point in time.
Most people on these Internet forums think science is set in stone... just grow up.
The goal of science is to collect ALL THE FACTS... and then search for more... and repeat... with never an end to the process... and MAKE UP theories along the way so that "predictions" can point to new facts..... etc..... but it is all head banging, nothing will ever be REAL, .....it is all only opinion.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jun 30 2008, 09:02 AM)
The idea of the whole universe having started out as a ‘Big Bang’ at a single cosmical point of creation, is just logically and linguistically incoherent.
This is your personal misunderstanding of Big Bang theory. While the visible portion of the universe, visible universe for short, was originally point-like, the initial singularity of big-bang theory was not time-like like the singularity of a black hole, but space-like. Which is to say, the expansion has no boundary present in the past light cone and the universe is largely homogeneous and the expansion isotropic.
Viv pope, I had a much larger response I was in the process of posting, but I'll skip it and simply say thank you for posting this thread. As much as people claiming to represent science often complain about religious beliefs, the two are not very far apart (except I'd have to side in favor of most claims that are labelled "scientific" as being statistically more likely, there's a matter of importance which I'd have to side in favor of the questions that things labelled religious tend to pose).
So, sure, we can model trivial things quite accurately in science, but there's still a lot of non-trivial things that appear beyond the ability for science (at least physical sciences) to address ... hmmm.
So, sure, we can model trivial things quite accurately in science, but there's still a lot of non-trivial things that appear beyond the ability for science (at least physical sciences) to address ... hmmm.
QUOTE
If the universe is infinite, and you can see infinitely far:
LOL, the Universe is infinite... and always has been
but you can only see so far... I refer you to the CMB...... light gets degraded the further it goes, ....and the more it transverses spin fields.....until even long wavelengths become flat......
The nature of light is the key to this puzzle, and with earthlings stuck in one place, they have no idea at all..... LOL
Of course there was no Big Bang... no expansion, no black holes, no relativity !!!!
its is all ramblings of delusion anthropogenic minds... stuck on a rock looking up their own uranuses
Why do earthlings think they can positively understand the Universe from their puny rock ?
totally barking mad, the lot of them.
and as far as theories go... yes they have evidence as support BUT THEY ARE ONLY an OPINION that fits the evidence... understand, many opinions can fit the same evidence..... and if the evidence is misrepresented here and there, a theory can become absurd. Such is the sate of earthling science at this point in time.
Most people on these Internet forums think science is set in stone... just grow up.
The goal of science is to collect ALL THE FACTS... and then search for more... and repeat... with never an end to the process... and MAKE UP theories along the way so that "predictions" can point to new facts..... etc..... but it is all head banging, nothing will ever be REAL, .....it is all only opinion.
Hi all,
Has anyone speculated that our observable, possibly finite 'Universe' may not be the entire Universe?
Would it not be more plausible that the Big Bang Theory is correct as explaining the part we are in, but that the singularity emerged from some form of pr-existence? I know I'm now entering the unknown as basis for hypothesis but something out of nothing makes no scientific sense, so I lean towards a more plausible intuition that something (and I don't know what) must have lead to the singularity.
Would it be outlandish to speculate the possibility that the singularity may be one expression of a cyclical chain of events and that we exist within a 'stable enough' period?.
Maybe it's all blown out of the arse of a Black hole perhaps
I don't know any thoughts?
regards
Has anyone speculated that our observable, possibly finite 'Universe' may not be the entire Universe?
Would it not be more plausible that the Big Bang Theory is correct as explaining the part we are in, but that the singularity emerged from some form of pr-existence? I know I'm now entering the unknown as basis for hypothesis but something out of nothing makes no scientific sense, so I lean towards a more plausible intuition that something (and I don't know what) must have lead to the singularity.
Would it be outlandish to speculate the possibility that the singularity may be one expression of a cyclical chain of events and that we exist within a 'stable enough' period?.
Maybe it's all blown out of the arse of a Black hole perhaps
I don't know any thoughts?
regards
Sinister Utopia et al:
CMB and galactic synchrotron radiation anisotropies point to just what you've all been discussing - that our universe shows remnants of a structure leftover from the previous one, or maybe hints of how and from what it formed.
http://www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-universe.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-universe.html
The conclusion, if correct, would shatter a cherished assumption about the universe. "One of the basic tenets of cosmology is that the universe is the same in all directions, and the standard model of inflation is built on that foundation," Erickcek told New Scientist. "If the asymmetry is real, then it tells us that one side of our universe is somehow different than the other side."
CMB and galactic synchrotron radiation anisotropies point to just what you've all been discussing - that our universe shows remnants of a structure leftover from the previous one, or maybe hints of how and from what it formed.
http://www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
QUOTE
The startling observation we made was that the additional polarization rotation is anisotropic in nature, as it depends systematically on the direction that the plane-polarized electromagnetic wave moves through space. This global, anisotropic dependency of the polarization rotation revealed itself as we systematically searched through the totality of all directions on the sky as seen from Earth. The directional dependency of the effect is analogous to that of a so-called "anisotropic," or "birefringent," crystal interacting with polarized light passing through it. Such a crystal influences the polarization of light that traverses it in a way that depends on the straight-line direction that the light takes through the crystal.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-universe.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The startling observation we made was that the additional polarization rotation is anisotropic in nature, as it depends systematically on the direction that the plane-polarized electromagnetic wave moves through space. This global, anisotropic dependency of the polarization rotation revealed itself as we systematically searched through the totality of all directions on the sky as seen from Earth. The directional dependency of the effect is analogous to that of a so-called "anisotropic," or "birefringent," crystal interacting with polarized light passing through it. Such a crystal influences the polarization of light that traverses it in a way that depends on the straight-line direction that the light takes through the crystal. |
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-universe.html
The conclusion, if correct, would shatter a cherished assumption about the universe. "One of the basic tenets of cosmology is that the universe is the same in all directions, and the standard model of inflation is built on that foundation," Erickcek told New Scientist. "If the asymmetry is real, then it tells us that one side of our universe is somehow different than the other side."
I can't visualize the creation of this universe, as said on the Universe televised series, as once being smaller, than the smallest part of an atom.
Somethings off somewhere in this way of figuring, as if this were the case, the gravity field alone, would enormously affect the surroundings.
Maybe there was a big bang, but larger in a gennis point, than realized?
Somethings off somewhere in this way of figuring, as if this were the case, the gravity field alone, would enormously affect the surroundings.
Maybe there was a big bang, but larger in a gennis point, than realized?
QUOTE (am_Unition+Jul 1 2008, 02:01 PM)
Sinister Utopia et al:
CMB and galactic synchrotron radiation anisotropies point to just what you've all been discussing - that our universe shows remnants of a structure leftover from the previous one, or maybe hints of how and from what it formed.
http://www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-universe.html
Thanks am_Unition
Interesting links.
Still trying to absorb all the info. Will add comment when my pea brain warms up.
cheers!
CMB and galactic synchrotron radiation anisotropies point to just what you've all been discussing - that our universe shows remnants of a structure leftover from the previous one, or maybe hints of how and from what it formed.
http://www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14...e-universe.html
Thanks am_Unition
Interesting links.
Still trying to absorb all the info. Will add comment when my pea brain warms up.
cheers!
QUOTE (dwk+Jun 30 2008, 02:28 PM)
@Viv:
I missed the bit where you actually refuted the big bang theory. Could you explain just that bit again?
I think many philosophers would find your other arguments interesting though. Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.
Edit: increased font size to make the argument clearer
Viv Pope answers.
Dear dwk,
At last, a sensible reply! When I told my colleagues about my intention to join these forums I was forewarned that what I would find was ‘a bunch of morons’ And, indeed, for the most part, this is what I did find.
However, against the advice of my peers I argued ‘Well, you never know. There may be just one or two thinkers out there that one might sensibly engage with while ignoring all the rest.’ But my colleagues were cynical about this, also, at the prospect of my finding anyone of this sensible sort.
Having almost given up on it, I was ready to humble myself before my colleagues by conceding that they were right and I was wrong, But now you have given me just a glimmer of hope that I might– just might, after all have been right, that I might receive some rational response, and that I might not have to appear too foolish in front of my advisers.
Anyway, now to your question You say that you missed the bit where I actually refuted the big bang theory and asked me if I could explain just that bit again.
Well, okay, but actually, I didn’t actually refute the theory, in the strict logical sense. If I say to someone ‘The biscuits are in the tin’ and that ‘The tin is in the cupboard’, then it follows logically that ‘The biscuits are in the cupboard.’ But if you then discover that, in fact, the biscuits are not in the cupboard, my argument is, obviously, refuted. My point, here, is that in the same way, my argument was not a refutation of the Big Bang theory, that what I proved – and I mean, logically proved was that the ‘Big Bang’ is not a fact but, by definition, a dogma.
We are, of course, talking now about what is properly termed Logic and Scientific Method, any knowledge of which is obviously not a premium in these discussions. Logically, then, there is a distinct difference between a fact’ and a dogma. A true fact can’t be refuted, whereas a dogma can. One way to refute a dogma is by what logicians know as the method of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). If you can demonstrate that a proposition or argument entails either a contradiction, a conflict with fact or just a plain absurdity, then that proposition or argument is refuted.
So this was the point of my argument, my manner of refutation. As I pointed out, what can be more absurd than to propose that ‘The Universe’ is expanding? The ‘Universe’ is, by definition, all that there is, including all space and time, which leaves no space that it can expand into nor any time by which that expansion can be measured. That, in itself should be seen, by any logical person, as a knock-down refutation of the ‘Expanding Universe’ dogma.
Anyway, that was just one of the absurdities I mentioned in my argument. As you will have read, there were others, which I needn’t repeat here. Just that single one should suffice in itself, making the others more or less redundant.
This should answer to your sensible question. If not, then please let me know.
By the way, you say to me
‘Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.’
Now your kind proposition is (unintentionally) ironic, because I have done just that There are books listed in my POAMS website, by myself and colleagues, which I daren’t mention because the organisers of this forum see it as ‘commercial’. (I have fully explained to them, it isn’t, because there is much on that website that can be downloaded for free. This website can be accessed on Google under just ‘POAMS’. The latest of these books is entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, which can also be accessed on Google under that title.)
Anyway, here is the bit I posted somewhere earlier about those who make free with the word ‘crank’ (If I’m repeating it here, then it could do with a second airing.)
Forums, my grandson’s view on ‘cranks’
I was pondering over the psychology of these people whose only contributions to these science forums is to issue insulting wag-type ‘witticisms’. When my twenty-six-year-old grandson called, I spoke to him about this and showed him some samples of these responses. These made him angry. He seized my laptop and typed-in as follows:
“The only thing I can liken these people to is the change in some people’s behaviour when they get behind the wheel of a car. Their personality undergoes a transformation into some form of raging beast, who, safe inside the car, feels superior to all others. They hide behind the façade of some pseudonym, alias or profile, so that others are unable to see them face to face. This allows them to say things they are unable to in a normal conversation. In reality, they are likely to be wimps, meek and mild individuals who wouldn’t say boo to a goose. They use the opportunity of these forums to gain some feeling of ‘getting one over’ on someone they feel threatened by.
“But if you are going to insult or call someone a ‘crank’, then at least be sure of your argument and be able to back it up with facts. Be sure of what you know and be up for a fight. If you call someone a crank, just to have some input, be prepared to be shot down, both barrels.”
“Yes, William. I said, ‘Its just like poking lions behind bars, It would frighten them shirtless if those bars were removed and they were faced with the lion itself!”
And that’s about it, I reckon. The problem which is confronted by these well-meaning forums for the democratic advancement of science is, somehow, to prevent these sad characters from getting in and vandalizing anything that is of value. It’s an extremely difficult problem for organisers and true subscribers alike.
Anyway, thinking it over, it seems that perhaps one solution would be to get rid of these silly pseudonyms that people can hide behind, and make it a rule that they reveal their true identities. If they were in universities or some other erudite organization, they would have to shape-up in this way. I’m not saying that all subscribers to these forums should be graduates, or undergraduates, post-Docs or whatever. Ideally, what these forums are for, is to provide avenues for free thinkers who may not want to be weighed down by all the academic and professional lets and hindrances. But in this liberal pursuit, one doesn’t want to find these conduits clogged, like waste-pipes, for those who can anonymously pretend to be scientists but haven’t a hope in hell of engaging in any truly scientific, face to-face discussion.
Is there any other way in which these forums can be cleared of these morons to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended? They should surely be, on the one hand, free of those who cannot put aside current scientific conventions, stuck, for instance, with concepts like those of ‘electrons and protons’, ‘neutrinos; ‘wave-particles’, and so on, and, on the other hand, those “wimps” my disinterested grandson describes, whose anarchistic urges cannot be expressed in any normal, rational way. Something has to be done if these forums are not to remain, as so many serious thinkers now regard them, a standing joke.
[B]To dwk
I don't, of course, include you in this critique. Any way, I hope I have answered y9ur question.
Best wishes
Viv Pope
I missed the bit where you actually refuted the big bang theory. Could you explain just that bit again?
I think many philosophers would find your other arguments interesting though. Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.
Edit: increased font size to make the argument clearer
Viv Pope answers.
Dear dwk,
At last, a sensible reply! When I told my colleagues about my intention to join these forums I was forewarned that what I would find was ‘a bunch of morons’ And, indeed, for the most part, this is what I did find.
However, against the advice of my peers I argued ‘Well, you never know. There may be just one or two thinkers out there that one might sensibly engage with while ignoring all the rest.’ But my colleagues were cynical about this, also, at the prospect of my finding anyone of this sensible sort.
Having almost given up on it, I was ready to humble myself before my colleagues by conceding that they were right and I was wrong, But now you have given me just a glimmer of hope that I might– just might, after all have been right, that I might receive some rational response, and that I might not have to appear too foolish in front of my advisers.
Anyway, now to your question You say that you missed the bit where I actually refuted the big bang theory and asked me if I could explain just that bit again.
Well, okay, but actually, I didn’t actually refute the theory, in the strict logical sense. If I say to someone ‘The biscuits are in the tin’ and that ‘The tin is in the cupboard’, then it follows logically that ‘The biscuits are in the cupboard.’ But if you then discover that, in fact, the biscuits are not in the cupboard, my argument is, obviously, refuted. My point, here, is that in the same way, my argument was not a refutation of the Big Bang theory, that what I proved – and I mean, logically proved was that the ‘Big Bang’ is not a fact but, by definition, a dogma.
We are, of course, talking now about what is properly termed Logic and Scientific Method, any knowledge of which is obviously not a premium in these discussions. Logically, then, there is a distinct difference between a fact’ and a dogma. A true fact can’t be refuted, whereas a dogma can. One way to refute a dogma is by what logicians know as the method of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). If you can demonstrate that a proposition or argument entails either a contradiction, a conflict with fact or just a plain absurdity, then that proposition or argument is refuted.
So this was the point of my argument, my manner of refutation. As I pointed out, what can be more absurd than to propose that ‘The Universe’ is expanding? The ‘Universe’ is, by definition, all that there is, including all space and time, which leaves no space that it can expand into nor any time by which that expansion can be measured. That, in itself should be seen, by any logical person, as a knock-down refutation of the ‘Expanding Universe’ dogma.
Anyway, that was just one of the absurdities I mentioned in my argument. As you will have read, there were others, which I needn’t repeat here. Just that single one should suffice in itself, making the others more or less redundant.
This should answer to your sensible question. If not, then please let me know.
By the way, you say to me
‘Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.’
Now your kind proposition is (unintentionally) ironic, because I have done just that There are books listed in my POAMS website, by myself and colleagues, which I daren’t mention because the organisers of this forum see it as ‘commercial’. (I have fully explained to them, it isn’t, because there is much on that website that can be downloaded for free. This website can be accessed on Google under just ‘POAMS’. The latest of these books is entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, which can also be accessed on Google under that title.)
Anyway, here is the bit I posted somewhere earlier about those who make free with the word ‘crank’ (If I’m repeating it here, then it could do with a second airing.)
Forums, my grandson’s view on ‘cranks’
I was pondering over the psychology of these people whose only contributions to these science forums is to issue insulting wag-type ‘witticisms’. When my twenty-six-year-old grandson called, I spoke to him about this and showed him some samples of these responses. These made him angry. He seized my laptop and typed-in as follows:
“The only thing I can liken these people to is the change in some people’s behaviour when they get behind the wheel of a car. Their personality undergoes a transformation into some form of raging beast, who, safe inside the car, feels superior to all others. They hide behind the façade of some pseudonym, alias or profile, so that others are unable to see them face to face. This allows them to say things they are unable to in a normal conversation. In reality, they are likely to be wimps, meek and mild individuals who wouldn’t say boo to a goose. They use the opportunity of these forums to gain some feeling of ‘getting one over’ on someone they feel threatened by.
“But if you are going to insult or call someone a ‘crank’, then at least be sure of your argument and be able to back it up with facts. Be sure of what you know and be up for a fight. If you call someone a crank, just to have some input, be prepared to be shot down, both barrels.”
“Yes, William. I said, ‘Its just like poking lions behind bars, It would frighten them shirtless if those bars were removed and they were faced with the lion itself!”
And that’s about it, I reckon. The problem which is confronted by these well-meaning forums for the democratic advancement of science is, somehow, to prevent these sad characters from getting in and vandalizing anything that is of value. It’s an extremely difficult problem for organisers and true subscribers alike.
Anyway, thinking it over, it seems that perhaps one solution would be to get rid of these silly pseudonyms that people can hide behind, and make it a rule that they reveal their true identities. If they were in universities or some other erudite organization, they would have to shape-up in this way. I’m not saying that all subscribers to these forums should be graduates, or undergraduates, post-Docs or whatever. Ideally, what these forums are for, is to provide avenues for free thinkers who may not want to be weighed down by all the academic and professional lets and hindrances. But in this liberal pursuit, one doesn’t want to find these conduits clogged, like waste-pipes, for those who can anonymously pretend to be scientists but haven’t a hope in hell of engaging in any truly scientific, face to-face discussion.
Is there any other way in which these forums can be cleared of these morons to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended? They should surely be, on the one hand, free of those who cannot put aside current scientific conventions, stuck, for instance, with concepts like those of ‘electrons and protons’, ‘neutrinos; ‘wave-particles’, and so on, and, on the other hand, those “wimps” my disinterested grandson describes, whose anarchistic urges cannot be expressed in any normal, rational way. Something has to be done if these forums are not to remain, as so many serious thinkers now regard them, a standing joke.
[B]To dwk
I don't, of course, include you in this critique. Any way, I hope I have answered y9ur question.
Best wishes
Viv Pope
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 3 2008, 01:04 PM)
When I told my colleagues about my intention to join these forums I was forewarned that what I would find was ‘a bunch of morons’ And, indeed, for the most part, this is what I did find.
Yeperoonie! A whole crapload o mοrοns. Look what some o us had to say about one of 'em...
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=351135
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=350923
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=350655
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=350677
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=351144
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=351115
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353366
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353423
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353582
Yeperoonie! A whole crapload o mοrοns. Look what some o us had to say about one of 'em...
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=351135
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=350923
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=350655
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=350677
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=351144
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=351115
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353366
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353423
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=353582
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 3 2008, 08:04 AM)
So this was the point of my argument, my manner of refutation. As I pointed out, what can be more absurd than to propose that ‘The Universe’ is expanding? The ‘Universe’ is, by definition, all that there is, including all space and time, which leaves no space that it can expand into nor any time by which that expansion can be measured. That, in itself should be seen, by any logical person, as a knock-down refutation of the ‘Expanding Universe’ dogma.
Wrong. There is evidence, both observed and mathematical, that the universe is expanding. Play word games and write all the great stories you want, until you refute the physics with, you know, actual physics, you're not going to convince anybody. And you have the audacity to compare yourself to Galileo and Copernicus? That's laughable and absurd, you aren't presenting anything besides your own lack of understanding. And because YOU don't understand it, it's wrong, and it requires a 6 page story to say so. You could save yourself a lot of stress on your wrists and fingers if you cut out the fluff.
Angry? Seized your laptop through a phone? HULK HATE WEBFORUMS. If he gets that upset about postings on a forum, he's a little high strung, eh?
Angry? Seized your laptop through a phone? HULK HATE WEBFORUMS. If he gets that upset about postings on a forum, he's a little high strung, eh?
“But if you are going to insult or call someone a ‘crank’, then at least be sure of your argument and be able to back it up with facts. Be sure of what you know and be up for a fight. If you call someone a crank, just to have some input, be prepared to be shot down, both barrels.”
If you're going to make a scientific claim on a physics forum, try to present some physics and mathematics that actually helps further your cause instead of playing the logic game. I understand you're a philosopher, but to do physics you need...some physics.
Wrong. Most of the forum's most active posters (TheDoc, AN, and Euler, etc.) have posted their credentials and identities for everyone to see.
Also, why do you refer to yourself in the third person?
Wow. I had absolutely no idea that that I was being ironic in that way:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Light-Speed-Gravit.../dp/0950379069/
Viv, you have captured my curiosity. Could you please tell me, in a single sentence: what is the universe made of?
Thanks in advance, dwk.
And please do keep fighting to get the truth out in there, no matter how much people try to confound you with their meaningless garbage. Just remember what Ghandi said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule them, then you fight you, then you win!!"
Also, I tried clicking on all those underlined links you included in your post, but your links don't seem to work on my computer in either of my browsers (I've tried it in both Frontpage Express and Firefox Explorer, but to no avail.). Weird, because I've tried it in both Frontpage Explorer and Firefox Express! I really need to get rid of all these viruses and spywarez that come infected with Vista
Wrong. There is evidence, both observed and mathematical, that the universe is expanding. Play word games and write all the great stories you want, until you refute the physics with, you know, actual physics, you're not going to convince anybody. And you have the audacity to compare yourself to Galileo and Copernicus? That's laughable and absurd, you aren't presenting anything besides your own lack of understanding. And because YOU don't understand it, it's wrong, and it requires a 6 page story to say so. You could save yourself a lot of stress on your wrists and fingers if you cut out the fluff.
QUOTE
When my twenty-six-year-old grandson called, I spoke to him about this and showed him some samples of these responses. These made him angry. He seized my laptop and typed-in as follows:
Angry? Seized your laptop through a phone? HULK HATE WEBFORUMS. If he gets that upset about postings on a forum, he's a little high strung, eh?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When my twenty-six-year-old grandson called, I spoke to him about this and showed him some samples of these responses. These made him angry. He seized my laptop and typed-in as follows: |
Angry? Seized your laptop through a phone? HULK HATE WEBFORUMS. If he gets that upset about postings on a forum, he's a little high strung, eh?
“But if you are going to insult or call someone a ‘crank’, then at least be sure of your argument and be able to back it up with facts. Be sure of what you know and be up for a fight. If you call someone a crank, just to have some input, be prepared to be shot down, both barrels.”
If you're going to make a scientific claim on a physics forum, try to present some physics and mathematics that actually helps further your cause instead of playing the logic game. I understand you're a philosopher, but to do physics you need...some physics.
QUOTE
Their personality undergoes a transformation into some form of raging beast, who, safe inside the car, feels superior to all others. They hide behind the façade of some pseudonym, alias or profile, so that others are unable to see them face to face. This allows them to say things they are unable to in a normal conversation. In reality, they are likely to be wimps, meek and mild individuals who wouldn’t say boo to a goose
Wrong. Most of the forum's most active posters (TheDoc, AN, and Euler, etc.) have posted their credentials and identities for everyone to see.
Also, why do you refer to yourself in the third person?
Never mind the science or the absurdities, this is what gives you away as a fake...
If you are still in the habit of referring to people as a 'bunch of morons', you are not in a position to understand much of anything.
The true scientific approach is to try to understand why people are like they are, and not just join in with the abuse. People have invested a lot of their time, education and world-views in trying to understand their surroundings to an 'acceptable' level. This does not make them 'morons'. This makes them people with invested interests. There are careers with sponsorships and salaries at stake. These aspects are also 'truth' for many people, and much closer to 'home', to boot.
g.
QUOTE
When I told my colleagues about my intention to join these forums I was forewarned that what I would find was ‘a bunch of morons’ And, indeed, for the most part, this is what I did find.
If you are still in the habit of referring to people as a 'bunch of morons', you are not in a position to understand much of anything.
The true scientific approach is to try to understand why people are like they are, and not just join in with the abuse. People have invested a lot of their time, education and world-views in trying to understand their surroundings to an 'acceptable' level. This does not make them 'morons'. This makes them people with invested interests. There are careers with sponsorships and salaries at stake. These aspects are also 'truth' for many people, and much closer to 'home', to boot.
g.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing. Now your kind proposition is (unintentionally) ironic, because I have done just that There are books listed in my POAMS website, by myself and colleagues, which I daren’t mention because the organisers of this forum see it as ‘commercial’. (I have fully explained to them, it isn’t, because there is much on that website that can be downloaded for free. This website can be accessed on Google under just ‘POAMS’. The latest of these books is entitled Light-Speed, Gravitation and Quantum Instantaneity, which can also be accessed on Google under that title.) |
Wow. I had absolutely no idea that that I was being ironic in that way:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Light-Speed-Gravit.../dp/0950379069/
Viv, you have captured my curiosity. Could you please tell me, in a single sentence: what is the universe made of?
Thanks in advance, dwk.
And please do keep fighting to get the truth out in there, no matter how much people try to confound you with their meaningless garbage. Just remember what Ghandi said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule them, then you fight you, then you win!!"
Also, I tried clicking on all those underlined links you included in your post, but your links don't seem to work on my computer in either of my browsers (I've tried it in both Frontpage Express and Firefox Explorer, but to no avail.). Weird, because I've tried it in both Frontpage Explorer and Firefox Express! I really need to get rid of all these viruses and spywarez that come infected with Vista
QUOTE (dwk+Jul 3 2008, 12:06 PM)
Also, I tried clicking on all those underlined links you included in your post, but your links don't seem to work on my computer in either of my browsers (I've tried it in both Frontpage Express and Firefox Explorer, but to no avail.). Weird, because I've tried it in both Frontpage Explorer and Firefox Express! I really need to get rid of all these viruses and spywarez that come infected with Vista
They aren't links.
They aren't links.
And, NVP, what none of them can see in your writings is how your self-referential writings are supposed to help them do better physics, which is one of their invested interests. But you agreed with me when I suggested that your writing was not apparently aimed for an audience of physicists. Who else would be interested in doing better physics?
For example, there is a conflict between Newton and experiment which was increasingly apparent in the nineteenth century. In fact, by 1859 we had enough experimental evidence to favor special relativity over Galilean relativity and Newtonian absolute space and time.
By 1859, Hippolyte Fizeau's experiment to measure the Augustin Fresnel's hypothetical ether drag was exactly consistent with a velocity addition formula of
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) ;
with K = 1/c² while Newton and Galileo would predict K = 0.
Lorentz and FitzGerald came up with equations which correctly relate observables like elapsed time and relative position for two distinct inertial observers, but didn't have physics understanding beyond phenomenology. Einstein proposed new candidate axioms of physics and demonstrated that not only were such axioms consistent with existing experimental results, but than they provided a basis to derive previous phenomenological results like the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction or the Fresnel drag coefficients as first-class physical results. Finally, Minkowski demonstrated that there was a mathematical beauty behind the physical results, such that we no longer speak of Euclidean and absolute space and time, but only of Minkowski space-time.
While astonishing to some, these results were shown by von Ignatowsky and others to be very natural descriptions, provided we were willing to let Nature be our guide and not just rely on the authority of Newton, Aristotle and Euclid.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=284647
All particle physics is done nowadays in Minkowski space time, because that is the description of the universe that makes highly relativistic kinematics and collision descriptions have the most natural expressions. Sometimes, at the end, a lab description of measured angles in one particular lab frame are discussed, but only after the heavy lifting was done in the description of the universe that makes the discovered symmetry between space and time manifest.
And then Einstein extended this concept of Minkowski space-time to curved space-time and demonstrated there was just one way that Gravity fit into the picture. Bondi was an enthusiastic developer of the conceptual view of Einstein's newer General Relativity. While a co-developer of the Steady-State cosmology which failed to predict the cosmological microwave background radiation, Bondi was willing to let experimental results and not just the beauty of his philosophy rule his convictions.
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/23134
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/cosmology-30s/
So against this backdrop of useful physicists, dedicated physicists, and principled physicists, where should we place your contributions? You failed to answer dwk's question. Reductio ad absurdum does not mean what you say it means. In physics, you cannot reject a theoretical or experimental result because you judge it "absurd" on the basis of your philosophy or experience. (You can reject a theory if it contradicts itself.)
You conflate the visible portion of the universe with the universe. You fail to understand the GR concepts (some of which were developed by Bondi) which underly the Big Bang model and therefore incorrectly base your argments on a straw-man expansion into space.
What is the Universe expanding into? -- Ned Wright answers
How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang? -- Ned Wright answers
//Edit: Note to excaza -- "To Call" may also mean "to make a brief visit." No teleportation required to reach the laptop in that case.
For example, there is a conflict between Newton and experiment which was increasingly apparent in the nineteenth century. In fact, by 1859 we had enough experimental evidence to favor special relativity over Galilean relativity and Newtonian absolute space and time.
By 1859, Hippolyte Fizeau's experiment to measure the Augustin Fresnel's hypothetical ether drag was exactly consistent with a velocity addition formula of
v3 = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + K v1 v2 ) ;
with K = 1/c² while Newton and Galileo would predict K = 0.
Lorentz and FitzGerald came up with equations which correctly relate observables like elapsed time and relative position for two distinct inertial observers, but didn't have physics understanding beyond phenomenology. Einstein proposed new candidate axioms of physics and demonstrated that not only were such axioms consistent with existing experimental results, but than they provided a basis to derive previous phenomenological results like the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction or the Fresnel drag coefficients as first-class physical results. Finally, Minkowski demonstrated that there was a mathematical beauty behind the physical results, such that we no longer speak of Euclidean and absolute space and time, but only of Minkowski space-time.
While astonishing to some, these results were shown by von Ignatowsky and others to be very natural descriptions, provided we were willing to let Nature be our guide and not just rely on the authority of Newton, Aristotle and Euclid.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=284647
All particle physics is done nowadays in Minkowski space time, because that is the description of the universe that makes highly relativistic kinematics and collision descriptions have the most natural expressions. Sometimes, at the end, a lab description of measured angles in one particular lab frame are discussed, but only after the heavy lifting was done in the description of the universe that makes the discovered symmetry between space and time manifest.
And then Einstein extended this concept of Minkowski space-time to curved space-time and demonstrated there was just one way that Gravity fit into the picture. Bondi was an enthusiastic developer of the conceptual view of Einstein's newer General Relativity. While a co-developer of the Steady-State cosmology which failed to predict the cosmological microwave background radiation, Bondi was willing to let experimental results and not just the beauty of his philosophy rule his convictions.
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/23134
QUOTE
As Bondi said “Show me some fossils from an evolving universe, and I'll give it up.” In 1965, the fossils arrived, courtesy of the observations of the 3° K remnant microwave radiation.
And Bondi, true to his philosophy, gave it up.
And Bondi, true to his philosophy, gave it up.
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/cosmology-30s/
So against this backdrop of useful physicists, dedicated physicists, and principled physicists, where should we place your contributions? You failed to answer dwk's question. Reductio ad absurdum does not mean what you say it means. In physics, you cannot reject a theoretical or experimental result because you judge it "absurd" on the basis of your philosophy or experience. (You can reject a theory if it contradicts itself.)
You conflate the visible portion of the universe with the universe. You fail to understand the GR concepts (some of which were developed by Bondi) which underly the Big Bang model and therefore incorrectly base your argments on a straw-man expansion into space.
What is the Universe expanding into? -- Ned Wright answers
How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang? -- Ned Wright answers
//Edit: Note to excaza -- "To Call" may also mean "to make a brief visit." No teleportation required to reach the laptop in that case.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 3 2008, 02:04 PM)
They hide behind the façade of some pseudonym, alias or profile, so that others are unable to see them face to face. This allows them to say things they are unable to in a normal conversation. In reality, they are likely to be wimps, meek and mild individuals who wouldn’t say boo to a goose. They use the opportunity of these forums to gain some feeling of ‘getting one over’ on someone they feel threatened by.
http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/
I'm a 24 year all PhD student doing compact dimensions in string theory and just last week I started doing AdS/CFT and it's describing of QCD meson interactions.
I don't feel threated by the cranks here. Infact, I have openly and repeatedly challenged people like Ubanatuva, Farsight, Precursor and StevenA to bets up to $1000 that they cannot get their work published. I even offer to convert their essays into pdf format which is in line with the publication rules of say JHEP.
Not one of them has taken me up on such a challenge.
http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/
I'm a 24 year all PhD student doing compact dimensions in string theory and just last week I started doing AdS/CFT and it's describing of QCD meson interactions.
I don't feel threated by the cranks here. Infact, I have openly and repeatedly challenged people like Ubanatuva, Farsight, Precursor and StevenA to bets up to $1000 that they cannot get their work published. I even offer to convert their essays into pdf format which is in line with the publication rules of say JHEP.
Not one of them has taken me up on such a challenge.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 3 2008, 02:04 PM)
“But if you are going to insult or call someone a ‘crank’, then at least be sure of your argument and be able to back it up with facts. Be sure of what you know and be up for a fight. If you call someone a crank, just to have some input, be prepared to be shot down, both barrels.”
You claimed that an object's rotation about it's centre of mass alters it's motion about the mass it's orbiting. I asked you to do explicit calculations to show it, you refused. You couldn't back it up. You didn't shoot me down, you chickened out.I have previously been challenged to prove I can do physics and I have. I have posted my work and the cranks ran away.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 3 2008, 02:04 PM)
Anyway, thinking it over, it seems that perhaps one solution would be to get rid of these silly pseudonyms that people can hide behind, and make it a rule that they reveal their true identities. If they were in universities or some other erudite organization, they would have to shape-up in this way. I’m not saying that all subscribers to these forums should be graduates, or undergraduates, post-Docs or whatever. Ideally, what these forums are for, is to provide avenues for free thinkers who may not want to be weighed down by all the academic and professional lets and hindrances. But in this liberal pursuit, one doesn’t want to find these conduits clogged, like waste-pipes, for those who can anonymously pretend to be scientists but haven’t a hope in hell of engaging in any truly scientific, face to-face discussion.
I have a degree and masters from Cambridge and am a postgraduate doing string theory. I teach quantum mechanics to undergraduates.
What physics qualifications do you have, you crank hypocrite?
What physics qualifications do you have, you crank hypocrite?
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 4 2008, 01:04 AM)
When I told my colleagues about my intention to join these forums I was forewarned that what I would find was ‘a bunch of morons’ And, indeed, for the most part, this is what I did find.
... and so you added one more
But as well as morons like you, there are a few genuine scientists such as AlphaNumeric and Euler.
... and so you added one more
But as well as morons like you, there are a few genuine scientists such as AlphaNumeric and Euler.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Jul 3 2008, 07:04 AM)
As I pointed out, what can be more absurd than to propose that ‘The Universe’ is expanding? The ‘Universe’ is, by definition, all that there is, including all space and time, which leaves no space that it can expand into nor any time by which that expansion can be measured. That, in itself should be seen, by any logical person, as a knock-down refutation of the ‘Expanding Universe’ dogma.
As I pointed out, what can be more absurd than to propose that ‘The Balloon’ is expanding? The Balloon surface is, by definition, all that there is of the balloon, which leaves no space that it can expand into. That, in itself should be seen, by any logical person, as a knock-down refutation of the ‘Expanding Balloon’ dogma.
As I pointed out, what can be more absurd than to propose that ‘The Balloon’ is expanding? The Balloon surface is, by definition, all that there is of the balloon, which leaves no space that it can expand into. That, in itself should be seen, by any logical person, as a knock-down refutation of the ‘Expanding Balloon’ dogma.
Viv, please do answer my question, what is the universe made of?
I don't doubt you've given this question a good deal of thought, and you must have an opinion one way or the other. It sure keeps me awake at night.
I don't doubt you've given this question a good deal of thought, and you must have an opinion one way or the other. It sure keeps me awake at night.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Alphanumeric said
You are 24.
You have all the info and you come up with a statement without science support.
=================================================
Who knows what is the expanding universe? Is it actual distance or a time/space thing.
What does the term acceleration mean to the universe.? Again does it mean actual acceleration or does it relate to time/space thing.
=================================================
Observations show us that the universe is not actually expanding. It is grouping into gravity sinks and than recycled.
The best test is look at as many images as you wish, and so doing show me one that proves that it applies to the expanding universe.
Alphanumeric said
QUOTE
I have a degree and masters from Cambridge and am a postgraduate doing string theory. I teach quantum mechanics to undergraduates.
What physics qualifications do you have, you crank hypocrite?
What physics qualifications do you have, you crank hypocrite?
You are 24.
You have all the info and you come up with a statement without science support.
=================================================
Who knows what is the expanding universe? Is it actual distance or a time/space thing.
What does the term acceleration mean to the universe.? Again does it mean actual acceleration or does it relate to time/space thing.
=================================================
Observations show us that the universe is not actually expanding. It is grouping into gravity sinks and than recycled.
The best test is look at as many images as you wish, and so doing show me one that proves that it applies to the expanding universe.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 5 2008, 09:53 AM)
You have all the info and you come up with a statement without science support.
Which statement was that?
Which statement was that?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 5 2008, 09:53 AM)
Who knows what is the expanding universe? Is it actual distance or a time/space thing.
What does the term acceleration mean to the universe.? Again does it mean actual acceleration or does it relate to time/space thing.
What does the term acceleration mean to the universe.? Again does it mean actual acceleration or does it relate to time/space thing.
It's space-time expansion, not actual acceleration. If it was actual motion we'd see time dilation effects which we don't see. We'd also not have a 'cosmological horizon', whereby objects move so fast they move away from us faster than light. Only space-time expansion can explain that.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 5 2008, 09:53 AM)
Observations show us that the universe is not actually expanding. It is grouping into gravity sinks and than recycled.
The best test is look at as many images as you wish, and so doing show me one that proves that it applies to the expanding universe.
The best test is look at as many images as you wish, and so doing show me one that proves that it applies to the expanding universe.
You don't actually know any cosmology, do you?
And yet you whine about me saying things without scientific support!
And yet you whine about me saying things without scientific support!
G'day alpha Numeric
You said
Ok, I agree
Ok, I agree
You don't actually know any cosmology, do you?
also
Now a child would make a statements like that and they are the statements that I refer to.
=============================================
Give me your best shot.
Pick any subject
I want to know, if you say what you are or just a crankpot after crankpots.
=============================================
If I make simple statements, please do not read them out of context.
You said
QUOTE
It's space-time expansion, not actual acceleration. If it was actual motion we'd see time dilation effects which we don't see. We'd also not have a 'cosmological horizon', whereby objects move so fast they move away from us faster than light. Only space-time expansion can explain that.
Ok, I agree
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's space-time expansion, not actual acceleration. If it was actual motion we'd see time dilation effects which we don't see. We'd also not have a 'cosmological horizon', whereby objects move so fast they move away from us faster than light. Only space-time expansion can explain that. |
Ok, I agree
You don't actually know any cosmology, do you?
also
QUOTE
What physics qualifications do you have, you crank hypocrite?
Now a child would make a statements like that and they are the statements that I refer to.
=============================================
Give me your best shot.
Pick any subject
I want to know, if you say what you are or just a crankpot after crankpots.
=============================================
If I make simple statements, please do not read them out of context.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 7 2008, 10:12 AM)
Now a child would make a statements like that and they are the statements that I refer to.
Viv Pope kept making statements about how any postgrads reading this thread would think badly of people like myself. Yet he repeatedly ignored I am a postgrad. He called himself a 'free lance philosopher'. I call myself a physicist. My supervisors and my students call me a physicist. My degree makes me a mathematician. My PhD makes me a physicist.
What about you?
http://www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
In the language of the Quantum Field Theory branch of Physics, one can show that the residual polarization rotation can be generated by a coupling of the so-called "electromagnetic field tensor" to a new, four-dimensional vacuum field, whose "spatial part" is the anisotropy vector we discovered. Furthermore, when subjected to coordinate transformations such as "time reversal" and "space inversion," this new field behaves in the same manner that the intrinsic spin of an atom or elementary particle does, when the atom or particle is subjected to such transformations. One may therefore affix some sort of "spin" to the new vacuum field.
However, at this point in time, the question of what is truly underlying the effect we see is as wide open as Space itself. In nature, there are many experimentally verified imperfections, like "parity violations" of kaon decays for example. The fundamental conclusion from our finding is that our world seems to exhibit another special type of imperfection, or asymmetry, called "anisotropy." Nature never ceases to amaze us.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
A single value of the baryon density fits 4 abundances simultaneously. The fit is good but not perfect. There has been a dispute about the actual primordial helium abundance in the Universe: either 23.4 or 24.4 percent by mass, with both broups claiming 0.2 percent accuracy so this is 5 sigma discrepancy between the different observational camps. And a new measurement of the free neutron lifetime is 6 sigma smaller that the previous world average, giving a new prediction of the helium abundance of 24.6 percent. The observed lithium abundance in stars is less than the predicted lithium abundance, by a factor of about 2. But stars destroy lithium so it is hard to assess the significance of this difference.
Showtopic= 21274 -----> forum= 16
Posted by: Beer w/Straw Apr 20 2008, 03:32 PM
QUOTE
How was there nuclear reactions with just Hydrogen , Helium and lithium for the first fuel for the suns?
there are 4 or 5 (come on memory you can do it ) models proposed waiting for further observation/experimental evidence to determine which is closer to the actual universe we occupy? if it were a dogma, big bang cosmologists would decide on one over the other and preach that as the complete theory.
you do realise that there multiple big bang models?
cause and effect is observed in classical systems. when you look at quantum entanglement the cause and effect relation can become meaningless ie particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm
according to the big bang theory, the universe was a singularity. a quantum description is more fitting during this phase, than a classical one.
cause and effect is observed in classical systems. when you look at quantum entanglement the cause and effect relation can become meaningless ie particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm
according to the big bang theory, the universe was a singularity. a quantum description is more fitting during this phase, than a classical one.
We do not know the physics of how or why the universe started we just know it did.
there are people working on the how and why. i agree that it is not currently known, but progress is being made. in my opinion, physics is the best tool available to answer the how and why.
correct.
it is the restriction of the scientific method that i favor. i see physics as a disciplined form of philosophy. physics may not be the best tool to describe emotion or my preference for the color blue over red, but when you start asking questions about the physical universe, physics is the trump card.
i would say that depends on who is looking at what. those working the the various fields may notice the change immediately. take for example AlphaNumeric, he may notice changes to string theory immediately, heck he probably makes the changes. i may never know the same change to string theory unless i happen to stumble upon it in some pop science book, then i probably wont understand its deeper meaning. to me string theory may appear unchanging, to AlphaNumeric, string theory is probably changing every time he works on it.
look last approx 300 years and available technology to the general public as a guide to noticing changes in physics.
without a clear definition of what you mean by winning the game that we call life that has accepted by those you consider are participating in such a game, it is nothing more than a perception of yours that these people are playing such a game.
Viv Pope kept making statements about how any postgrads reading this thread would think badly of people like myself. Yet he repeatedly ignored I am a postgrad. He called himself a 'free lance philosopher'. I call myself a physicist. My supervisors and my students call me a physicist. My degree makes me a mathematician. My PhD makes me a physicist.
What about you?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 7 2008, 10:12 AM)
http://www.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/overview.html
In the language of the Quantum Field Theory branch of Physics, one can show that the residual polarization rotation can be generated by a coupling of the so-called "electromagnetic field tensor" to a new, four-dimensional vacuum field, whose "spatial part" is the anisotropy vector we discovered. Furthermore, when subjected to coordinate transformations such as "time reversal" and "space inversion," this new field behaves in the same manner that the intrinsic spin of an atom or elementary particle does, when the atom or particle is subjected to such transformations. One may therefore affix some sort of "spin" to the new vacuum field.
However, at this point in time, the question of what is truly underlying the effect we see is as wide open as Space itself. In nature, there are many experimentally verified imperfections, like "parity violations" of kaon decays for example. The fundamental conclusion from our finding is that our world seems to exhibit another special type of imperfection, or asymmetry, called "anisotropy." Nature never ceases to amaze us.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
A single value of the baryon density fits 4 abundances simultaneously. The fit is good but not perfect. There has been a dispute about the actual primordial helium abundance in the Universe: either 23.4 or 24.4 percent by mass, with both broups claiming 0.2 percent accuracy so this is 5 sigma discrepancy between the different observational camps. And a new measurement of the free neutron lifetime is 6 sigma smaller that the previous world average, giving a new prediction of the helium abundance of 24.6 percent. The observed lithium abundance in stars is less than the predicted lithium abundance, by a factor of about 2. But stars destroy lithium so it is hard to assess the significance of this difference.
Showtopic= 21274 -----> forum= 16
Posted by: Beer w/Straw Apr 20 2008, 03:32 PM
QUOTE
How was there nuclear reactions with just Hydrogen , Helium and lithium for the first fuel for the suns?
The Big Bang Dogma
Logically speaking, a dogma is an idea which is held to and presented as fact when it is no more than an arbitrary opinion. Here is a dictionary definition:
Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. Latin, from Greek: ‘opinion’, ‘belief’, from dokein, to seem
By definition, then, the ‘Big Bang theory of cosmic creation is a dogma. Why? Because practically all the standard modern textbooks present it as a fact, whereas it is really only a theory, an assumption. <<< ~~from the opening post~~
The bigger assumption, I think, is we will figure out how stars form from currently known physics. The other assumption of 'bang' when there is nothing to bang into isn't much of a metaphyscial hurdle, in my opinion. Space and time our intertwined which makes the events ordered for the evolutionist with no absolute conviction except that Evolution, by Golly, occured. The patient, rational devolutionist still hopes the evolutionist will see the error of his\her way and repent before the "day" is spent. 
MrB.
Beer w/Straw had no answers but his two links were:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/astfus.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase.../nucbin.html#c2
Logically speaking, a dogma is an idea which is held to and presented as fact when it is no more than an arbitrary opinion. Here is a dictionary definition:
Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. Latin, from Greek: ‘opinion’, ‘belief’, from dokein, to seem
By definition, then, the ‘Big Bang theory of cosmic creation is a dogma. Why? Because practically all the standard modern textbooks present it as a fact, whereas it is really only a theory, an assumption. <<< ~~from the opening post~~
The bigger assumption, I think, is we will figure out how stars form from currently known physics. The other assumption of 'bang' when there is nothing to bang into isn't much of a metaphyscial hurdle, in my opinion. Space and time our intertwined which makes the events ordered for the evolutionist with no absolute conviction except that Evolution, by Golly, occured. The patient, rational devolutionist still hopes the evolutionist will see the error of his\her way and repent before the "day" is spent.
MrB.
Beer w/Straw had no answers but his two links were:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/astfus.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase.../nucbin.html#c2
"Metals" to an Astronomer
It is common practice for astronomers to refer to the entire collection of elements heavier than helium as "metals". Since the vast majority of atoms in the universe are hydrogen or helium atoms, this has been a convenient tradition. Stars can be classified according to their "metallicity" or content of heavier atoms. Because the nuclear synthesis occurs in stars and can be distributed into space at the end of the stars' lifetimes, younger stars may have picked up some of this content from previous stars and therefore be more metal-rich. The metallicity is sometimes indicated with a symbol Z and young Population I stars have been found with metallicity as high as Z = .03 . If a star is found to be "metal poor", it is taken as an indication that the star is old, having formed before the ending of other stars lifetimes had distributed the background material containing heavy elements.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/nucsyn.html
This is a better link. But I am more interested in the supposed Population III stars and the falsifiablity of the Big Bang!
It is common practice for astronomers to refer to the entire collection of elements heavier than helium as "metals". Since the vast majority of atoms in the universe are hydrogen or helium atoms, this has been a convenient tradition. Stars can be classified according to their "metallicity" or content of heavier atoms. Because the nuclear synthesis occurs in stars and can be distributed into space at the end of the stars' lifetimes, younger stars may have picked up some of this content from previous stars and therefore be more metal-rich. The metallicity is sometimes indicated with a symbol Z and young Population I stars have been found with metallicity as high as Z = .03 . If a star is found to be "metal poor", it is taken as an indication that the star is old, having formed before the ending of other stars lifetimes had distributed the background material containing heavy elements.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/nucsyn.html
This is a better link. But I am more interested in the supposed Population III stars and the falsifiablity of the Big Bang!
G'day from the land of ozzzzz
Hello Misterbelfry
The standard model is well understood. Fusion being the main power supply.
What if this is wrong?
You will need to do your own research, the links you provided fall short. Old text book info.
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
This is a list of papers
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html
Read up these ones from the above link.
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation
The Origin, Composition, and Energy Source for the Sun
Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete
Hello Misterbelfry
The standard model is well understood. Fusion being the main power supply.
What if this is wrong?
You will need to do your own research, the links you provided fall short. Old text book info.
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
This is a list of papers
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html
Read up these ones from the above link.
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation
The Origin, Composition, and Energy Source for the Sun
Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jul 7 2008, 02:51 PM)
It is common practice for astronomers to refer to the entire collection of elements heavier than helium as "metals".
No, they don't. Neon is not a metal. Carbon is not a metal. Chlorine is not a metal. Oxygen is not a metal. Nitrogen is not a metal. And the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen fusion cycle in stars is of critical importance.
Why do you tell such transparent and ignorant lies? I'd go through your posts but I have work to do.
No, they don't. Neon is not a metal. Carbon is not a metal. Chlorine is not a metal. Oxygen is not a metal. Nitrogen is not a metal. And the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen fusion cycle in stars is of critical importance.
Why do you tell such transparent and ignorant lies? I'd go through your posts but I have work to do.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jul 8 2008, 01:51 AM)
"Metals" to an Astronomer
It is common practice for astronomers to refer to the entire collection of elements heavier than helium as "metals". Since the vast majority of atoms in the universe are hydrogen or helium atoms, this has been a convenient tradition. Stars can be classified according to their "metallicity" or content of heavier atoms. Because the nuclear synthesis occurs in stars and can be distributed into space at the end of the stars' lifetimes, younger stars may have picked up some of this content from previous stars and therefore be more metal-rich. The metallicity is sometimes indicated with a symbol Z and young Population I stars have been found with metallicity as high as Z = .03 . If a star is found to be "metal poor", it is taken as an indication that the star is old, having formed before the ending of other stars lifetimes had distributed the background material containing heavy elements.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/nucsyn.html
This is a better link. But I am more interested in the supposed Population III stars and the falsifiablity of the Big Bang!
1. The link you provided has nothing to do with Stellar metallicity.
2. You're (deliberately?) confusing the terms "Metallicity" and "metals", and the standard use of the word "metal" (not that I expect you to understand that).
3. Metallicity is calculated using the Fe/H ratio - get that? The number you're referring to is calculated using only the amounts of Iron, and Hydrogen in a star.
It is common practice for astronomers to refer to the entire collection of elements heavier than helium as "metals". Since the vast majority of atoms in the universe are hydrogen or helium atoms, this has been a convenient tradition. Stars can be classified according to their "metallicity" or content of heavier atoms. Because the nuclear synthesis occurs in stars and can be distributed into space at the end of the stars' lifetimes, younger stars may have picked up some of this content from previous stars and therefore be more metal-rich. The metallicity is sometimes indicated with a symbol Z and young Population I stars have been found with metallicity as high as Z = .03 . If a star is found to be "metal poor", it is taken as an indication that the star is old, having formed before the ending of other stars lifetimes had distributed the background material containing heavy elements.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/nucsyn.html
This is a better link. But I am more interested in the supposed Population III stars and the falsifiablity of the Big Bang!
1. The link you provided has nothing to do with Stellar metallicity.
2. You're (deliberately?) confusing the terms "Metallicity" and "metals", and the standard use of the word "metal" (not that I expect you to understand that).
3. Metallicity is calculated using the Fe/H ratio - get that? The number you're referring to is calculated using only the amounts of Iron, and Hydrogen in a star.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 7 2008, 10:57 AM)
No, they don't. Neon is not a metal. Carbon is not a metal. Chlorine is not a metal. Oxygen is not a metal. Nitrogen is not a metal. And the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen fusion cycle in stars is of critical importance.
Why do you tell such transparent and ignorant lies? I'd go through your posts but I have work to do.
Yes, they do refer to anything heavier than metals as 'metals.' Otherwise my astrophysics professor spent 3 straight semesters lying to me and the same lie is repeated in the tome "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" by Carroll and Ostlie.
It's also common to hear them use the word 'ash' in a manner that may be unfamiliar to you. Please remember that no matter how similar another discipline may be to yours, that doesn't make you an instant expert in it.
Why do you tell such transparent and ignorant lies? I'd go through your posts but I have work to do.
Yes, they do refer to anything heavier than metals as 'metals.' Otherwise my astrophysics professor spent 3 straight semesters lying to me and the same lie is repeated in the tome "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" by Carroll and Ostlie.
It's also common to hear them use the word 'ash' in a manner that may be unfamiliar to you. Please remember that no matter how similar another discipline may be to yours, that doesn't make you an instant expert in it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 7 2008, 12:48 PM)
3. Metallicity is calculated using the Fe/H ratio - get that? The number you're referring to is calculated using only the amounts of Iron, and Hydrogen in a star.
Nope. Metallicity is the ratio of all metals (as defined in my previous post) to hydrogen in stars, either measured by mass or by atomic counts. Since it is difficult to quantify the concentrations of some of the metals as they lack prominent spectral lines at some or all temperatures, Fe is used as a proxy. [Fe/H] is calculated as the log of the star's Fe/H ratio minus the log of the Sun's Fe/H ratio (where Fe and H are the number of nuclei of the elements Fe and H). If one assumes that the ratio of Fe to all other metals is always the same for all stars, then [Fe/H] > 0 is a star with a greater metallicity than the Sun's and [Fe/H] < 0 is a star with a lower metallicity. [Fe/H] is only an approximation of the metallicity, however, because in reality the ratio of Fe to other metals is not a constant.
Nope. Metallicity is the ratio of all metals (as defined in my previous post) to hydrogen in stars, either measured by mass or by atomic counts. Since it is difficult to quantify the concentrations of some of the metals as they lack prominent spectral lines at some or all temperatures, Fe is used as a proxy. [Fe/H] is calculated as the log of the star's Fe/H ratio minus the log of the Sun's Fe/H ratio (where Fe and H are the number of nuclei of the elements Fe and H). If one assumes that the ratio of Fe to all other metals is always the same for all stars, then [Fe/H] > 0 is a star with a greater metallicity than the Sun's and [Fe/H] < 0 is a star with a lower metallicity. [Fe/H] is only an approximation of the metallicity, however, because in reality the ratio of Fe to other metals is not a constant.
I also was introduced to Astronomy, and have to agree with barakn. Since gaseous stars dominate so much of astronomical observation, in the jargon of astronomers, "metals" refers to all the elements except hydrogen and helium -- especially their spectral lines. So when classifying stars, they want to know what emission and absorption lines are visible, which is for the point-like distant stars almost all we can discover about their upper atmospheres.
http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advanced/s...types/lines.asp
http://etacar.umn.edu/~martin/rrlyrae/metals.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity
http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advanced/s...types/lines.asp
http://etacar.umn.edu/~martin/rrlyrae/metals.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity
QUOTE
Metallic bonds are impossible within stars, and only the strongest chemical bonds are possible at all in the coolest layers of "cool" K and M stars, so normal chemistry has little or no relevance in stellar interiors. A nebula rich in carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon would be "metal rich" in astrophysical terms even though those elements are nonmetals in conventional chemistry.
QUOTE (barakn+Jul 7 2008, 08:58 PM)
Yes, they do refer to anything heavier than metals as 'metals.' Otherwise my astrophysics professor spent 3 straight semesters lying to me and the same lie is repeated in the tome "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" by Carroll and Ostlie.
It's also common to hear them use the word 'ash' in a manner that may be unfamiliar to you. Please remember that no matter how similar another discipline may be to yours, that doesn't make you an instant expert in it.
Indeed they do, third. However, all astrophysicists know that the "metals" of astrophysics are not the same as the metals of the periodic table.
It's also common to hear them use the word 'ash' in a manner that may be unfamiliar to you. Please remember that no matter how similar another discipline may be to yours, that doesn't make you an instant expert in it.
Indeed they do, third. However, all astrophysicists know that the "metals" of astrophysics are not the same as the metals of the periodic table.
QUOTE
Viv Pope Posted: Jun 30 2008, 07:02 PM This thread is a spin-off from a previous one in which the subject of the Big Bang was debated. It should be a short topic, since I cannot see how anyone can counter the refuting argument I have supplied against the ‘Big Bang’ theory. (You may take that – and I hope you will – as a challenge.)
there are 4 or 5 (come on memory you can do it
) models proposed waiting for further observation/experimental evidence to determine which is closer to the actual universe we occupy? if it were a dogma, big bang cosmologists would decide on one over the other and preach that as the complete theory.you do realise that there multiple big bang models?
The biggest reason to not believe the big bang theory is that it doesnt support cause and effect imo. There is no begining cause thus its obv a false theory. The only problem is if we reject the big bang theory some rule out there says that the scientific community has to pick a way the universe begins and everyone whos a scientist has to believe it or be an extreamist outcast... My point... We do not know the physics of how or why the universe started we just know it did. To say we know how it started at all is a lil bit redic right now given our current lacking in knowledge in this area... Perhaps when people accept that humans are not Gods above everything else we might learn something but as long as we think/act like we are I doubt we will ever actualy learn anything meaningful.
You can learn how to build a radio but do you actualy know how to use the radio correctly after you have learned how to build it? If your a fool you will obv not use the radio correctly. The human race is very foolish imo thats not to say we dont have some wise ppl amoung us but its looking more and more like im the only one lololololol.
You can learn how to build a radio but do you actualy know how to use the radio correctly after you have learned how to build it? If your a fool you will obv not use the radio correctly. The human race is very foolish imo thats not to say we dont have some wise ppl amoung us but its looking more and more like im the only one lololololol.
QUOTE
magpies Posted on Today at 8:40 AM The biggest reason to not believe the big bang theory is that it doesnt support cause and effect imo
cause and effect is observed in classical systems. when you look at quantum entanglement the cause and effect relation can become meaningless ie particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm
according to the big bang theory, the universe was a singularity. a quantum description is more fitting during this phase, than a classical one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| magpies Posted on Today at 8:40 AM The biggest reason to not believe the big bang theory is that it doesnt support cause and effect imo |
cause and effect is observed in classical systems. when you look at quantum entanglement the cause and effect relation can become meaningless ie particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm
according to the big bang theory, the universe was a singularity. a quantum description is more fitting during this phase, than a classical one.
We do not know the physics of how or why the universe started we just know it did.
there are people working on the how and why. i agree that it is not currently known, but progress is being made. in my opinion, physics is the best tool available to answer the how and why.
I disagree with the physics being the best tool... Our minds our the best tool but when you put a restriction on your perspective dont be amazed if your perspective comes out restricted. Physics is a restriction on how you allow yourself to think. The only bad question is the question not asked possibly? But thats exactly what putting a cap on your ability to guess does it narrows your field of questions and when u get an answer that is outside of the field you must either rework your physics or accept that it is not possible answer and try again till u get the answer u want lol.
If your gona base your theorys on something logical Id suggest making sure they are infact following logic from start to finnish. That is to say an error way back when u were first constructing your mind and how it works could effect every decision you make from then on. And the only way to fix any possible error in the past is to actualy do the work to find it and correct it. So my question is how do you know there wasnt an error in your logic/thinking along time ago that is throwing you off now if you never look for one? Infact everyone should imo be constantly checking for errors in logic and I believe everyone does do this some in more direct ways then others.
When I was a child I was brought up to believe in a God that stood above me. I had to correct that view point because its obv that Gods do not stand above anyone they are equal in the respect that everything that lives is equal in its ability to enjoy and see life in its own way. This correction brought some other flaws into view and the flawed view that God exists was one of them... When I say God exists I ment the God I was impossing my view points on. Do I honestly know if God exists or not? No I dont I can guess one way or the other but that guess is as good as an alien on a planet 100billion light years away saying I guess there are/arnt any magpies in this world. It is beyound my understanding currently to say I know or do not know how ever wrong or right the idea may seem to me.
My whole point is if you wana work to find an answer to a problem that presented its self in the past you must actualy work backwards. Where as the scientific community seems to go the other way. As a whole we seem to be going forward by creating new technologys and studying new events and compairing them with the past. If you compair and apple to an orange you will always get mix results. So perhaps if someone is brave enoth they will start compairing apples to apples? Problem is in a world of oranges where do you find apples? The resolve is in the past and aways has been.
If your gona base your theorys on something logical Id suggest making sure they are infact following logic from start to finnish. That is to say an error way back when u were first constructing your mind and how it works could effect every decision you make from then on. And the only way to fix any possible error in the past is to actualy do the work to find it and correct it. So my question is how do you know there wasnt an error in your logic/thinking along time ago that is throwing you off now if you never look for one? Infact everyone should imo be constantly checking for errors in logic and I believe everyone does do this some in more direct ways then others.
When I was a child I was brought up to believe in a God that stood above me. I had to correct that view point because its obv that Gods do not stand above anyone they are equal in the respect that everything that lives is equal in its ability to enjoy and see life in its own way. This correction brought some other flaws into view and the flawed view that God exists was one of them... When I say God exists I ment the God I was impossing my view points on. Do I honestly know if God exists or not? No I dont I can guess one way or the other but that guess is as good as an alien on a planet 100billion light years away saying I guess there are/arnt any magpies in this world. It is beyound my understanding currently to say I know or do not know how ever wrong or right the idea may seem to me.
My whole point is if you wana work to find an answer to a problem that presented its self in the past you must actualy work backwards. Where as the scientific community seems to go the other way. As a whole we seem to be going forward by creating new technologys and studying new events and compairing them with the past. If you compair and apple to an orange you will always get mix results. So perhaps if someone is brave enoth they will start compairing apples to apples? Problem is in a world of oranges where do you find apples? The resolve is in the past and aways has been.
QUOTE
magpies Posted on Today at 9:13 AM Physics is a restriction on how you allow yourself to think.
correct.
it is the restriction of the scientific method that i favor. i see physics as a disciplined form of philosophy. physics may not be the best tool to describe emotion or my preference for the color blue over red, but when you start asking questions about the physical universe, physics is the trump card.
Perhaps the physical universe is effected by perspective and thus limiting yourself to not include perspective in your physics could be a mistake?
QUOTE
magpies Posted on Today at 9:31 AM Perhaps the physical universe is effected by perspective
perhapsQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| magpies Posted on Today at 9:31 AM Perhaps the physical universe is effected by perspective |
perhaps
thus limiting yourself to not include perspective in your physics could be a mistake?
thus limiting yourself to not include perspective in your physics could be a mistake?
it may be. but you assume the current state of physcis will not change
I"ll give you that one. It does seem like the current state of physics is never gona change lol. How long do you suppose it takes for the state of physics to change to the point were its noticed? Perhaps if cern lhc makes a blackhole and its stable as in starts to eat the planet we will have a physics change lol.
QUOTE
magpies Posted on Today at 9:42 AM How long do you suppose it takes for the state of physics to change to the point were its noticed?
i would say that depends on who is looking at what. those working the the various fields may notice the change immediately. take for example AlphaNumeric, he may notice changes to string theory immediately, heck he probably makes the changes. i may never know the same change to string theory unless i happen to stumble upon it in some pop science book, then i probably wont understand its deeper meaning. to me string theory may appear unchanging, to AlphaNumeric, string theory is probably changing every time he works on it.
look last approx 300 years and available technology to the general public as a guide to noticing changes in physics.
Well to me it seems like the way humanity uses physics has not changed for a long time. We still as a whole think with our heads instead of percieving with our minds. Its the difference between walking past a field of roses and actualy stoping to smell and enjoy them. I think humanity as a whole is based on winning life instead of enjoying it far to much. Physics and life is not an easy game to win lol but they are very easy games to enjoy if you want to.
I guess my main question now is why are people actualy trying to "win" the game that we call life? As if you can actualy win life lol.
I guess my main question now is why are people actualy trying to "win" the game that we call life? As if you can actualy win life lol.
QUOTE
magpies Posted: Today at 11:17 AM I guess my main question now is why are people actualy trying to "win" the game that we call life?
without a clear definition of what you mean by winning the game that we call life that has accepted by those you consider are participating in such a game, it is nothing more than a perception of yours that these people are playing such a game.
G'day from the land of ozzz
The game of life is played to the death.
The overall game is survival, to find the means to escape the death of our sun.
So! MAN is collecting as many cards as possible to win the game of life.
The game of life is played to the death.
The overall game is survival, to find the means to escape the death of our sun.
So! MAN is collecting as many cards as possible to win the game of life.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 14 2008, 06:01 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzz
The game of life is played to the death.
The overall game is survival, to find the means to escape the death of our sun.
So! MAN is collecting as many cards as possible to win the game of life.
A waste of life, Harry. There is no 'death', only change.
We should learn how to appreciate life while we have it, NOW, while 'life' is existent in this part of the Cosmos.
The Human race has no chance whatsoever of out-running the Sun! The vast majority are still having trouble running away from each others' bullets! ~ But 'life' will form again, when the ingredients are once again gathered in sufficient quantities.
Lay on some grass. Stare DOWN at the clouds in the day, or DOWN into Infinite Space at night!
g.
The game of life is played to the death.
The overall game is survival, to find the means to escape the death of our sun.
So! MAN is collecting as many cards as possible to win the game of life.
A waste of life, Harry. There is no 'death', only change.
We should learn how to appreciate life while we have it, NOW, while 'life' is existent in this part of the Cosmos.
The Human race has no chance whatsoever of out-running the Sun! The vast majority are still having trouble running away from each others' bullets! ~ But 'life' will form again, when the ingredients are once again gathered in sufficient quantities.
Lay on some grass. Stare DOWN at the clouds in the day, or DOWN into Infinite Space at night!
g.
If the Big Bang and expansion is true then please explain binaries with different red shifts. Please explain how galaxies can colide if they are all moving away from each other. Please explain why you need 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to balance the books even though you have no idea what 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are!
And if the Big Bang did not happen how will you ever appologise to the Pope for getting him to endorse the theory!
And if the Big Bang did not happen how will you ever appologise to the Pope for getting him to endorse the theory!
QUOTE (LearnedElderOfZion+Jul 18 2008, 05:15 PM)
If the Big Bang and expansion is true then please explain binaries with different red shifts.
One's movin towards us, th'other's movin away.
They're close enough that the expansion o space is negligable compared to their convergin motion.
They're close enough that the expansion o space is negligable compared to their convergin motion.
Please explain why you need 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to balance the books even though you have no idea what 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are!
Because includin them in a theory which yeilds valid predictions in situations which don't require them yeilds accurate predictions in situations which do require them.
I dunno, how will you an Pope (one and the same, maybe?) apologize when new data supports the BB theory?
Fer that matter, how will you apologize when a jewish feller sees yer screen name?
I merely point out that it is a logical falacy to interpret the Hubble redshift as a 'recession of the galaxies'. If I said that because all redskins are human beings, all human beings are redsins, someone would be sure to point out that what I was claiming was a fallacy.
Do you have any interest to produce ground-broken experiment about REDSHIFTED SUN’S SPECTRUM?
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
With Kind regards.
K. Margiani
Why is it broken?
What science data is used to prove that the BBT is broken?
My dear Alphanumeric,
What a lovely, honest, intelligent and deep-thnking person you project yourself to be! I'd love to meet you if you could crawl out from behind your protective pseudonym and tell me all this stuff face-to-face! You'd wilt like a chocolate fireguard.
I guess, though that either your father kicked your toy train or that something went wrong with your potty training. Else how would you presume to blurt out stuff like this, with all the overweening authority of twisted ignorance? For instance, you have no idea that my published papers have been peer-reviewed since 1987. If you'd read just the Foreword to that last book, by Professor Winfield and the same with the earlier books, by Professors Kilmister, Duffy, et al., you would have wound your neck in a bit.
Have a nice day!
Viv Pope
You get around to calculating that anomalous redshift yet?
If gift wrapped the information for you.
One's movin towards us, th'other's movin away.
QUOTE
Please explain how galaxies can colide if they are all moving away from each other.
They're close enough that the expansion o space is negligable compared to their convergin motion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please explain how galaxies can colide if they are all moving away from each other. |
They're close enough that the expansion o space is negligable compared to their convergin motion.
Please explain why you need 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' to balance the books even though you have no idea what 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are!
Because includin them in a theory which yeilds valid predictions in situations which don't require them yeilds accurate predictions in situations which do require them.
QUOTE
And if the Big Bang did not happen how will you ever appologise to the Pope for getting him to endorse the theory!
I dunno, how will you an Pope (one and the same, maybe?) apologize when new data supports the BB theory?
Fer that matter, how will you apologize when a jewish feller sees yer screen name?
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Get to know more about the Big Bang
The URL for this search is http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+...y/0/1/0/all/0/1
Not that I agree with the BBT.
In actual fact the BBT apllies to the super structures such as the super dooper cluster of galaxies.
Hello Gorgeous
We have plenty of time to escape the Sun's death. A few billion years.
The question is :
What gives our Sun long life?
The secret lies in the ultra dense compact inner core.
Get to know more about the Big Bang
The URL for this search is http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+...y/0/1/0/all/0/1
Not that I agree with the BBT.
In actual fact the BBT apllies to the super structures such as the super dooper cluster of galaxies.
Hello Gorgeous
We have plenty of time to escape the Sun's death. A few billion years.
The question is :
What gives our Sun long life?
The secret lies in the ultra dense compact inner core.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Jul 19 2008, 08:56 AM)
What gives our Sun long life?
The secret lies in the ultra dense compact inner core.
I very much doubt that. If the sun had a ultra dense core, surely it would burn more rapidly and generate a much stonger gravitational field?
The secret lies in the ultra dense compact inner core.
I very much doubt that. If the sun had a ultra dense core, surely it would burn more rapidly and generate a much stonger gravitational field?
This isn't my field, but I have a notion that I'd like to share, and maybe somebody's got facts that support it or maybe somebody knows why it's got to be wrong.
Not lookiing for a catfight, I'm in enough of those already.
The "inflationary" stage of the universe, right after the Big Bang, looked odd to me until it occurred to me to wonder what the inside of a black hole would look like.
Black holes have a point where they start to form and suddenly suck everything around them down into them in a big hurry. By definition, there's a point where the matter getting sucked into a black hole passes the speed of light. Plug that into Einstein's equations and you get a *square-root of -1*, a number that makes no sense, but is commonly used in linear algebra when discussing complex numbers. It refers to orthogonality, which would mean that the 10D universe (assuming String theory is at least partly correct) is at right-angles to the matter inside a black hole, and at right angles to all of our dimensions. You can't point at it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think that the Inflationary Stage of our universe was when the 10D mass was collapsing into a black hole that had just formed. It's still expanding, and maybe that explains "dark energy", and it's still sucking matter into it and maybe that explains "dark matter".
Just my two cents, if you like the idea, run with it, if not, this isn't my field, I'm just noticing two things that seem similar and I'm thinking they may be related.
Peace, out.
Not lookiing for a catfight, I'm in enough of those already.
The "inflationary" stage of the universe, right after the Big Bang, looked odd to me until it occurred to me to wonder what the inside of a black hole would look like.
Black holes have a point where they start to form and suddenly suck everything around them down into them in a big hurry. By definition, there's a point where the matter getting sucked into a black hole passes the speed of light. Plug that into Einstein's equations and you get a *square-root of -1*, a number that makes no sense, but is commonly used in linear algebra when discussing complex numbers. It refers to orthogonality, which would mean that the 10D universe (assuming String theory is at least partly correct) is at right-angles to the matter inside a black hole, and at right angles to all of our dimensions. You can't point at it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think that the Inflationary Stage of our universe was when the 10D mass was collapsing into a black hole that had just formed. It's still expanding, and maybe that explains "dark energy", and it's still sucking matter into it and maybe that explains "dark matter".
Just my two cents, if you like the idea, run with it, if not, this isn't my field, I'm just noticing two things that seem similar and I'm thinking they may be related.
Peace, out.
Reminds me of my Single Mass Generator theory
QUOTE (dwk+Jun 30 2008, 02:28 PM)
@Viv:
I missed the bit where you actually refuted the big bang theory. Could you explain just that bit again?
I think many philosophers would find your other arguments interesting though. Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.
Edit: increased font size to make the argument clearer
Dear 'dwk'.
There's no specific 'refuting' the 'Big Bang Theory, any more than there is a 'refuting' the existence of ectoplasm.
I merely point out that it is a logical falacy to interpret the Hubble redshift as a 'recession of the galaxies'. If I said that because all redskins are human beings, all human beings are redsins, someone would be sure to point out that what I was claiming was a fallacy.
In the same way, I point out that to say 'All light-sources that are receding exhibit a redshift, therefore whenever you see a redshift you are seeing a light-source receding'. is a fallacy - which, strictly speaking strictly, logically, it is.
Also, strictly speaking, to insist on just one interpretation to the exclusion of other, perhaps more feasible ones is, by definition, a dogma.
By the way, 'dwk', regarding your very nice suggestion of my writing a series of books on he subject, that has been done. You are welcome to visit the website
www.poams.org
which lists those books.
Best wishes,
Viv Pope
I missed the bit where you actually refuted the big bang theory. Could you explain just that bit again?
I think many philosophers would find your other arguments interesting though. Perhaps you should consider writing a series of books on the subject? Although your post was only 6 pages long, I'm sure you could fill volumes saying exactly the same thing.
Edit: increased font size to make the argument clearer
Dear 'dwk'.
There's no specific 'refuting' the 'Big Bang Theory, any more than there is a 'refuting' the existence of ectoplasm.
I merely point out that it is a logical falacy to interpret the Hubble redshift as a 'recession of the galaxies'. If I said that because all redskins are human beings, all human beings are redsins, someone would be sure to point out that what I was claiming was a fallacy.
In the same way, I point out that to say 'All light-sources that are receding exhibit a redshift, therefore whenever you see a redshift you are seeing a light-source receding'. is a fallacy - which, strictly speaking strictly, logically, it is.
Also, strictly speaking, to insist on just one interpretation to the exclusion of other, perhaps more feasible ones is, by definition, a dogma.
By the way, 'dwk', regarding your very nice suggestion of my writing a series of books on he subject, that has been done. You are welcome to visit the website
www.poams.org
which lists those books.
Best wishes,
Viv Pope
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 19 2008, 06:48 PM)
This isn't my field, but I have a notion that I'd like to share, and maybe somebody's got facts that support it or maybe somebody knows why it's got to be wrong.
Not lookiing for a catfight, I'm in enough of those already.
The "inflationary" stage of the universe, right after the Big Bang, looked odd to me until it occurred to me to wonder what the inside of a black hole would look like.
Black holes have a point where they start to form and suddenly suck everything around them down into them in a big hurry. By definition, there's a point where the matter getting sucked into a black hole passes the speed of light. Plug that into Einstein's equations and you get a *square-root of -1*, a number that makes no sense, but is commonly used in linear algebra when discussing complex numbers. It refers to orthogonality, which would mean that the 10D universe (assuming String theory is at least partly correct) is at right-angles to the matter inside a black hole, and at right angles to all of our dimensions. You can't point at it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think that the Inflationary Stage of our universe was when the 10D mass was collapsing into a black hole that had just formed. It's still expanding, and maybe that explains "dark energy", and it's still sucking matter into it and maybe that explains "dark matter".
Just my two cents, if you like the idea, run with it, if not, this isn't my field, I'm just noticing two things that seem similar and I'm thinking they may be related.
Peace, out.
Also, if you have a diffusion of space instead of a stretching/scaling/expansion, then smaller scales tend to, proportional to their volume, "expand" faster.
As a close analogy, the mixing and spreading of a cloud on larger scales changes its form (which is determined by ratios of its aspects) less than this process when observed on smaller scales in which the "particles" interchange positions much faster and the relative rate of change of its form occurs in much smaller times.
This form of expansion tends to proceed proportional to the square root of the time, which grows theoretically infinitely fast initially (that's if we ignore a quantization to space) and then progressively slows.
Though there's another factor involved in that this form of diffusion generates a "bell curve" or gaussian form of interaction and appears in the center to be of a very uniform density but becomes diffuse on the edges.
This exponential decay can make the spacing of distant objects appear to grow rapidly (the uneven expansion observed for highly receeding galaxies).
Now recognize that this only reflects the properties of space observed relative to some interconnected local reference and doesn't mean that space is actually non-uniform or warped, but that the diffusion of the properties we observe are distorted and we're not really seeing "what's there" in its present form.
There were a couple recent posts regarding an apparent quantization to the gravitational properties observed in distant galaxies and this could also arise from such a gaussian distribution because it possess 3 main features (matching the # of classes of observed gravitational forms, though the curve would actually be smooth and it could be possible to observe intermediate forms at different distances):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
You have the central lobe focusing parabolically inward, as well as the rather linear decay outside the central lobe and this approaches an exponential decay on the edges, though it would seem quite likely that the symmetry of this could be violated and we could have a Poisson distribution instead (though very similar in properties, it allows a bias in the properties and could explain a mixture of forms of galaxies that appeared to be at similar distances, though with different gravitational properties):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
Though the Big Bang theory could fit these general characteristics (likely with some prodding if the expansion is simply assumed to act like a scaling or stretching), it doesn't seem as good of a description qualitatively because it relies on some expanding boundary outside space to contain space whereas no such containment is needed in a uniform diffusive distribution, also the Big Bang theory would appear to diverge in properties for motion through space. It's also quite likely that "dark matter" can be explained by the non-linear distortion in perceived gravitational influences at large distances under a diffusive model.
The diffusive model would also not have as many difficulties in explaining the origin of the universe in that the diffusive model would not need to assume any specific beginning of time to the universe or beyond it as things would be in continual flux and expanding outward in interactions - it never started from a point, we're just seeing it from a point, and this creates the bias in observations.
Not lookiing for a catfight, I'm in enough of those already.
The "inflationary" stage of the universe, right after the Big Bang, looked odd to me until it occurred to me to wonder what the inside of a black hole would look like.
Black holes have a point where they start to form and suddenly suck everything around them down into them in a big hurry. By definition, there's a point where the matter getting sucked into a black hole passes the speed of light. Plug that into Einstein's equations and you get a *square-root of -1*, a number that makes no sense, but is commonly used in linear algebra when discussing complex numbers. It refers to orthogonality, which would mean that the 10D universe (assuming String theory is at least partly correct) is at right-angles to the matter inside a black hole, and at right angles to all of our dimensions. You can't point at it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think that the Inflationary Stage of our universe was when the 10D mass was collapsing into a black hole that had just formed. It's still expanding, and maybe that explains "dark energy", and it's still sucking matter into it and maybe that explains "dark matter".
Just my two cents, if you like the idea, run with it, if not, this isn't my field, I'm just noticing two things that seem similar and I'm thinking they may be related.
Peace, out.
Also, if you have a diffusion of space instead of a stretching/scaling/expansion, then smaller scales tend to, proportional to their volume, "expand" faster.
As a close analogy, the mixing and spreading of a cloud on larger scales changes its form (which is determined by ratios of its aspects) less than this process when observed on smaller scales in which the "particles" interchange positions much faster and the relative rate of change of its form occurs in much smaller times.
This form of expansion tends to proceed proportional to the square root of the time, which grows theoretically infinitely fast initially (that's if we ignore a quantization to space) and then progressively slows.
Though there's another factor involved in that this form of diffusion generates a "bell curve" or gaussian form of interaction and appears in the center to be of a very uniform density but becomes diffuse on the edges.
This exponential decay can make the spacing of distant objects appear to grow rapidly (the uneven expansion observed for highly receeding galaxies).
Now recognize that this only reflects the properties of space observed relative to some interconnected local reference and doesn't mean that space is actually non-uniform or warped, but that the diffusion of the properties we observe are distorted and we're not really seeing "what's there" in its present form.
There were a couple recent posts regarding an apparent quantization to the gravitational properties observed in distant galaxies and this could also arise from such a gaussian distribution because it possess 3 main features (matching the # of classes of observed gravitational forms, though the curve would actually be smooth and it could be possible to observe intermediate forms at different distances):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
You have the central lobe focusing parabolically inward, as well as the rather linear decay outside the central lobe and this approaches an exponential decay on the edges, though it would seem quite likely that the symmetry of this could be violated and we could have a Poisson distribution instead (though very similar in properties, it allows a bias in the properties and could explain a mixture of forms of galaxies that appeared to be at similar distances, though with different gravitational properties):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
Though the Big Bang theory could fit these general characteristics (likely with some prodding if the expansion is simply assumed to act like a scaling or stretching), it doesn't seem as good of a description qualitatively because it relies on some expanding boundary outside space to contain space whereas no such containment is needed in a uniform diffusive distribution, also the Big Bang theory would appear to diverge in properties for motion through space. It's also quite likely that "dark matter" can be explained by the non-linear distortion in perceived gravitational influences at large distances under a diffusive model.
The diffusive model would also not have as many difficulties in explaining the origin of the universe in that the diffusive model would not need to assume any specific beginning of time to the universe or beyond it as things would be in continual flux and expanding outward in interactions - it never started from a point, we're just seeing it from a point, and this creates the bias in observations.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Aug 30 2008, 06:59 AM)
By the way, 'dwk', regarding your very nice suggestion of my writing a series of books on he subject, that has been done. You are welcome to visit the website
www.poams.org
which lists those books.
Firstly, publishing books without publishing papers first is the calling card of a first class crank, because you're willing to go through a lot of effort to by-pass peer review and go straight to the people who can't tell your nonsense for actual physics.
Secondly, I think I saw a book of yours in Borders on Thursday. I only noticed it because I recognised the name 'Osbourne', and Hugh Osborn is someone who lectured me advanced quantum field theory and applications of quantum mechanics at a student. I didn't notice your name. I actually feel dirty for having picked up that book from the shelf down.
I'm going to go scrub my hand with bleach and turps.... And probably vomit in disgust.
www.poams.org
which lists those books.
Firstly, publishing books without publishing papers first is the calling card of a first class crank, because you're willing to go through a lot of effort to by-pass peer review and go straight to the people who can't tell your nonsense for actual physics.
Secondly, I think I saw a book of yours in Borders on Thursday. I only noticed it because I recognised the name 'Osbourne', and Hugh Osborn is someone who lectured me advanced quantum field theory and applications of quantum mechanics at a student. I didn't notice your name. I actually feel dirty for having picked up that book from the shelf down.
I'm going to go scrub my hand with bleach and turps.... And probably vomit in disgust.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Aug 30 2008, 05:59 AM)
I merely point out that it is a logical falacy to interpret the Hubble redshift as a 'recession of the galaxies'. If I said that because all redskins are human beings, all human beings are redsins, someone would be sure to point out that what I was claiming was a fallacy.
Do you have any interest to produce ground-broken experiment about REDSHIFTED SUN’S SPECTRUM?
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
With Kind regards.
K. Margiani
G'day All
Margiani said
Why is it broken?
What science data is used to prove that the BBT is broken?
Margiani said
QUOTE
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
Why is it broken?
What science data is used to prove that the BBT is broken?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 30 2008, 11:39 AM)
Why is it broken?
What science data is used to prove that the BBT is broken?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 30 2008, 08:23 AM)
Firstly, publishing books without publishing papers first is the calling card of a first class crank, because you're willing to go through a lot of effort to by-pass peer review and go straight to the people who can't tell your nonsense for actual physics.
Secondly, I think I saw a book of yours in Borders on Thursday. I only noticed it because I recognised the name 'Osbourne', and Hugh Osborn is someone who lectured me advanced quantum field theory and applications of quantum mechanics at a student. I didn't notice your name. I actually feel dirty for having picked up that book from the shelf down.
I'm going to go scrub my hand with bleach and turps.... And probably vomit in disgust.
My dear Alphanumeric,
What a lovely, honest, intelligent and deep-thnking person you project yourself to be! I'd love to meet you if you could crawl out from behind your protective pseudonym and tell me all this stuff face-to-face! You'd wilt like a chocolate fireguard.
I guess, though that either your father kicked your toy train or that something went wrong with your potty training. Else how would you presume to blurt out stuff like this, with all the overweening authority of twisted ignorance? For instance, you have no idea that my published papers have been peer-reviewed since 1987. If you'd read just the Foreword to that last book, by Professor Winfield and the same with the earlier books, by Professors Kilmister, Duffy, et al., you would have wound your neck in a bit.
Have a nice day!
Viv Pope
Secondly, I think I saw a book of yours in Borders on Thursday. I only noticed it because I recognised the name 'Osbourne', and Hugh Osborn is someone who lectured me advanced quantum field theory and applications of quantum mechanics at a student. I didn't notice your name. I actually feel dirty for having picked up that book from the shelf down.
I'm going to go scrub my hand with bleach and turps.... And probably vomit in disgust.
My dear Alphanumeric,
What a lovely, honest, intelligent and deep-thnking person you project yourself to be! I'd love to meet you if you could crawl out from behind your protective pseudonym and tell me all this stuff face-to-face! You'd wilt like a chocolate fireguard.
I guess, though that either your father kicked your toy train or that something went wrong with your potty training. Else how would you presume to blurt out stuff like this, with all the overweening authority of twisted ignorance? For instance, you have no idea that my published papers have been peer-reviewed since 1987. If you'd read just the Foreword to that last book, by Professor Winfield and the same with the earlier books, by Professors Kilmister, Duffy, et al., you would have wound your neck in a bit.
Have a nice day!
Viv Pope
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Aug 30 2008, 06:11 PM)
tell me all this stuff face-to-face! You'd wilt like a chocolate fireguard.
Why - is your fetid halitosis as stinky as the vile BS quintessence you botty-burp into this forum?
Why - is your fetid halitosis as stinky as the vile BS quintessence you botty-burp into this forum?
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Aug 30 2008, 08:07 PM)
Why - is your fetid halitosis as stinky as the vile BS quintessence you botty-burp into this forum?
Raising the standard of Physorg again I see DrFreda/Asterix/5D
Raising the standard of Physorg again I see DrFreda/Asterix/5D
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Aug 30 2008, 10:43 PM)
Do you have any interest to produce ground-broken experiment about REDSHIFTED SUN’S SPECTRUM?
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
With Kind regards.
K. Margiani
In correct - parts of the suns surface are, in fact, receeding from us.
It's called convection.
It's called rotation.
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
With Kind regards.
K. Margiani
In correct - parts of the suns surface are, in fact, receeding from us.
It's called convection.
It's called rotation.
QUOTE (Viv Pope+Aug 31 2008, 06:11 AM)
My dear Alphanumeric,
What a lovely, honest, intelligent and deep-thnking person you project yourself to be! I'd love to meet you if you could crawl out from behind your protective pseudonym and tell me all this stuff face-to-face! You'd wilt like a chocolate fireguard.
I guess, though that either your father kicked your toy train or that something went wrong with your potty training. Else how would you presume to blurt out stuff like this, with all the overweening authority of twisted ignorance? For instance, you have no idea that my published papers have been peer-reviewed since 1987. If you'd read just the Foreword to that last book, by Professor Winfield and the same with the earlier books, by Professors Kilmister, Duffy, et al., you would have wound your neck in a bit.
Have a nice day!
Viv Pope
You get around to calculating that anomalous redshift yet?
If gift wrapped the information for you.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
You said in response to Marginai
This was in reference to the link
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
Do you understand the above link.
You said in response to Marginai
QUOTE
In correct - parts of the suns surface are, in fact, receeding from us.
It's called convection.
It's called rotation
. It's called convection.
It's called rotation
This was in reference to the link
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
Do you understand the above link.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 31 2008, 12:35 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
You said in response to Marginai
This was in reference to the link
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
Do you understand the above link.
And you accuse me of being impolite.
Yes, I understand the link.
I also understand that it provides no further information to support its claims.
It fails to reference the work that it refers to, thereby preventing anybody from verifying it, and looking at the rebuttals.
It fails to aknowledge the fact that at least one of Halton Arps 'anomalous examples' has since been shown to be a misinterpretation of what was being seen (In this case, a galaxy that Arp claimed was connected, and therefore at the same distance was in fact in the background).
You said in response to Marginai
This was in reference to the link
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
Do you understand the above link.
And you accuse me of being impolite.
Yes, I understand the link.
I also understand that it provides no further information to support its claims.
It fails to reference the work that it refers to, thereby preventing anybody from verifying it, and looking at the rebuttals.
It fails to aknowledge the fact that at least one of Halton Arps 'anomalous examples' has since been shown to be a misinterpretation of what was being seen (In this case, a galaxy that Arp claimed was connected, and therefore at the same distance was in fact in the background).
G'day trippy
Please change your attitude.
I'm not interested in emotions.
Just keep to the topic.
You said
Like what?
Please change your attitude.
I'm not interested in emotions.
Just keep to the topic.
You said
QUOTE
I also understand that it provides no further information to support its claims.
Like what?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 31 2008, 01:22 PM)
G'day trippy
Please change your attitude.
I'm not interested in emotions.
Just keep to the topic.
You said
Like what?
Gee...
I thought what I meant was pretty clear from my post.
And as for my attitude, stop making provocative statements.
After all, you keep claiming that you're only interested in the science.
Please change your attitude.
I'm not interested in emotions.
Just keep to the topic.
You said
Like what?
Gee...
I thought what I meant was pretty clear from my post.
And as for my attitude, stop making provocative statements.
After all, you keep claiming that you're only interested in the science.
G'day trippy
I'd like your comment on
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
and
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
I'd like your comment on
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
and
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
Trippy the message about redshifted sun’s spectrum was not for you. This is for open minds only!
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Aug 31 2008, 05:36 AM)
Trippy the message about redshifted sun’s spectrum was not for you. This is for open minds only!
Naturally, your mind is so open, it's contents have fallen out - fuckwit!
I've personally pleaded to Russian troops to have you tortured and shot for your crimes against rationale - expect KGB electro-gonad sparks within the hour, idiot.
Naturally, your mind is so open, it's contents have fallen out - fuckwit!
I've personally pleaded to Russian troops to have you tortured and shot for your crimes against rationale - expect KGB electro-gonad sparks within the hour, idiot.
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Aug 31 2008, 05:36 PM)
Trippy the message about redshifted sun’s spectrum was not for you. This is for open minds only!
Prove that I haven't approached this with an open mind.
You know, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me closed minded.
Prove that I haven't approached this with an open mind.
You know, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me closed minded.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 31 2008, 05:02 PM)
G'day trippy
I'd like your comment on
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
404'd on me.
I'd like your comment on
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
404'd on me.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 31 2008, 05:02 PM)
and
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
I've always been happy with what i've understood to be the mainstream explanation of the 'fingers of god, and i'm satisfied that when true distance is used instead of readshift, the fingers resolve themselves into small, round, galaxy clusters.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
I've always been happy with what i've understood to be the mainstream explanation of the 'fingers of god, and i'm satisfied that when true distance is used instead of readshift, the fingers resolve themselves into small, round, galaxy clusters.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Trippy
What else with respect to those links?
Margianni, please be polite, telling some to have an open mind means they may have a closed mind and thats insulting.
Dr Fred, why? Why?
Look I have better things to do with my time, than to listen to conflict,,,,,,,,,,oops read.
Trippy
What else with respect to those links?
Margianni, please be polite, telling some to have an open mind means they may have a closed mind and thats insulting.
Dr Fred, why? Why?
Look I have better things to do with my time, than to listen to conflict,,,,,,,,,,oops read.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Aug 31 2008, 10:02 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Trippy
What else with respect to those links?
Margianni, please be polite, telling some to have an open mind means they may have a closed mind and thats insulting.
Dr Fred, why? Why?
Look I have better things to do with my time, than to listen to conflict,,,,,,,,,,oops read.
What else do you want me to say?
First off, the first link didn't work for me.
And essentially, I think that the second link blows the whole 'finger of god' thing way out of proportion.
Like the wikipedia link I provided says - the fingers of god are nothing more then an illusion createdwhen looking at the data a certain way - viewing it in terms of red shift, rather then actual distance.
It's simply the effect of the peculiar velucity of the galaxy, which can be derived from the virial theorem.
Now, if we were getting anomalous results between the virial theorem and the observed redshift, when compared with other means of measuring distance (for example, type Ia superbova) then i'd suggest that maybe this page had something that might be a threat to the BBT, but really? In my opinion, as it stands, the page represents nothing more then un-substantiated over inflated waffle.
Trippy
What else with respect to those links?
Margianni, please be polite, telling some to have an open mind means they may have a closed mind and thats insulting.
Dr Fred, why? Why?
Look I have better things to do with my time, than to listen to conflict,,,,,,,,,,oops read.
What else do you want me to say?
First off, the first link didn't work for me.
And essentially, I think that the second link blows the whole 'finger of god' thing way out of proportion.
Like the wikipedia link I provided says - the fingers of god are nothing more then an illusion createdwhen looking at the data a certain way - viewing it in terms of red shift, rather then actual distance.
It's simply the effect of the peculiar velucity of the galaxy, which can be derived from the virial theorem.
Now, if we were getting anomalous results between the virial theorem and the observed redshift, when compared with other means of measuring distance (for example, type Ia superbova) then i'd suggest that maybe this page had something that might be a threat to the BBT, but really? In my opinion, as it stands, the page represents nothing more then un-substantiated over inflated waffle.
G'day from the land of ozzzzz
Trippy said
Back it up with science.
and what about this link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...ion-bigbang.htm
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
Back it up with science.
and what about this link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...ion-bigbang.htm
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.
Trippy said
QUOTE
In my opinion, as it stands, the page represents nothing more then un-substantiated over inflated waffle.
Back it up with science.
and what about this link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...ion-bigbang.htm
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In my opinion, as it stands, the page represents nothing more then un-substantiated over inflated waffle. |
Back it up with science.
and what about this link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...ion-bigbang.htm
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:07 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzz
Trippy said
Back it up with science.
I already have - in at least two seperate posts.
Back it up with science.
I already have - in at least two seperate posts.
and what about this link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...ion-bigbang.htm
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
What about it? It's mor eof the same unsubstantiated claims.
Are you claiming that relativity is wrong?
Do you have some other mechanism for causing redshifting (remember, redshifting is not the same as reddening).
I've also already presented a link which explains (back in the other thread IIRC) how at least one pair of Halton Arps 'Physically and energetically linked' galaxies are neither physically linked, nor energetically linked.
Trippy said
QUOTE
In my opinion, as it stands, the page represents nothing more then un-substantiated over inflated waffle.
Back it up with science.
I already have - in at least two seperate posts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In my opinion, as it stands, the page represents nothing more then un-substantiated over inflated waffle. |
Back it up with science.
I already have - in at least two seperate posts.
and what about this link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...ion-bigbang.htm
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
What about it? It's mor eof the same unsubstantiated claims.
Are you claiming that relativity is wrong?
Do you have some other mechanism for causing redshifting (remember, redshifting is not the same as reddening).
I've also already presented a link which explains (back in the other thread IIRC) how at least one pair of Halton Arps 'Physically and energetically linked' galaxies are neither physically linked, nor energetically linked.
G'day trippy
I'm not here to educate you.
You need to do some research in intinsic redshift.
It does not matter how much information I give you, if you to not research you will not learn more.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Intri...t/0/1/0/all/0/1
==========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833
Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: John G. Hartnett
(Submitted on 22 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 8 Feb 2008 (this version, v2))
Intrinsic Redshifts and the Tully-Fisher Distance Scale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503432.pdf
============================================
Trippy you said
Intrinsic Redshifts and the Tully-Fisher Distance Scale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503432.pdf
============================================
Trippy you said
What about it? It's mor eof the same unsubstantiated claims.
Are you claiming that relativity is wrong?
Do you have some other mechanism for causing redshifting (remember, redshifting is not the same as reddening).
I've also already presented a link which explains (back in the other thread IIRC) how at least one pair of Halton Arps 'Physically and energetically linked' galaxies are neither physically linked, nor energetically linked.
Mate I think you need to do alot of reading,,,,,,,,,,what you say tells me that you have no understanding of redshift.
I'm not here to educate you.
You need to do some research in intinsic redshift.
It does not matter how much information I give you, if you to not research you will not learn more.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Intri...t/0/1/0/all/0/1
==========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833
Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: John G. Hartnett
(Submitted on 22 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 8 Feb 2008 (this version, v2))
QUOTE
Abstract: Fourier spectral analysis has been carried out on the quasar number count as a function of redshift calculated from the quasar data of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 data release. The results indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20 of 0.062. Could this be indicative of an intrinsic redshift for quasars as has been suggested by some?
Intrinsic Redshifts and the Tully-Fisher Distance Scale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503432.pdf
============================================
Trippy you said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: Fourier spectral analysis has been carried out on the quasar number count as a function of redshift calculated from the quasar data of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 data release. The results indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20 of 0.062. Could this be indicative of an intrinsic redshift for quasars as has been suggested by some? |
Intrinsic Redshifts and the Tully-Fisher Distance Scale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503432.pdf
============================================
Trippy you said
What about it? It's mor eof the same unsubstantiated claims.
Are you claiming that relativity is wrong?
Do you have some other mechanism for causing redshifting (remember, redshifting is not the same as reddening).
I've also already presented a link which explains (back in the other thread IIRC) how at least one pair of Halton Arps 'Physically and energetically linked' galaxies are neither physically linked, nor energetically linked.
Mate I think you need to do alot of reading,,,,,,,,,,what you say tells me that you have no understanding of redshift.
I've read a great deal about this over the last year or so.
Because there isn't a well functioning EU model doesn't make it "a waffle" as Trippy characterized earlier; it can be easily said that the BBT isn't exactly tearing up "FunctionalityWorld" with all it's patches.
There are relatively recent refutations to the "intrinsic" redshift argument. The best of these is one which refutes partially based on reselecting the original datasets and then reapplying the math. I say it is far from being settled. There appears to be an active but slowly progressing argument within scientists working in this area which means that sooner or later the issue will be settled.
The biggest issue may in fact be the inability of EU proponents to get the necessary telescope time.
Unrelated Trolling:
High temperature fusion is impossible to us. Give it up.
They won't find the Higgs boson. They should look for the nearly undetectable electrostatic mesh through which inertia broadcasts (pssst ... that's where the dark energy errrrr .... Gravity is).
Tens of thousands of years ago High-Z pinch Auroras were commonplace and our great-grandpas recorded their appearances in stone. Why? Because the sun is a lot more variable than we currently believe and it was in a VERY active phase.
Because there isn't a well functioning EU model doesn't make it "a waffle" as Trippy characterized earlier; it can be easily said that the BBT isn't exactly tearing up "FunctionalityWorld" with all it's patches.
There are relatively recent refutations to the "intrinsic" redshift argument. The best of these is one which refutes partially based on reselecting the original datasets and then reapplying the math. I say it is far from being settled. There appears to be an active but slowly progressing argument within scientists working in this area which means that sooner or later the issue will be settled.
The biggest issue may in fact be the inability of EU proponents to get the necessary telescope time.
Unrelated Trolling:
High temperature fusion is impossible to us. Give it up.
They won't find the Higgs boson. They should look for the nearly undetectable electrostatic mesh through which inertia broadcasts (pssst ... that's where the dark energy errrrr .... Gravity is).
Tens of thousands of years ago High-Z pinch Auroras were commonplace and our great-grandpas recorded their appearances in stone. Why? Because the sun is a lot more variable than we currently believe and it was in a VERY active phase.
The observation of red shift can result from many causes. The Doppler red shift is a result of energy correction. Energy from radiation is a function of the number of wave cycles per second. It is not a function of the length of each cycle.
A source generating a given frequency produces a fixed amount of energy per second. As an object approaches this fixed frequency wave, the wave does not change in energy. It is clear that the energy striking the approaching object is increased because the number of cycles striking the object per second increases. The reverse of course is true.
The observed evidence of a correlation between the distance of distant objects and red shift can not be disputed.
The observation of red shift taking place as a wave moves out of a gravity well is also clear. The red shift of the Microwave Background Radiation must also be added to the methods of red shifting. There are also other things that can produce red shifting.
Until you have identified every cause of red shift, it can not be used to discount any observation.
A source generating a given frequency produces a fixed amount of energy per second. As an object approaches this fixed frequency wave, the wave does not change in energy. It is clear that the energy striking the approaching object is increased because the number of cycles striking the object per second increases. The reverse of course is true.
The observed evidence of a correlation between the distance of distant objects and red shift can not be disputed.
The observation of red shift taking place as a wave moves out of a gravity well is also clear. The red shift of the Microwave Background Radiation must also be added to the methods of red shifting. There are also other things that can produce red shifting.
Until you have identified every cause of red shift, it can not be used to discount any observation.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 2 2008, 01:16 PM)
I've read a great deal about this over the last year or so.
Because there isn't a well functioning EU model doesn't make it "a waffle" as Trippy characterized earlier; it can be easily said that the BBT isn't exactly tearing up "FunctionalityWorld" with all it's patches.
Quit putting words in my mouth you dishonest cretin.
I stated that the page was over inflated waffle, not the EU model, and I also didn't say that because the page was about the EU model as you seem to be implying.
I said that the page was over inflated waffle, because, for the most part all it says is "The fingers of god are due to intrinsic redshift".
If you had even bothered reading the link I posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God on the subject you would have learned that:
But in your zeal, did you pick up on and understand any of this? Apparently not.
And you guys accuse me of having a problem because i'm occasionaly short tempered.
Because there isn't a well functioning EU model doesn't make it "a waffle" as Trippy characterized earlier; it can be easily said that the BBT isn't exactly tearing up "FunctionalityWorld" with all it's patches.
Quit putting words in my mouth you dishonest cretin.
I stated that the page was over inflated waffle, not the EU model, and I also didn't say that because the page was about the EU model as you seem to be implying.
I said that the page was over inflated waffle, because, for the most part all it says is "The fingers of god are due to intrinsic redshift".
If you had even bothered reading the link I posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God on the subject you would have learned that:
- 1. The 'mainstream' explanation for the phenomenom is that it relates to the peculiar velocities of the galaxies in question - IE their motion relative to the earth. And this is calculated by the virial theorem (which, btw includes magnetic and electric field energies).
2. When true distance is plotted rather then redshift - true distance being something that can be verified by other means as well, that the fingers of god disappear, and we wind up with nice tight clusters.
3. I even suggested a valid way in which the fingers of god might be used to throw the BBT into doubt.
But in your zeal, did you pick up on and understand any of this? Apparently not.
And you guys accuse me of having a problem because i'm occasionaly short tempered.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 2 2008, 01:16 PM)
There are relatively recent refutations to the "intrinsic" redshift argument. The best of these is one which refutes partially based on reselecting the original datasets and then reapplying the math. I say it is far from being settled. There appears to be an active but slowly progressing argument within scientists working in this area which means that sooner or later the issue will be settled.
The biggest issue may in fact be the inability of EU proponents to get the necessary telescope time.
This is inaccurate, there was a study done recently which examined one of the sets of galaxies on Halton Arps special list. The direct observational measurements made with the HST indicate that one of Haltons Arps galaxies that are 'physically and energetically linked' are in fact neither physically, nor energetically linked.
(yes, in case you hadn't picked up on it, i'm cranky, especially after all the comments that have been directed at me recently by people with half the story, although it was refreshing to see costas pull margiani up).
The biggest issue may in fact be the inability of EU proponents to get the necessary telescope time.
This is inaccurate, there was a study done recently which examined one of the sets of galaxies on Halton Arps special list. The direct observational measurements made with the HST indicate that one of Haltons Arps galaxies that are 'physically and energetically linked' are in fact neither physically, nor energetically linked.
(yes, in case you hadn't picked up on it, i'm cranky, especially after all the comments that have been directed at me recently by people with half the story, although it was refreshing to see costas pull margiani up).
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
G'day trippy
I'm not here to educate you.
What, i'm not worthy? I'm an unclean heathen? You won't offer to educate me, but you'll offer to educate Uaafanblog?
I thought your arguments were supposed to be convincing
I'm not here to educate you.
What, i'm not worthy? I'm an unclean heathen? You won't offer to educate me, but you'll offer to educate Uaafanblog?
I thought your arguments were supposed to be convincing
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
You need to do some research in intinsic redshift.
First define what you mean by intrinsic redshift, because my recollection of Halton Arp's work was that he didn't dispute the relativistic interpretation of redshift (although some EU proponents do, and many interpretations of EU require Relativity to be wrong).
First define what you mean by intrinsic redshift, because my recollection of Halton Arp's work was that he didn't dispute the relativistic interpretation of redshift (although some EU proponents do, and many interpretations of EU require Relativity to be wrong).
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
It does not matter how much information I give you, if you to not research you will not learn more.
Pious self righteous bullocks.
Pious self righteous bullocks.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Intri...t/0/1/0/all/0/1
==========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833
Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: John G. Hartnett
(Submitted on 22 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 8 Feb 2008 (this version, v2))
Read it already (both versions actually). Can't say I was terribly impressed.
==========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833
Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: John G. Hartnett
(Submitted on 22 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 8 Feb 2008 (this version, v2))
Read it already (both versions actually). Can't say I was terribly impressed.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
Intrinsic Redshifts and the Tully-Fisher Distance Scale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503432.pdf
============================================
Again, not that impressive, although, page 10 supports everything I have had to say, so...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503432.pdf
============================================
Again, not that impressive, although, page 10 supports everything I have had to say, so...
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
Trippy you said
Mate I think you need to do alot of reading,,,,,,,,,,what you say tells me that you have no understanding of redshift.
Apparently not mate. Apparently I have a much better grasp of it then you realize.
Get over it, and quit the pious rhetoric.
Actually take the time to read and understand what I have to say.
Mate I think you need to do alot of reading,,,,,,,,,,what you say tells me that you have no understanding of redshift.
Apparently not mate. Apparently I have a much better grasp of it then you realize.
Get over it, and quit the pious rhetoric.
Actually take the time to read and understand what I have to say.
Only a complete crankwank would question the Big Bang.
G'day from the land of ozzzz
Trippy If you wish to think along what ever lines,,,,,,,,,,,thats OK.
The way you express your thoughts tells me that you need to do a lot of reading.
BUt! I must admit mainstream agrees with you.
If that makes you happy.
====================
As for neonom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ning nong thoughts.
Trippy If you wish to think along what ever lines,,,,,,,,,,,thats OK.
The way you express your thoughts tells me that you need to do a lot of reading.
BUt! I must admit mainstream agrees with you.
If that makes you happy.
====================
As for neonom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ning nong thoughts.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 3 2008, 12:52 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzz
Trippy If you wish to think along what ever lines,,,,,,,,,,,thats OK.
The way you express your thoughts tells me that you need to do a lot of reading.
BUt! I must admit mainstream agrees with you.
If that makes you happy.
====================
As for neonom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ning nong thoughts.
Fine then.
Explain the results of the bullet cluster
Trippy If you wish to think along what ever lines,,,,,,,,,,,thats OK.
The way you express your thoughts tells me that you need to do a lot of reading.
BUt! I must admit mainstream agrees with you.
If that makes you happy.
====================
As for neonom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ning nong thoughts.
Fine then.
Explain the results of the bullet cluster
- 1. without invoking unseen matter
2. without assuming relativity is wrong.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Trippy said
I assumed you read
.Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arc...lletcluster.htm
I assumed you read
.Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arc...lletcluster.htm
Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.
What we have stated in the headline and abstract above is, of course, an interpretation, not a fact. But the distinction between interpretation and fact has become so muddled in the sciences that we felt obliged to underscore the point rhetorically. Unbending theoretical assumptions have wrought havoc on popular astronomy, which could not recognize our interpretation of the Bullet Cluster based on the known electrical behavior of plasma.
According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above "was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang." Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words "theory," "hypothesis," or "interpretation," its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic "collisions" to wildly conjectural "gravitational lensing," all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image "proves the existence of dark matter."
In electrical terms, the Hubble optical image shows the many distorted galaxies and filaments of plasma that have been identified by the astronomer Halton Arp as the fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The BL Lac transition breaks up the increasingly massive plasma of the quasar as it progresses toward becoming a companion galaxy.
From an electrical vantage point, the Chandra x-ray image (pink) clearly shows the bell-shaped terminus and following arc of a plasma discharge “jet.” . The strong magnetic field of the current causes electrons to emit the x-ray synchrotron (non-thermal) radiation captured in the image. Synchrotron radiation is a normal electrical discharge effect.
But popular astronomy, oblivious to electrical phenomena, sees only "hot gases colliding."
The cluster has a redshift of z=0.3, exactly the value of the Karlsson quantization peak that is typical of BL Lac objects. Because it therefore does not need to be normalized to the base redshift of another galactic group, it is likely a member of our Local Group. This is confirmed by its location in the ejection cone of M31 (Andromeda Galaxy), which includes M33, 3C120, many QSOs, and hydrogen plasma cells strung between M31 and the Milky Way. Because of its proximity to the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud, its precursor QSO was probably ejected from one or the other. Statistically, as astronomer Halton Arp has pointed out again and again, galaxy clusters occur preferentially near large, low-redshift galaxies.
The filaments, arcs, and clumps of higher-redshift plasma that group around many of the galaxies in the cluster indicate regions of secondary plasma pinching and ejection. Further examination is expected to reveal the typical pattern of decreasing redshift and increasing luminosity with increasing distance from the secondary concentrations.
The Big Bang, which fails to take the electrical properties of plasma into account, assumes that redshift must be an indicator of distance. As a result, it projects the high-redshift filaments and arcs far into the background. In order to account for the association of these features with foreground galaxies, gravitational lensing must be invoked to “explain away” the number of features as multiple images of only one “distant” QSO. But even this subterfuge is in vain: The number of the allegedly distant objects should, on the astronomers' assumptions, increase with faintness, but observed numbers actually decrease.
"Gravitational lensing" requires enormous amounts of mass. But among galaxies whose distances have been ascertained by methods other than the redshift assumption, “grand design” spirals and ellipticals are the most massive. Distorted and peculiar galaxies, which make up the bulk of clusters like 1E0657-56, are dwarf low-mass objects. Big Bang theorists simply ignore the evidence of the images, calculate the mass required to produce the desired amount of lensing, and announce that it exists as “dark matter” that can’t be seen.
Also I assume you read this link
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn67
If being right is more important than understanding, than you will think the way you think. Right or wrong.
Trippy said
QUOTE
Explain the results of the bullet cluster
1. without invoking unseen matter
2. without assuming relativity is wrong.
1. without invoking unseen matter
2. without assuming relativity is wrong.
I assumed you read
.Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arc...lletcluster.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Explain the results of the bullet cluster 1. without invoking unseen matter 2. without assuming relativity is wrong. |
I assumed you read
.Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arc...lletcluster.htm
Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.
What we have stated in the headline and abstract above is, of course, an interpretation, not a fact. But the distinction between interpretation and fact has become so muddled in the sciences that we felt obliged to underscore the point rhetorically. Unbending theoretical assumptions have wrought havoc on popular astronomy, which could not recognize our interpretation of the Bullet Cluster based on the known electrical behavior of plasma.
According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above "was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang." Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words "theory," "hypothesis," or "interpretation," its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic "collisions" to wildly conjectural "gravitational lensing," all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image "proves the existence of dark matter."
In electrical terms, the Hubble optical image shows the many distorted galaxies and filaments of plasma that have been identified by the astronomer Halton Arp as the fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The BL Lac transition breaks up the increasingly massive plasma of the quasar as it progresses toward becoming a companion galaxy.
From an electrical vantage point, the Chandra x-ray image (pink) clearly shows the bell-shaped terminus and following arc of a plasma discharge “jet.” . The strong magnetic field of the current causes electrons to emit the x-ray synchrotron (non-thermal) radiation captured in the image. Synchrotron radiation is a normal electrical discharge effect.
But popular astronomy, oblivious to electrical phenomena, sees only "hot gases colliding."
The cluster has a redshift of z=0.3, exactly the value of the Karlsson quantization peak that is typical of BL Lac objects. Because it therefore does not need to be normalized to the base redshift of another galactic group, it is likely a member of our Local Group. This is confirmed by its location in the ejection cone of M31 (Andromeda Galaxy), which includes M33, 3C120, many QSOs, and hydrogen plasma cells strung between M31 and the Milky Way. Because of its proximity to the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud, its precursor QSO was probably ejected from one or the other. Statistically, as astronomer Halton Arp has pointed out again and again, galaxy clusters occur preferentially near large, low-redshift galaxies.
The filaments, arcs, and clumps of higher-redshift plasma that group around many of the galaxies in the cluster indicate regions of secondary plasma pinching and ejection. Further examination is expected to reveal the typical pattern of decreasing redshift and increasing luminosity with increasing distance from the secondary concentrations.
The Big Bang, which fails to take the electrical properties of plasma into account, assumes that redshift must be an indicator of distance. As a result, it projects the high-redshift filaments and arcs far into the background. In order to account for the association of these features with foreground galaxies, gravitational lensing must be invoked to “explain away” the number of features as multiple images of only one “distant” QSO. But even this subterfuge is in vain: The number of the allegedly distant objects should, on the astronomers' assumptions, increase with faintness, but observed numbers actually decrease.
"Gravitational lensing" requires enormous amounts of mass. But among galaxies whose distances have been ascertained by methods other than the redshift assumption, “grand design” spirals and ellipticals are the most massive. Distorted and peculiar galaxies, which make up the bulk of clusters like 1E0657-56, are dwarf low-mass objects. Big Bang theorists simply ignore the evidence of the images, calculate the mass required to produce the desired amount of lensing, and announce that it exists as “dark matter” that can’t be seen.
Also I assume you read this link
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn67
QUOTE
(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]]
Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.
The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]]
Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.
If being right is more important than understanding, than you will think the way you think. Right or wrong.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 3 2008, 04:07 AM)
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn67
Thank you for the link
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn67
Thank you for the link
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 3 2008, 04:07 PM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Trippy said
I assumed you read
.Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arc...lletcluster.htm
Precisely the sort of thing that i've been talking about the whole time.
It also does nothing to address the other however many clusters it is that don't have bullet shaped features.
Besides, Jets are bipolar, where's the other end?
Trippy said
I assumed you read
.Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arc...lletcluster.htm
Precisely the sort of thing that i've been talking about the whole time.
It also does nothing to address the other however many clusters it is that don't have bullet shaped features.
Besides, Jets are bipolar, where's the other end?
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 3 2008, 04:07 PM)
Also I assume you read this link
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn67
Or the equivalent, yes, it's been my experience that such websites are based on misconceptions, out of date ideas, or combinations of both.
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn67
Or the equivalent, yes, it's been my experience that such websites are based on misconceptions, out of date ideas, or combinations of both.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 3 2008, 04:07 PM)
If being right is more important than understanding, than you will think the way you think. Right or wrong.
You can't help yourself can you. Just gotta get in that personal dig don't you?
You can't help yourself can you. Just gotta get in that personal dig don't you?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 2 2008, 04:44 PM)
Only a complete crankwank would question the Big Bang.
I assume you believe in the Big Bang. The last 18 "posts" (*cough* ... sentences) you've made would appear to indicate you're a real believer.
Now go be a hypocrit and post something regarding your frustration with religious zealotry.
I assume you believe in the Big Bang. The last 18 "posts" (*cough* ... sentences) you've made would appear to indicate you're a real believer.
Now go be a hypocrit and post something regarding your frustration with religious zealotry.
G'day from the land of oz
Trippy you just go and think what you want,,,,,,,,,,you have no idea of what science means.
You are unable to discuss issues,,,,,,,,,,just be a critic for critic reasons.
You talk of discussion and yet you fall short in any form of discussions.
You do not provide any foundations or back up.
Go and read.
Trippy you just go and think what you want,,,,,,,,,,you have no idea of what science means.
You are unable to discuss issues,,,,,,,,,,just be a critic for critic reasons.
You talk of discussion and yet you fall short in any form of discussions.
You do not provide any foundations or back up.
Go and read.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Sep 3 2008, 05:35 PM)
G'day from the land of oz
Trippy you just go and think what you want,,,,,,,,,,you have no idea of what science means.
You are unable to discuss issues,,,,,,,,,,just be a critic for critic reasons.
You talk of discussion and yet you fall short in any form of discussions.
You do not provide any foundations or back up.
Go and read.
Right...
Because I treat Eu theories with the same skepticism that I treat any other cosmological theory, and because I remain unconvinced, it's some how my fault?
Get real.
It's not my fault your theory remains unconvincing.
You aske dme what I thought, and I told you.
Trippy you just go and think what you want,,,,,,,,,,you have no idea of what science means.
You are unable to discuss issues,,,,,,,,,,just be a critic for critic reasons.
You talk of discussion and yet you fall short in any form of discussions.
You do not provide any foundations or back up.
Go and read.
Right...
Because I treat Eu theories with the same skepticism that I treat any other cosmological theory, and because I remain unconvinced, it's some how my fault?
Get real.
It's not my fault your theory remains unconvincing.
You aske dme what I thought, and I told you.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.