JEROME - Life and Linear Time

[arthwollipot]

In another thread, I asked JEROME DA GNOME to clarify what he believed about the origins of life and the universe. His response was:

Concerning the origin of life? I support the idea that life has always existed, as science, at this point, only evidences life coming from life. In addition I know that our western concept of time is derived from religion and as such I do not accepted it without evidence.I replied:

Let me attemt to understand where you're coming from here. You claim that life has "always" existed? Do you mean on this planet, or in the universe? And secondly, I would like to further understand what you mean by the "western concept of time". What do you mean by this?He replied:

Yes.

Universe.

We have no evidence of linear time on the universal scale, we have no evidence of a beginning of time. Think eternity backwards as well as forwards.At that point I decided to start a new thread, rather than derail the existing one. I would appreciate it if a moderator could step in if the topic strays too far from those listed in the thread tags.

So here's my first topic for Jerome:

Einstein's theories of Special and General relativity, and astronomical observations, show that the universe is expanding, and must therefore have had an origin. Einstein's equations are the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have - they are spectacularly successful in describing the way the observed universe works. Furthermore, according to Einstein, time cannot be separated from space. All that can be described is a four-dimensional spacetime. If space had an origin, time must therefore have had an origin as well.

Jerome contents that the universe has always existed - it is eternal both into the past and into the future. This idea contradicts the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have. If Einstein was correct (and as far as we can tell, he was), then the universe cannot be eternal.

I open the floor to discussion.

[Slimething]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

Please be gentle if I'm completely deluded.

[arthwollipot]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

Please be gentle if I'm completely deluded.Okay, I think I know what you're saying. If time had a beginning, then the term "always" can only be applied up until that beginning point. I do not believe that this is what Jerome was claiming. He was saying that there was no beginning - that time is eternal, or cyclic, or something. Perhaps he can elaborate.

[wollery]

Jerome's problem in tackling this subject is that he repeatedly dismisses the evidence for the Big Bang on the basis that it relies on the initial premise that there was a beginning.

He dismisses the idea that there was a beginning on the basis that time is not linear, which he ascribes as a tenet of Western religious thought.

The fact that the Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise, is something which he continually fails to respond to.

[arthwollipot]

And I hope to address these issues if and when Jerome joins us.

[The Man]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

Please be gentle if I'm completely deluded.

He was saying that there was no beginning - that time is eternal, or cyclic, or something. Perhaps he can elaborate.


Exactly, and some of us have given Jerome specific references (Loop Quantum Gravity) that could be used to argue for some form of circular time. Unfortunately, even this does not buy Jerome what he wants, because life could not exist immediately before or after the transitions in that “circular time” (big bounce). It seems he wants the best of both worlds, circular time and eternal past. The former maybe possible (under some considerations) but the latter is clearly erroneous. Unfortunately, he gives little, if any, elaboration, so he can always fall back on one or the other. So, please elaborate, Jerome, because your propositions are mutually exclusive.

[sol invictus]

Forget about relativity and fancy physics for a moment.

Look in any direction through a big telescope, and you'll see galaxies moving directly away from us - always away, never towards. The further away you look, the faster they are moving away (with a speed proportional to the distance). And whichever direction you look, you see more or less the same number and type of galaxies.

Now imagine a bomb exploding. Some particles fly away from the bomb quickly, some more slowly. If you survive the blast and are sitting at the center (where the bomb was) some time later, you'll observe stuff all around you, all moving away, and the further away something is, the faster it's moving (with a speed proportional to distance).

Put it another way - imagine running the universe back in time. All those distant galaxies would be flying towards us, and they will all arrive at the same time (since their speed is proportional to their distance) unless something stops them. But gravity is an attractive force - it actually makes them fly together faster (just as it slows the expansion going forward in time). That moment in the past - when all that stuff crunches down on top of us - is called the big bang.

If you believe in an eternal universe, you've got quite a job to do to explain how all of that is wrong.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Look in any direction through a big telescope, and you'll see galaxies moving directly away from us - always away, never towards. The further away you look, the faster they are moving away (with a speed proportional to the distance). And whichever direction you look, you see more or less the same number and type of galaxies.

Now imagine a bomb exploding. Some particles fly away from the bomb quickly, some more slowly. If you survive the blast and are sitting at the center (where the bomb was) some time later, you'll observe stuff all around you, all moving away, and the further away something is, the faster it's moving (with a speed proportional to distance).

In your bomb analogy, does the energy from the bomb accelerate in its expansion over time or slow? The universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. Is this not contrary to what we know about physics? Is is possible that our perceptions are being interpreted incorrectly?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Exactly, and some of us have given Jerome specific references (Loop Quantum Gravity) that could be used to argue for some form of circular time. Unfortunately, even this does not buy Jerome what he wants, because life could not exist immediately before or after the transitions in that “circular time” (big bounce). It seems he wants the best of both worlds, circular time and eternal past. The former maybe possible (under some considerations) but the latter is clearly erroneous. Unfortunately, he gives little, if any, elaboration, so he can always fall back on one or the other. So, please elaborate, Jerome, because your propositions are mutually exclusive.

Not mutually exclusive if neither of your possibles are correct.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome's problem in tackling this subject is that he repeatedly dismisses the evidence for the Big Bang on the basis that it relies on the initial premise that there was a beginning.

He dismisses the idea that there was a beginning on the basis that time is not linear, which he ascribes as a tenet of Western religious thought.

The fact that the Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise, is something which he continually fails to respond to.

No, the Big Bang was a conclusion that made a prediction and based upon that prediction it is confirmed in the minds of men as the correct conclusion.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

We have no evidence that all matter even could have existed inside a singularity. We can not even explain this thought without making excuses as to why the math and physics than are known do not work. We know that matter and energy are constant in respect to the amount which exists. Until such time as we can evidence that matter and energy can be destroyed or created than we must assume that it has always been.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Einstein's theories of Special and General relativity, and astronomical observations, show that the universe is expanding, and must therefore have had an origin. Einstein's equations are the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have - they are spectacularly successful in describing the way the observed universe works. Furthermore, according to Einstein, time cannot be separated from space. All that can be described is a four-dimensional spacetime. If space had an origin, time must therefore have had an origin as well.

Albert disagrees with you.
Albert Einstein (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm)
The development during the present century is characterized by two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other: the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory. For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation. (Albert Einstein, 1940)

[aggle-rithm]

In your bomb analogy, does the energy from the bomb accelerate in its expansion over time or slow?

In a vacuum, the expansion would be constant.

I'm not sure I like the bomb analogy, because the Big Bang and the resulting Universe are not an explosion -- they are an expansion of space-time.

The universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. Is this not contrary to what we know about physics?

It suggests that our physics are incomplete -- which is wonderful! It means we still have something to strive for.

Interestingly, the accelerating expansion seems in some ways consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant, the "fudge factor" that he considered his greatest blunder. He had postulated an unknown force which, unlike gravity, grew stronger with distance rather than weaker. This is consistent with an accelerating expansion.


Is is possible that our perceptions are being interpreted incorrectly?

Physicists ALWAYS take this possibility into account, but when our observations are so consistent with theory, it's hard to justify throwing them out.

[aggle-rithm]

No, the Big Bang was a conclusion that made a prediction and based upon that prediction it is confirmed in the minds of men as the correct conclusion.

Where else would it be confirmed, in the minds of wombats?

The Big Bang is simply the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of the Universe. If you argue a static universe, you have to explain why it doesn't collapse in on itself. If you argue an eternal universe, you have to explain why we don't see light older than 14 billion years. If you argue a steady-state universe, you have to explain where the new matter is coming from.

If you have a better explanation that fits all the observations, I would love to hear it.

ETA: The argument about linear versus circular time is equivocation, since physics has to do with "clock" time and you are talking about psychological time.

[sol invictus]

In your bomb analogy, does the energy from the bomb accelerate in its expansion over time or slow?

If the only force acting on it is gravity (with no cosmological constant), the overall expansion of the bomb (or the universe) will gradually slow.

The universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. Is this not contrary to what we know about physics? Is is possible that our perceptions are being interpreted incorrectly?

The simplest explanation for that is the presence of a positive cosmological constant. But that's really a red herring - the acceleration is a small effect which only matters in the current (and future) stage of the universe. Run back in time a little and it becomes totally negligible. it was only measured quite recently, using very sensitive tests. But the gross fact of the expansion as I presented it was observed by Edwin Hubble way back in 1920's.

So forget about fancy things like late-time acceleration - just think about the fact that in every direction, galaxies are moving away from us, with a speed (roughly) proportional to distance. That is not at all a steady state, and it immediately implies that something drastic happened in the past - a big bang, or at least a "bounce".

[Ichneumonwasp]

Jerome,

Is change possible within the universe?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In a vacuum, the expansion would be constant.

I'm not sure I like the bomb analogy, because the Big Bang and the resulting Universe are not an explosion -- they are an expansion of space-time.

There is no true vacuum. As such the force of the bomb will always slow to some degree, it will never accelerate.

An expansion of space-time, yes, that is the current thought.

It suggests that our physics are incomplete -- which is wonderful! It means we still have something to strive for.

Interestingly, the accelerating expansion seems in some ways consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant, the "fudge factor" that he considered his greatest blunder. He had postulated an unknown force which, unlike gravity, grew stronger with distance rather than weaker. This is consistent with an accelerating expansion.

A gnome is needed to explain the accelerated expansion. Should this not call into question our perceptions of the data?



Physicists ALWAYS take this possibility into account, but when our observations are so consistent with theory, it's hard to justify throwing them out.

Consistent if a gnome is added.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Where else would it be confirmed, in the minds of wombats?
:D

The Big Bang is simply the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of the Universe. If you argue a static universe, you have to explain why it doesn't collapse in on itself. If you argue an eternal universe, you have to explain why we don't see light older than 14 billion years. If you argue a steady-state universe, you have to explain where the new matter is coming from.

The Big Bang is assuming an origin.

Please explain how we have come to the conclusion that light can be measured for age.

[sol invictus]

Please explain how we have come to the conclusion that light can be measured for age.

Light doesn't really have an age. S/he meant that the source of the light was that old.

Here's how it works: stars don't produce pure white light. They produce a complicated spectrum with peaks and valleys (i.e. lots of some colors, not much of others). When a light source is moving away, the colors all get shifted towards the red end of the spectrum by an amount that depends on the speed of the source (this is very well known; it's seen and measured every day in countless experiments). That's called Doppler shift; it's the same effect that makes the pitch of a car horn or siren change when the car moves past you at high speed.

So if you pick a particular peak in the spectrum of light from some star and measure its wavelength, you know how fast that star was moving towards or away from you when it emitted the light. Furthermore you can also measure the distance to the star (that's actually harder to do, but it's possible - for example the farther away it is, the dimmer it will appear).

So we've measured the distance and velocity of lots of stars, and we notice that they are related linearly - the further away they are, the faster they are moving - and they're always moving away from us, never towards (not counting very nearby stars like those in our own galaxy). Symbolically, v = H*d, where v is velocity, d is distance, and H is a constant called the Hubble constant.

[arthwollipot]

Albert disagrees with you.
Albert Einstein (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm)The development during the present century is characterized by two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other: the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory. For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation. (Albert Einstein, 1940)I don't see how that is disagreeing with me. Can you explain further?

[aggle-rithm]

The Big Bang is assuming an origin.

You may have already addressed this, but I am curious:

If you spin the clock backwards to the point in time when the present expansion began, what do YOU think happened before that time?

If the observable universe was not in one point in space-time in the distant past, then what happened? Was everything moving in some other direction, and then suddenly decided to mimic an outward expansion?

[aggle-rithm]

A gnome is needed to explain the accelerated expansion. Should this not call into question our perceptions of the data?



Perhaps, but the Big Bang theory was fully formulated before the accelerating expansion was observed. In other words, a theory to explain the acceleration is not strictly necessary to explain the Big Bang. It may help refine the theory if we understood it better, but accelerating expansion in no way contradicts it.

If you have an alternate theory, then to be taken seriously it needs to explain why the universe appears as it does today. Just saying that our observations COULD be distortions of reality is simply introducing an unnecessary ad-hoc explanation.

[Wangler]

So we've measured the distance and velocity of lots of stars, and we notice that they are related linearly - the further away they are, the faster they are moving - and they're always moving away from us, never towards (not counting very nearby stars like those in our own galaxy). Symbolically, v = H*d, where v is velocity, d is distance, and H is a constant called the Hubble constant.

Sol,

I think that you meant to say: "So we've measureed the distance and velocity of lots of galaxies...."

Also, even though you have Doppler shift as an example, isn't redshift you describe more related to the expansion of the universe itself, and not a pure Doppler shift?

[aggle-rithm]

So we've measured the distance and velocity of lots of stars, and we notice that they are related linearly - the further away they are, the faster they are moving - and they're always moving away from us, never towards (not counting very nearby stars like those in our own galaxy).

And nearby galaxies, like Andromeda.

[aggle-rithm]

Also, even though you have Doppler shift as an example, isn't redshift you describe more related to the expansion of the universe itself, and not a pure Doppler shift?

Hmmm...

Is there really a meaningful difference between light that is red-shifted by the relative motion of observer and observed, and light that is red-shifted by expanding space-time? From the light's point of view, wouldn't it be the same?

[aggle-rithm]

Please explain how we have come to the conclusion that light can be measured for age.

It's not necessary to analyze it that closely.

If the universe has always existed, then the light from all the stars in the universe have had an eternity to make to to Earth. We would be able to see every star in the universe with the naked eye, such that the night sky would be filled with light!

That's not what I observe, anyway.

[sol invictus]

Sol,

I think that you meant to say: "So we've measureed the distance and velocity of lots of galaxies...."


Yes, it's generally impossible to resolve individual stars in distant galaxies. I was just trying to explain the basics of this in the simplest way possible.

Also, even though you have Doppler shift as an example, isn't redshift you describe more related to the expansion of the universe itself, and not a pure Doppler shift?

What aggle-rithm said. You can always think of cosmological redshift as arising from the relative motion of the two objects. It's not always the most convenient way to do things, but in this case I think it's the most intuitive.

[Wangler]

Is there really a meaningful difference between light that is red-shifted by the relative motion of observer and observed, and light that is red-shifted by expanding space-time? From the light's point of view, wouldn't it be the same?

To be pedantic about it, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

With a quote:

As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift. This differs from the Doppler effect redshifts described above because the velocity boost (i.e. the Lorentz transformation) between the source and observer is not due to classical momentum and energy transfer, but instead the photons increase in wavelength and redshift as the space through which they are traveling expands.

[sol invictus]

To be pedantic about it, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

With a quote:

That quote doesn't make sense. Doppler shifts are Doppler shifts - it doesn't make any difference where the velocity that caused them came from.

One valid technique for calculating cosmo redshift is to compute the geodesic of the source, and then compute its velocity with respect to the observer receiving the light (us). The redshift is then given by the standard relativistic Doppler formula. It's true that the geodesics are different from what they would be in flat space, but so what?

Expansion of space is not a gauge-invariant concept, because it refers to a particular choice of space and time coordinates. The redshift, on the other hand, is a physical quantity and therefore gauge invariant. So it's really the redshifts that are fundamental, not the expansion, and it's perfectly valid to regard them as due to relative velocities.

[Jimbo07]

If the universe has always existed, then the light from all the stars in the universe have had an eternity to make to to Earth. We would be able to see every star in the universe with the naked eye, such that the night sky would be filled with light!


How perfectly 19th C. of you. :D I don't understand this, however. Even if the universe is infinite in age, the stars are not evenly distributed. I'd expect to see bright and dark patches...

[chulbert]

If the universe has always existed, then the light from all the stars in the universe have had an eternity to make to to Earth. We would be able to see every star in the universe with the naked eye, such that the night sky would be filled with light!

While such a universe might be eternal, the individual stars within it are not. All the stars in such a universe would have long since burned out and left the night sky dark unless there was a process that produced new stars. If so, it is reasonable to assume that at any given time there would exist some new stars far enough away that their light has not yet reached Earth.

Whether or not we would see more stars in such a universe, I can't say - it depends on the birth and death rates.

(No, I don't believe we live in such a universe.)

[Jimbo07]

Even if the universe is infinite in age, the stars are not evenly distributed. I'd expect to see bright and dark patches...

While such a universe might be eternal, the individual stars within it are not.

Two minutes apart, but picking up on the same theme... weird... can we split the million? :D

[chulbert]

Two minutes apart, but picking up on the same theme... weird... can we split the million? :D

Deal.

[Jimbo07]

Deal.

Okay, then. I promise to give you exactly half of everything I win from this event!

...

We're trying to trip aggle-rithm up, but in general, I agree that for the lay person, much can be learned through straightforward observation. We just have to be very careful with induction... science is whacky that way! :cool:

[mhaze]

[sol invincus]
Now imagine a bomb exploding. Some particles fly away from the bomb quickly, some more slowly. If you survive the blast and are sitting at the center (where the bomb was) some time later, you'll observe stuff all around you, all moving away, and the further away something is, the faster it's moving (with a speed proportional to distance).[/quote]

Huh? You may be thinking of gas expansion in a vacuum, but explosions occur at a pretty set rate - say 50,000 fps for a high explosive, 7-11,000 for something like high density hydrogen peroxide. In the center of the blast and going outward is gas expansion, yes, and aggregate or particles have only the velocity imparted by the energetic gas. Those particles, their energy clearly declines with distance due to atmospheric drag. As for the gas, it expands until it's pressure is less than atmospheric, at that point chaotic whirls occur in which the remainder of the kinetic energy is used up. Conservation of energy is required throughout the blast and the expansion of the blast.

So 'speed proportional to distance' - Nope, except in the very initial stage when outer (spherical layers) of gas and particles were being accelerated by inner layers which were of higher energy.


In another thread, I asked JEROME DA GNOME to clarify ....

Jerome contents that the universe has always existed - it is eternal both into the past and into the future. This idea contradicts the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have. If Einstein was correct (and as far as we can tell, he was), then the universe cannot be eternal.

I open the floor to discussion.

This is really a bit silly. If I recall correctly, the words Stephen Hawking used to discuss "time" outside of the universe, eg, at the moment before the beginning of the big bang expansion, was as follows:

"Time is undefined".

Correct from the relativity work.

Now, has the universe always existed? Could there have been an endless succession of big bangs, each with a "time" attribute? If so, is there a mechanistic and sequential series of these these discrete instances of "time"? Obviously not, because there could be no linkage where time did not exist.

Hawking's point carried somewhat further what in common and religious lore was described historically as "infinite" time. Time was not equal or similar in extent to the mathematics symbol for infinite...

[sol invictus]

While such a universe might be eternal, the individual stars within it are not. All the stars in such a universe would have long since burned out and left the night sky dark unless there was a process that produced new stars. If so, it is reasonable to assume that at any given time there would exist some new stars far enough away that their light has not yet reached Earth.

I don't understand your idea. You're proposing that the universe just sat there for an infinite amount of time, and then - after an infinite amount of time - lots of stars were born, burned out - and then it sat (or will sit) for another eternity? Doesn't sound very reasonable... what triggered those stars to ignite then? Why didn't they ignite earlier, when they had an eternity?


Huh? You may be thinking of gas expansion in a vacuum,

Yes, I was talking about a vacuum. I specified that the only force acting is gravity.

So 'speed proportional to distance' - Nope, except in the very initial stage when outer (spherical layers) of gas and particles were being accelerated by inner layers which were of higher energy.

Speed is proportional to distance in an explosion when there are no forces acting. The universe does not expand into an atmosphere - there is nothing outside it to push back on it.

[arthwollipot]

Another talking point:

JEROME, do you believe that the universe is infinite in spacial extent?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Another talking point:

JEROME, do you believe that the universe is infinite in spacial extent?

The evidence suggests nothing for this question. I do know that as far out we have looked we find more and as far in as we have looked we find more. Barriers have not been evidenced at this point.

[arthwollipot]

The evidence suggests nothing for this question. I do know that as far out we have looked we find more and as far in as we have looked we find more. Barriers have not been evidenced at this point.Do you think it's more likely that there's an edge to the universe, or that the universe is infinite? I understand that there's no evidence, but what's your opinion?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you think it's more likely that there's an edge to the universe, or that the universe is infinite? I understand that there's no evidence, but what's your opinion?

My presumption based upon our current evidence? The universe is infinite both large and small.

[sol invictus]

My presumption based upon our current evidence? The universe is infinite both large and small.

You think it's infinite and eternal?

Nice trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox), arth.

[sol invictus]

double post

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You think it's infinite and eternal?

Nice trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox), arth.

You have failed.

They did not know in 1823 that stars died!

You are interested in primary games? Do you really want to play?

[RecoveringYuppy]

They did not know in 1823 that stars died!
But you said the universe is eternal. Why aren't all the stars dead?

[arthwollipot]

You think it's infinite and eternal?

Nice trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox), arth.It was not intended as a trap. I just wanted to get more into Jerome's head, to understand where he's coming from.

My presumption based upon our current evidence? The universe is infinite both large and small.Can you elaborate on what you mean by "infinte both large and small"?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But you said the universe is eternal. Why aren't all the stars dead?

Were you unaware that stars die?

I think we should move this back to the atheists don't understand science thread. :mgbanghead

[RecoveringYuppy]

No I wasn't unaware of that. Why do you ask? Still awaiting your answer as to why they aren't all dead.

[joobz]

I think we should move this back to the atheists don't understand science thread. :mgbanghead
I haven't seen that thread. Perhaps you could link to it.

[mhaze]

Yes, I was talking about a vacuum. I specified that the only force acting is gravity. Speed is proportional to distance in an explosion when there are no forces acting. The universe does not expand into an atmosphere - there is nothing outside it to push back on it.


Gas Expansion-Proportional to distance only if particles in expansion are infinitely small and they are not.

The universe does not expand into an atmosphere - there is nothing outside it to push back on it.

A vacuum cannot be remotely similar to the nothing outside the universe.

[sol invictus]

You have failed.

They did not know in 1823 that stars died!

You are interested in primary games? Do you really want to play?

Stars dying does not solve the paradox, Jerome.

If stars die and aren't reborn, after infinite time (i.e. today, according to you) there wouldn't be any left. So you lose to Sol (the sun, that is - which is still shining last time I checked).

If stars die and are reborn, you're screwed by Olber.

:boxedin:

[sol invictus]

Gas Expansion-Proportional to distance only if particles in expansion are infinitely small and they are not.

Take a deep breath and think about this slowly. An explosion produces a large cloud of particles, all moving radially away from the center at different speeds (remember, we are ignoring all interactions other than gravity, and gravity is weak). Those particles fly out, and after time t, each particle is at radius r = v t, where v is the velocity for that particle. So if at time t you look around, you see a distribution of particles with a speed proportional to their distance.


]A vacuum cannot be remotely similar to the nothing outside the universe.

You're wrong. The Friedmann equation (which describes the evolution of the universe in general relativity) is precisely equivalent to a particle radially under the influence only of a spherically symmetric gravitational field.

[Naughtyhippo]

Something I've always meant to ask: Is it feasible that at each black hole's singularity, a new big bang is happening in some other,touching set of dimensions?

[Reality Check]

My presumption based upon our current evidence? The universe is infinite both large and small.



I assume that you have a list of evidence for your claim that the universe is "infinite both large and small". This evidence will have to count for the evidence that the observable universe has a finite size and age, e.g.
The cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) is a relic of the Big Bang.
The Hubble constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Constant) means that about 13.73 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was gathered at one point (Big Bang).
The age of white dwarf stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Dwarf) provides a minimum age for the universe (12.1 +/- 0.9 Gyr (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html)) and the lack of evidence for older stars (e.g. black dwarf stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf) or cool white dwarf stars) suggests for a finite age of the universe.
The half-life of protons is greater than 1.9*1029 years so they are considered as stable. But some Grand Unified Theories allow a finite half-life and so given an infinite amount of time they will all decay.I assume that the small bit of the claim refers to small distances. In that case you need to know about the Planck length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Length).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I assume that you have a list of evidence for your claim that the universe is "infinite both large and small". This evidence will have to count for the evidence that the observable universe has a finite size and age, e.g.
The cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) is a relic of the Big Bang.
The Hubble constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Constant) means that about 13.73 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was gathered at one point (Big Bang).
The age of white dwarf stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Dwarf) provides a minimum age for the universe (12.1 +/- 0.9 Gyr (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html)) and the lack of evidence for older stars (e.g. black dwarf stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf) or cool white dwarf stars) suggests for a finite age of the universe.
The half-life of protons is greater than 1.9*1029 years so they are considered as stable. But some Grand Unified Theories allow a finite half-life and so given an infinite amount of time they will all decay.I assume that the small bit of the claim refers to small distances. In that case you need to know about the Planck length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Length).


BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.

You are assming that the oldest stars we see are the oldest stars that have ever existed.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "infinte both large and small"?

As our technology has progressivly increased to see futher out into space and futher into the atom we find no boundaries.

[aggle-rithm]

While such a universe might be eternal, the individual stars within it are not. All the stars in such a universe would have long since burned out and left the night sky dark unless there was a process that produced new stars. If so, it is reasonable to assume that at any given time there would exist some new stars far enough away that their light has not yet reached Earth.

Whether or not we would see more stars in such a universe, I can't say - it depends on the birth and death rates.

(No, I don't believe we live in such a universe.)

OK, technically, the universe would have to be infinite in age AND in size. If that were true, then an infinite number of stars, even those an infinite distance away, would be continually bombarding the Earth with light.

[aggle-rithm]

BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.

You are assming that the oldest stars we see are the oldest stars that have ever existed.

So where do the new stars come from? Most stars are made primarily of hydrogen. If the new stars were made from an infinite progression of old stars, then there would be no hydrogen left; all stars would be made of heavier elements.

Actually, since the elements can only be fused so much within the reactor of a star, there would be no elements left, either. All would have long since condensed into neutron stars, then gravity would have condensed them together into black holes.

If you are suggesting that new hydrogen is continually being created, then you have the same problem that the steady-state theory had: There is no known mechanism by which hydrogen can be spontaneously created, much less in the huge quantities that would be necessary to explain the amount of hydrogen we see.

Believe me: Many different models of the universe have been imagined and debated by the brightest minds in cosmology and physics. The Big Bang theory is the one that best fits the evidence, period.

[aggle-rithm]

As our technology has progressivly increased to see futher out into space and futher into the atom we find no boundaries.

Metaphysical nonsense, IMHO.

**shrug**

[sol invictus]

BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.

Yes, Jerome - we'd see an infinitely bright background radiation which would burn us to a crisp instantaneously. One doesn't need to know any physics at all to see that. Have you already forgotten about Olbers?

You might also learn how to spell, or at least how to use a spellchecker.

[Upchurch]

BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.
How quickly you forget. We discussed this already. Galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout space. We would not expect to see evenly distributed background radiation in your scenario.

Why do you continue to fall back on this already debunked "alternative explanation" for cosmic background radiation?

You are assming that the oldest stars we see are the oldest stars that have ever existed.
The problem is that there are no older stars than the oldest stars we see. If your model were true, we would expect to see older versions of stars. We don't. Why is that?

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you are suggesting that new hydrogen is continually being created, then you have the same problem that the steady-state theory had: There is no known mechanism by which hydrogen can be spontaneously created, much less in the huge quantities that would be necessary to explain the amount of hydrogen we see.

Jerome stated earlier in this thread that we have to assume that matter can neither be created or destroyed so he's ruled out continuous creation of new hydrogen.

Though one might wonder why he considers that bit of science to be the one inviolate one.

[joobz]

How quickly you forget. We discussed this already. Galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout space. We would not expect to see evenly distributed background radiation in your scenario.

JdG's thought is that even in unevenly distributed galaxies, in an infinite time infinite universe, the uneven disitribution we see today is only an comsic "instantaneous" uneven distribution. And that through the death and birth of an infinity of galaxies, the final result would be a smooth BGR.

The problem with this is that unless you have some sort of outlet valve for the BGR, you would expect it to increase with time and result in Olbers paradox.

Now if there is a bleed off, the only example I can think of would be black holes. So, there would have to be enough black holes in the universe to serve as the sinks for all em at the rate that light is produced from all stars in order for the current light density to be at a steady state. Now as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), X-rays escape (or are released) readily from blackholes. Meaning, that we'd expect (in a steady state infinite universe) to see a proportionally high/uniform distribution of X-rays. We don't.

[aggle-rithm]

Jerome stated earlier in this thread that we have to assume that matter can neither be created or destroyed so he's ruled out continuous creation of new hydrogen.



Hmmm....so it must be convection on a gi-normous scale...

[sol invictus]

Though one might wonder why he considers that bit of science to be the one inviolate one.

A good question, since an eternal unchanging universe also violates one of the most fundamental laws of nature - the second law of thermodynamics.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Now as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), X-rays escape (or are released) readily from blackholes. Meaning, that we'd expect (in a steady state infinite universe) to see a proportionally high/uniform distribution of X-rays. We don't.
X-rays don't escape from black holes. We do see a lot of x-rays from the gases surrounding black holes though, but they are from outside the black hole, not inside it.

[aggle-rithm]

X-rays don't escape from black holes. We do see a lot of x-rays from the gases surrounding black holes though, but they are from outside the black hole, not inside it.

The way I understand it is: Virtual particle pairs, one positive and one negative, are constantly popping into existence, then annihilating each other. When the pairs appear right at the event horizon of a black hole, the negative particle is pulled in before they can annihilate each other, while the positive particle escapes as radiation. The net result is that the mass of the black hole is decreased by the mass of the escaping particle, and, given enough time, it will evaporate completely.

Am I close?

[RecoveringYuppy]

The way I understand it is: Virtual particle pairs, one positive and one negative, are constantly popping into existence, then annihilating each other. When the pairs appear right at the event horizon of a black hole, the negative particle is pulled in before they can annihilate each other, while the positive particle escapes as radiation. The net result is that the mass of the black hole is decreased by the mass of the escaping particle, and, given enough time, it will evaporate completely.

Am I close?
But only very small black holes, which we've never observed, would radiate in x-rays. The effective temperature of large black holes, such as ones consistent with black hole candidates we've observed, radiate at an effective temperature below the CBR. So, in other words, the radiaton of the CBR falling in to black holes alone is more than enough to prevent evaporation happening in this universe at this time.

[Jimbo07]

OK, technically, the universe would have to be infinite in age AND in size. If that were true, then an infinite number of stars, even those an infinite distance away, would be continually bombarding the Earth with light.

So the paradox requires infinite age/infinite space and an infinite number of stars? The latter is clearly untrue.

[joobz]

X-rays don't escape from black holes. We do see a lot of x-rays from the gases surrounding black holes though, but they are from outside the black hole, not inside it.
Then, let me ask a related question: Is there a wavelength dependant rate at which light falls into a black hole?(e.g., does higher frequency radiation fall faster than low frequency?)
In the steady state universe, in order to see the CBR that we see, all em radiation higher than the microwave range would have to be sucked up exceedingly more rapidly than the microwave range. otherwise the CBR would be a constant smear of radiation through all em wavelengths (the Olbers paradox).

[sol invictus]

So the paradox requires infinite age/infinite space and an infinite number of stars? The latter is clearly untrue.

Because of the paradox, right.

But an infinite universe with a finite number of stars in it is awfully strange, don't you think?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Then, let me ask a related question: Is there a wavelength dependant rate at which light falls into a black hole?(e.g., does higher frequency radiation fall faster than low frequency?)
Wouldn't think so.

That's a lot of heroics to rescue Jerome.

[Jimbo07]

Because of the paradox, right.

But an infinite universe with a finite number of stars in it is awfully strange, don't you think?

IANAC (I am not a cosmologist)

...

Strange? Maybe, but I can't speak to the truth value of the proposition. I think that positing infinite time/brane-verse as an 'ultimate' explanation is a boondoggle on the order of positing God! :boggled:

I'm prepared to accept a multiverse model, if experimental evidence can demonstrate its existence. However, I'm worried that just creates a, "who created the multiverse," question for theists.

I agree that "It just is," is a completely unsatisfying answer. The nice thing about science is that if you're not satisified, you keep asking questions! :cool: Religion? Not so much...

[joobz]

Wouldn't think so.

That's a lot of heroics to rescue Jerome.
Thanks, I always attempt to address the best counter argument that can be devised.

In this way, I was attempting to short cut the drawn out nonsense that JdG was likely to give.

[ServiceSoon]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "infinte both large and small"?I second this motion.

BGR is assumed a relic of the Big Bang. If an infiante numbers of stars have been born and have died an infinate number of times in an infinate number of places than we would also expect to see BGR.Dang acronyms. Internet search didn't turn up anything. Nothing in this thread about it. PLease help me out by filling in the blank. BGR = _____ ?

[joobz]

I second this motion.

Dang acronyms. Internet search didn't turn up anything. Nothing in this thread about it. PLease help me out by filling in the blank. BGR = _____ ?
BGR=cosmic background radiation. One of the key bits of evidence that supports the Big bang theory but not a steady state universe theory.

[Upchurch]

Dang acronyms. Internet search didn't turn up anything. Nothing in this thread about it. PLease help me out by filling in the blank. BGR = _____ ?
Cosmic background radiation.

[sol invictus]

Then, let me ask a related question: Is there a wavelength dependant rate at which light falls into a black hole?(e.g., does higher frequency radiation fall faster than low frequency?)

No, there is no such effect - at least not so long as the wavelength of the light is smaller than the size of the hole. But in any case this doesn't work - if the black holes are absorbing light, they will grow. Slowly, but they will still grow. Given an infinite time they will grow to fill the entire space - in other words, there will be a big crunch.

That's roughly a generally relativistic version of Olbers' paradox.


Strange? Maybe, but I can't speak to the truth value of the proposition.

Well, think about it. You'd be positing that in an infinite volume there is a single clump of stars somewhere, surrounded on all sides by infinite and totally empty space. It doesn't make any sense - why is there only one clump? If there is some finite probability for a star to be produced, there should be an infinite number of stars. If there is a zero probability, that zero would have to be balanced with infinite precision to cancel the infinite volume and just produce a single clump...

It's as bad as simply saying "God did it" (which I think is what JdG really believes).

[aggle-rithm]

So the paradox requires infinite age/infinite space and an infinite number of stars? The latter is clearly untrue.

But, clearly, if hydrogen exists in an infinitely old universe (and, as Jerome believes, matter cannot be created or destroyed), then there MUST be an infinite supply of hydrogen. It then makes sense that there would be an infinite number of stars.

In truth, of course, NONE of this makes any sense, that's why the ideas Jerome is pushing are nonsense.

[joobz]

No, there is no such effect - at least not so long as the wavelength of the light is smaller than the size of the hole. But in any case this doesn't work - if the black holes are absorbing light, they will grow. Slowly, but they will still grow. Given an infinite time they will grow to fill the entire space - in other words, there will be a big crunch.

That's roughly a generally relativistic version of Olbers' paradox.
Interesting. So, in other words, even my attempt at trying to rescue JdG's argument fails.

[aggle-rithm]

Interesting. So, in other words, even my attempt at trying to rescue JdG's argument fails.

Speaking of which...where did he go?

Hope we weren't boring him.

[aggle-rithm]

It doesn't make any sense - why is there only one clump?


Because it's exactly what the "One Clump" theory predicts, der.

;)

[joobz]

Speaking of which...where did he go?

Hope we weren't boring him.
I do not know. I'm willing to guess he's working and not free to goof on a website 24/7.

Although, it does seem that he doesn't like me holding him accountable for not actually reading sources that he presents. I've caught him twice doing so and feel that his claims of "being unconvinced by the evidence" rings hollow.

[aggle-rithm]

I do not know. I'm willing to guess he's working and not free to goof on a website 24/7.


He's a better man than I, evidently. :(

[Jimbo07]

I do not know. I'm willing to guess he's working and not free to goof on a website 24/7.



Bah! Work and goof around on the forum, I say...

[Upchurch]

But you said the universe is eternal. Why aren't all the stars dead?

Were you unaware that stars die?

I think we should move this back to the atheists don't understand science thread. :mgbanghead
There is a certain irony in that head bangin', but let me address the same problem to you in a different way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes).

Consider a particular star. Heck, let's just boil it down to just a specific hydrogen atom. This hydrogen atom has, under your theory, has existed infinitely long ago in the past. Let's say the the hydrogen atom has a time of some sort. What does that time read when the atom reaches the present? Can it even reach the present? If so, how can it if it must wait in infinitely long period of time to get here?

[Zeuzzz]

You think it's infinite and eternal?

Nice trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox), arth. [......]

Yes, Jerome - we'd see an infinitely bright background radiation which would burn us to a crisp instantaneously. One doesn't need to know any physics at all to see that. Have you already forgotten about Olbers?

You might also learn how to spell, or at least how to use a spellchecker.



I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that are perfectly consistent with an infinite universe, and dont support the Big Bang. Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.


On Hubble’s Law of Redshift, Olbers’ Paradox and the Cosmic Background Radiation (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00N12PDF/V0N12ASS.pdf)
Discussion and Conclusions.

In this paper we have utilized a single principle, namely, emission, absorption and conservation of energy, to understand and correlate many phenomena. In particular we applied this principle to a study of the cosmological redshift, Olbers’ paradox, and the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation. We showed how the cosmological redshift can be coherently interpreted with this hypothesis and discussed how this can give a better quantitative fit for data in this field than other interpretations. Our model is based on a stationary and boundless Universe, homogeneous on a large scale, infinite in extent and in duration. With regard to the many assumptions needed for expanding Universe cosmologies to fit the known redshift data, we might ask, with Kellermann (1972): “Are we drawing too many epicycles?”. The model developed here can accommodate a number of the anomalies in Hubble’s law, such as those observed by Arp et al. (Arp 1967, 1971, 1974, and 1987; Field, Arp and Bahcall 1973; Arp, Burbidge, Hoyle, Narlikar and Wickramasinghe 1990), in which two physically linked astronomical objects have quite dissimilar redshifts. To understand these findings we only need to remember that aL is roughly proportional to the absorption coefficient between the object and the Earth. Since each object is surrounded by a different environment (atmospheres, charged particles forming a diffuse plasma, etc.), we would expect the redshifts associated with different types of objects to show these peculiarities. This framework for explaining the redshift of the quasars and galaxies is thus in general agreement with the mechanism proposed by Marmet (1991).



And that briefly answers some of the comments posited on other threads that a plasma cosmology, or static, infinite universe does not account for Arps observations. It quite clearly does, and far better than the standard model, buts thats another issue to be discussed in the future.....


In conclusion, a stationary model of the Universe, extending without limit in all directions, and in time, is consistent with all known cosmological data. But it should be remarked that our model more resembles Nernst’s proposal (Nernst 1937 and 1938) than the steady state theory of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle (Bondi and Gold 1948; Hoyle 1948). The main difference is that since we do not have expansion of the Universe, we do not need to postulate continuous creation of matter. Consequently, we also avoid the problems that arise from a finite time for the Universe. Harrison has shown that in all big bang models with suitable evolution, the Universe has existed for only a finite time (Harrison 1964, 1974 and 1981). Because we have given a plausible resolution of Olbers’ paradox with a homogeneous, limitless Universe, without any singularity in time, we cannot agree with Tipler’s statement that “there were (and are) only two ways of resolving the Paradox: the Universe of stars must be either inhomogeneous in space, or inhomogeneous in time” (1988). [......]

We then studied Olbers’ paradox in the context of absorption of electromagnetic energy. We concluded that this is a very reasonable assumption, provided the mean temperature of matter in the Universe is that given by the cosmic background radiation. We developed some important consequences from this hypothesis (luminosity-to-mass and luminosity-to-area constant for galaxies) and pointed out that exactly these scaling laws are found in nature. Even the numerical values of the constants agree with observations.



I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc. This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.

Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]). An excellent study of the many theories of a stationary Universe in which the photons lose energy in inelastic collisions with matter distributed throughout interstellar and intergalactic space was done by Pecker (1976[10]). And a further criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretations of the redshift and why these models should be replaced by static ones was originally presented by Kierein (1988[11]), and has been followed by many others since.



[1] Cosmic plasma (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A) Alfven, H. (Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Volume 82), 1981. 178 p.

[2] Cosmology in the plasma universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988LPB.....6..389A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457) Alfven, Hannes, Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 389-398.

[3] Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Radio%20Absorption%20By%20The%20Intergalactic%20Me dium.pdf) Lerner, Eric J. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, p. 63-68. (Full Text)

[4] Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Confirmation%20Of%20Radio%20Absorption.pdf) EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and space science, 1993, vol. 207, no1, pp. 17-26 (Full Text)

[5] Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe data (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20C OBE%20Data.pdf) EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995 (Full Text)

[6] The Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Hubble Effect (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N09PDF/V0N09KRO.pdf) Apeiron, No. 9-10, Winter-Spring 1991

[7] The Work of R.A. Waldron (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N07PDF/V0N07PHI.pdf) Assembled by Thomas E. Phipps

[8] Problems in Quantum Physics: Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations (http://www.amazon.com/Problems-Quantum-Physics-Interpretations-International/dp/9971504499) Proceedings of the International Summer Research Workshop

[9] Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vacuum-induced dissipative red-shift mechanism (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ITPS...18...64V) JP Vigier. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 64-72.

[10] Additional evidence and possible interpretation of angular redshift anisotropy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976MNRAS.177..191J) Jaakkola, T., Karoji, H., Le Denmat, G., Moles, M., Nottale, L., Vigier, J.-P. Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, vol. 177, Oct. 1976, p. 191-213.

[11] A criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretation of the red shift (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988LPB.....6..453K) Kierein, J. W. Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 453-456.





I personally like to adhere to the plasma cosmology approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-37), that feels no need to put a beginning or end on the universe, the universe is infinite for all we know, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.


In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes) demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.


The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang, that claims to be closing in on the final answer.

[The Man]

What does that time read when the atom reaches the present? Can it even reach the present? If so, how can it if it must wait in infinitely long period of time to get here?

A good point, Upchurch, some people mistakenly consider infinity to be an obtainable value like some finite value would be. It reminds me of Zeno’s paradoxes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that in fact seem to be more consistent with an infinite universe than the Big Bang. Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.


On Hubble’s Law of Redshift, Olbers’ Paradox and the Cosmic Background Radiation (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00N12PDF/V0N12ASS.pdf)




And that answers some of the comments posited on other threads that a plasma cosmology, or static, infinite universe does not account for Arps observations. It quite clearly does, and far better than the standard model, buts thats another issue to be discussed in the future.....






I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc. This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.

Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]). An excellent study of the many theories of a stationary Universe in which the photons lose energy in inelastic collisions with matter distributed throughout interstellar and intergalactic space was done by Pecker (1976[10]). And a further criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretations of the redshift and why these models should be replaced by static ones was originally presented by Kierein (1988[11]), and has been followed by many others since.



[1] Cosmic plasma (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A) Alfven, H. (Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Volume 82), 1981. 178 p.

[2] Cosmology in the plasma universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988LPB.....6..389A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457) Alfven, Hannes, Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 389-398.

[3] Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Radio%20Absorption%20By%20The%20Intergalactic%20Me dium.pdf) Lerner, Eric J. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, p. 63-68. (Full Text)

[4] Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Confirmation%20Of%20Radio%20Absorption.pdf) EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and space science, 1993, vol. 207, no1, pp. 17-26 (Full Text)

[5] Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe data (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20C OBE%20Data.pdf) EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995 (Full Text)

[6] The Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Hubble Effect (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N09PDF/V0N09KRO.pdf) Apeiron, No. 9-10, Winter-Spring 1991

[7] The Work of R.A. Waldron (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N07PDF/V0N07PHI.pdf) Assembled by Thomas E. Phipps

[8] Problems in Quantum Physics: Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations (http://www.amazon.com/Problems-Quantum-Physics-Interpretations-International/dp/9971504499) Proceedings of the International Summer Research Workshop

[9] Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vacuum-induced dissipative red-shift mechanism (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ITPS...18...64V) JP Vigier. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 64-72.

[10] Additional evidence and possible interpretation of angular redshift anisotropy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976MNRAS.177..191J) Jaakkola, T., Karoji, H., Le Denmat, G., Moles, M., Nottale, L., Vigier, J.-P. Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, vol. 177, Oct. 1976, p. 191-213.

[11] A criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretation of the red shift (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988LPB.....6..453K) Kierein, J. W. Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 453-456.





I personally like to adhere to the plasma cosmology approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-37), that feels no need to put a beginning or end on the universe, the universe is infinite for all we know, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.


In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes) demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.


The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang that claims to be closing in on the final answer..

Wow! I'm impressed! :)

For someone who's really busy (with exams, was it?), and who won't be dropping by the JREF forum for a month or so (or did I mis-read), such a long post - with a full set of references no less! - is surely evidence of a great deal of time, even just writing it.

But wait! Perhaps you didn't spend much time at all on it? Perhaps there's some secret PC website, where the PC seagulls can go to load up with woo, to spam wherever and whenever they wish? Kinda like paying someone to write your term paper for you, only in bulk.

For example: In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open (http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007.10.htm) ...

[The Man]

The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang that claims to be closing in on the final answer.


No, if the universe were infinitely old then we would know the “*true origin*” in that it must have no origin and already be as old as it could possibly be (infinitely old). Since the universe is still going then it can not be as old as it can possibly be or infinitely old. That is the big difference with plasma cosmology, claims that are not even self consistent.

[Zeuzzz]

.

Wow! I'm impressed! :)

For someone who's really busy (with exams, was it?), and who won't be dropping by the JREF forum for a month or so (or did I mis-read), such a long post - with a full set of references no less! - is surely evidence of a great deal of time, even just writing it.

But wait! Perhaps you didn't spend much time at all on it? Perhaps there's some secret PC website, where the PC seagulls can go to load up with woo, to spam wherever and whenever they wish? Kinda like paying someone to write your term paper for you, only in bulk.

For example: In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open (http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007.10.htm) ...


Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

I guess, if you cant address the message, just shoot the messenger, and do some frantic hand waving.

[Zeuzzz]

No, if the universe were infinitely old then we would know the “*true origin*” in that it must have no origin and already be as old as it could possibly be (infinitely old).


Exactly. It has no assertainable *origin* as it is infinitely old and constantly ongoing.

That is the big difference with plasma cosmology, claims that are not even self consistent.


Its amazing how you can be so critical of a concept without ever coming up with any concrete, consistant, valid scientific reason to dismiss it. This is because the approach of Plasma Cosmology adheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than the Big Bang creation fairy tale.

[Reality Check]

I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.


Hi Zeuzz: Neither can I :rolleyes: !


There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that in fact seem to be more consistent with an infinite universe than the Big Bang. Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.
On Hubble’s Law of Redshift, Olbers’ Paradox and the Cosmic Background Radiation (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00N12PDF/V0N12ASS.pdf)
And that answers some of the comments posited on other threads that a plasma cosmology, or static, infinite universe does not account for Arps observations. It quite clearly does, and far better than the standard model, buts thats another issue to be discussed in the future.....


The good old tired-light theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light#Criticisms) yet again.


I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc. This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.


Wrong - astromomers have long known that light is affected by the inter-galactic media, e.g. see the Lyman alpha forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman-alpha_forest). Absorption does not change redshift.


Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]). An excellent study of the many theories of a stationary Universe in which the photons lose energy in inelastic collisions with matter distributed throughout interstellar and intergalactic space was done by Pecker (1976[10]). And a further criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretations of the redshift and why these models should be replaced by static ones was originally presented by Kierein (1988[11]), and has been followed by many others since.



I personally like to adhere to the plasma cosmology approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-37), that feels no need to put a beginning or end on the universe, the universe is infinite for all we know, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.



In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: Quantum mechanics and special relativity.
By your logic quantum mechanics, special relativity and general relativity (the mathematical formula basis of Big Bang cosmology) should thrown away. I suspect that you would also throw away Newtonian mechanics since Newton used general principles to formulate the laws.

Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: The various steady state theories are derived from the Perfect Cosmological Principle and Mach's Principle.
But wait - these are the theories you quote. Why do you not also reject these?

The fact is that the scientific method works from both theory and observations. A theory that does not produce testable predictions is useless. General relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics would never be accepted if they did not make testable predictions that have been observed. The principles that they are based on were derived from observations.
It does not matter whether theory of observation comes first, e.g. the primary reason that the steady theory was dumped for Big Bang theory was the observation of the cosmic microwave background (theory first then rejected/confirmed by observation).


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.


Is this then correct:
The reason many people think that the steady state theory is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to Buddhism.

The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep body of evidence.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes) demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.

The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang that claims to be closing in on the final answer.

I wonder how many adjustable parameters Plasma Cosmology has?

I have started a thread just for Plasma Cosmology (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661). Zeuzzz - you may want to add a concise description of plasma cosmology as the first posting.

[Upchurch]

Its amazing how you can be so critical of a concept without ever coming up with any concrete, consistant, valid scientific reason to dismiss it. This is because the approach of Plasma Cosmology adheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than the Big Bang creation fairy tale.
It appears that the majority of scientists disagree with you.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#Comparison_to_mainstream_cosmolog y):
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a few researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science that are co-edited by plasma cosmology proponent Anthony Peratt. A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other non-standard cosmologies). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.

Do you have any evidence or peer-reviewed research that isn't over 10 years old?

[Zeuzzz]

Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: Quantum mechanics and special relativity.
By your logic quantum mechanics, special relativity and general relativity (the mathematical formula basis of Big Bang cosmology) should thrown away. I suspect that you would also throw away Newtonian mechanics since Newton used general principles to formulate the laws.

Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: The various steady state theories are derived from the Perfect Cosmological Principle and Mach's Principle.
But wait - these are the theories you quote. Why do you not also reject these?


You are as usual misrepresenting what I say. I am not trying to uproot the entire mathematical deductive method :) To assert “all of known physics must be wrong if this is true”, without stating specifically why this is the case, is a symptom of overt pseudoskeptisism.

The fact is that the scientific method works from both theory and observations. A theory that does not produce testable predictions is useless. General relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics would never be accepted if they did not make testable predictions that have been observed. The principles that they are based on were derived from observations.
It does not matter whether theory of observation comes first, e.g. the primary reason that the steady theory was dumped for Big Bang theory was the observation of the cosmic microwave background (theory first then rejected/confirmed by observation).


Again, you are misrepresenting me. I have not stated that there is anything wrong with "General relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics", you seem to have inferred that in your mind.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep body of evidence.


That can all be explained very well by plasma astrophysics and cosmology.


I wonder how many adjustable parameters Plasma Cosmology has?


In comparison the to Big Bang, hardly any at all.


I have started a thread just for Plasma Cosmology (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661). Zeuzzz - you may want to add a concise description of plasma cosmology as the first posting.


Can't you just read the material online already? or so you require me to spoonfeed you everything?

[Zeuzzz]

It appears that the majority of scientists disagree with you.


I'm well aware of that. Scientific popularity does not lead to scientific veracity, by any means. And since when did using wikipedia as a reliable source suffice? :) And before you quote me Ned Wrights ridiculous attempt, heres the rebuttal; http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html

Do you have any evidence or peer-reviewed research that isn't over 10 years old?


Sorry, I forgot that any science publication that is over ten years old can be immedietly discounted :rolleyes:

Some of these publications may be a good place to start;

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Part: 1 Date: Aug. 2007 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4287017

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 31 Issue: 6 Part: 1 Date: Dec. 2003 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2003&isnumber=28301

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 28 Issue: 6 Date: Dec 2000 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2000&isnumber=19507

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

Can't you just read the material online already? or so you require me to spoonfeed you everything?Um, ... er, ...

I can't speak for RC, but for myself, what would be really, really nice would be some straight answers to the dozens (hundreds?) of questions asked, by many JREF forum members, about material that you yourself had posted, in various other threads ... material which you yourself had said, in no uncertain terms, was plasma cosmology (PC).

As you say, the online material is easy enough to find; what's almost impossible to find is anyone claiming to have a degree in physics (or astrophysics, or ...) who is willing to spend time explaining that material.

It's also easy enough to see why there are essentially zero papers on PC, in the last ~decade or so, as you have defined it, in ApJ, or MNRAS, or AJ, or ...

And no, "PC" is not the same as application of plasma physics to astrophysics; relativistic MHD (to take one example) is a perfectly respectable topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with how certain stone carvings can be interpreted as plasma discharges, or how the Sun's total power is derived from giant, galaxy-wide currents.

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.My goodness, a new field of science! :jaw-dropp

Would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?

[The Man]

Exactly. It has no assertainable *origin* as it is infinitely old and constantly ongoing.

Its amazing how you can be so critical of a concept without ever coming up with any concrete, consistant, valid scientific reason to dismiss it. This is because the approach of Plasma Cosmology adheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than the Big Bang creation fairy tale.


It is amazing how you can quote every part of my post except for the one sentence that indicated the self inconsistency of your assertion. The universe is constantly ongoing to where? infinity? Which by your own assretion it has already reached. If infinity is something that is unobtainable then the universe can not be infinitely old. If infinity is something you think is obtainable and has already been obtained by the universe being infinitely old then the universe has already gone as far as you say it can. You seem to want it both ways, unobtainable, yet already obtained, this concept dismisses itself.

[Zeuzzz]

My goodness, a new field of science! :jaw-dropp

Would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?


Amazing. I think you are suffering from a quite severe case of inattentional blindness DRD, as you seem incapable of seeing my posts.

I would certainly count these as plasma astrophysics journals, and since the very definition of plasma cosmolgy is the study of the plasma universe, it falls under that bracket.

Some of these publications may be a good place to start;

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Part: 1 Date: Aug. 2007 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4287017

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 31 Issue: 6 Part: 1 Date: Dec. 2003 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2003&isnumber=28301

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 28 Issue: 6 Date: Dec 2000 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2000&isnumber=19507

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.


And there are a good few more plasma groups and societies that often advocate a PC type approach listed at plasmas.org, run by head of Raytheon space and astrophysics groups and President of plasmas international, Timothy E Eastman, who is himself a Plasma cosmology advocate;

http://www.plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm
http://www.plasmas.org/space-plasmas.htm

You can see some of his other affiliations here; http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/about/editorialTeamBio/41 If you have any questions, you can E-mail him from that link. But dont give him the usual angry, naive comments you make here, he likely doesnt have time that sort of thing.

Can you see this one? :)

[Tubbythin]

I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that are perfectly consistent with an infinite universe, and dont support the Big Bang.
Doesn't make the solutions correct.


Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.
Is this the Zeuzzz interpretation of perfectly valid. Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?


I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc.
So if we know this do you know not think its been dismissed as a legit cause of redshift? Or are you implying the majority of cosmologists are incompetent?


This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.
Are you suggesting that astronomers/cosmologists don't consider dust ever?


Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]).
Ah, the Perfect Cosmological Principle. Sigh.


In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards.
The Big Bang idea came from Hubble's observation of the redshift distance relation.


The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future.
Its a bad thing that the BB mathematical formulas work?


This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe.
That would be the old "scientists have been wrong before so must be wrong now" argument.


What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework.
Says someone trying to tell us about how great the perfect cosmological principle is.


However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be more explicit? Were you not touting the greatness of quasi steady state theory recently (I may be wrong)? If so then you are an unbelievably big hippocrite.


The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available.
What like BB theory predicted the CMBR? The CMBR that you're trying to explain away by suggesting cosmologists don't consider dust? Hippocrite.


To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.
So you're using arguments from an authority on the side you're arguing against now?


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end.
Utter nonesense. I bet a large fraction of BB proponents are atheists.


Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago.
We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.


This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.
You'd better go to the local farm to top up on that straw you're using to create this big man.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes) demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.
And evolution is just a theory :rolleyes: .

[Zeuzzz]

Doesn't make the solutions correct.


Is this the Zeuzzz interpretation of perfectly valid. Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?


So if we know this do you know not think its been dismissed as a legit cause of redshift? Or are you implying the majority of cosmologists are incompetent?


Are you suggesting that astronomers/cosmologists don't consider dust ever?


Ah, the Perfect Cosmological Principle. Sigh.


The Big Bang idea came from Hubble's observation of the redshift distance relation.


Its a bad thing that the BB mathematical formulas work?


That would be the old "scientists have been wrong before so must be wrong now" argument.


Says someone trying to tell us about how great the perfect cosmological principle is.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be more explicit? Were you not touting the greatness of quasi steady state theory recently (I may be wrong)? If so then you are an unbelievably big hippocrite.


What like BB theory predicted the CMBR? The CMBR that you're trying to explain away by suggesting cosmologists don't consider dust? Hippocrite.


So you're using arguments from an authority on the side you're arguing against now?


Utter nonesense. I bet a large fraction of BB proponents are atheists.


We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.


You'd better go to the local farm to top up on that straw you're using to create this big man.


And evolution is just a theory :rolleyes: .


:D

This kind of reasoning is sometimes disparigingly referred to as "word salad", on the face of it, it looks like a pretty extensive responce, but it contains no meat, scientifically speaking.

There is not one comment there that I can respond to directly with any science. Its a host of generalizations and personal opinions, which you are welcome to vent here, but it really does nothing to progress the topic at hand.

Example:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago."

= opinion.

Productive statement:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, which is clearly demonstrated by ............ [enter scientific reason here]"

Example:

"And evolution is just a theory"

= opinion

Productive statement:

"And evolution is just a theory, because [enter person here] has observed [enter object here]"

Example:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR?"

Productive statement:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR. The prediction was [enter prediction] Which was confirmed [enter confirmation here]"

Example:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?"

Productive statement:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core? Which we know not to be true because .........."



If you did that, then I would be able to respond directly to your claims, but as it stands, it just comes across as a rather large plate of word salad.

[DeiRenDopa]

My goodness, a new field of science!

Would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?Amazing. I think you are suffering from a quite severe case of inattentional blindness DRD, as you seem incapable of seeing my posts..
No need to be so amazed, the explanation is extremely simple and straight-forward (stay tuned, and read carefully now).
.
I would certainly count these as plasma astrophysics journals, and since the very definition of plasma cosmolgy is the study of the plasma universe, it falls under that bracket.
[IEEE references snipped]

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.

[rest of post snipped; it contains the names of no 'plasma astrophysics journals']
.
Yep, I must now fall upon my sword ... I did not explicitly exclude the one (and only) journal you had already referenced, and I did not take care to quote the word 'other' ... (I added bolding).

So, other than IEEE journal(s), would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?

[DeiRenDopa]

:D

This kind of reasoning is sometimes disparigingly referred to as "word salad", on the face of it, it looks like a pretty extensive responce, but it contains no meat, scientifically speaking.

There is not one comment there that I can respond to directly with any science. Its a host of generalizations and personal opinions, which you are welcome to vent here, but it really does nothing to progress the topic at hand.

Example:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago."

= opinion.

Productive statement:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, which is clearly demonstrated by ............ [enter scientific reason here]"

Example:

"And evolution is just a theory"

= opinion

Productive statement:

"And evolution is just a theory, because [enter person here] has observed [enter object here]"

Example:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR?"

Productive statement:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR. The prediction was [enter prediction] Which was confirmed [enter confirmation here]"

Example:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?"

Productive statement:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core? Which we know not to be true because .........."



If you did that, then I would be able to respond directly to your claims, but as it stands, it just comes across as a rather large plate of word salad.Huh?

Didn't you say, two posts ago (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3668345&postcount=8)?Anyways, I'm all done for the day. Good night.Anyhoo ....

Would you be kind enough to explain how the post of yours which Tubbythin is quoting from meets your standards of 'science' (and