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 is not 'word salad')?

Anyhoo2 ...

I seem to have missed this: in which of the material you cited is there a quantitative explanation, based on PC (including references to the landmark texts and/or papers), of the observed relative abundances of the elements? Or even a subset of them, say H, He, C, O, and Fe?

I particularly want to read such a source, starting with how its description of an infinite universe matches what you posted earlier in this thread.

[Tubbythin]

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.

This is coming from the person who just wrote...

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” 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.





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.
Generalizations? Do elaborate.


Example:

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

= opinion.

Er no. An opinion would contain something like "I think..." or "I believe" or something similar. What I said was either the truth or a lie. You can accuse me of lieing if you so wish.


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]"
Ever heard of the phrase "practice what you preach?" Maybe you could quantify some of your assertions over in the thread on the pioneer anomaly?


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]"
Erm. You do realise I was being sarcastic here right?


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]"
Erm, sorry. I thought you said you had a degree in physics. I mean I wouldn't want to have to "spoonfeed you everything".


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 .........."
Erm. I already explained in the other thread why this was impossible. And you just ignored it. Why would I bother doing so again?

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...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:.
Well 10 might be a bit too restrictive, but papers from much before ~1992 cannot have addressed observations of the CMB angular power spectrum, and for them to have real meat they'd need to be no more than about 10 years' old.

If you don't understand how important the CMB angular power spectrum is, in terms of observational cosmology, by all means please ask ... there are plenty of JREF members who'd be only too happy to explain it to you.
.
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.
I'm confused (sadly, it happens rather often when I read material you post) ... there seems to be nothing here on cosmology (with one, marginally possible, exception).

I mean, to pick just one example, what does "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current $Z$-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity Part II: Directionality and Source" have to do with the origin and evolution of the universe for example, or its large scale structure? This really looks like woo of the purest kind. :eye-poppi
.
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
Ditto, with one definite and one possible exception?
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
... snip ...
Ditto2, only for these, everything seems to be about 'space weather', and other (inner) solar system phenomena.

Would you please point to what, specifically, any of these papers have to do with cosmology (other than the Lerner 2003 one)?

[aggle-rithm]

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?

Duuuuuude.

I need to stop coming here when I'm high....

[arthwollipot]

Interesting though this subject is, it is not addressing the original topic. Can we please move all discussion of plasma cosmology to the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661), which was created for that purpose, and return to Jerome's steady-state theories?

Thanks.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Interesting though this subject is, it is not addressing the original topic. Can we please move all discussion of plasma cosmology to the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661), which was created for that purpose, and return to Jerome's steady-state theories?

Thanks.

Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.

[Reality Check]

Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.

The obvious response is:
"I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that steady state supporters are nothing more than sycophants to unpopular ideology."

Keeping to this thread: What brand of steady state theory do you believe in Jerome?

[ServiceSoon]

Cosmic background radiation.BGR=cosmic background radiation. One of the key bits of evidence that supports the Big bang theory but not a steady state universe theory.Now I know why I couldn't find it. The acrynym should be CBGR. This is all new for me. Thanks for the help my peeps.

[joobz]

I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
:dl:

[arthwollipot]

Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.That wasn't my intention, and I think you know it, Jerome. I would prefer it if the details of plasma cosmology were discussed in a different thread. For the purposes of this thread, it can be assumed that plasma cosmology is a steady-state alternative to mainstream inflationary cosmology and leave it at that.

So the question now stands:

What brand of steady state theory do you believe in Jerome?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That wasn't my intention, and I think you know it, Jerome. I would prefer it if the details of plasma cosmology were discussed in a different thread. For the purposes of this thread, it can be assumed that plasma cosmology is a steady-state alternative to mainstream inflationary cosmology and leave it at that.

So the question now stands:

I am sorry. You have always been honest and respectful. :blush:

I do not subcribe to Steady-State. I was attemtping to make the point that science does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[wollery]

Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.I'm a sycophant to the evidence. Yes, I admit it, I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads me, even if I find that place unsettling.

If I'd lived 1000 years ago I'd have said that God created the Earth and set the Sun, Moon and stars in motion around it. Because that was the best guess on the evidence available, which was, basically, none.

If I'd lived 100 years ago I'd have said that the Universe was infinite and unchanging, and that the Sun's energy came from the fact that it was a huge pile of cometary material rubbing together to produce huge amounts of friction. Because that was the best theory available to the science that was known at that time.

If I'm alive in 100 years I may laugh at the inability of current scientists to combine relativity and quantum mechanics, but I'd probably marvel at the progress that had been made to get to our current understanding.

If I were to live 1000 years from now I might be sitting on the porch of my little house on a planet orbiting a star 100 light years from Earth, gazing through a telescope at Sol, and wondering how the physicists of the 21st century could have failed to spot the obvious. But more likely I'd gaze at that little yellow star and marvel at the intellects that made the advances, against tides of public opinion, religious objections and professional scorn, that laid the foundations for FTL travel, terraforming, and countless other technological marvels.

But this one thing I'm sure of - whatever the prevailing physical paradigm is 1000 years from now, it will be based on the evidence. And I'd follow it.

If the evidence said the Universe were static and infinite I'd accept that as fact.

If the evidence said that the Universe was dominated by electric fields, and the Sun was powered by low level electric fields permeating the Galaxy, I'd accept that.

If the evidence showed that the Earth was a flat disk sitting on the backs of 4 elephants, carried by a cosmic turtle swimming in a sea of milk I'd accept that as fact.

But the evidence doesn't show any of these things. What it shows is that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, started in an event called the Big Bang, has been expanding ever since, and may keep on expanding forever. It shows that stars are powered by nuclear fusion reactions caused by high pressures and temperatures in their cores. It shows that each generation of stars adds more and more heavy elements to the Universe, changing the chemical make-up of the next generation of stars.

And that's the problem your arguments have JEROME. You're arguing against a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence. You're arguing for a theory which used to be the prevailing mode of thought, but was shown to be wrong by the evidence. You try to point out little problems with small bits of the theory, but these objections are shown time and again to be false. In response to the whole theory, you simply accuse it of being false because it's based on a false initial premise. I've lost count of the number of times that objection has been shown to be pointless.

So, one last time, I'm going to lay out the way in which the evidence for the Big Bang piled up.

Einstein produces his theory of relativity. The natural conclusion of the theory is that the Universe should be expanding or contracting, but he doesn't like this for aesthetic reasons, so he adds a constant to his equations to maintain the static nature of the Universe. The theory is confirmed by the orbit of Mercury, and also, a few years later, during a total Solar eclipse, when light from a star near the Sun's limb is shown to have been bent by the Sun's gravity, exactly the amount relativity predicts (relativity has since been demonstrated by a huge number of experiments including the fact that GPS satellites need to take it into account to give accurate measurements). Hubble measures the redshifts of galaxies and comparing these to their distances (calculated from the magnitudes of different types of stars they contain) discovers that the further away they are the faster they're travelling away from us. Einstein calls his Cosmological constant "The greatest mistake I ever made!" Hoyle tries to argue against the theory, dubbing it the "Big Bang" and complaining that it opens the door for theists to say that God did it.

It is reasoned that if the Universe began as a tiny fireball then there should be a tell-tale radiation signature, a near perfect blackbody radiation curve at just a few degrees above absolute zero, called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Penzias and Wilson, while setting up their microwave antenna find a constant signal from all areas of the sky which they first mistake as being due to pigeon droppings in the feed horn of their antenna. After cleaning it out, and discovering that the signal is still there, they try numerous other ideas, until, in desperation they call a friend, hoping he might know what it is. He does, he was planning to set up a microwave antenna to look for it. They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have. By accident.

Boomerang, a balloon borne microwave antenna, maps the CBR and shows it to have a near perfect blackbody curve. This is followed by COBE, a satellite that shows there are minute anisotropies in the CBR. Theory predicts this, since a perfectly smooth Big Bang would not have allowed the galaxies to form as they have. WMAP, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe shows the anisotropies in far more detail, obtaining a power spectrum which agrees to a very high degree with the predictions of theory.

Nucleosynthesis, a field of physics made possible by relativity, shows that stars are powered by core nuclear fusion reactions, and even allows scientists to work out how much energy any given star is producing, and which nuclear reactions are happening in its core (actually, it's a little more complicated than that, but it all agrees with the theory). Particle physics predicts that the Sun's core nuclear fusion reactions should produce massive numbers of near massless particles called neutrinos which should be cascading through the Earth from the Sun. Neutrinos are discovered in exactly the amounts that theory predicts.

Relativity makes other predictions - black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, time dilation, all of which have been evidenced, confirming the power of relativity, which is is the basis predicting the Big bang, which has also been evidenced in many different ways.

The only initial premise in all of this is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere and everywhen, with the sole exception of the inside of a singularity (this is because the maths we have can't cope with such an extreme situation, not because it breaks the laws of physics). You might try to argue that the laws of physics aren't constant, but then you can't be sure of anything, and you might as well give up on astronomy completely.

The evidence leads, inexorably, to the conclusion that the Universe started as a tiny fireball. What set that fireball off is completely unknown, and may be unknowable. But it's where the evidence leads. And that's where I follow.

You can protest "Western Religious thinking", and "Dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy" all you like. You can pooh-pooh linear time, and the idea of a beginning. You can make erroneous statements like "science evidences that life only arises from non life" until you're blue in the face.

I choose to follow the evidence.

[arthwollipot]

I do not subcribe to Steady-State. I was attemtping to make the point that science does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.So you don't accept the big bang, but you don't accept steady state either? Is there anything that you do accept?

[Tubbythin]

Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.

Care to explain how you concluded this? The Big Bang has science to back it up. Many of us here are scientists. We follow the evidence. Evidence like the redshift-distance relation, the dating of stars, the CMBR etc. The evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Which bit of the evidence comes from popular ideology? Is there an ancient Greek myth that says the galaxies will fly apart at approximately 70km/s per Mpc? Have I missed the part in Genesis where God says "Let there be cosmic microwave backround radiation. Let it have a blackbody temperature of 2.7K and let it be discovered by a couple of men taking measurements with a new antenna. Let them mistakenly think its noise as a result of pigeon poo"?

[sol invictus]

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that are perfectly consistent with an infinite universe, and dont support the Big Bang.

Consistent with an infinite universe, yes - and inconsistent with the laws of physics.

There's no point in responding to you Zeuzzz - you and your pet theories were quite thoroughly discredited in another thread, you were exposed as a petulant liar, and you ran away claiming to be too busy to post. Spamming other threads with the same old nonsense just makes you look desperate and gives the lie to your excuses.

Enough Zeuzzz woo, back to the regularly scheduled JdG woo.

[Upchurch]

Lest it be forgotten in the plasma cosmology sub-discussion, I was quite serious in my earlier question (with the typos corrected):
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 timer of some sort. What does that timer 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?
There are infinities and then there are infinities and then there are also just really really large, but finite, numbers. There are consequences and paradoxes that arise when you invoke an unbounded infinity that could result in logically inconsistencies in your model.

...and no evidence is needed to disprove an logically inconsistent argument.

[Upchurch]

I'm a sycophant to the evidence. Yes, I admit it, I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads me, even if I find that place unsettling.

{snip}

I choose to follow the evidence.

Nominated.

[The Man]

I am sorry. You have always been honest and respectful. :blush:

I do not subcribe to Steady-State. I was attemtping to make the point that science does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Unless, of course, the baby has drowned in that bathwater.

Like arthwollipot and others I would be interested to hear what you consider to be a viable alternative to the big bang and steady state. Or is it that you do not choose to accept anything, so you can argue whatever suits you at the moment?

[Wangler]

They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have.

Yes, exactly at the temperature it was predicted to have. Penzias and Wilson made their observation in 1965. Before that, I understand estimates for the "temperature of the universe" ranged from 50K (Gamow, 1948) to 5K (Herman, Alpher, 1948).

There were many, many predictions, with some persons (Gamow, for example) changing predictions a number of times, due to new observational evidence, or tweaks to their model.

So, I suppose that a observation of a 3K CBR is exactly at the predictions of 5K to 50K.

I suppose.



I choose to follow the evidence.

What about the evidence that speaks to a fundamental problem with the current cosmology paradigm?

Such as the evidentiary problems associated with Big Bang nucleosynthesis, especially regarding lithium?

[aggle-rithm]

Such as the evidentiary problems associated with Big Bang nucleosynthesis, especially regarding lithium?

I wasn't aware that the creation of lithium at the Big Bang was much of an issue. Doesn't it get created in stars?

[Wangler]

I wasn't aware that the creation of lithium at the Big Bang was much of an issue. Doesn't it get created in stars?

I apologize: my reference should have been to the primordial lithium abundance.

Sorry I did not make that clear.

[RecoveringYuppy]

OK, so what's your problem with primordial lithium?

[DeiRenDopa]

I apologize: my reference should have been to the primordial lithium abundance.

Sorry I did not make that clear.Being pedantic ...

It's also the primordial 7Li abundance; the other stable isotope of Li (6Li) is expected to have a primordial abundance of zero.

It it important to note that, unlike D, 3He and 4He, the primordial abundance of 7Li is very difficult to estimate, not least because 7Li is so fragile.

[DeiRenDopa]

OK, so what's your problem with primordial lithium?It's not his problem, it's one of the (very) few discrepant BBN datapoints ... the estimated abundance of primordial 7Li is several sigma from that expected, based on the estimated primordial abundance of D and He (estimated using ΛLCDM models with parameters that fit all the other data).

However, the estimated abundance of primordial 7Li is a conclusion which relies upon a quite long logic chain (albeit one built with components from standard astrophysics) with many parameters; if there important processes that create or destroy 7Li, in the objects in which it is observed (or their precursors), which have been mis-modelled (or not even modelled at all), then the estimates will be wrong.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Thanks DeiRenDopa, but are you sure that's going to be Wangler's objection?

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks DeiRenDopa, but are you sure that's going to be Wangler's objection?.
Based on his earlier post, pretty sure.

My guess is he's boning up on the material from an earlier 'alternative' conference (something about a crisis in cosmology), by reading some material compiled by those who dislike (or stronger) modern cosmology (for whatever combination of reasons). The 'BBT failed to predict the CMB temperature!', together with the content that followed, is pretty standard in such lists, and the discrepant primordial 7Li abundance comes close behind. The good news is that he is choosing well from such lists ... he leaves out much of the woo-ier material (like 'intrinsic redshifts'); the bad news is that I doubt he knows much about the 'BBT failures' he posts, beyond what's in 'BBT is wrong! WRONG!! WRONG!!!' compilations he's glossing.

But I could well be quite wrong ...

[Wangler]

Thanks DeiRenDopa, but are you sure that's going to be Wangler's objection?

DRD explained the point, and my position, well.

As DRD says, it is one of the very few discrepant BBN points.

[RecoveringYuppy]

So you were being sarcastic with "fundamental problem with the current cosmology paradigm"?

[Wangler]

.
Based on his earlier post, pretty sure.

My guess is he's boning up on the material from an earlier 'alternative' conference (something about a crisis in cosmology), by reading some material compiled by those who dislike (or stronger) modern cosmology (for whatever combination of reasons). The 'BBT failed to predict the CMB temperature!', together with the content that followed, is pretty standard in such lists, and the discrepant primordial 7Li abundance comes close behind. The good news is that he is choosing well from such lists ... he leaves out much of the woo-ier material (like 'intrinsic redshifts'); the bad news is that I doubt he knows much about the 'BBT failures' he posts, beyond what's in 'BBT is wrong! WRONG!! WRONG!!!' compilations he's glossing.

But I could well be quite wrong ...

DRD,

You not only pay attention to these myriad posts, but you also draw good conclusions from the post material.

Well done, sir!

The only very slight miss was that I found that "alternative cosmology conference" just in the last day, most of my other "mulling about" for contrarian points has been done since I have joined JREF earlier this year.

Now, I must freely confess that your bit of 'bad news' hits the nail on the head: I know very little about the 'BBT failures' that I post; I am trying to learn, though. :(

At this time, I usually must always concede to those on this forum who actually know the stuff, but perhaps that will change as I broaden my understanding.

The only reason I speak up, when not knowing some of this stuff 100%, is because I think that some presentations of standard theories are presented in a somewhat dogmatic manner.

Especially for a sceptics forum. :)

So, I chime in with my 1/2 cents worth at that point.

[Wangler]

So you were being sarcastic with "fundamental problem with the current cosmology paradigm"?

Well, being partly sarcastic is probably a fair assessment.

I think that there are problems with the current cosmology paradigm. I do lack the education and experience to claim unequivocally that they are 'fundamental'.

[Wangler]

.The 'BBT failed to predict the CMB temperature!', together with the content that followed, is pretty standard in such lists, and the discrepant primordial 7Li abundance comes close behind.

Just an example of the process leading me to the Li issue:

When I was reading another post, and the subject of the CMB spectrum came up, I was fascinated to learn all the things that the CMB spectrum could tell us....very cool.

That lead me looking for more information on CMB, and current cosmology observational tests.

It was in looking in one of these papers (I can't remember which), that they talked about the primorial abundances of H, He, Li as predicted by the BBT.

It was there I saw the Li problem; they also talked about the He problem, which apparently has improved somewhat recently.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that theories like the BBT, which does not match all observational evidence, is not as concrete as, say, General Relativity, which does match all observational evidence.

That is not to say that BBT is the wrong theory, it is just not the only theory.

Another example:

One thing I am trying to learn more about is the predictions on the matter density of the universe, and what leads us to the energy, DM, DE, and matter fractions that we hold to in the concordance LCDM theory.

Sure, I can listen to people tell me that it is the best theory we have, but I want to try to understand why.

I am sure to come across other reasonable (to this layman) objections to LCDM throughout this learning process, which I will not hesitate to bring to discussions here, if I think it would be useful.

Also:

There are many "alternative cosmology" websites out there. It can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. May just make claims, but there little or no trail for discovering the scientific rational behind the claims.

Some are better than others, obviously.

[Tubbythin]

Being pedantic ...

It's also the primordial 7Li abundance; the other stable isotope of Li (6Li) is expected to have a primordial abundance of zero.


That's not being pedantic. In nuclear physics the neutron number is as important as the proton number. Being vague about the neutron number creates as much of a problem as being vague about Z.

EDIT: How did the thumbs down symbol appear at the top? It wasn't deliberate.

[The Man]

EDIT: How did the thumbs down symbol appear at the top? It wasn't deliberate.


A mere slip of the finger as your cursor passed over that smilie activator. I had that happen before myself, the title smilie activators are located under the post reply dialog box and you can deactivate it in advanced editing.

ETA: Or maybe it was just a subconscious action?

[articulett]

Nominated.

It was fantastic.

Jerome is impenetrable so he cannot appreciate it. But the rest of us can.

[arthwollipot]

I apologize: my reference should have been to the primordial lithium abundance.

Sorry I did not make that clear.Just out of interest, how can one tell the difference between primordial lithium and lithium that is manufactured through stellar nucleosynthesis?

[DeiRenDopa]

Just out of interest, how can one tell the difference between primordial lithium and lithium that is manufactured through stellar nucleosynthesis?I'm not Wrangler, but I hope you won't mind me jumping in with a (very) brief answer ...

A: with considerable difficulty!

Not only is 7Li generated by BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), but it is also generated in stellar nucleosynthesis. However, it is also destroyed in stellar cores, so its observed abundance, due to this process, must come from somewhere else. There are several sources, such as flares, novae, and AGB stars; supernovae are also expected to produce some.

But wait! It gets more complicated!!

When a high energy particle collides with the nucleus of an atom such as C or O - which are not rare in the interstellar medium (ISM) - the products include 7Li. This process is called spallation, and as the ISM (and the IGM - inter-galactic medium) has plenty of high energy particles passing through it (they're called cosmic rays, or, rarely today, galactic cosmic rays), 7Li will be produced.

So, three+ sources, and two+ sinks (spallation also destroys 7Li).

However, the other stable Li isotope (6Li) is different: no BBN source, very small source in stars (flares), and prolific cosmic ray spallation source. Sinks are the same, except that for 6Li, destruction in stars is even more efficient than for 7Li.

The principal method of estimating primordial Li abundance is interpretation of the spectra of 'low metallicity stars' (stars with low abundances of 'metals'- astronomers call all elements other than H and He 'metals') - the 7Li in them is assumed to be primordial, once a correction for the contribution of ancient cosmic ray spallation is added (estimated from the abundance of 6Li in such stars) ... metal-poor stars are very old, they formed from gas which had been only slightly enriched with metals, from earlier generations of stars).

Needless to say, there is a great deal of astrophysics involved in this conclusion, not to mention the uncertainties of estimates of both 6Li and 7Li in the spectra of faint stars!

The logic chains, and the astrophysics, have been checked, tested, independently verified, etc, etc, etc six ways to Sunday, and the conclusions (concerning primordial 7Li abundance) seem to be quite consistent. However, given some of the uncertainties, it is premature to say the conclusions are robust (IMHO). For example, the ratio of 6Li to 7Li produced by cosmic ray spallation depends on several factors, and extrapolating from what today's cosmic ray energy spectrum is to that of the time when the old stars we observe were accumulating 6Li may be an extrapolation too far (IMHO).

[arthwollipot]

Thanks. That's really helpful...

I'll have to read it again when I'm less drunk.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm a sycophant to the evidence. Yes, I admit it, I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads me, even if I find that place unsettling.

Thanks for an explaination of the theology of Big Bang.


But the evidence doesn't show any of these things. What it shows is that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, started in an event called the Big Bang, has been expanding ever since, and may keep on expanding forever. It shows that stars are powered by nuclear fusion reactions caused by high pressures and temperatures in their cores. It shows that each generation of stars adds more and more heavy elements to the Universe, changing the chemical make-up of the next generation of stars.

Evidence that stars are powered by fusion? Did not think so.

So, one last time, I'm going to lay out the way in which the evidence for the Big Bang piled up.

I redacted the paragrph which was nothing but a history of the theology.

It is reasoned that if the Universe began as a tiny fireball then there should be a tell-tale radiation signature, a near perfect blackbody radiation curve at just a few degrees above absolute zero, called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Penzias and Wilson, while setting up their microwave antenna find a constant signal from all areas of the sky which they first mistake as being due to pigeon droppings in the feed horn of their antenna. After cleaning it out, and discovering that the signal is still there, they try numerous other ideas, until, in desperation they call a friend, hoping he might know what it is. He does, he was planning to set up a microwave antenna to look for it. They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have. By accident.

Please, what exactly was the prediction made by the BBT concering CBR?

Just stating that it was a correct prediction is nothing more than faith. You have yet to present eveidence, just story telling as to how the "evidence" was acquired.

Boomerang, a balloon borne microwave antenna, maps the CBR and shows it to have a near perfect blackbody curve. This is followed by COBE, a satellite that shows there are minute anisotropies in the CBR. Theory predicts this, since a perfectly smooth Big Bang would not have allowed the galaxies to form as they have. WMAP, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe shows the anisotropies in far more detail, obtaining a power spectrum which agrees to a very high degree with the predictions of theory.

What causes these anisotropies according to BBT? How are they consistent with BBT? Opps, they are not!

Nucleosynthesis, a field of physics made possible by relativity, shows that stars are powered by core nuclear fusion reactions, and even allows scientists to work out how much energy any given star is producing, and which nuclear reactions are happening in its core (actually, it's a little more complicated than that, but it all agrees with the theory). Particle physics predicts that the Sun's core nuclear fusion reactions should produce massive numbers of near massless particles called neutrinos which should be cascading through the Earth from the Sun. Neutrinos are discovered in exactly the amounts that theory predicts.

Would it not be detrimental for scientists in this field if the stars are not powered by fusion? Predictions sans evidence are nothing more than the beginings of science. Unless, are you aware of science experimentaly producing fusion?

Relativity makes other predictions - black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, time dilation, all of which have been evidenced, confirming the power of relativity, which is is the basis predicting the Big bang, which has also been evidenced in many different ways.

Have they been evidenced or has the evidence been made to fit?

The only initial premise in all of this is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere and everywhen, with the sole exception of the inside of a singularity (this is because the maths we have can't cope with such an extreme situation, not because it breaks the laws of physics). You might try to argue that the laws of physics aren't constant, but then you can't be sure of anything, and you might as well give up on astronomy completely.

The laws of physics and math are violated by the BBT. Here you are making the excuse that we just do not have the math and physics to explain it.

Can you think of any other scientific theory in which the laws of physics and math are discarded in this manner?

The evidence leads, inexorably, to the conclusion that the Universe started as a tiny fireball. What set that fireball off is completely unknown, and may be unknowable. But it's where the evidence leads. And that's where I follow.

No, BBT started with the premise that there was "In the Begining" a tiny fireball.

I choose to follow the evidence.

You did a lot of story telling and provided nothing in the way of Mountains of evidence.

I might as well read the bible and claim that it is evidence of what happened at "The Begining".

[sol invictus]

Evidence that stars are powered by fusion? Did not think so.

What causes these anisotropies according to BBT? How are they consistent with BBT? Opps, they are not!

Unless, are you aware of science experimentaly producing fusion?

The laws of physics and math are violated by the BBT. Here you are making the excuse that we just do not have the math and physics to explain it.

No, BBT started with the premise that there was "In the Begining" a tiny fireball.

Every statement quoted above is by itself sufficient evidence that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

And yet you write with such arrogance and vitriol... where does that come from?

Did a cosmologist run over your dog? Step on your favorite toy?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Is denying that stars are powered by fusion a new twist to all this or have I just missed this until now?

[Wangler]

I'm not Wrangler, but I hope you won't mind me jumping in with a (very) brief answer ...

Do I mind? You are kidding, right?

You think I could have answered that question so clearly and succinctly?

I'll consider that a compliment!

I knew a litte of what you posted, but your faith in my grasp of the minutae of this argument is ill founded, unfortunately.

[Wangler]

Is denying that stars are powered by fusion a new twist to all this or have I just missed this until now?

Yeah, what gives?

This isn't one of those 'electric sun' lead ins, is it?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Every statement quoted above is by itself sufficient evidence that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

And yet you write with such arrogance and vitriol... where does that come from?

If every ststement you quoted is evidence that I have no clue as to what I am talking about than you should easly be able to counter.

Why not attack to argument? Why are you attacking me? Is it that you fear not being part of the backslapping party?

[sol invictus]

Why not attack to argument?

Because every time someone does that you ignore them and continue to make the same nonsensical and false statements. But since you asked, I will do so.


Evidence that stars are powered by fusion? Did not think so.

There is massive evidence for that. First, we understand the laws of physics enough to know when fusion will occur. That's why we can build hydrogen bombs and controlled fusion tokamaks. The necessary conditions are satisfied in the sun. Second, we can observe the sun and ask whether the predicted spectrum of light, neutrino flux, temperature, etc. are consistent with the standard solar model. They all are, mostly to within 1%, and moreover the uncertainties are well controlled and understood (they mostly have to do with the fluid dynamics of the interior, which is hard to model in detail).


What causes these anisotropies according to BBT? How are they consistent with BBT? Opps, they are not!

One of the great successes of the modern BB model is that it produces a flat, homogeneous, and isotropic universe with a scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations, consistent with observations.

Unless, are you aware of science experimentaly producing fusion?

Have you never heard of hydrogen bombs? Tokamaks? Lawrence Livermore Laboratory? Any of the many plasma physics labs? ITER?

The laws of physics and math are violated by the BBT.

Really? Last time I checked the laws of physics - namely general relativity - do not allow anything else. In fact there are actually a set of mathematical theorems (due to Stephen Hawking and George Ellis) which prove that a big bang is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

No, BBT started with the premise that there was "In the Begining" a tiny fireball.

This is not even wrong, and I'm not sure what to say about it. The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us with a speed proportional to distance, and asked what that implies.

Now after requesting it, I'm sure you'll ignore this post and just go on repeating your silly falsehoods.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There is massive evidence for that. First, we understand the laws of physics enough to know when fusion will occur. That's why we can build hydrogen bombs and controlled fusion tokamaks. The necessary conditions are satisfied in the sun. Second, we can observe the sun and ask whether the predicted spectrum of light, neutrino flux, temperature, etc. are consistent with the standard solar model. They all are, mostly to within 1%, and moreover the uncertainties are well controlled and understood (they mostly have to do with the fluid dynamics of the interior, which is hard to model in detail).


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.


One of the great successes of the modern BB model is that it produces a flat, homogeneous, and isotropic universe with a scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations, consistent with observations.

As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.



Have you never heard of hydrogen bombs? Tokamaks? Lawrence Livermore Laboratory? Any of the many plasma physics labs? ITER?


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.



Really? Last time I checked the laws of physics - namely general relativity - do not allow anything else. In fact there are actually a set of mathematical theorems (due to Stephen Hawking and George Ellis) which prove that a big bang is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.



This is not even wrong, and I'm not sure what to say about it. The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us with a speed proportional to distance, and asked what that implies.

Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.




You may try again if you like.:)

[Gate2501]

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.



You have failed to research even the most simple of his examples, the Hydrogen Bomb.

A fission trigger may be used, but the hydrogen bomb ends in a fusion reaction.

When you call fail on someone without even researching the material...

Epic Fail happens.

[sol invictus]

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.

HYDROGEN bombs, Jerome. They FUSE hydrogen and its isotopes into helium and its isotopes. That's called FUSION, and it's the process that occurs in the sun.

As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.

You seem to be incapable of reading. As I already said, the BBT predicts inhomogeneities (and therefore also anisotropies).

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.

No, Jerome. Every experiment I listed there is a FUSION experiment.

You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.

Try to tell that to Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and every general relativity book every written. As I said, not only does the BB not contradict the laws of physics, there is a mathematical proof that it must always have occurred (subject to some assumptions which are satisfied by our universe).

Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.

At least 46, according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Redshift_increases_with_distance)

You may try again if you like.:)

You're making yourself look really, really dumb, Jerome. My advice is to run away now.

[RecoveringYuppy]

You have confused fission with fusion.
I see a few people have responded in the time it took for my reply to thread window to open, so I'll just repeat that you're amazingly wrong here.

[Fitter]

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.




As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.






You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.





You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.





Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.




You may try again if you like.:)


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3652250#post3652250

What a momentous day. Jerome you've finally succeeded.

[Hindmost]

As we are an educational group...

The sun is mainly hydrogen and helium. Due to the heat and gravitational force at the core, the sun fuses hydrogen into helium. The helium formed is just a bit less massive than the original hydrogen...the release of energy based on Einstein's famous formula is what keeps us warm.

As the sun ages, it will continue to fuse elements until carbon, oxygen...etc form. This will continue until Iron and Nickel are formed. Nickel and Iron have the highest binding energy per nucleon holding the nuclei together--the nucleai of iron and nickel are the most "stuck together" with the strong nuclear force. Therefore elements higher on the periodic table are not formed.

Eventually, the fusion reaction will spread out from the core and the sun will become a red giant and toast the inner planets...in about 5 billion years; when that happens, it will pulse and blow iron and other stuff out into space. Then it will collapse into a white dwarf.

Our sun isn't big enough to blow up like a super nova...in super novas, the energy of the explosion will actually manufactor the entire periodic table of elements--since they are rare, the heavier elements are rare as well. (this has sort of been reproduced during underground hydrogen bomb tests.)

Hmmm forgot fission

fission is splitting heavy elements with a neutron...such as uranium 235. This doesn't happen in the sun, but does occur at your local nuclear power plant.


glenn

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html

[Tubbythin]

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.



Wow. Just wow.
Did you not even think to google what Sol listed before making such an unbelievably ridiculous statement?

[Gate2501]

Wow. Just wow.
Did you not even think to google what Sol listed before making such an unbelievably ridiculous statement?

Well, he probably will have to admit he was wrong on this issue.

I have a feeling that the reason he disappeared earlier could be embarrassment related.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, you just can't ignore stupidity of that magnitude.

Did you not even think to google what Sol listed before making such an unbelievably ridiculous statement?

Anyone who was paying attention in high school physics (hell, middle school physics) would learn the difference between fission and fusion.

I'm going to assume that Jerome spent most of his high school days in metal shop.

[joobz]

Well, he probably will have to admit he was wrong on this issue.

I have a feeling that the reason he disappeared earlier could be embarrassment related.
It wouldn't be the first time.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This is insane.


This is like talking to Mormons about creation.

[Tubbythin]

This is insane.


This is like talking to Mormons about creation.

When you're in a hole... stop digging!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It wouldn't be the first time.

Blatant falsehood. I respond to the vast majority of posts.


The fact that you and many others have to lie about me personally shows that your faith is superior to your knowledge.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When you're in a hole... stop digging!

That is the game---a chorus of you are wrong without any evidence of such.

[Hindmost]

wait, maybe this is it...

http://www.gillettefusion.com/us/custom/en_US/

glenn:boxedin:

[joobz]

Blatant falsehood. I respond to the vast majority of posts.


The fact that you and many others have to lie about me personally shows that your faith is superior to your knowledge.
That's just silly jerome. I'm simply holding you to account. You make arguments you don't understand, are illogical, and/or are based upon information you never read. You did it regarding radioactive decay, you did it regarding nylonase bacteria, and now you did it with fusion.

People are simply holding you to account.

[Gate2501]

That is the game---a chorus of you are wrong without any evidence of such.

So you do not believe that you were wrong when you called out Sol for *fail* on all of those counts?

Hydrogen bombs and fission/fusion, ect.?

You can do about 15 seconds worth of research on the subject before you make a statement like *you fail*, so that you do not like like a huge *** when you realize that you were completely wrong.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

wait, maybe this is it...

http://www.gillettefusion.com/us/custom/en_US/

glenn:boxedin:

Yep, that is about the extent of your evidences. Shaving razors.

[Mark A. Siefert]

This is insane.


This is like talking to Mormons about creation.

Does anyone besides me savor the irony of this statement?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Does anyone besides me savor the irony of this statement?

This is insane.


This is like talking to Mormons about creation.


The fact that you find irony in the above statements is evidence of the insanity.

[Tubbythin]

That is the game---a chorus of you are wrong without any evidence of such.

Very well

Sol said:

There is massive evidence for that. First, we understand the laws of physics enough to know when fusion will occur. That's why we can build hydrogen bombs and controlled fusion tokamaks. The necessary conditions are satisfied in the sun. Second, we can observe the sun and ask whether the predicted spectrum of light, neutrino flux, temperature, etc. are consistent with the standard solar model. They all are, mostly to within 1%, and moreover the uncertainties are well controlled and understood (they mostly have to do with the fluid dynamics of the interior, which is hard to model in detail).

You responded...


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.

So lets see...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/h-bomb.htm


The process of combining nuclei (the protons and neutrons inside an atomic nucleus) together with a release of kinetic energy is called fusion. This process powers the Sun, it contributes to the world stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and may one day generate safe, clean electrical power.



Fusion (or ‘‘thermonuclear’) weapons derive a significant amount of their total energy from fusion reactions.

I could find plenty more if you so wish?

[Gate2501]

Jerome... Take a step back from the people that you are arguing with. I know that you think we are all a bunch of uninformed jerks, but you really do need to research this fusion bit. Please.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Yep, that is about the extent of your evidences. Shaving razors.

Humor is so lost on you, isn't it?

[Mark A. Siefert]

The fact that you find irony in the above statements is evidence of the insanity.

No, but the fact that you've willing to deny even the most basic concepts of science is certainly telling of your mental state, Jerome.

[Gate2501]

No, but the fact that you've willing to deny even the most basic concepts of science is certainly telling of your mental state, Jerome.

I don't think he will deny it if he actually researches fusion. I want to give him some sort of a chance here, I just think that he put his foot in his mouth and flipped out on Sol thinking about the old A-Bombs that were fission based?

Seems to me like even JdG could admit he is wrong on this one *if* he looks it all up.

[DeiRenDopa]

I respond to the vast majority of posts.
Hmm, ok ...

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind adding my posts to that vast majority please?

I'm particularly keen to read your answers to my two questions, the ones that I added numbers to ...

[sol invictus]

This is insane.


Indeed.

You are exhibiting the classic symptoms of psychosis - gross impairment of your perception of reality, irrational and disturbed mental process, inability to communicate with others.

Step away from the keyboard.

Take a deep breath, another, another...

Try to calm down.

[Hindmost]

As we are an educational group...

The sun is mainly hydrogen and helium. Due to the heat and gravitational force at the core, the sun fuses hydrogen into helium. The helium formed is just a bit less massive than the original hydrogen...the release of energy based on Einstein's famous formula is what keeps us warm.

As the sun ages, it will continue to fuse elements until carbon, oxygen...etc form. This will continue until Iron and Nickel are formed. Nickel and Iron have the highest binding energy per nucleon holding the nuclei together--the nucleai of iron and nickel are the most "stuck together" with the strong nuclear force. Therefore elements higher on the periodic table are not formed.

Eventually, the fusion reaction will spread out from the core and the sun will become a red giant and toast the inner planets...in about 5 billion years; when that happens, it will pulse and blow iron and other stuff out into space. Then it will collapse into a white dwarf.

Our sun isn't big enough to blow up like a super nova...in super novas, the energy of the explosion will actually manufactor the entire periodic table of elements--since they are rare, the heavier elements are rare as well. (this has sort of been reproduced during underground hydrogen bomb tests.)

Hmmm forgot fission

fission is splitting heavy elements with a neutron...such as uranium 235. This doesn't happen in the sun, but does occur at your local nuclear power plant.


glenn

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html

Yep, that is about the extent of your evidences. Shaving razors.

I was truly joking..I will use the :D in the future...

Well, I have to quote myself...but I have shown reasonable evidence above.

glenn

[Silentknight]

I just wanted to add that I've never read anything about the Big Bang, but I know it must be impossible. For starters, everyone knows there's no sound in space, so how could anyone have heard it go "Bang"? Secondly, if all the mass in existence was confined to a very tiny space, how could it have been "Big" by any stretch of the imagination? You're all complete lunatics for disagreeing with my views, because I never make mistakes! I don't exactly know what my own views are, and I have yet to bother to explain them or propose any alternatives to established theories, but who cares? The initial premise is wrong!

[Zeuzzz]

Please, what exactly was the prediction made by the BBT concering CBR?


Nothing much. Infact, the actual prediction was quite far away compared to most of the non expanding universe predictions.

It was nothing better than the numerous, non expanding, universe models that already existed before the notion of the "big bang"


Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.


Guilluame, 1896, 6.1 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.

Eddington, 1926, 3.2 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.

Regener, 1933, 2.8 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

Nernst and Born, 1937, 2.8 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

McKeller, 1941, 2.3 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

Hermann and Alpher, 5-7 Kelvin, The Big Bang

F. Freunlich, 1953, 2.3 Kelvin, Non expanding universe

Gold, Bondi, Hoyle, 1955, 2.78 Kelvin, Steady state universe

Gamow, 1961, 50 Kelvin, The Big Bang

Penzias, Wilson, 1965, 3.0 Kelvin, Detected

The CMB is not a confirmation of the Big Bang. All of the cosmologies above predicted it, so it can not be *proof* of any one over the other. If you look at the actual predictions made before the final confirmation, a non expanding, steady state type universe, clearly wins over the "Big Bang" predictions.

[-Axiom-]

Jerome, I am just a lurker here and I love to read you argue and provoke others, very entertaining stuff, to me anyways...
You were doing so good until you denied fusion.
It all fell apart after that...

I hope you can get it back on track, I am looking forward to reading more.

[Gate2501]

Nothing much. Infact, the actual prediction was quite far away compared to most of the non expanding universe predictions.

It was nothing better than the numerous, non expanding, universe models that already existed before the notion of the "big bang"


Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.



The CMB is not a confirmation of the Big Bang. All of the cosmologies above predicted it, so it can not be *proof* of any one over the other. If you look at the actual predictions made before the final confirmation, a non expanding, steady state type universe, clearly wins over the "Big Bang" predictions.

I would refer you to: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

In reference to some of the older predictions.

They were made based on our position in the universe and did not suggest that the measurements would be the same if made ANYWHERE in ANY DIRECTION.

I am just a layman (High school grad with years of experience reading about cosmology on the Internet!) however, and I could be wrong.

:cool::cool::cool:

[lupus_in_fabula]

What about them hydrogen bombs Jerome?

[Gate2501]

He has been responding in other threads... I fear that he may have abandoned this one due to his epic fail.

[Reality Check]

Please, what exactly was the prediction made by the BBT concering CBR?
The exact prediction made in BBT for the cosmic microwave background was that it would exist, it would be at a low temperature (microwave radiation) and that it would be isotropic to a high degree.
The temperature of the CMB has had various estimates before its actual measurement in 1965. The variations were mainly due to the parameters used to derive the temperature, e.g. the age of the universe.

[Reality Check]

Nothing much. Infact, the actual prediction was quite far away compared to most of the non expanding universe predictions.

It was nothing better than the numerous, non expanding, universe models that already existed before the notion of the "big bang"

Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.

The CMB is not a confirmation of the Big Bang. All of the cosmologies above predicted it, so it can not be *proof* of any one over the other. If you look at the actual predictions made before the final confirmation, a non expanding, steady state type universe, clearly wins over the "Big Bang" predictions.

I agree with you. The 7 steady state theories (are they all different?) you cite also predict a CMB. The observation of CMB was the last straw for steady state theories not the only straw.

It is obvious that a lot of different steady state theories must be right (all of them?) when they make a predictions that only 1 Big Bang theory predicts :rolleyes:.

Where the CMB comes into its own is with the modern, detailed data. BBT models such as Lambda- CDM can closely fit the anisotropy of the CMB.

[Mashuna]

Yep, that is about the extent of your evidences. Shaving razors.

Yes, this is the extent of the evidence.

Well, if you ignore everything else posted, that is.

How are you coming along with the difference between fission and fusion now, JdG?

[Klimax]

Ís there any way to nominate this entire thread for (New Sci) Stundie awards?

I think we should start NSSA with greatest winner I ever saw.

Jerome,if there would be possibility to get you to understand us,even remote and most difficult,I am all for it.

Was it not you,who argued against existence of atoms in f"lat earth forums"?
There I saw somebody like you...horrible no nuclear weapons,no atoms entire science wrong and Aristoteles was right.That was outcome of that thread...

Sadly I have lost link ,it occurd last year in summer...

--------------
Jerome google out hydrogen bomb,there should be even videos with it and full description.And what about neutron bombs and EMF bombs?

And then there is tokamak and iter and even one in Czech republic...

[Tubbythin]

Does anyone besides me savor the irony of this statement?

This coming shortly after Zeuzzz said

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.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I agree with you. The 7 steady state theories (are they all different?) you cite also predict a CMB. The observation of CMB was the last straw for steady state theories not the only straw.

It is obvious that a lot of different steady state theories must be right (all of them?) when they make a predictions that only 1 Big Bang theory predicts :rolleyes:.

Where the CMB comes into its own is with the modern, detailed data. BBT models such as Lambda- CDM can closely fit the anisotropy of the CMB.


This is what I mean by insanity.

:boggled:

Different theories predicted CMB.

CMB invalidates all theories except BBT which it evidences.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The exact prediction made in BBT for the cosmic microwave background was that it would exist, it would be at a low temperature (microwave radiation) and that it would be isotropic to a high degree.
The temperature of the CMB has had various estimates before its actual measurement in 1965. The variations were mainly due to the parameters used to derive the temperature, e.g. the age of the universe.

How large were the discrepancies in the estimations?

50K to 5K?

What was the 1965 observation?

[wollery]

This is what I mean by insanity.

:boggled:

Different theories predicted CMB.

CMB invalidates all theories except BBT which it evidences.So, tell us, which theories predict, or even allow for, a 3K blackbody spectrum, with a minute dipole, almost perfectly isotropic, but where the anisotropies have a specific measured power spectrum?

And are you just going to act like the fusion/fission thing never happened?

[Reality Check]

How large were the discrepancies in the estimations?

50K to 5K?

That is right. Note that the estimates starts as 50K and over the next 20 years were recalculated to closer to 3K. You should have seen this before:
1941 Andrew McKellar The observational detection of an average bolometric temperature of 2.3 K based on the study of interstellar absorption lines is reported from the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory
1946 Robert Dicke predicts ".. radiation from cosmic matter" at <20 K, but did not refer to background radiation
1948 George Gamow calculates a temperature of 50 K (assuming a 3-billion year old Universe), commenting it ".. is in reasonable agreement with the actual temperature of interstellar space", but does not mention background radiation.
1948 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman estimate "the temperature in the Universe" at 5 K. Although they do not specifically mention microwave background radiation, it may be inferred.
1950 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-re-estimate the temperature at 28 K.
1953 George Gamow estimates 7 K.
1956 George Gamow estimates 6 K.
1957 Tigran Shmaonov reports that "the absolute effective temperature of the radioemission background ... is 4+/- 3K". It is noted that the "measurements showed that radiation intensity was independent of either time or direction of observation... it is now clear that Shmaonov did observe the cosmic microwave background at a wavelength of 3.2cm"
1960s Robert Dicke re-estimates a MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40 K
1964 A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov publish a brief paper, where they name the CMB radiation phenomenon as detectable.
1964-65 Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson measure the temperature to be approximately 3 K. Robert Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson interpret this radiation as a signature of the big bang.
1983 RELIKT-1 Soviet CMB anisotropy experiment was launched.
1990 FIRAS measures the black body form of the CMB spectrum with exquisite precision.
January 1992 Scientists who analysed data from RELIKT-1 spacecraft report the discovery of anisotropy at the Moscow astrophysical seminar.
April, 1992 Scientists who analysed data from COBE DMR announce the discovery of the primary temperature anisotropy.
2002 Polarization discovered by DASI.


What was the 1965 observation?
The cosmic microwave radiation background.

[Reality Check]

This is what I mean by insanity.

:boggled:

Different theories predicted CMB.

CMB invalidates all theories except BBT which it evidences.

No - the other theories are already invalid so CMB has no application to them. CMB is one of a number of observations that support BBT. The others include - the redshift of galaxies (Hubble's constant), the lack of any observed stars older than 13 billion years (there should be white dwarf stars older than that in a non-BBT universe), the match with the abundance with light elements (helium ro lithium) and probably others that I do not know about.

Does BBT have problems? Of course it does! Scientists are always testing the conventional theories to their limits if for no better reason than that leads to Nobel Prizes. I am sure that you have read and understood the Wikipedia Big Bang article and can quote the problems back to us.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is right. Note that the estimates starts as 50K and over the next 20 years were recalculated to closer to 3K. You should have seen this before:

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.



The cosmic microwave radiation background.

What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No - the other theories are already invalid so CMB has no application to them. CMB is one of a number of observations that support BBT. The others include - the redshift of galaxies (Hubble's constant), the lack of any observed stars older than 13 billion years (there should be white dwarf stars older than that in a non-BBT universe), the match with the abundance with light elements (helium ro lithium) and probably others that I do not know about.

Does BBT have problems? Of course it does! Scientists are always testing the conventional theories to their limits if for no better reason than that leads to Nobel Prizes. I am sure that you have read and understood the Wikipedia Big Bang article and can quote the problems back to us.

We have redshift anomalies which call into question the validity of the Hubble constant.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L

[Reality Check]

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.

The estimated temperature was changed due to different techniques of calculating it coupled with better data to estimate it with.


What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?
The observed temerature was 3K. The predicted temperature was between 1 and 50K.
The temperature does not really matter. It is the existence of the CMB that is the prediction of BBT. The CMB temperature depends on the technique and data used to derive it (e.g. the estimated age of the universe).

[Reality Check]

We have redshift anomalies which call into question the validity of the Hubble constant.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L

Yes there are. When they are confirmed we will throw away most of astronomy and start over again.

PS. You may want to read this paper: "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Servey Data (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0506/0506366v1.pdf)" written in Jun 2005.

[joobz]

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature. this makes no sense.





What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?
perhaps you'd like to participate in the discussion by actually answering some questions instead of repeating the exact same requests.
I believe DeiRenDopa has a couple question that you have continued to ignore.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The estimated temperature was changed due to different techniques of calculating it coupled with better data to estimate it with.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim that BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature. As we can plainly see the estimates were varied, inconsistent, and inexact.


The observed temerature was 3K. The predicted temperature was between 1 and 50K.
The temperature does not really matter. It is the existence of the CMB that is the prediction of BBT. The CMB temperature depends on the technique and data used to derive it (e.g. the estimated age of the universe).

How were the estimates of the age of the universe derived?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes there are. When they are confirmed we will throw away most of astronomy and start over again.

It is confirmed. Are you now stating that the scientists that are investigating NGC 7603 are lying about the redshift anomalies?

[sol invictus]

The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.

That would make sense, except no one (outside your own head, maybe) made that claim.

The temperature of the background radiation changes with time as the universe expands. It is high early on, and it approaches zero in the far future. So its value at any particular time depends on the age of the universe, and that can be hard to estimate accurately (particularly in the 40's and 50's when the data was of far lower quality and quantity).

What is unique is not the temperature (which is one single parameter), but the fact that it is the most perfect black body spectrum ever observed (which is at least thousands of parameters). No steady state theory can accommodate that even if it can avoid all the other impossibilities.

Are you going to keep pretending you know what you're talking about? You've displayed a combination of total ignorance and incredible arrogance I've rarely seen even on the interwebs. My advice before was to run away - but maybe it's better to keep going. I don't think you've ever posted anything I agree with on any topic, and as a result you're a very effective advocate for my views.

[Molinaro]

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.





What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?

Jerome, I've seen you make this point in other threads and I answered it. And you keep on going ignoring the answer!


The wrong estimates were wrong because they had the age of the universe wrong. Plug the correct value of the age of the universe into those older predictions of the CMB temp and you get the right temp. The estimated age of the universe has varied as new evidence and observations rolled in. As the predicted age varied (up and down), so did the predicted CMB temp.

[Foster Zygote]

We have redshift anomalies which call into question the validity of the Hubble constant.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L

In the same way that evolution calls into account the validity of thermodynamics.

Just to show us that you do indeed understand the data you are presenting perhaps you could summarize some of the "several explanations in terms of cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts" that are discussed.

[Reality Check]

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim that BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature. As we can plainly see the estimates were varied, inconsistent, and inexact.

I an not a science historian but as far as I can see from the history of the papers published the sequence was that BBT predicted a CMB. Then various people produced estimates of the temperature of the background radiation of the universe.

The estimates were of course "varied, inconsistent, and inexact" beacuse they were estimates based on "varied, inconsistent, and inexact" data.


How were the estimates of the age of the universe derived?
I don't know and it does not matter.

PS. This topic was introduced by a posting with the statement "They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have." This is only partially correct. A better statement would be:
"They've discovered the CBR as predicted by BBT. Its temperature and power spectrum are exactly matched by BBT models"

[sol invictus]

Do you stand by what you said in this post, Jerome? Or do you admit you were wrong?

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.


As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.


You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.


Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.


You may try again if you like.:)

[sol invictus]

I don't know and it does not matter.

Speaking very roughly: you look at lots of galaxies, observe that their recession velocity is linear in their distance from us, and determine the constant of proportionality (so v = H d, where v is velocity and d is distance). Then the age of the universe is approximately 1/H.

There are many reasons why that's not exact, but it tells you at least the order of magnitude.

[wollery]

That would make sense, except no one (outside your own head, maybe) made that claim.Actually, I did, although it wasn't what I meant to say. I meant to say that it was exactly "where" it was predicted to be, i.e. a blackbody spectrum a few degrees above absolute zero. I apologise, the claim, as I typed it, is completely wrong.

[Foster Zygote]

Do you stand by what you said in this post, Jerome? Or do you admit you were wrong?

Fundamentally? I very much doubt it. Jerome's claims have less to do with actual evidence and knowledge than with creating a self-identity as the maverick who is more clever than others. He sees himself as "the one who isn't fooled" and he wishes to demonstrate this to everyone. It's a personality trait that is really quite common in the CT sub-forum.

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, I did, although it wasn't what I meant to say. I meant to say that it was exactly "where" it was predicted to be, i.e. a blackbody spectrum a few degrees above absolute zero. I apologise, the claim, as I typed it, is completely wrong.

As wrong as confusing fission and fusion?

[wollery]

As wrong as confusing fission and fusion?Wrong is wrong, but some are funnier than others.

[sol invictus]

Wrong is wrong, but some are funnier than others.

And some are able to admit it...

[DeiRenDopa]

How about this?

JEROME, in order to have a meaningful conversation (or discussion), the participants need to have a certain minimal mutual agreement on the meaning of key words and phrases used in that discussion.

One that is central to this thread (perhaps not the only one) is "evidence".

If what you mean by "evidence" is different, perhaps radically different, from what everyone else means by the word, then we will be talking past each other, won't we?

Another example might be "fusion".

JEROME, would you please take the time to define what you mean by "evidence"?

Would you please take a specific, concrete example from astronomy (or cosmology), and walk us through how it is "evidence", per your understanding of the word? This must be a positive example (this is evidence, in astronomy, for that) not a negative one (this is not evidence, in astronomy).

Thank you.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, I've seen you make this point in other threads and I answered it. And you keep on going ignoring the answer!


The wrong estimates were wrong because they had the age of the universe wrong. Plug the correct value of the age of the universe into those older predictions of the CMB temp and you get the right temp. The estimated age of the universe has varied as new evidence and observations rolled in. As the predicted age varied (up and down), so did the predicted CMB temp.

Hence the BBT did not make a correct prediction and as such claiming that this correct prediction is evidence of its validity is false.


Feeling :boxedin:?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

PS. This topic was introduced by a posting with the statement "They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have." This is only partially correct. A better statement would be:
"They've discovered the CBR as predicted by BBT. Its temperature and power spectrum are exactly matched by BBT models"


Did not other theories also predict CBR with a more accurate description of the temperature?


How is it that BBT claims as evidence of its prediction powers something which was more accuratly predicted by other theories?

[sol invictus]

Did not other theories also predict CBR with a more accurate description of the temperature?

Name one.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Name one.

Are you claiming that no other thoeries predicted CBR with a more accurate description of the temperature?

[sol invictus]

Are you claiming that no other thoeries predicted CBR with a more accurate description of the temperature?

I don't know of any. If you do, go ahead and tell us what it is.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Are you claiming that no other thoeries predicted CBR with a more accurate description of the temperature?

As always, YOU made the claim that other "theories" exist. It's up provide them.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As always, YOU made the claim that other "theories" exist. It's up provide them.

You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.

[The Gnomon]

At T0, time is undefined. So as we look back in time, we can never see the T0 point. This is asymptotic, not the same as being "infinite." Only the rate of change approaches infinity. (or 1/infinity). The interval approaches 0, but never gets there. T0 is a limit and is therefore not defined.

This puts me in mind of similar issues reganding "eternal life." If a process has a finite starting point, it cannot be "eternal." (Assuming "eternal" means existing at all times.)

[Fitter]

You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.
You, once again, are dodging the issue.


PS Are you going to "man up" and admit that you made a mistake and confused fission and fusion?

[sol invictus]

You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.

That makes just as much as sense as your other posts: none at all.

You have confused fission with fusion.


So? Still think that?

[Mark A. Siefert]

You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.

Then educate me. What are the other "theories" for the source of cosmic background radiation?

Given that you can't tell the difference between fission and fusion, this should be good for a laugh.

[Gate2501]

I don't know of any. If you do, go ahead and tell us what it is.

I am pretty sure that JdG saw that list of scientists and temperatures listed by Zuezzz, and latched onto it like a baby sloth clinging to its mother for dear life 100 feet up a tree.

He probably has no idea why the former predictions were even made, and will go ahead and say that any prior temperature prediction that is closer to the actual CMB temperature was more correct. He will completely disregard the nature of the prediction, and the fact that those early predictions did not deal with the radiation being isotropic.

He is not going to understand the argument and will go on berating everyone...

[joobz]

He is not going to understand the argument and will go on berating everyone...
What cosmological model are you using to make that prediction?:D

[Gate2501]

What cosmological model are you using to make that prediction?:D

Its my secret CMBD model.

The Cosmic Microwave Behavioral Determinism model states that JdG will never admit that he was wrong about fusion, and will continue to do no research whatsoever on the topics which he argues so passionately.

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

and will continue to do no research whatsoever on the topics which he argues so passionately.Huh?

I've read quite a few of his posts, and I must say that I haven't seen him arguing passionately at all! :eye-poppi

Passionate argument, in my book, necessarily involves stating your beliefs, clearly, and forcefully presenting them, with corroborating evidence, logic, etc.

It also involves taking every opportunity to answer questions about those beliefs.

So far as I can see, JEROME has done almost none of this.

But maybe I missed some critical post or two ...

[theneedtoknow]

To the intelligent guys and girls here, who are trying to educate the deluded gnomes: I think it is time to let this thread die considering the person in question obviously doesn't base his beliefs on any kind of evidence, so providing him with concrete observational evidence against them is just not going to have any use.
But then again, if this thread had been allowed to die, we wouldn't have witnessed the hilarious fusion/fission blunder of this oh-so-intelligent know-it-all.

[Gate2501]

Huh?

I've read quite a few of his posts, and I must say that I haven't seen him arguing passionately at all! :eye-poppi

Passionate argument, in my book, necessarily involves stating your beliefs, clearly, and forcefully presenting them, with corroborating evidence, logic, etc.

It also involves taking every opportunity to answer questions about those beliefs.

So far as I can see, JEROME has done almost none of this.

But maybe I missed some critical post or two ...

I see your point...

Perhaps I should have said that he has a passion for arguing as opposed to a passionate argument.

[The Man]

To the intelligent guys and girls here, who are trying to educate the deluded gnomes: I think it is time to let this thread die considering the person in question obviously doesn't base his beliefs on any kind of evidence, so providing him with concrete observational evidence against them is just not going to have any use.
But then again, if this thread had been allowed to die, we wouldn't have witnessed the hilarious fusion/fission blunder of this oh-so-intelligent know-it-all.


Well intelligent or not and deluded or not, I would still like to hear what Jerome considers would constitute circular time or an alternative to Big Bang and Steady State theories, hopefully presented in some clear and concise fashion, other then that I am always up for another good laugh.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I see your point...

Perhaps I should have said that he has a passion for arguing as opposed to a passionate argument.
Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction.

Too bad it wasn't merely five minutes.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction.

Too bad it wasn't merely five minutes.

Funny you should mention it. I keep imagining Jerome as John Cleese:

teMlv3ripSM

As amusing (and infuriating) as all this is, his "It's-Hip-To-Be-Contrarian" BS had gotten old back when he was denying evolution.

[theneedtoknow]

Well intelligent or not and deluded or not, I would still like to hear what Jerome considers would constitute circular time or an alternative to Big Bang and Steady State theories, hopefully presented in some clear and concise fashion, other then that I am always up for another good laugh.

I think we'd all be interested in that, but he clearly has no desire to actually provide any kind of alternative explanations to...well...anything. He just wants to blindly say "no" to everything without justification.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hence the BBT did not make a correct prediction and as such claiming that this correct prediction is evidence of its validity is false.


Feeling :boxedin:?


The common tactic for believers is to ignore the evidence of the invalidity of their faith and malign the presenter of the invalidity of their theology.


Well done all!!!

You have evidenced that you can not support your faith!!!

[Civilized Worm]

Where's the evidence for your theories?

[Fitter]

The common tactic for believers is to ignore the evidence of the invalidity of their faith and malign the presenter of the invalidity of their theology.


Well done all!!!

You have evidenced that you can not support your faith!!!
Fission? Fusion? Comments?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Where's the evidence for your theories?

Uhh, right here. This has been argeed by the proponets of BBT. They did think that they were arguing another point and just let it slip that the BBT did NOT predict correctly CBR temperature.


Hence the BBT did not make a correct prediction and as such claiming that this correct prediction is evidence of its validity is false.



Once circular logic is exposed than the only alternative is to accept it or attack the messenger and ignore reality.

[Civilized Worm]

I'm not talking about negative evidence against our theories (and the theories of all reputable scientists), I'm asking for positive evidence in favour of your theories.

[Gate2501]

The common tactic for believers is to ignore the evidence of the invalidity of their faith and malign the presenter of the invalidity of their theology.


Well done all!!!

You have evidenced that you can not support your faith!!!

No one has presented any evidence to the invalidity of BBT ( I am assuming that is what you are talking about ).

Zuezzz has his own case, which I think is wrong, but at least the guy does research and tries to understand his position.

You do not research your positions at all, and you do not even understand your own position on these topics. In fact, I think that the only thing you do understand about your position is that *everyone else is wrong*.

So Jerome...

1. How about them fission/fusion comments?

2. How about your comment that the CMBR was predicted more accurately long before BBT? Even though those predictions were based on a local temperature estimation as opposed to the isotropic CMBR?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No one has presented any evidence to the invalidity of BBT ( I am assuming that is what you are talking about ).

Faith is blind.

So Jerome...

How about your comment that the CMBR was predicted more accurately long before BBT? Even though those predictions were based on a local temperature estimation as opposed to the isotropic CMBR?


Ohh, now you are admitting that there were accurate predictions of the temp outside of BBT. Good to know that you are honest at least.

[Fitter]

Fission? Fusion? Comments?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm not talking about negative evidence against our theories (and the theories of all reputable scientists), I'm asking for positive evidence in favour of your theories.

Sorry, I have not presented a thoery. I am talking about discounting the BBT which is only held up on make-believe ideas at this point.

You believe the BBT? If so, you are going to have to beleive that 99% of the universe in unknown, unexplainable, and unmeasurable. Do you believe that?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fission? Fusion? Comments?

He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change. I am sorry that all the back-slapping went for naught when it was discovered that he failed. I understand that those that back-slapped feel the failure themselves when the truth is presented.




How can you not support the idea that BBT is also a failed idea outside of make-believe factors?

[Gate2501]

Faith is blind.




Ohh, now you are admitting that there were accurate predictions of the temp outside of BBT. Good to know that you are honest at least.

You don't seem to understand the nature of those temperature predictions.

I do not expect you to have actually researched them after the fission/fusion fiasco that you now refuse to acknowledge.

Those older predictions... Some of them did come very close to getting the number correct, but they were not looking for an isotropic CMBR, they were looking for a localized temperature in space, in our neighborhood of the universe.

[Gate2501]

He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change. I am sorry that all the back-slapping went for naught when it was discovered that he failed. I understand that those that back-slapped feel the failure themselves when the truth is presented.




How can you not support the idea that BBT is also a failed idea outside of make-believe factors?

ROFL...

So you still think that all of those things that Sol mentioned dealt with fission instead of fusion reactions?

You are utterly beyond help if you cannot get an encyclopedia and look up the Hydrogen bomb.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You don't seem to understand the nature of those temperature predictions.

I do not expect you to have actually researched them after the fission/fusion fiasco that you now refuse to acknowledge.

Those older predictions... Some of them did come very close to getting the number correct, but they were not looking for an isotropic CMBR, they were looking for a localized temperature in space, in our neighborhood of the universe.

And the relevence to BBT not accurately predicting the temp?

Are you even on the same page?

[Civilized Worm]

Sorry, I have not presented a thoery. I am talking about discounting the BBT which is only held up on make-believe ideas at this point.


"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."

That sounds like a theory to me.


You believe the BBT? If so, you are going to have to beleive that 99% of the universe in unknown, unexplainable, and unmeasurable. Do you believe that?


You seem to be confusing the BBT with a theory of everything. Of course there is still plenty we don't know and may never know, to say that invalidates the BBT is a non sequiter.

[Tubbythin]

Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.


Guilluame, 1896, 6.1 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.

Eddington, 1926, 3.2 Kelvin, Non expanding universe.



Oh dear ('http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html').

To quote:

In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
and

The near equality of the energy densities of starlight (Eddington's blue curve) and the CMB is just a coincidence.

Any comments Zeuzzz?

[Fitter]

He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change. I am sorry that all the back-slapping went for naught when it was discovered that he failed. I understand that those that back-slapped feel the failure themselves when the truth is presented.




How can you not support the idea that BBT is also a failed idea outside of make-believe factors?
I'm terribly sorry Jerome, I didn't realise you had "THE TRUTH". Hey all you sciencey guys, you can stop doing your sciencey stuff now. Jerome has "THE TRUTH". Don't worry though, Home Depot is hiring.

[Tubbythin]

He failed, you can try to change that all you want, it will not change.



This guy just keeps on digging. Soon he mght make Australia.

[Gate2501]

Ok Jerome.

Time for a little fun, because the CMB bit is completely wooshing over your head.

You have now repeated called out another poster as "failing" because he said that Hydrogen bombs produce a fusion reaction. You claim that they are fission weapons, not fusion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0824719.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/h-bomb.htm

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/matter/fusionbomb/index.html

There is my evidence.

Read it.

Learn.

If you do think that all of these sources are incorrect, then please do tell:

What is going on when a Hydrogen Bomb detonates?

[Foster Zygote]

You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.

Seriously Jerome, you are making a fool of yourself. It is transparently obvious to everyone that you are simply unable to present alternative theories because you are only pretending to know what you are writing about.

[arthwollipot]

"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."

That sounds like a theory to me.It's not. Jerome, in over 200 responses on this topic, has never really come out and stated what he beleives, except that he believes that time and space are eternal in all directions. He has presented no supporting evidence for this, but he has taken great glee in trying to demolish anything anyone else has said (with epic fail in the case of fusion).

So I am forced to conclude that Jerome actually doesn't have any beliefs, let alone understanding, about what science can tell us about the origins of the universe. He's a serial denier, and that's all. He gets his jollies out of contradicting people, and there is nothing more to it than that.