Origins of the UNIVERSE

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:51 am

Hello Cosmo

Hello Cosmo

Please do not read my words out of context.

You may be more advanced and I do not question that.

So please show me any evidence that backs the Big Bang theory.
Yes I have read many papers supporting the Big Bang and they claim to have evidence to support it.

We can take it point by point.

If you like to add this information to the existing link.

"The Origin of the Universe"

That way others may read the supportive information.

Rather than hearing my side of the fence.

hishadow · Post by **hishadow** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:46 pm

Harry, I recently stumbled across a great introduction to physics dubbed Physics for Future Presidents, taught by a man called Richard A. Muller (UC Berkeley) . The course teaches basic physics for non-physicist. Hardly any math is involved, but the ideas of a wide range of topics are explained in detail. Muller also gives a lot of examples of common day uses and the history of the discoveries.

The reason I came across his lectures was because I wanted to learn more about light waves and quantum physics. Especially quantum physics has always been a "fuzzy and mysterious" subject for me, since my interest in computers lead me to the domain of the "mysterious" quantum computers. Muller does a great job of explaining these things in a simple way, yet is able to convey a lot of details. I am currently halfway through his lectures (I've been skipping to the good parts

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:35 am

Hello hishadow

Thats fantastic mate. I will read the papers, but! better still others may get educated from these papers. ooops videos

One more thing, I do not get emotional over things or insulted. I'm over that, long in the tooth.

I'm also looking at the wave structure of matter and its ability to explain how matter can be compacted 10^35 and more.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:01 am

Hello All

I notice people reading this link, so I added more info.

Can this be part of the recycling process, where the Black hole acts as the compacter of old matterand constructor of new rejuvinated matter.

M87: Chandra Reviews Black Hole Musical: Epic But Off-Key
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m87/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m87/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m ... abeled.jpg

The more we study these monsters the closer we get to explaining the parts of the universe.

Within the next 10 years there will be great changes in cosmology and how research will be contacted without influence from politics and churches.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:21 am

Hello All

Interesting reading:

Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... igbang.htm

In the rise and fall of the Big Bang hypothesis no name looms with greater distinction than that of Halton Arp, the leading authority on peculiar galaxies. Over decades, Arp amassed meticulous observations challenging the standard use of redshift to prove an expanding universe. But astronomers ignored or dismissed Arp’s work, insisting that his conclusions were either erroneous or impossible. Arp lost his teaching position. Then he lost his telescope time and had to move to Germany to carry on his work at the Max Planck Institute.

Arp lost this because he did not think along the lines of the Big Bang.

Here is an interesting historical fact. For many years it has been known that the map of the universe acquires a bizarre appearance when you let redshift determine distances. Suddenly galactic clusters stretch out in radial lines absurdly pointing at the earth. The effect is called “the fingers of God,” and the earth-directed “fingers” span billions of light-years.

Have fun reading.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:01 am

Hello All

Some more interesting reading:

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... igbang.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... igbang.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... luster.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... 1sofar.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... sspace.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... cetemp.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... cience.htm

Astronomer Halton Arp has called it “science by news release,” and some of the most disturbing examples come from statements “confirming” the validity of the Big Bang.

Many critics of modern theories in the sciences have noticed that science editors (newspaper, magazine, and television) appear to have lost the ability to separate fact from theory. When discussing the trademarks of popular cosmology, such as the Big Bang, the science media incessantly report that new discoveries confirm them—even when such reports are far from the truth.

One reason for this pattern is simply the momentum of archaic beliefs. But it is also apparent that good news is essential to the funding of exotic projects.

At the heart of conventional cosmology lies the dogma of an electrically neutral universe governed by gravity alone. Without the benefit of this dogma, the Big Bang hypothesis could never have achieved its present prominence. And it is here that we see most clearly how, under the necessities of funding, scientists are eager to “confirm” a theory that, according to many critics, has already failed. Editors, in turn, desiring to retain valued relationships with the spokesmen for established science, only rarely dig deeper than the latest news release delivered to them.

Many Big Bang thinkers are up in arms over their beloved theory.

=========================================

Are the above links crank pots. Read them and make up your own scientific mind.

If they are not and their logic is correct. That makes the Big Bang Theory the Biggest Crank theory in the last century.

kovil · Post by **kovil** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:14 pm

Paul Feyerabend : In his books "Against Method" and "Science in a Free Society", Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a "dose" of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

Feyerabend's position is generally seen as radical in the philosophy of science, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths. It also implies that philosophical guidelines should be ignored by scientists, if they are to aim for progress.

To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend provides counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to a certain fixed method. He took some examples of episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican revolution), and showed that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in such circumstances. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution.

One of the criteria for evaluating scientific theories that Feyerabend attacks is the consistency criterion. He points out that to insist that new theories be consistent with old theories gives an unreasonable advantage to the older theory. He makes the logical point that being compatible with a defunct older theory does not increase the validity or truth of a new theory over an alternative covering the same content. That is, if one had to choose between two theories of equal explanatory power, to choose the one that is compatible with an older, falsified theory is to make an aesthetic, rather than a rational choice. The familiarity of such a theory might also make it more appealing to scientists, since they will not have to disregard as many cherished prejudices. Hence, that theory can be said to have "an unfair advantage". (do I hear BBT being whispered? lol)

Feyerabend was also critical of falsificationism. He argued that no interesting theory is ever consistent with all the relevant facts. This would rule out using a naïve falsificationist rule which says that scientific theories should be rejected if they do not agree with known facts. Feyerabend uses several examples, but 'renormalization' in quantum mechanics provides an example of his intentionally provocative style: "This procedure consists in crossing out the results of certain calculations and replacing them by a description of what is actually observed. Thus one admits, implicitly, that the theory is in trouble while formulating it in a manner suggesting that a new principle has been discovered" (AM p. 61). Such jokes are not intended as a criticism of the practice of scientists. Feyerabend is not advocating that scientists do not make use of renormalization or other ad hoc methods. Instead, he is arguing that such methods are essential to the progress of science for several reasons. One of these reasons is that progress in science is uneven. For instance, in the time of Galileo, optical theory could not account for phenomena that were observed by means of telescopes. So, astronomers who used telescopic observation had to use 'ad hoc' rules until they could justify their assumptions by means of later advances in optical theory.

Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been 'left behind'. Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of 'ad hoc' methods and proceed counter-inductively. So, 'ad hoc' hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.

Together these remarks sanction the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts. Furthermore, a pluralistic methodology that involves making comparisons between any theories at all forces defendants to improve the articulation of each theory. In this way, scientific pluralism improves the critical power of science. Thus Feyerabend proposes that science might proceed best not by induction, but by counterinduction.

According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick – rational, rhetorical or ribald – in order to advance their cause. Without a fixed ideology, or the introduction of religious tendencies, the only approach which does not inhibit progress (using whichever definition one sees fit) is "anything goes": " 'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history." (Feyerabend, 1975).

Feyerabend also thought that the possibility of incommensurability, a situation where scientific theories cannot be compared directly because they are based on incompatible assumptions, could also prevent the use of general standards for establishing the quality of scientific theories. He wrote that "it is hardly ever possible to give an explicit definition of [incommensurability]" (AM, p.225), because it involves covert classifications and major conceptual changes. He also was critical of attempts to capture incommensurability in a logical framework, since he thought of incommensurability as a phenomenon outside the domain of logic.

- - -

In an interview in Scientific American in the 1980’s (?) , Feyerabend asserts that around every 500 years science throws out about 90-95% of what it held to be true, in favor of the new theory of what is now held to be true. This has been going on for over 3 thousand years, so that one could very rationally say that what we think we know is 90% wrong. Scientifically speaking that is.

toejam · Post by **toejam** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:04 pm

[quote="hishadow"]Harry, I recently stumbled across a great introduction to physics dubbed Physics for Future Presidents, taught by a man called Richard A. Muller (UC Berkeley) . The course teaches basic physics for non-physicist. Hardly any math is involved, but the ideas of a wide range of topics are explained in detail. Muller also gives a lot of examples of common day uses and the history of the discoveries.

e III[/url][/qu]ote

hishadow

Thanks for this. Cannot watch it at present - only have dialup in this neck of Canuck woods, but hoping for Broadband to reach us this year -- Have bookmarked it.

Many thanks again.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:02 am

Hello All

Hi! Kovil

You said

Paul Feyerabend : In his books "Against Method" and "Science in a Free Society", Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress.

So!!!!!!!!!!!!!! true.

Keep reading. Let me know what you think of the links. They are simple to read.

Hello toejam

Tried to open the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

I get a pop up block.

I need a new comp.

So tell me what it actually says.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:40 am

harry wrote:Hello All

Some more interesting reading:

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... igbang.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... igbang.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... luster.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... 1sofar.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... sspace.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... cetemp.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... cience.htm

Astronomer Halton Arp has called it “science by news release,” and some of the most disturbing examples come from statements “confirming” the validity of the Big Bang.

Many critics of modern theories in the sciences have noticed that science editors (newspaper, magazine, and television) appear to have lost the ability to separate fact from theory. When discussing the trademarks of popular cosmology, such as the Big Bang, the science media incessantly report that new discoveries confirm them—even when such reports are far from the truth.

One reason for this pattern is simply the momentum of archaic beliefs. But it is also apparent that good news is essential to the funding of exotic projects.

At the heart of conventional cosmology lies the dogma of an electrically neutral universe governed by gravity alone. Without the benefit of this dogma, the Big Bang hypothesis could never have achieved its present prominence. And it is here that we see most clearly how, under the necessities of funding, scientists are eager to “confirm” a theory that, according to many critics, has already failed. Editors, in turn, desiring to retain valued relationships with the spokesmen for established science, only rarely dig deeper than the latest news release delivered to them.

Many Big Bang thinkers are up in arms over their beloved theory.

=========================================

Are the above links crank pots. Read them and make up your own scientific mind.

For the last time harry, if you wish to present this kind of material, please be prepared to defend it against challenges based on standard science-based approaches.

If you are not prepared to defend such material, please do not post it here in The Asterisk*.

If they are not and their logic is correct. That makes the Big Bang Theory the Biggest Crank theory in the last century.

Please choose one of these, any one.

Please state it, as clearly, in quantitative form, as you can.

Please be prepared to answer questions, and challenges, to it, in terms of:

a) its internal consistency

b) its consistency with well-established theories, where the domains of applicability overlap

c) (above all) its consistency with good experimental and observational results.

If you are not prepared to do this, please do not post this kind of material again.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:43 am

kovil wrote:Paul Feyerabend : In his books "Against Method" and "Science in a Free Society", Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a "dose" of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

Feyerabend's position is generally seen as radical in the philosophy of science, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths. It also implies that philosophical guidelines should be ignored by scientists, if they are to aim for progress.

To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend provides counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to a certain fixed method. He took some examples of episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican revolution), and showed that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in such circumstances. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution.

One of the criteria for evaluating scientific theories that Feyerabend attacks is the consistency criterion. He points out that to insist that new theories be consistent with old theories gives an unreasonable advantage to the older theory. He makes the logical point that being compatible with a defunct older theory does not increase the validity or truth of a new theory over an alternative covering the same content. That is, if one had to choose between two theories of equal explanatory power, to choose the one that is compatible with an older, falsified theory is to make an aesthetic, rather than a rational choice. The familiarity of such a theory might also make it more appealing to scientists, since they will not have to disregard as many cherished prejudices. Hence, that theory can be said to have "an unfair advantage". (do I hear BBT being whispered? lol)

Feyerabend was also critical of falsificationism. He argued that no interesting theory is ever consistent with all the relevant facts. This would rule out using a naïve falsificationist rule which says that scientific theories should be rejected if they do not agree with known facts. Feyerabend uses several examples, but 'renormalization' in quantum mechanics provides an example of his intentionally provocative style: "This procedure consists in crossing out the results of certain calculations and replacing them by a description of what is actually observed. Thus one admits, implicitly, that the theory is in trouble while formulating it in a manner suggesting that a new principle has been discovered" (AM p. 61). Such jokes are not intended as a criticism of the practice of scientists. Feyerabend is not advocating that scientists do not make use of renormalization or other ad hoc methods. Instead, he is arguing that such methods are essential to the progress of science for several reasons. One of these reasons is that progress in science is uneven. For instance, in the time of Galileo, optical theory could not account for phenomena that were observed by means of telescopes. So, astronomers who used telescopic observation had to use 'ad hoc' rules until they could justify their assumptions by means of later advances in optical theory.

Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been 'left behind'. Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of 'ad hoc' methods and proceed counter-inductively. So, 'ad hoc' hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.

Together these remarks sanction the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts. Furthermore, a pluralistic methodology that involves making comparisons between any theories at all forces defendants to improve the articulation of each theory. In this way, scientific pluralism improves the critical power of science. Thus Feyerabend proposes that science might proceed best not by induction, but by counterinduction.

According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick – rational, rhetorical or ribald – in order to advance their cause. Without a fixed ideology, or the introduction of religious tendencies, the only approach which does not inhibit progress (using whichever definition one sees fit) is "anything goes": " 'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history." (Feyerabend, 1975).

Feyerabend also thought that the possibility of incommensurability, a situation where scientific theories cannot be compared directly because they are based on incompatible assumptions, could also prevent the use of general standards for establishing the quality of scientific theories. He wrote that "it is hardly ever possible to give an explicit definition of [incommensurability]" (AM, p.225), because it involves covert classifications and major conceptual changes. He also was critical of attempts to capture incommensurability in a logical framework, since he thought of incommensurability as a phenomenon outside the domain of logic.

- - -

In an interview in Scientific American in the 1980’s (?) , Feyerabend asserts that around every 500 years science throws out about 90-95% of what it held to be true, in favor of the new theory of what is now held to be true. This has been going on for over 3 thousand years, so that one could very rationally say that what we think we know is 90% wrong. Scientifically speaking that is.

I've read this post, several times, but cannot see its relevance to this thread kovil - would you be kind enough to elaborate?

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:43 am

Hello Nereid

Some links that I post is for reading only and comments so that we can share other opinions and not be restricted.

Tell me which links that you do not agree with.

Or is this another way Big Bang thinkers like to control others as in the past.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:03 am

harry wrote:Hello Nereid

Some links that I post is for reading only and comments so that we can share other opinions and not be restricted.

Tell me which links that you do not agree with.

Or is this another way Big Bang thinkers like to control others as in the past.

There's a simple test harry - if the material you find cites published papers (and such citations are actually consistent with the material), then it's likely you have found something suitable for this, scientific, forum.

If, on the other hand, there is nothing published in the relevant peer-reviewed literature, then it's very likely that what you have found would not be suitable.

Note that this test does require you to do some work - not all PRs from universities or research institutes directly cite the papers relavent to the PR (for example).

And note, this is not a question of whether Nereid (or anyone else) "agrees" with links or not; it is a question of being consistent with the clearly stated scope of this site ("This is a scientific forum").

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:39 am

Hello Nereid

I understand, what you mean.

I will try my best.

kovil · Post by **kovil** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:57 pm

Hello Neried,

The Feyerabend post has to do with perception. How do we know what it is that we think we know? This is the entire point of 'our perception of the origin of the universe'. I mean, this is a question we will likely never know the answer to, so it relates directly to 'how do we perceive things' and 'how do we know things' and as Paul pointed out , 'every so often we completely reassess what we 'think we know' and discover that we now think about things differently from before'. So one might say that what we think we know now will be discovered soon or in 500 years to be 'not so'.
That is my basic point, and I wanted to elaborate that point and back it up with a genuine authority on the subject, which I trust is the 'scientific' way to go about things. Even tho this borders more on philosophy than 'mainstream mathematical science' , when one ventures far enough around the circle from where we started, we get to the place where philosophy meets science on the far side of the 'sphere', and religion shows up there as well. Wouldn't you agree?

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:19 pm

harry wrote:Hello Nereid

I understand, what you mean.

I will try my best.

Another way to get a quick determination of whether the website you are thinking of providing a link to is likely to adhere to the scientific method or not is to see if it's listed on Crank Dot Net. If it is, then particular care should be taken before linking (this is not 100% reliable of course; for example, some crank sites may not be listed, and some of those listed may contain acceptable material).

For example, the astronomy page has a list of some 74 dubious sites.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:29 pm

kovil wrote:Hello Neried,

The Feyerabend post has to do with perception. How do we know what it is that we think we know? This is the entire point of 'our perception of the origin of the universe'. I mean, this is a question we will likely never know the answer to, so it relates directly to 'how do we perceive things' and 'how do we know things' and as Paul pointed out , 'every so often we completely reassess what we 'think we know' and discover that we now think about things differently from before'. So one might say that what we think we know now will be discovered soon or in 500 years to be 'not so'.
That is my basic point, and I wanted to elaborate that point and back it up with a genuine authority on the subject, which I trust is the 'scientific' way to go about things. Even tho this borders more on philosophy than 'mainstream mathematical science' , when one ventures far enough around the circle from where we started, we get to the place where philosophy meets science on the far side of the 'sphere', and religion shows up there as well. Wouldn't you agree?

My personal opinion hardly counts, but for what it's worth, Feyerabend's work is riddled with inconsistencies.

One small example: try applying the tools and techniques (analyses etc) to his own work (if the work has value, then it should yield consistent results when applied to itself, surely), what do you find?

Also, while speculation about what the nature of science may be like 500 years from now may be good fun, I'm sure you'd agree it's certainly not within the scope of this forum.

Further, it's trivially easy to show that this kind of speculation is essentially useless - all you need do is look at a complete body of the equivalent of such, from 500, or 2,500, years ago. Is there anything whatsoever in such old or ancient writings that genuinely foreshadows later developments in science? In answering this, please be sure to a) avoid revisionism, and b) be aware of coincidences (so you need to have a pre-specified method for evaluating the likelihood).

kovil · Post by **kovil** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:50 am

Neried,

If you think that the website Crank Dot Net has any agenda about being interested in the truth, it does not have any interest in the pursuit of truth, its agenda is the promulgation of the established status quo and its own narrow minded set of beliefs, and anything that challenges that mindset is dismissed forthright.

I am disappointed in your own narrow mindedness.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:20 am

kovil wrote:Neried,

If you think that the website Crank Dot Net has any agenda about being interested in the truth, it does not have any interest in the pursuit of truth, its agenda is the promulgation of the established status quo and its own narrow minded set of beliefs, and anything that challenges that mindset is dismissed forthright.

I am disappointed in your own narrow mindedness.

kovil, here is what I actually wrote (I added some bolding):

Another way to get a quick determination of whether the website you are thinking of providing a link to is likely to adhere to the scientific method or not is to see if it's listed on Crank Dot Net. If it is, then particular care should be taken before linking (this is not 100% reliable of course; for example, some crank sites may not be listed, and some of those listed may contain acceptable material).

As I have said, I think, several times now, the agenda of this forum is clear, unequivocal, explicit, and so on.

This is a scientific forum

If you would like to discuss the relationship between "truth" and science, or between "the established status quo" and science, or the extent to which adherence to the scientific method (in so far as it is employed in astronomy) constitutes a "narrow minded set of beliefs", or how insistence that this forum stick within its avowed scope constitutes a "narrow minded set of beliefs", or anything similar, then please start a thread, here in the Cafe, on just that topic.

Please do not hijack a thread about the origin of the universe to make claims about the scope and nature of this forum.

Further, if you have a problem with the stated scope of this forum, then you are free to discontinue your participation in it.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:03 am

Hello All

I understand what Neried is trying to do. I would do the same.

The problem is this.

Most of us have not got the time to research what is a crank link or not.
We use this to pass the time. Sometimes scientifically and sometimes not.

Hello Kovil.

Focus on the topic and not on the man.

=======================================

I came across this link:
I hope its not a crank pot link.
But it is logical in its writing.

The "Iron Sun" Debate (2)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... nebula.htm

The point of light at the center of the image is a pulsar, so called because it generates pulses at radio frequencies roughly 60 times a second. (Pulses can also be observed optically and in X-rays.)

But what cause these rapid pulses? Most astronomers today attempt to interpret pulsars using a strange idea based entirely on mathematical conjectures. They say that the pulsar is a tiny spinning “neutron star”—the collapsed remains of the historic supernova.

Neutron stars were predicted theoretically in the 1930's to be the end result of a supernova explosion. For many years astronomers doubted their existence. But then, with the discovery of the first pulsar in 1967, astronomers imagined that the pulses were due to a rapidly rotating beam of radiation sweeping past the Earth. Having ignored all of the things that electricity can do quite routinely, the theorists were required to conceive a star so dense that it could rotate at the rate of a dentists drill without flying apart. So the neutron star received a second life. The energy of the star’s radiation, it was supposed, came from in-falling matter from a companion star.
The imaginative construct received no support from later observations. In the Crab Nebula, what we now see is not gravitational accretion, but material accelerated away from the central star. In fact, all of the weird and wonderful things said about neutron stars, such as the super-condensed "neutronium" or "quark" soup from which they are claimed to have formed, lie outside the realm of verifiable science. They are abstractions disconnected from nature, but required to save a paradigm that has no other force than gravity to provide compact sources of radiation.

If this is correct, than a Jet is a Jet regardless of its size.

There are tow options.

The jest are created by infalling matter or the jets are created by the matrix of the neutroid.

A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGH ... 308_e.html

Objects as diverse as X-ray binaries, radio galaxies, quasars, and even our Galactic center, are powered by the gravitational energy released when surrounding gas is sucked into the black hole sitting in their cores, a process astronomers call accretion. Apart from copious radiation, one of the manifestations of this accretion energy release is the production of so-called jets, collimated beams of matter that are expelled from the innermost regions of accretion disks. These jets shine particularly brightly at radio frequencies.

I know this is common thought, but I cannot observe it. It sounds elimentary.
looking at many jets, it seems to me that the jet is driven by the inernal of the neutroid. Scientists need to research this field.

Neutron Star Imitates Black Hole
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/CircinusX-1/

Since the 1970's astronomers have known that Circinus X-1 produces radio waves as well as X-rays. A large 'nebula' of radio emission lies around the X-ray source. Within the nebula lies the new-found jet of radio-emitting material thought to be associated with an accretion disk of material falling in towards the neutron star. In Circinus X-1 its likely that the accretion disk varies with the 17-day cycle, being at its most intense when the stars are almost touching at the closest point in the orbit. It is then that the jets of matter appear to be ejected from the system.

Jets with speeds of ~ 99% (see note *) of the speed of light have been observed being emitted from the the regions around black holes in our own galaxy and have occasionally been seen emanating from neutron stars, but never before has an ultra-relativistic jet been seen that did not originate from a black hole region. The team has shown that the jets in Circinus X-1 are travelling at 99.8% of the speed of light. This is the fastest outflow seen from any object in our Galaxy, and matches the fastest jets powered by supermassive black holes at the heart of distant galaxies. Whatever process accelerates the jets to near the speed of light, it cannot therefore rely on the special properties of a black hole. "The key process must be one common to both black holes and neutron stars" said Kinwah Wu, formerly of the University of Sydney, now at University College London in the UK.

I think the answer lies within the neutroid, plasma/electri science may give us the answer.

Where is Michael Mozina, he may add light to the discussion.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:44 am

Hello All

I went into crank dot net

and found as a crank pot tehoery the following.

Rufus' Galaxy Web Page 1999 May 27
... cosmology . steady state . Big Bang ...
"The purpose of this Web page is to show that the Steady State Galaxy Theory can provide an alternative to the Big Bang Theory in explaining the universe around us. It covers the operation of Galaxies and shows that they recycle both Matter and Energy and are able to carry on indefinitely. It also explains the shape of galaxies, redshift, microwave background radiation, entropy and the hydrogen-helium ratio."

I do not think much about crank dot net. Who puts it out?
Sounds like a Big Bang Person.

What a joke for science.

I'm reading through the contents of the link, and I find alot of crank pot links, but I also find alot of non crank pot links.

http://www.crank.net/contents.html

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:00 pm

harry wrote:Hello All

I understand what Neried is trying to do. I would do the same.

The problem is this.

Most of us have not got the time to research what is a crank link or not.
We use this to pass the time. Sometimes scientifically and sometimes not.

Hello Kovil.

Focus on the topic and not on the man.

=======================================

I came across this link:
I hope its not a crank pot link.
But it is logical in its writing.

The "Iron Sun" Debate (2)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... nebula.htm

[snip]

Sorry harry, whatever it is, it certainly isn't science.

Here's another guideline: consider material on the thunderbolts site to be, at best, pseudo-science. Unless you are very sure of its contents, or are prepared to defend them, or can find a specific, published paper that supports it, then do post it here.

Please note that by continuing to post such material you are, in effect, promoting it.

We do not want this forum to become a site for promoting pseudo-science.

If this is correct, than a Jet is a Jet regardless of its size.

There are tow options.

The jest are created by infalling matter or the jets are created by the matrix of the neutroid.

A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGH ... 308_e.html

Objects as diverse as X-ray binaries, radio galaxies, quasars, and even our Galactic center, are powered by the gravitational energy released when surrounding gas is sucked into the black hole sitting in their cores, a process astronomers call accretion. Apart from copious radiation, one of the manifestations of this accretion energy release is the production of so-called jets, collimated beams of matter that are expelled from the innermost regions of accretion disks. These jets shine particularly brightly at radio frequencies.
I know this is common thought, but I cannot observe it. It sounds elimentary.
looking at many jets, it seems to me that the jet is driven by the inernal of the neutroid. Scientists need to research this field.

Neutron Star Imitates Black Hole
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/CircinusX-1/

Since the 1970's astronomers have known that Circinus X-1 produces radio waves as well as X-rays. A large 'nebula' of radio emission lies around the X-ray source. Within the nebula lies the new-found jet of radio-emitting material thought to be associated with an accretion disk of material falling in towards the neutron star. In Circinus X-1 its likely that the accretion disk varies with the 17-day cycle, being at its most intense when the stars are almost touching at the closest point in the orbit. It is then that the jets of matter appear to be ejected from the system.

Jets with speeds of ~ 99% (see note *) of the speed of light have been observed being emitted from the the regions around black holes in our own galaxy and have occasionally been seen emanating from neutron stars, but never before has an ultra-relativistic jet been seen that did not originate from a black hole region. The team has shown that the jets in Circinus X-1 are travelling at 99.8% of the speed of light. This is the fastest outflow seen from any object in our Galaxy, and matches the fastest jets powered by supermassive black holes at the heart of distant galaxies. Whatever process accelerates the jets to near the speed of light, it cannot therefore rely on the special properties of a black hole. "The key process must be one common to both black holes and neutron stars" said Kinwah Wu, formerly of the University of Sydney, now at University College London in the UK.
I think the answer lies within the neutroid, plasma/electri science may give us the answer.

Where is Michael Mozina, he may add light to the discussion.

Do you have any papers that you can point to, to support this "neutroid, plasma/electri" idea?

If it's nothing more than the 'electric universe', or 'electric sun', or 'plasma universe' idea, then please do not post any such material here again ... unless you are prepared to defend it.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:49 pm

Hello Nereid

I'm lost for words.

What would you like me to discuss?

You said

If it's nothing more than the 'electric universe', or 'electric sun', or 'plasma universe' idea, then please do not post any such material here again ... unless you are prepared to defend it.

Are you saying that this is crank pot ideas.

makc · Post by **makc** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:55 pm

Nereid wrote:For the last time harry, ...

Isn't it time yet to ...?

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:23 pm

harry wrote:Hello Nereid

I'm lost for words.

What would you like me to discuss?

You said

If it's nothing more than the 'electric universe', or 'electric sun', or 'plasma universe' idea, then please do not post any such material here again ... unless you are prepared to defend it.
Are you saying that this is crank pot ideas.

This is a scientific forum

I'm not sure I said it clearly enough before.

If you feel that the 'electric universe', or 'electric sun', or 'plasma universe' ideas are scientific, with respect to astronomy, astrophysics, space science, and/or cosmology, then please pick just one of the claims, on any of the sites promoting these ideas, and present it.

In presenting it, please be sure to:

a) be prepared to provide references to papers published in peer-reviewed journals (of astronomy etc) that will/can support the claim, as presented

b) state, unambiguously, your preparedness to defend the claim, as presented, against scientific challenges that NSL members may make to it.

If not, please do not promote the thunderbolts site any more, here in NSL.

Starship Asterisk*

Origins of the UNIVERSE

fire burn and cauldron bubble

Re: fire burn and cauldron bubble