Could Dark Matter Possibly Be . . .

[apodman]

These 2D representations of potential wells could represent a gravity well of any size from a small asteroid to a super-massive black hole.

For a moment, stop picturing just the paths that light takes around a mass (gravitational lens, etc.) to get to an observer. Picture the observed object radiating light in all directions. Every ray heads straight outward and takes the shortest path to get wherever it is going (therefore "straight" with regard to the gravitational contours of the landscape), and that is all we ever need to say about that. Refer now to the diagram (ignore the grid lines - light rays can come from any direction) and picture the observed object on the plane far away from the well. Rays from the observed object headed too close to the gravity well will fall in, never to be seen again. Rays from the observed object that miss the mass and its well by a great distance are affected hardly at all and go on their merry way. Rays from the observed object that are aimed on a trajectory near the edge of the well follow the edge contour on their way to an observer.

[Sputnick]

Light (EM) travels through spacetime (4d). A geodesic is the shortest distance through spacetime. Light follows the geodesic. Massive objects cause space (3d) to warp (gravity), the more massive, the greater the warp. As light follows the geodesic, as it passes a massive object,the projection of that 4d geodesic in 3d space will appear to bend.

I've written "geodesic" down - for a dictionary analysis. I have only five minutes left on this computer tonight.

Of course I know you know what I am about to say, but actually the shortest distance between two points on a sphere might be through the sphere.

Ah, but that wouldn't be on the surface of the sphere.[/quote]

Beneath the surface is the quantum?

[Sputnick]

These 2D representations of potential wells could represent a gravity well of any size from a small asteroid to a super-massive black hole.

For a moment, stop picturing just the paths that light takes around a mass (gravitational lens, etc.) to get to an observer. Picture the observed object radiating light in all directions. Every ray heads straight outward and takes the shortest path to get wherever it is going (therefore "straight" with regard to the gravitational contours of the landscape), and that is all we ever need to say about that. Refer now to the diagram (ignore the grid lines - light rays can come from any direction) and picture the observed object on the plane far away from the well. Rays from the observed object headed too close to the gravity well will fall in, never to be seen again. Rays from the observed object that miss the mass and its well by a great distance are affected hardly at all and go on their merry way. Rays from the observed object that are aimed on a trajectory near the edge of the well follow the edge contour on their way to an observer.

Good effort Apodman and not lost on me .. but I can't help picturing the well in spacetime going 'up' as well as 'down' - there being no up or down in space - resulting in an obstacle to the ray which in my little brain still goes around, by bending, in a curve - sometimes showing four images as has been seen. 1:20 seconds left on this computer tonight. Goodnight.

[Chris Peterson]

Also, a few days ago you made the statement to me that Kant's philosophysing of island universes (galaxies) did not spring from philosolphy, but from astronomical observations. I left my notes at home, but I've done a lot of reading the the past week and was reminded that direct observations of other galaxies were not made until the last century .. the 1900s. Kant, I think I recall but I may be wrong .. perhaps it was the 1800s, did his philosphyzing in the 1700s.

Perhaps you missed my response to that. Kant was contemporaneous with both Herschel and Messier. Both of these men published telescopic drawings of numerous galaxies and nebulas before Kant published his work on island universes. In his work on the subject, Kant gave specific credit to Herschel for his observations and the evidence they provided for the island universe speculation. All of this was going on in the last decades of the 18th Century.

[Sputnick]

Also, a few days ago you made the statement to me that Kant's philosophysing of island universes (galaxies) did not spring from philosolphy, but from astronomical observations. I left my notes at home, but I've done a lot of reading the the past week and was reminded that direct observations of other galaxies were not made until the last century .. the 1900s. Kant, I think I recall but I may be wrong .. perhaps it was the 1800s, did his philosphyzing in the 1700s.

Perhaps you missed my response to that. Kant was contemporaneous with both Herschel and Messier. Both of these men published telescopic drawings of numerous galaxies and nebulas before Kant published his work on island universes. In his work on the subject, Kant gave specific credit to Herschel for his observations and the evidence they provided for the island universe speculation. All of this was going on in the last decades of the 18th Century.

Chris - According to my latest read, 'Origins' writen by Neil de Grasse Tyson in 2004, the discovery that other galaxies were not merely nebulae residing within the Millky Way was not made until 1923, by Hubble using the 100 inch Hooker telescope, and 'discovering' Andromeda. Therefore, Kant's speculation, while it may have been encouraged by the work of Herschel and Messier, 'philosophized' correctly far beyond what they thought their observations led them to believe (that the nebulae were part of our own galaxy).

[Sputnick]

... however, I am on record, in this forum, as stating that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is non-science, so in respect of this being a science-based discussion forum, PC has no place here.

Nereid - I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

[bystander]

... however, I am on record, in this forum, as stating that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is non-science, so in respect of this being a science-based discussion forum, PC has no place here.

Nereid - I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

Sputnick, read this: Plasma Cosmology Comparison to Mainstream Cosmology (BBT)

A Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for work with MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD) does not automatically qualify you as a cosmologist. You still have to follow the rules and do the work to be accepted.

[Chris Peterson]

Nereid - I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

I think that would depend on his ability to make a scientific case for the theory. Since he wasn't ever able to do that (which is why PC isn't considered a viable theory by most astronomers), I don't know that he could now.

You're getting caught in the Argument from Authority fallacy again. Just because Alfven won a Nobel Prize (in an area totally unrelated to PC) doesn't make him an authority in other areas- any more than Einstein was an expert philosopher.

There are many scientists who are respected in some areas and considered non-scientific in others. Fred Hoyle is one example- he managed to command a good deal of respect for his work in spite of some odd and unsupported views on cosmology and evolution. Halton Arp is another, although he has squandered most of his earlier respect because of his non-scientific positions.

[Sputnick]

... however, I am on record, in this forum, as stating that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is non-science, so in respect of this being a science-based discussion forum, PC has no place here.

Nereid - I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

Sputnick, read this: Plasma Cosmology Comparison to Mainstream Cosmology (BBT)

A Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for work with MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD) does not automatically qualify you as a cosmologist. You still have to follow the rules and do the work to be accepted.

Bystander - thanks - I will read what you suggest .. but according to what I have already read PC gained wide acceptance from the 1950s to the 1990s, surpassing Steady State, and surpassing even Big Bang for a time until, I think it was said, CBM measurements as well as theorized increasing inflation seemed to fill in some voids in Bang models. I will have to read more .. but what I've read so far about PC excites my gasses considerably, while everything I read which uses Big Bang as a starting point shows expanding voids of knowledge, as well as revealing that some educated people on this forum seem willing to deliberately use my lack of education to mislead me with false information, as well as being unwilling to mention information that does not support their view, like the half life of Technetium being a mere 2 million years, yet being found in some Red Giants, this throwing into serious doubt standard measurements of time, and therefore distances. To be honest, I've become angry at times about the deliberate attempts to mislead, but I have to consider perhaps that someone (not you, Apodman or Nereid Ihave to say) who seems highly educated in physics might be ignorant of the history of astronomy. Okay .. on to your url.

[Sputnick]

... however, I am on record, in this forum, as stating that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is non-science, so in respect of this being a science-based discussion forum, PC has no place here.

Nereid - I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

Sputnick, read this: Plasma Cosmology Comparison to Mainstream Cosmology (BBT)

A Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for work with MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD) does not automatically qualify you as a cosmologist. You still have to follow the rules and do the work to be accepted.

Bystander - thanks - I will read what you suggest .. but according to what I have already read PC gained wide acceptance from the 1950s to the 1990s, surpassing Steady State, and surpassing even Big Bang for a time until, I think it was said, CBM measurements as well as theorized increasing inflation seemed to fill in some voids in Bang models. I will have to read more .. but what I've read so far about PC excites my gasses considerably, while everything I read which uses Big Bang as a starting point shows expanding voids of knowledge, as well as revealing that some educated people on this forum seem willing to deliberately use my lack of education to mislead me with false information, as well as being unwilling to mention information that does not support their view, like the half life of Technetium being a mere 2 million years, yet being found in some Red Giants, this throwing into serious doubt standard measurements of time, and therefore distances. To be honest, I've become angry at times about the deliberate attempts to mislead, but I have to consider perhaps that someone (not you, Apodman or Nereid Ihave to say) who seems highly educated in physics might be ignorant of the history of astronomy. Okay .. on to your url.

Okay - I've read it .. right away I saw this there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents .. however, I think I recall up-to-the-minute so to speak discoveries of huge plasma clouds (on apod) connecting galaxies (and even clusters?). It's not logical to think these clouds would not contain currents. I'll try to find the apod I take my memory from.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris - According to my latest read, 'Origins' writen by Neil de Grasse Tyson in 2004, the discovery that other galaxies were not merely nebulae residing within the Millky Way was not made until 1923, by Hubble using the 100 inch Hooker telescope, and 'discovering' Andromeda. Therefore, Kant's speculation, while it may have been encouraged by the work of Herschel and Messier, 'philosophized' correctly far beyond what they thought their observations led them to believe (that the nebulae were part of our own galaxy).

I wouldn't call Kant's island universe speculation "philosophy", or at least not pure philosophy. It was based in part on earlier speculation by Thomas Wright, and then restated later by Kant, who had access to actual astronomical observations. What Kant (and others) were proposing was a solid hypothesis, if not yet quite a theory. It had been suggested that the Universe (in those days, the Universe and the Milky Way galaxy were pretty much the same thing) might consist of a flat disk of stars (an argument from observation). It wasn't a big step from that to the idea that visible nebulas (which at the time were either nebulas within the Milky Way or galaxies outside, but nobody could make that distinction) might be different "universes".

Observations of Andromeda using the Hooker telescope did not constitute a "discovery" that galaxies were external to the Milky Way. In fact, those observations intensified the debate that had been going on since Kant's time about the nature of nebulas. Why debate? Because while nebulas had been observed for a few hundred years, nobody had developed a method of measuring their distance, and therefore settling the question of whether they were external to the Milky Way, or indeed, whether the Milky Way was the same as the Universe.

That changed when Hubble was able to detect individual stars and Cepheid variables in other galaxies, and establish with a high degree of certainty that they were much farther away than anything we observe in the Milky Way. Around the same time, Doppler measurements of stars was allowing scientists to confirm that the Milky Way has a spiral structure similar to many distant galaxies. All of this new observational evidence that was collected in the early 20th Century was responsible for choosing between several theories that had been proposed but untested for 200 years.

What is important to consider with respect to Kant is that his island universe ideas did not come from pure reasoning- a method that many philosophers in his time (and before) argued for. Kant felt that experience and reasoning had to be taken together to formulate accurate ideas. Island universes was just such a proposal, based on inductive reasoning descended from actual observation.

[Sputnick]

What Kant (and others) were proposing was a solid hypothesis, if not yet quite a theory.

Kant's suggestion wouldn't be well recceived in this forum unless it followed scientific forumla and could be tested (right?)

... .. It wasn't a big step from that to the idea that visible nebulas (which at the time were either nebulas within the Milky Way or galaxies outside, but nobody could make that distinction) might be different "universes".

The nebulae were said by the 'concensus' of that time to be in the Milky Way, and that nothing existed outside the Milky Way.

Observations of Andromeda using the Hooker telescope did not constitute a "discovery" that galaxies were external to the Milky Way.

Those observations certainly did exactly that, unless you have some up to the minute just in brand new information that Andromeda lies within the Milky Way.

Kant felt that experience and reasoning had to be taken together to formulate accurate ideas. Island universes was just such a proposal, based on inductive reasoning descended from actual observation.

Kant was a philosopher, and philosophers philosophy - they don't measure distances to stars. Kant had to reason against the concensus of the day which put nebulae within the borders of the Milky Way. In fact, he was in the same situtaion propenents of Plasma Cosmology are in today .. except that time has proven him correct, while time hasn't got to that state with PC yet, spending most of its energy on opening huge voids in the Big Bang theory .. Technitium in Red Giants for instance.

[Sputnick]

Nereid - I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

I think that would depend on his ability to make a scientific case for the theory. Since he wasn't ever able to do that (which is why PC isn't considered a viable theory by most astronomers), I don't know that he could now.

According to what I read PC was afforded status by the concensus ahead of Big Bang until the Cosmic Background Radiation was measured accurately. For someone to discount the CBR is to hypothesise another source for it .. like heat radiation given off by Dark Matter.

You're getting caught in the Argument from Authority fallacy again. Just because Alfven won a Nobel Prize (in an area totally unrelated to PC) doesn't make him an authority in other areas- any more than Einstein was an expert philosopher.

Show me your Nobel and I'll afford you equal status.

There are many scientists who are respected in some areas and considered non-scientific in others. Fred Hoyle is one example- he managed to command a good deal of respect for his work in spite of some odd and unsupported views on cosmology and evolution. Halton Arp is another, although he has squandered most of his earlier respect because of his non-scientific positions.

Edgar Allan Poe wrote and presented the first paper as to why the night sky is dark - because light has not had time yet to have travelled from the farthest stars. Do you know how much reading I had to do to discover that fact about Poe? I've come to the conclusion that most scientists simply don't want to share the glory with non-scientists - or even scientists in other fields.

[Chris Peterson]

Kant's suggestion wouldn't be well recceived in this forum unless it followed scientific forumla and could be tested (right?)

Generally true. However, Kant's theory was testable, so I don't see the problem.

The nebulae were said by the 'concensus' of that time to be in the Milky Way, and that nothing existed outside the Milky Way.

I'd say that popular opinion (probably the consensus viewpoint) was that the Universe was much smaller than we know it today, and that the distance to stars and to nebulas was similar. Nebulas were interpreted to be "within" the Milky Way only in the sense that the Milky Way was interpreted as the Universe. So the early opinions on the matter were not entirely incorrect.

Observations of Andromeda using the Hooker telescope did not constitute a "discovery" that galaxies were external to the Milky Way.

Those observations certainly did exactly that, unless you have some up to the minute just in brand new information that Andromeda lies within the Milky Way.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing, and I'm just having problems with your wording. For a couple of centuries, many galaxies were recognized to have a spiral structure. Observations, particularly of Andromeda, in the early 20th Century started providing some evidence that these galaxies were much farther away than stars. The initial evidence (the brightness of novas) was not sufficiently strong to convince everyone, so an intensified debate ensued for several years. It was Hubble's discovery of Cepheid variables in several nearby galaxies (not just Andromeda) that finally provided the observational strength to demonstrate that galaxies were much farther away than the stars that make up the Milky Way and our visible sky.

Kant was a philosopher, and philosophers philosophy - they don't measure distances to stars. Kant had to reason against the concensus of the day which put nebulae within the borders of the Milky Way. In fact, he was in the same situtaion propenents of Plasma Cosmology are in today .. except that time has proven him correct, while time hasn't got to that state with PC yet, spending most of its energy on opening huge voids in the Big Bang theory .. Technitium in Red Giants for instance.

Keep in mind that the intellectual environment in Kant's time was very different from today. There was often less distinction between science and philosophy- scientists were sometimes called natural philosophers. Thinkers were still putting together the modern framework of scientific investigation. Kant wasn't arguing against a consensus as such; he was putting forth a hypothesis based on observation, and he was not taking a dogmatic position. That is, he was offering this as a possibility, not a fact. Kant was a champion of basing theories on observation, and not on reason alone. In this respect he was operating much more like a scientist than a philosopher, and in fact, his arguments were not so much with scientists about how the Universe was structured, but with other philosophers about how reasoning should proceed.

It is popular practice for people who feel their "theories" are being ignored by mainstream science to compare themselves to various figures in the past who may or may not have had their beliefs vindicated years after their deaths. But those aren't valid comparisons. In no way was Kant, in his intellectual world, similar to PC "theorists" in ours.

[bystander]

... I was surprised considerably last night when I read that Hannes Alfven who took Kristian Birkeland's idea for PC, and expanded and promoted it almost to the point of concensus acceptance in the 1950s and 1960s was a Nobel winner. If Alfven were a guest here would he be allowed to freely discuss PC?

According to what I read PC was afforded status by the concensus ahead of Big Bang until the Cosmic Background Radiation was measured accurately. For someone to discount the CBR is to hypothesise another source for it .. like heat radiation given off by Dark Matter.

Where are you getting this??? Alfvén published his concept in a book,Worlds-Antiworlds, in 1965. In 1971, Klein extended his proposal to develop the "Alfvén-Klein model" of cosmology. I know of no time when this theory was more popular than BBT.

[Chris Peterson]

According to what I read PC was afforded status by the concensus ahead of Big Bang until the Cosmic Background Radiation was measured accurately. For someone to discount the CBR is to hypothesise another source for it .. like heat radiation given off by Dark Matter.

All modern theories that are testable and haven't been firmly "disproven" by strong evidence to the contrary are "afforded status" by the scientific community. That is quite different from enjoying consensus status, which PC never did. Today, PC isn't even treated as a serious theory, simply because it has been "disproven".

You're getting caught in the Argument from Authority fallacy again. Just because Alfven won a Nobel Prize (in an area totally unrelated to PC) doesn't make him an authority in other areas- any more than Einstein was an expert philosopher.

Show me your Nobel and I'll afford you equal status.

People win Nobel prizes for narrow areas of work. Some people who win don't know much at all, some are broadly knowledgeable. Most are only qualified to talk intelligently about a few things. Affording high status to everybody with a Nobel prize, over anybody who doesn't have one, is silly. I probably know far more about meteoritics than anybody who has ever won a Nobel. Yet you would afford someone else higher status in a discussion of meteoritics? That's just foolish.

Edgar Allan Poe wrote and presented the first paper as to why the night sky is dark - because light has not had time yet to have travelled from the farthest stars. Do you know how much reading I had to do to discover that fact about Poe?

I'm afraid that speaks more about your research skills than anything else. This is pretty common knowledge. Olbers' paradox comes up very early in any discussion of cosmology (including the history of cosmology). And any article on Olber's paradox mentions that Poe presented the first argument (still largely accurate) explaining it. You don't need more than Wikipedia to learn this.

[Sputnick]

Kant's suggestion wouldn't be well recceived in this forum unless it followed scientific forumla and could be tested (right?)

Generally true. However, Kant's theory was testable, so I don't see the problem.

Kant's Philosophysing, Chris, was not testable until the big telescopes of the 1900s. I already posted that. You're very frustrating at times.

The nebulae were said by the 'concensus' of that time to be in the Milky Way, and that nothing existed outside the Milky Way.

I'd say that popular opinion (probably the consensus viewpoint) was that the Universe was much smaller than we know it today, and that the distance to stars and to nebulas was similar. Nebulas were interpreted to be "within" the Milky Way only in the sense that the Milky Way was interpreted as the Universe. So the early opinions on the matter were not entirely incorrect.[/quote]

Are you being deliberately aggravating? The consensus was that the Milky Way WAS the universe .. you know that .. or as a scientist you should know that especially after I wrote it here two or three times.

Observations of Andromeda using the Hooker telescope did not constitute a "discovery" that galaxies were external to the Milky Way.

Those observations certainly did exactly that, unless you have some up to the minute just in brand new information that Andromeda lies within the Milky Way.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing, and I'm just having problems with your wording. For a couple of centuries, many galaxies were recognized to have a spiral structure. Observations, particularly of Andromeda, in the early 20th Century started providing some evidence that these galaxies were much farther away than stars. The initial evidence (the brightness of novas) was not sufficiently strong to convince everyone, so an intensified debate ensued for several years. It was Hubble's discovery of Cepheid variables in several nearby galaxies (not just Andromeda) that finally provided the observational strength to demonstrate that galaxies were much farther away than the stars that make up the Milky Way and our visible sky.[/quote]

Nebulae, Chris, not galaxies .. until Hubble saw Andromeda close up so to speak the foggy patches whether spiral or round or square were said to be Nebulae inside the Milky Way .. No problem with wording here .. no confusion.

Kant was a philosopher, and philosophers philosophy - they don't measure distances to stars. Kant had to reason against the concensus of the day which put nebulae within the borders of the Milky Way. In fact, he was in the same situtaion propenents of Plasma Cosmology are in today .. except that time has proven him correct, while time hasn't got to that state with PC yet, spending most of its energy on opening huge voids in the Big Bang theory .. Technitium in Red Giants for instance.

Keep in mind that the intellectual environment in Kant's time was very different from today. There was often less distinction between science and philosophy- scientists were sometimes called natural philosophers. Thinkers were still putting together the modern framework of scientific investigation. Kant wasn't arguing against a consensus as such; he was putting forth a hypothesis based on observation, and he was not taking a dogmatic position. That is, he was offering this as a possibility, not a fact.

When I do that here I can be severely criticized and told I'm not following scientific formula. Why not? Only because, I assume, I'm on 'the other side' of the Big Bang debate. And don't say there is no 'other side' because I know where I stand and it's not in your consensus.

=Chris Kant was a champion of basing theories on observation, and not on reason alone. In this respect he was operating much more like a scientist than a philosopher, and in fact, his arguments were not so much with scientists about how the Universe was structured, but with other philosophers about how reasoning should proceed.

Philosophers and scientists (remember Einstien and instinct) work from what they can't observe as well - you can't observe dark matter.

It is popular practice for people who feel their "theories" are being ignored by mainstream science to compare themselves to various figures in the past who may or may not have had their beliefs vindicated years after their deaths. But those aren't valid comparisons. In no way was Kant, in his intellectual world, similar to PC "theorists" in ours.[/quote]

[Chris Peterson]

Kant's Philosophysing, Chris, was not testable until the big telescopes of the 1900s. I already posted that. You're very frustrating at times.

You're ignoring the earlier lessons about the nature of science. Testability of a theory doesn't require that it be immediately testable. It means that a viable, possible, and reasonable test can be suggested. The theory that nebulas were very distant compared with stars is trivially testable by measuring the actual distance to each. The fact that it took nearly 200 years to develop the necessary technology isn't important, it just means that there were several theories that couldn't be pruned until then. But they were perfectly valid scientific theories.

The consensus was that the Milky Way WAS the universe.

Yes, that's what I said.

Nebulae, Chris, not galaxies .. until Hubble saw Andromeda close up so to speak the foggy patches whether spiral or round or square were said to be Nebulae inside the Milky Way .. No problem with wording here .. no confusion.

Yes, the term nebula was used for all these fuzzy extended objects. What I'm calling galaxies were what they called spiral nebulas. That terminology is not the point of confusion, however.

Keep in mind that the intellectual environment in Kant's time was very different from today. There was often less distinction between science and philosophy- scientists were sometimes called natural philosophers. Thinkers were still putting together the modern framework of scientific investigation. Kant wasn't arguing against a consensus as such; he was putting forth a hypothesis based on observation, and he was not taking a dogmatic position. That is, he was offering this as a possibility, not a fact.

When I do that here I can be severely criticized and told I'm not following scientific formula. Why not? Only because, I assume, I'm on 'the other side' of the Big Bang debate. And don't say there is no 'other side' because I know where I stand and it's not in your consensus.

You are criticized for offering possibilities without offering methods of testing or disproving them, and without offering reasons why they are better than current theory. That is the accepted way of doing things these days (and for about the last 100 years). When you fail to do so, you are being non-scientific, and that's a problem since this is a science forum.

What you don't seem to understand is that scientists, in general, are more open to new ideas than just about anybody else. Certainly more so than philosophers in general. These days, scientists are quick to adopt new theories and ideas. All it takes is a demonstration that the new idea is superior.

Philosophers and scientists (remember Einstien and instinct) work from what they can't observe as well - you can't observe dark matter.

You are flat wrong about that. We do observe dark matter, quite easily. Scientists may use intuition to begin the process of developing a theory, but it rapidly evolves to something that is testable. There is no such thing as a philosophical reasoning technique, rather there are many. Philosophical viewpoints frequently do not require testing, and may be developed by reason alone (and their degree of "truth" is a matter of subjective opinion, quite unlike science).

[Sputnick]

Kant's Philosophysing, Chris, was not testable until the big telescopes of the 1900s. I already posted that. You're very frustrating at times.

You're ignoring the earlier lessons about the nature of science. Testability of a theory doesn't require that it be immediately testable. It means that a viable, possible, and reasonable test can be suggested. The theory that nebulas were very distant compared with stars is trivially testable by measuring the actual distance to each. The fact that it took nearly 200 years to develop the necessary technology isn't important, it just means that there were several theories that couldn't be pruned until then. But they were perfectly valid scientific theories.

And I'm the one who's been accused of making up rules as I go along? "Doesn't require that it be immediately testable" indeed.

The consensus was that the Milky Way WAS the universe.

=Chris Yes, that's what I said.

Perhaps I missed that and only read where you were trying to persuade me that the nebulae were thought to exist outside of the Milky Way in Kant's day.

Nebulae, Chris, not galaxies .. until Hubble saw Andromeda close up so to speak the foggy patches whether spiral or round or square were said to be Nebulae inside the Milky Way .. No problem with wording here .. no confusion.

Yes, the term nebula was used for all these fuzzy extended objects. What I'm calling galaxies were what they called spiral nebulas. That terminology is not the point of confusion, however.[/quote]
The terminology becomes a point of confusion when it's not used properly as you so often do. THE point of confusion here came when because of your opposition to philsolphy and immagination in science you tried to convince me using subtle nuances of language that Kant's philosophical musing were based on scientists of his day having concluded through telescope observations that spiral galaxies lay outside the Milky Way. Or perhaps you just need to use language a little more carefully, as I've said before, not subtly representing consensus for fact .. Big Bang as an example.

=Chris Keep in mind that the intellectual environment in Kant's time was very different from today. There was often less distinction between science and philosophy- scientists were sometimes called natural philosophers. Thinkers were still putting together the modern framework of scientific investigation. Kant wasn't arguing against a consensus as such; he was putting forth a hypothesis based on observation, and he was not taking a dogmatic position. That is, he was offering this as a possibility, not a fact.

But if I do that here I'm told I should provide all kinds of evidence .. write a paper .. etc .. but it seems to me only because I'm on 'the other side' of the Big Bang debate .. not part of the consensus.

You are criticized for offering possibilities without offering methods of testing or disproving them, and without offering reasons why they are better than current theory. That is the accepted way of doing things these days (and for about the last 100 years). When you fail to do so, you are being non-scientific, and that's a problem since this is a science forum.

And that is exactly why I opened the topic "what is science" - because I speak and write with the english language, and english dictionary terms do not agree with your definition of science, so I am more than justified to assume you set up these rules of what science is as you go along ..that setting up of rules which I've been accused of doing, without anyone telling me how when I ask them why. I don't care a hoot about being accused of setting up rules .. but I have to tell it plainly as I see it.

What you don't seem to understand is that scientists, in general, are more open to new ideas than just about anybody else. Certainly more so than philosophers in general. These days, scientists are quick to adopt new theories and ideas. All it takes is a demonstration that the new idea is superior.

I know very well from my reading that scientists who are published seem to be open minded, and careful in language so as not to confuse readers by representing ideas as facts. That is generally not the case on this forum, though .. and when you say 'scientists are quick to adopt new theories and ideas .. all it takes is a demonstration that the new idea is superior' you are ignoring what I see as is obvious in that published scientists are open to new ideas before they are found superior .. that almost all ideas are worthy of consideration.

Philosophers and scientists (remember Einstien and instinct) work from what they can't observe as well - you can't observe dark matter.

=Chris You are flat wrong about that. We do observe dark matter, quite easily.

I think I begin to see another source of the problem between you and I. We both become tired while on this forum .. and we fail to communicate properly: you for instance should have said "We do observe the effects of Dark Matter quite easily" .. but even that would not be accurate as DM is a theory .. Page 75 of 'Origins' by Tyson published 2004 - "Either Dark Matter particles must wait for us to discover ... ... or Dark Matter might not consist of matter at all." You, Chris, believe Dar, Matter does exist, and you can't be scientific enough to admit they might not exist. Maybe we both need more rest.

Scientists may use intuition to begin the process of developing a theory, but it rapidly evolves to something that is testable. There is no such thing as a philosophical reasoning technique, rather there are many. Philosophical viewpoints frequently do not require testing, and may be developed by reason alone (and their degree of "truth" is a matter of subjective opinion, quite unlike science).

Yeah, right .. like Big Bang acquiring a 'consesus' so strong that it is repeatedly written up as fact despite seemingly insurmountable problems of proof. Where is the degree of truth in that?

[Chris Peterson]

And I'm the one who's been accused of making up rules as I go along? "Doesn't require that it be immediately testable" indeed.

I don't really understand why you spend time on this forum. You don't have the slightest grasp of how science works, and you demonstrate that you have no interest in learning. You apparently read lots of material, much of it nonsense, and have no ability to distinguish between good and bad quality ideas. Even when you read quality material, you don't seem to understand what the authors are actually saying, but instead focus on little bits, out of context. You've fallen in love with pseudoscientific ideas. You allow religion and philosophy, rather than evidence, to determine your beliefs about the natural world.

There's probably nothing you can say that is going to be of interest to people here, who are exploring science. And since you aren't interested in science, I don't see what anybody here has to offer you.

[Sputnick]

And I'm the one who's been accused of making up rules as I go along? "Doesn't require that it be immediately testable" indeed.

I don't really understand why you spend time on this forum. You don't have the slightest grasp of how science works, and you demonstrate that you have no interest in learning. You apparently read lots of material, much of it nonsense, and have no ability to distinguish between good and bad quality ideas. Even when you read quality material, you don't seem to understand what the authors are actually saying, but instead focus on little bits, out of context. You've fallen in love with pseudoscientific ideas. You allow religion and philosophy, rather than evidence, to determine your beliefs about the natural world.

There's probably nothing you can say that is going to be of interest to people here, who are exploring science. And since you aren't interested in science, I don't see what anybody here has to offer you.

There you go again talking for other people none of whom talk like you do, involving those others in your opinion as you attempt to swell your own weight. On this forum I posted my reading of the past 10 days naming the books, authors and years published, the last date being 2004, the earliest Einstein, then moving to 1996 I think it was and upwards from there .. all those books within the consensus of Big Bang .. all written by PHDs clearly and understandably to someone with an open mind. I can't follow the math, but can you Chris fix a moped engine and paddle a canoe solo for three months through the Canadian north? If you can, I'm looking for a bow person on my hoped for four month trip .. and I mean bowsperson as I trust myself only on the water.

[apodman]

Read this:

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.co ... rated.html

---

And I know you all have heard of this one ...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

But how about this one ...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/

[Doum]

Hi apodman,

That link is lovely.

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.co ... rated.html

[Sputnick]

Read this:

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.co ... rated.html

Apodman - here are the books I've read in the past two weeks - all but Einstein's lectures were written by proponents of Big Bang - but all admitted there were vast voids of knowledge, huge unanswered questions. My personal point of view is that God could have created through the Big Bang (Genesis says nothing about 'how' God created the heavens and the earth) but why through a Big Bang? Nature is conservative of energy .. to have used so much energy needlessly to pack all the content of the universe into a singularity before exploding it was a huge waste of energy .. especially when Pascual Jordan says stars (and therefore the universe) could be made from nothing with a tiny quantum fluctuation. I've now read who Pascual Jordan was .. a fellow who found answers for some of Einstein's voids, and someone who would 'might have been awarded the Nobel Prize were it not for his membership in the Nazi party' .. yet much of his work was resisted by the other German scientists because Jordan credited the German Jewish scientists. Anyway .. here is my reading .. all of adding to my conviction that the Big Bang never happened.

Einstein’s lectures: The theory of relativity; e=mc2; Physics and Reality; the fundamentals of theoretical physics; the common language of science; the laws of science and the laws of ethics; an elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy.

Origins, Neil de Grass Tyson, 2004

Hyperspace – Our Final Fronteir, John Gribbin, 2001

In the Beginning – After Cobe and Before the Big Bang – John Gribbin, 1993

Through a Universe Darkly, Marciaa Bartusiak, 1993

Shadows of Creation – Dark Matter and Structure of the Universe – Michael Riordin and David N. Schramm, 1991




---

And I know you all have heard of this one ...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

But how about this one ...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/[/quote]

[apodman]

... why through a Big Bang?

Science favors simple explanations. You say nature favors simple mechanisms. Theories involving a "Big Bang", according to you and according to science, have simplicity on their side because they require only a single event.

I'm sorry, what was I thinking? Everyone knows I can't answer "why".

... the Big Bang never happened.

Whatever you want to call it, it's still happening; the universe is just at a later stage of expansion than when it was small and hot.