APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
"Model" is a poor choice of wording. "The" BBT is an umbrella term for a collection of related scientific theories, which are widely accepted because they do a better job of explaining observations than any other theories.harry wrote:The BBT is a model to help explain the observations.
Observation do not fit the BBT model.
The more I speak with cosmologists, scientists and a few Prof's around the world the more I think that the BBT is not widely accepted.Model" is a poor choice of wording. "The" BBT is an umbrella term for a collection of related scientific theories, which are widely accepted because they do a better job of explaining observations than any other theories.
Then I'd have to say they are neither cosmologists, scientists, nor professors of either. You may believe what you want, but to suggest that the BBT is not- by far- the consensus view of cosmology is complete nonsense.harry wrote:The more I speak with cosmologists, scientists and a few Prof's around the world the more I think that the BBT is not widely accepted.
Abstract: Dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe have been the direct predictions of the distant supernovae Ia observations which are also supported, indirectly, by the observations of the CMB anisotropies, gravitational lensing and the studies of galaxy clusters. Today these results are accommodated in what has become the `concordance cosmology': a universe with flat spatial sections t=constant with about 70% of its energy in the form of Einstein's cosmological constant \Lambda.
However, we find that as more and more supernovae Ia are observed, more accurately and towards higher redshift, the probability that the data are well explained by the cosmological models decreases alarmingly, finally ruling out the concordance model at more than 95% confidence level. This raises doubts against the `standard candle'-hypothesis of the supernovae Ia and their use to constrain the cosmological models. We need a better understanding of the entire SN Ia phenomenon in order to have cosmological consequences from them.
My reading tells me the consensus is either moving rapidly away from being the consensus, or has moved away from the consensus, if you know what I mean, the consensus of BBT. Words like "nonsense", Chris, can serve in two ways, to motivate towards proof, or to alienate away from discussion. We are human, but we should be more careful not to alienate. Perhaps you were goading in a good natured way? I try to think the best, and explore all options of intent.Chris Peterson wrote:Then I'd have to say they are neither cosmologists, scientists, nor professors of either. You may believe what you want, but to suggest that the BBT is not- by far- the consensus view of cosmology is complete nonsense.harry wrote:The more I speak with cosmologists, scientists and a few Prof's around the world the more I think that the BBT is not widely accepted.
I always had serious doubts about the accuracy of 'standard candle' measurement. In the recent apod of the meteorite fragment the piece seemed to be a large rock and not a 1" fragment. Our ability to perceive and understand the unfamiliar is extremely weak, but our lack of humility fails to recognize our weaknesses.harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
This is quite interesting, please refer to the science subject and not emotional opinions.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511628
Do recent supernovae Ia observations tend to rule out all the cosmologies?
Authors: Ram Gopal Vishwakarma (Zacatecas University)
(Submitted on 21 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 18 Jan 2008 (this version, v4))
Abstract: Dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe have been the direct predictions of the distant supernovae Ia observations which are also supported, indirectly, by the observations of the CMB anisotropies, gravitational lensing and the studies of galaxy clusters. Today these results are accommodated in what has become the `concordance cosmology': a universe with flat spatial sections t=constant with about 70% of its energy in the form of Einstein's cosmological constant \Lambda.
However, we find that as more and more supernovae Ia are observed, more accurately and towards higher redshift, the probability that the data are well explained by the cosmological models decreases alarmingly, finally ruling out the concordance model at more than 95% confidence level. This raises doubts against the `standard candle'-hypothesis of the supernovae Ia and their use to constrain the cosmological models. We need a better understanding of the entire SN Ia phenomenon in order to have cosmological consequences from them.
Your reading has been demonstrated as highly selective.aristarchusinexile wrote:My reading tells me the consensus is either moving rapidly away from being the consensus, or has moved away from the consensus, if you know what I mean, the consensus of BBT. Words like "nonsense", Chris, can serve in two ways, to motivate towards proof, or to alienate away from discussion. We are human, but we should be more careful not to alienate. Perhaps you were goading in a good natured way? I try to think the best, and explore all options of intent.
That's fine. There's some interesting reading in there, if your interest is stellar physics. Nothing to do with cosmology or black holes, though, which are the topics of this discussion, so I don't really get your point.harry wrote:My reading at the moment is on Magnetic reconnection, for the next 3 months and if you think its selective, than I think your on the wrong boat.
Not in the slightest. There is no connection. Complex magnetic fields and matter jets may be a consequence of black holes, in the right environment. But they have nothing at all to do with the formation of black holes, and certainly nothing to do with the compacting of matter. The papers you listed previously are about stellar magnetic processes in ordinary stars.harry wrote:Chris, you need to understand magnetic reconnection before you can understand so called black holes.
Chris Peterson wrote: Your reading has been demonstrated as highly selective.
This is surprising to me. Can you provide a url or other reference?Chris wrote: "The solid discovery of dark matter and dark energy..."
Chris was referring to my reading, Harry.harry wrote: "... My reading is not selective.
Harry, for a man with your mental powers to gain satisfaction at tennis you would have to whack the ball aboard a moving train, measuring the effects on the accelerating and decelerating ball-in-motion of the planet's spin and track through space, combined with the track's curvature and angle of ascent/descent at varying altitudes, speed of the train, humidity content of the air aboard the train, whether you're playing in the smoking or non-smoking car, measure of airflow of the ventilation system, photon load, etc. .. that, or win Wimbledon.Harry wrote:I should have taken up tennis.
Probably not worth arguing. Harry's disbelief of most modern ideas of physics is philosophical, not scientific. Evidence is not particularly relevant to him. It's like trying to convince somebody to change religions... it usually doesn't work.Qev wrote:Astronomers observe infalling gas colliding with the surface of compact objects like neutron stars, which considering the depth of the gravitational well is a rather energetic sort of event. They don't see this occurring with black hole candidates, which implies that there is no surface, ie. an event horizon. What reasonable alternatives exist?
I strongly object to your statement, Chris. It is your 'faith' in the consensus BBTview that is philosophical, lacking in evidence, and in my opinion 'opinionated' in a way that prevents you from even considering contrary evidence. Of all the forum posters throughout my history of participation here, Harry seems always to be the most willing and able to provide and post links showing scientific evidence of his statements and ideas.Chris Peterson wrote:Probably not worth arguing. Harry's disbelief of most modern ideas of physics is philosophical, not scientific. Evidence is not particularly relevant to him. It's like trying to convince somebody to change religions... it usually doesn't work.Qev wrote:Astronomers observe infalling gas colliding with the surface of compact objects like neutron stars, which considering the depth of the gravitational well is a rather energetic sort of event. They don't see this occurring with black hole candidates, which implies that there is no surface, ie. an event horizon. What reasonable alternatives exist?
I remind you again, this is a science forum. Science is conducted by evaluating evidence and weighing theories according to their success in explaining observations. Those theories that do the best are almost always accepted as the best by the majority of scientists. This isn't a matter of "faith", but is simply method of modern science. It is a rational position to place the most weight on those theories that work best. Note that this isn't the same as simply accepting them. Scientists who explore alternate ideas always admit that the mainstream ideas are better, and recognize that the burden is theirs to ultimately demonstrate why their alternative is better.aristarchusinexile wrote:I strongly object to your statement, Chris. It is your 'faith' in the consensus BBTview that is philosophical, lacking in evidence, and in my opinion 'opinionated' in a way that prevents you from even considering contrary evidence. Of all the forum posters throughout my history of participation here, Harry seems always to be the most willing and able to provide and post links showing scientific evidence of his statements and ideas.
Harry,harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzz
I have read the above links before.
We research and we research and yet we cannot prove the existence of black holes. To assume they exist just because we wish for them to exist is another issue.
We do notice the activity of ultra dense compact bodies such as Neutron stars and possibly the exotic stars of quark and neutrino matter, but to say they are black holes. We are far from proving.
I will com back to it.
Cya!