Starship Asterisk*

goredsox wrote:So my question to you is whether you consider the existence of Dark Matter to be sufficiently well grounded to be considered fact, or it really just a theoretical model? I ask because we are trying to establish what the facts really are, and where the theoretical model begins.

This was discussed before, and respective threads gained dozens of pages before they were closed. Yet, I think people will walk around in circles untill Nereid will make some kind of FAQ on subject.

To answer your question shortly. What you call "facts" ends on your fingertips. Everything else, including very basic (physical) concepts like space, time, observation, measurement, etc, is all theoretical model. So is dark matter. It's dark, because we can't see it. It's matter, because it behaves like matter does in our equations. That is pretty much all to it.

Hello All


MarkC are you saying because we have discussed it before we should not discuss it now.

This is a cafe, over a cup of coffee and a babe on my lap.

People need to keep on discussing issues, it allows them to learn and grow and in the right season some may come with solutions to some issues.

I just read this interesting link

http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Co ... _Big_Bang/

Big Bang people would stop this link in fear that it would damage the theory.

What do you think?


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

Hello goredsox

You said

Expansion of the universe. Everything is observed to be expanding all the time, and it is accelerating. Dark matter can explain this. So my question to you is whether you consider the existence of Dark Matter to be sufficiently well grounded to be considered fact, or it really just a theoretical model? I ask because we are trying to establish what the facts really are, and where the theoretical model begins.

Its funny that people talk about this expansion and yet are unable to prove it.

The dark matter that makes most of the mass in our galaxy is found in compacted cores (gravity sinks). It's dark matter for the simple reason we are unable to see it, but for its effects on its surroundings.

You can, but it is pointless. There's nothing new.

There was an APOD, back in 2002, entitled "Our Busy Solar System"
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020724.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/Animatio ... rSmall.gif
If you follow the course of the cometary bodies, they have extreme orbits that take them around the sun often in groups.
It might even be possible that the universe is similarly oriented such that galaxies orbit a central point in the universe, much like the afore mentioned comets in our solar system. If you were standing on one of those comets and your view of the universe were limited to seeing only the other comets, space would appear to be expanding away from your point of view WRT the only other frame of reference you had access to, (the other cometary bodies). This could serve to explain many observations made about the nature of the universe.

what?
if I were standing where?
maybe we should also discuss an afterlife and st peter gates, imagine how would it be like standing there...

makc wrote:what?
if I were standing where?
maybe we should also discuss an afterlife and st peter gates, imagine how would it be like standing there...

If you were standing there, We wouldn't be able to have this conversation,AND all these questions would be almost answered.

Hello All

MarkC said

You can, but it is pointless. There's nothing new.

Think about what you just said.

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

Hello BMAone123

You maybe right with what you say. What if the pattern repeats itself?

We know the pattern of the solar system and the Milky way.

We know that MW has a central gravity sink M87 that is part of the local cluster of galaxies.

We know that the local cluster forms part of a cluster of cluster of galaxies which inturn forms part of a super cluster of clusters of galaxies.

One more thing, within that pattern not one cluster of galaxies is moving away from the total unit. Makes you think. What is expanding?


This is interesting

Cluster of galaxies 15 Billion light years give or take a few billion

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... asars.html

BMAONE23 wrote:

makc wrote:what?
if I were standing where?
maybe we should also discuss an afterlife and st peter gates, imagine how would it be like standing there...

If you were standing there, We wouldn't be able to have this conversation,AND all these questions would be almost answered.

If you believe in all that jazz, to each his own I say, but I bet there are more atheists here.

Harry, I think the BB holds more weight if we KNOW the farthest galaxy is give or take 15 billion light years away. If its simply the the farthest we can see, then I think BB agrumet loses a little weight in my opinion. Or rather our time line of events is way off.

I dont think its something we will ever be able to "prove".

Harry; why not start a poll?
Big bang;
No bang;
undecided

Orin

goredsox wrote:astro_uk said:

Is there any scientific reason why a two phase universe should be preferred?

No, but there isn't any reason that a one phase universe should be preferred either. It is arbitrary because empirical evidence does not apply at all to what came before BB. I think preferring one phase over all other possible numbers of phases represents a bias, and more phases are statistically more likely.
You said that choosing more phases is choosing the more complicated solution, but I think that changing BBT so that it creates all matter in the universe in one place at one time with no prior phase is the more complicated solution.

This contains several, rather common, fallacies.

For example, 'statistically more likely' is an (unconscious?) inference drawn from experience of the observable universe; there is, a priori, no scientific reason to expect it to apply to realms for which we have neither theory nor observation to guide us.

Second, the LCDM cosmological models ('big bang theory') is silent on the origin of the universe, for the very good (scientific) reason that we have no quantum theory of gravity (or, if you prefer, theory of quantum gravity). So, within the domains of the current best theories, all we can say is that the observable universe seems to have been very hot and very dense ~13.7 billion years ago.

If you'd like to choose one string theory, or loop quantum gravity, or ... i.e. one of the several current theories which contain both general relativity (GR) and quantum theory, then you can begin to construct models of the universe prior to t = some tiny fraction of a second. However, I think you'd be stuck in at least one place - there is no 'tie-breaking' observational support for any of these theories (yet).

harry said:

Reproducing acceleration of expansion. Of what?

Expansion of the universe. Everything is observed to be expanding all the time, and it is accelerating. Dark matter can explain this. So my question to you is whether you consider the existence of Dark Matter to be sufficiently well grounded to be considered fact, or it really just a theoretical model? I ask because we are trying to establish what the facts really are, and where the theoretical model begins.

I think you mean dark energy, not dark matter.

Your question begs a deeper one, for example: do you consider the existence of atoms (quarks, neutrinos, ...) to be considered fact, or is it really just a theoretical model?

Or, putting this another way, show me a 'fact' that is not so intricately bound with theory that it can stand on its own two feet. Qualification: any such 'facts' go beyond that which you can experience directly with your own senses (esp sight).

makc said:

astronomers have not come up with a one yet that would make at least equally good predictions

It would help to catalog all the observations that have been made over the years that were inconsistant with the prevailing BBT of the time. It seems that BBT has been modified to fit the observations after the fact. It would be more convincing if BBT was right before the next observation.

Hmm ... what do you think science is? some kind of dogma?

What you have just (briefly) described is a core aspect of science, and one reason why we do experiments and make observations!

Of course, it is entirely possible there is a better way to understand the universe, than the present methods used by astronomers - perhaps you have such a method? - but until one comes along and is accepted, then I guess we'll just keep using the same methods that brought you your PC, the internet, most of the the medicinal drugs you (or your friends and relatives) take, your car/bicycle/motorbike, etc.

harry wrote:Hello All


MarkC are you saying because we have discussed it before we should not discuss it now.

This is a cafe, over a cup of coffee and a babe on my lap.

People need to keep on discussing issues, it allows them to learn and grow and in the right season some may come with solutions to some issues.

I just read this interesting link

http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Co ... _Big_Bang/

Big Bang people would stop this link in fear that it would damage the theory.

What do you think?

[snip]

harry, the only use I can think of for the material on that webpage is to use it as the basis for a simple homework problem for a senior high school class, or first year undergrads, during the first week or so of a relevant course.

Why?

For starters, the author pretty clearly doesn't have a good grasp of even high school physics, much less university level physics, so it might be appropriate to set students the homework problem of identifying, and writing up, at least two (say) of his 'physics howlers'.

There's no date on the article, but the most recent references are the 1990s, so the most charitable thing one could say about the section on the CMB is that the author didn't have access to even the first year WMAP results. Similarly, the 'age discrepancy' issue no longer exists, and whatever issues there may have been wrt quasars have also been resolved with the results from 2dF and SDSS.

You asked "What do you think?" I think your bald assertion ("Big Bang people would stop this link in fear that it would damage the theory") would be libelous if it weren't so downright ridiculous.

harry, instead of scouring the internet for stuff you think might 'damage the theory', why not invest the time and effort instead on learning some basic physics and basic astronomy? The return on such an investment would include an ability to critically examine webpages such as the one you provided a link to, and not waste your (and others') time, by not posting something that has so many obvious holes in it.

I'll go further: if you have read (and absorbed) the posts, and associated material, in other threads here in this Café, it should have been relatively easy for you to have spotted several of the more obvious flaws yourself, even without a physics degree.

orin stepanek wrote:Harry; why not start a poll?

as a thread starter he can have permissions to add the poll to it. he should try and edit his 1st post for that.

Nereid, thanks for taking the time to respond. I am glad to see someone who is passionate enough about the validity of BBT to defend it.

I do just have one question though, for everyone, about the one-phase universe vs multi-phase. From our prior posts, I think we stand together and agree firmly that there are no empiric observations that apply to anything prior to the current phase. Using just pure logic, I think we can all agree that either there was a single phase to the universe, OR there were multiple phases. Two, three, seventeen, 93 million, or an infinity, no one can say. And we all still agree that we currently have no way of knowing if there have been other phases or not.

My only point I wish others to consider is this: Compare the likelihood that the solution to this question is one phase, vs the likelihood that the solution to this question is some number from two to infinity. I maintain that just from a logical standpoint, it is AT LEAST as reasonably likely that the real answer is one as it is some number higher than one. But if is any number higher than one, that has profound implications for BBT's validity, because it opens up the likelihood that there really is some recycling of matter and/or energy between phases.

Given the concept of infinity I have decided pondering such things is simply beyond the scope of my comprehension and refuse to spend energy on it.

goredsox wrote:My only point I wish others to consider is this: Compare the likelihood that the solution to this question is one phase, vs the likelihood that the solution to this question is some number from two to infinity. I maintain that just from a logical standpoint, it is AT LEAST as reasonably likely that the real answer is one as it is some number higher than one.

Oh yeah, I like this line of thinking. Let's say I put a dollar in my pocket, and then forget how much I put there. Let's say I have really big pocket, and from what it looks like, it may host up tp $100K in $100 bills. So, logically, there are good chances to get a lot of money out of my pocket. I say, we all should put a dollar in our pocket and wait until we forget how much money is there. Then you could talk to someone and say "you know, I can get any amount of money you want from my pocket". That will impress them.

Hello All

Hello Neried

You said

harry, instead of scouring the internet for stuff you think might 'damage the theory', why not invest the time and effort instead on learning some basic physics and basic astronomy? The return on such an investment would include an ability to critically examine webpages such as the one you provided a link to, and not waste your (and others') time, by not posting something that has so many obvious holes in it.

If you think that the Big Bang has any poistive information rather than ad hoc ideas than please post them.

I would love the Big Bang theory to be the model, but not under evedence that is not supported.

Trying to put people down to win a discussion point is old hat.

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

Hello Orin

You said

Harry; why not start a poll?
Big bang;
No bang;
undecided

Good idea if I knew how to add to it.

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

Hello Vision

you said

Harry, I think the BB holds more weight if we KNOW the farthest galaxy is give or take 15 billion light years away. If its simply the the farthest we can see, then I think BB agrumet loses a little weight in my opinion. Or rather our time line of events is way off.

The farthest galaxy has not been found yet.

By the end of this decade we shall see beyond 15 Gyrs and I would even estimate to 20 Gyrs.

Think about it

15 Grs in one direction and 15 Grs in multiple directions.

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

Hello All

Halton Arp
Redshifts
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

What is redshift?
If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'. The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us. This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us. The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume? It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

Inherent Redshift
Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.

In addition, these inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60].
The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

Evidence Says Arp is Right - A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy
The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.

You may need to read the link for images and info. At the bottom of the link you will find more links.

This discussion “ Question in general “ Obviously has a long way to go before it is going to be decided to anyone’s / everyone’s agreement.
Interesting none the less, but what I am wondering after reading all of the links on this and the many others that have come and gone is.
As per the adjusting the scientific evidence to meet the facts “ Which “ As neried says, is what science is, and is in fact constantly evolving.
Something of which I would never dispute.
However, where shall we place the limit of this? If as is stated herein we are able to see 25 Gyrs, 10 years from now and we see more galaxies out there. And 10 years from then see 40 Gyrs to only see yet more galaxies.
Shall we just accept then that the universe is at least 40 billion years old or shall it be time to re-think this matter over entirely. Bang or no Bang.
At what point would all be in agreement that the great Bang could possibly be the big Dud?

Hello THX1138

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,maybe a good idea as a back prop to protect the big bang theory.

Is this what we really want, to become emotional over a theory.

I do not care which theory is correct, just as long as the big boys do their work scientifically.

Than, we the small boys can look big.

and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I do drive a small car and live in a small house.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


There is a famous saying by a Greek 3000 years ago.

He said along this line of thought:

"If one thinks that they know than they are limited in learning more".

If I find the quote I will post it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neried must be well read.

I cannot see any flies on her back.

The processes in getting information is correct in what she says. That does not mean I agree with the information she puts forward.

But! most of us have not got the time to do what she wants.

What do we do?

Just sit around and only read without discussion. Most cosmologists are in conflict.

Or

Grow mushrooms.

yes, harry, it is impossible to have well-grounded opinion if you have no time to check facts.

we all have perhaps about 90% of opinions that would fall apart like a house of cards were we to test them against reality - and that is my opinion.

Hello MarKC

You are 100% right.

I have this idea that harry doesn't realize there's not actually an r in makc's username.

Hello All


OOOOOPS

MakC

Must be the left hand fingure.

goredsox wrote:Nereid, thanks for taking the time to respond. I am glad to see someone who is passionate enough about the validity of BBT to defend it.

I do just have one question though, for everyone, about the one-phase universe vs multi-phase. From our prior posts, I think we stand together and agree firmly that there are no empiric observations that apply to anything prior to the current phase. Using just pure logic, I think we can all agree that either there was a single phase to the universe, OR there were multiple phases. Two, three, seventeen, 93 million, or an infinity, no one can say. And we all still agree that we currently have no way of knowing if there have been other phases or not.

My only point I wish others to consider is this: Compare the likelihood that the solution to this question is one phase, vs the likelihood that the solution to this question is some number from two to infinity. I maintain that just from a logical standpoint, it is AT LEAST as reasonably likely that the real answer is one as it is some number higher than one.

OK up to here, more or less.

But if is any number higher than one, that has profound implications for BBT's validity, because it opens up the likelihood that there really is some recycling of matter and/or energy between phases.

Why (does it open up such a likelihood)?

And why should there be profound implications?

Further, if you assume there was some sort of a precursor, what do you ... what can you ... do starting with such an assumption?

harry wrote:Hello All

Hello Neried

You said

harry, instead of scouring the internet for stuff you think might 'damage the theory', why not invest the time and effort instead on learning some basic physics and basic astronomy? The return on such an investment would include an ability to critically examine webpages such as the one you provided a link to, and not waste your (and others') time, by not posting something that has so many obvious holes in it.

If you think that the Big Bang has any poistive information rather than ad hoc ideas than please post them.

I would love the Big Bang theory to be the model, but not under evedence that is not supported.

Trying to put people down to win a discussion point is old hat.

How about we do this, harry: you read through Evidence for the Big Bang and ask any questions you wish concerning what's there. I, and other users, will answer your questions, and post links to other, more detailed, material, as necessary. At the point at which it starts to get too technical for you, please say so, and I (and others) will suggest some textbooks of physics and astrophysics for you to go through.

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

Hello Orin

You said

Harry; why not start a poll?
Big bang;
No bang;
undecided

Good idea if I knew how to add to it.

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

Hello Vision

you said

Harry, I think the BB holds more weight if we KNOW the farthest galaxy is give or take 15 billion light years away. If its simply the the farthest we can see, then I think BB agrumet loses a little weight in my opinion. Or rather our time line of events is way off.

The farthest galaxy has not been found yet.

By the end of this decade we shall see beyond 15 Gyrs and I would even estimate to 20 Gyrs.

Think about it

15 Grs in one direction and 15 Grs in multiple directions.

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

What is the scientific basis for your unambiguous claim harry?