Starship Asterisk*

Michael Mozina wrote:Here is what I'm getting at astro_uk:

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html

When I was a kid growing up, the idea was that galaxies didn't form and become "mature" for many "billions" (plural) of years. Today, the "new and improved" version of BB theory concedes that galaxies develop "earlier" than previously predicted, but there is very little literature today explain why the early predictions were wrong, and to explain the new "timelines" in great detail.

That you may not be able to find much such literature online may be true.

That it does not exist at all is false - the pages of journals such as ApJ have not been censored, nor copies taken out of university libraries and burned.

Perhaps this comment says more about your own, personal, lack of familiarity with the enormous volume of technical literature?

Instead of being taught the "history" of failed predictions, the old predictions are replaced with new ones, earlier ones, and the "new and improved" version is said to jive with "observation".

You mean that cosmology is just the same as any other branch of science?

That the theories and models are changed and adjusted in light of new observations and experiments?

It seems to me that your complaint is misplaced - science is not religion; theories are not dogma.

In fact however, the early BB theories did *not* jive with observation and were simply "modified" after the fact, with little to explain these timelines in full detail, or to explain why the early predictions were false. It's sort of a catch 22 then for you to ask for observations that don't match predictions, particularly as it relates to the formation of galaxies.

This summary may be relevant to how the results of the work of scientists in the field of cosmology and astrophysics has been portrayed in the popular press.

However, I think you will have a very hard time making this kind of case, using only primary sources.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:And why is this a problem for today's cosmological models?

I wanted to clarify this point a bit. One of the primary methods we might use to demonstrate the "worthiness" of Big Bang theory relates to galaxy formation timelines. That is because the BB theory, unlike the static universe theory predicts a time when all matter was only subatomic in nature. In other words, there is no requirement that there was ever a "quark soup" state in a static (eternal) universe theory. The difference between these two concepts then can be "measured" by how effectively each theory can accurately describe the layout and makeup of the early universe.

What is this "static universe theory"?

Where can one read up on it (in the professional literature)?

If for instance it could have been demonstrated via Hubble and Spitzer that no galaxies existed prior to say 2 billion years old, and no "mature" galaxies existed prior to say 5 billion years after the presumed BB, then the "predictions" of early theory would have been born out, and that accuracy of prediction would have been a "significant" victory for BB theory. On the other hand the static (eternal) universe theory suggests that "mature" galaxies have always existed. It then would have "predicted" that Hubble and Spitzer might observe "mature" galaxies in the early universe. That then is a "prediction" that passed the observation test, at least as far back as we can currently observe. This is a "victory" of sorts for an eternal universe concept.

If astronomy were a qualitative science, and all we could do was wave our hands and make 'word salad', this might be worthy of consideration.

However, astronomy is quintessentially quantitative, so we could ask all kinds of quantitative questions about this "static (eternal) universe theory", and expect quantitative answers.

For example: why is the 'background' sky fainter than 27 mag/square arcsec (in the B band)?

More generally (and I know we've covered this before, at least once), there is no alternative theory (to 'the big bang') which does anywhere near as good a job of accounting for the relevant observations and experimental results.

By attempting to sweep the early BB predictions related to galaxy formation under the carpet, the "failure" of the early prediction is no longer mentioned, and the difference between these two theories as it relates to galaxy formation timelines becomes more "blurry". It then becomes beholden upon BB theorists to provide some testable timelines related to galaxy formation, and galaxy "maturity" in terms of "black hole centers" and spiral "arms", etc, so that these "predictions" can either be verified or falsified by new technologies.

And you think such predictions are not being made? That theories about galaxy formation and evolution are not being tested?

I'm having a really hard time following your logic here Michael. I mean, take any of the major proposed new astronomical instruments, telescopes, or missions, and read up on the 'science case' therein. Many of them quite explicitly state that getting a better understanding of the formation of galaxies, and the evolution of large-scale structure in the early universe (post-CMB time) is a key goal!

If the big bang were some kind of inviolable dogma, why would astronomers want so much to do this kind of research?

That static/eternal universe theory has already passed the Hubble and Spitzer tests. It makes *the same* testable predictions as it relates to next generation technology as well. Since Hubble and Spitzer falsified early BB predictions related to galaxy formation timelines, it is now up to BB proponents to clearly layout the timelines related to galaxy formation and galaxy maturity so that both theories can be accurately tested to see which one passes and which one fails the next round of tests.

If we later discover that "mature" galaxies formed even earlier than "new and improved BB predictions", will we simply move the goal posts again, or shall we take a better look at the eternal universe concept?

So what is it, a "theory"? or a "concept"?

And where did you read that this "eternal universe concept" passed "the Hubble and Spitzer tests"?

And in testing it, should we restrict ourselves to just these qualitative assertions concerning the "maturity" of distant galaxies?

Hello All

Hello Neried

You speak of the BBT you make comments without evidence.
Direct me to a cosmologist who can give me evidence without ad hoc adds.

I can give you hundreds of cosmologists and scientists who do not agree with the BBT.

If you want to end this file than do so.

As for going around and around, thats life. It take two as the song goes.

Harry, as I've said before, I have met many a cosmologist at top research institutions and never found one who disagrees with the Big Bang. I've met a handful who disagree with Dark Matter and many who are uncomfortable with Dark Energy but the Big Bang is one thing we all agree on.

I'm aware of the Arp crowd who lost their fight with the advent of wide field surveys that disproved their theories (ie we have now found many quasars not associated with nearby objects). Plasma cosmology is just something to make a couple of the engineers at IEEE feel more important than they are and can't explain the nature of the observed universe. Mathematicians like Neil Turok who gave a talk here a few weeks ago don't have a problem with the big bang, he just collides branes to make a big bang in the first place.

Hello Cosmo

Please provide me with an email so that I can talk to anyone of these cosmologists.

Either I must be on the wrong planet or something is wrong with the system.

Cosmo said

I'm aware of the Arp crowd who lost their fight with the advent of wide field surveys that disproved their theories (ie we have now found many quasars not associated with nearby objects). Plasma cosmology is just something to make a couple of the engineers at IEEE feel more important than they are and can't explain the nature of the observed universe. Mathematicians like Neil Turok who gave a talk here a few weeks ago don't have a problem with the big bang, he just collides branes to make a big bang in the first place.

This is not correct. Where did you get this spam from.

Quasars are associated with nearby objects.

Hello All

I forgot to add this.

Somene asked what is the static universe.

RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE
The Steady State Galaxy Theory
An Alternative To
The Big Bang Theory
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#SHA




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

Is The Universe Static Or Expanding?
Barry Setterfield, 4th August 2002.
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

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

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects, in which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift in a given object, is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”.
It is shown in the present work that it is possible to calculate a very slight inelastic scattering phenomenon compatible with observed redshifts using electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics and without the need on introducing ad hoc physical hypotheses.

Soory for the copy and paste,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bad habit.

I suspect that my fellow academics would rather not recieve any more emails from "the einstein was wrong" camp, believe me we get plenty of these as our email addresses are available on faculty websites. I comment on this site as enjoy reading and commenting on other peoples theories and ideas without them knowing who I am and bombarding me with emails.
Quasars are NOT associated with local objects. Before wide field surveys 'Chip' Arp found his quasars in the space around other peoples images of close by galaxies. As people at the time were only using telescopes to look at nearby objects and not blank fields we saw that quasars appeared to be associated with nearby objects purely due to a selection effect. With the advent of wide field "all sky" surveys DSS, SDSS, 2MASS, UKIDSS we see that the vast majority of quasars are not associated with nearby objects.
Arp has lots of nice images were he applies light contours to his galaxy quasar images and then artificially changes the various thresholds to get the contours overlapping. You could do this with a candle held next to the sun but this would not make them associated with each other.

Hello Cosmo

Now I understand how BB people think. They close the doors.

Ok,,,,,,,

Than give me evidence of the BBT without ad hoc ideas.

I would hardly describe it as closed doors. We undertake a lot of public outreach work to let people know what we're up to. However if you don't have a formal education in physics it will be extremely difficult to get your theory across to those who have. Remember Cosmologists aren't stupid we don't sit around all day making things up. By are very nature we are highly questioning about what we observe and still the BB theory holds, if it didn't we'd swap it for something else.

Some evidence for BB:

The CMB which is the redshifted remnant of the epoch of reionisation (the redshifted photons that decoupled from matter ~13Gyr ago). This is smooth to 1 part in 10000 implying everything was at one point in causal contact with everything else ie very small. There is no other way this smoothness could be achieved by accident.

The fact that all non local galaxies are receding from us. ie the universe is expanding

The fact that the further you look into the universe in the Hubble Deep field, GOODS etc you see increasingly weird galaxies implying that todays galaxies have evolved from an irregular shape.

Simultaions of CMB anisotropy to the dark matter structure we see today being remarkably similar.

Michael Mozina wrote:[snip]

5) how critical are "monopoles" to modern inflation theory?

Well, they were the whole basis for proposing "inflation". How important is inflation to BB theory? You tell me. FYI, my exposure to BB theory came *before* astronomers started doting all over Guth and his free lunch theories.

Just quickly (I'll return to the rest later) ...

Monopoles were "the whole basis for proposing "inflation""? Or part of the motivation?

Perhaps you're saying that because the motivation for an astronomer to develop a theory which turns out to have legs was her belief that her boyfriend was having an affair later turned out to be wrong (her boyfriend was not, in fact, having an affair), her theory must be nonsense?

Surely a more valid test is something like: "to what extent do the class of inflation theories which match good observational results require the existence of monopoles?"?

In any case, can you show me please that modern inflation theories are critically dependent upon the existence of "monopoles"?

harry wrote:Hello All

I forgot to add this.

Somene asked what is the static universe.

RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE
The Steady State Galaxy Theory
An Alternative To
The Big Bang Theory
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#SHA




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

Is The Universe Static Or Expanding?
Barry Setterfield, 4th August 2002.
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

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

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects, in which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift in a given object, is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”.
It is shown in the present work that it is possible to calculate a very slight inelastic scattering phenomenon compatible with observed redshifts using electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics and without the need on introducing ad hoc physical hypotheses.

Soory for the copy and paste,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bad habit.

OK harry, here's a proposal:

You pick one, just one, from the many that you keep (repeatedly) posting, and you defend it.

The rules will be the same as those for anyone doing astronomy - internal consistency, consistency with well-established theories whose domains of applicability overlap, and (above all) consistency with good observational results. In all cases, consistency needs to be established quantitatively.

Or, instead, you pick one, just one, of the many that other folk have already debunked, and you show - in a scientific manner - that the debunking is flawed.

Or, a third choice, you show how one of recent 'cut and paste' you have posted is different from an earlier one that was already debunked. In this case, it will be someone else who makes the choice of 'the one'.

How about it harry?

harry wrote:Hello All

Hello Neried

You speak of the BBT you make comments without evidence.

What, in the harry view of astronomy, constitutes "evidence"?

Direct me to a cosmologist who can give me evidence without ad hoc adds.

What, in the harry view of astronomy, constitutes "ad hoc adds"?

I can give you hundreds of cosmologists and scientists who do not agree with the BBT.

You've already provided a great many 'cut and pastes' from some (I don't see 'hundreds', but I'll take you word for it that you could come up with at least 101 names; whether they would be 'cosmologists and scientists' may be somewhat contentious).

If you want to end this file than do so.

As for going around and around, thats life. It take two as the song goes.

Indeed.

So let's remind ourselves of what this section of The Asterisk is, shall we?

[Edit to add: but before we do, how about you answer the question I asked you, earlier in this thread?

Here it is again: In what way is the repeated posting of the same material, that we have covered at least once before, different from spam?]

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:Questions asked of Michael Mozina, that remain unanswered.

Stardate Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:04 pm (numbers added)

1) in the [Michael Mozina] view of the nature of cosmology, the science, just what is 'legal' in terms of theoretical constructs?

When did this conversation become about me personally?

You're the only one making these claims ... even harry seems content to merely 'cut and paste', with an occassional, oblique question.

As it relates to skepticism and science, I'm simply following "standard operating procedure" as it relates to the scientific processes, nothing more.

And that includes the 'alternatives need to do at least half as good a job of accounting for the same sets of good results'?

If one intends to invent a whole new particle of field, one should have substantial evidence *outside* of their pet theory to support it. If not, I'm going to treat such a concept rather "skeptically". "Dark energy"? "Inflation fields"? What's are they? How do they relate back to particle physics, GR and QM? What is the relative size of such things compared to say an electron or neutrino? How do such things interact with matter, do they have mass, etc? If these questions cannot be answered, what would you have me say about such ideas?

How about "in the case of DE, it's just a shorthand; within GR, there are several ways to produce effects that account - consistently - for three quite different sets of observational results. One key aspect of current observational research is to constrain the range, in parameter space, of those GR-consistent hypotheses"

Or, if you prefer, standard science.

Wrt inflation, I already answered your question (and even provided you a reference) - did you not read what I wrote? Would you like me to repeat it?

Plasma cosmology requires none of that stuff. When does Occum's razor come into play as it relates to ideas Nereid?

Right at the beginning - by answering the questions I've already asked you (at least once) about the track record of 'plasma cosmology' when it comes to accounting for Olbers' paradox, the CMB, the large-scale structure of the universe, ... (quantitatively, of course).

Perhaps you would be kind enough to state, unambiguously, just how important it is, in the Michael Mozina view of cosmology, for a theory to have consistency with good observational results (in its domain of applicability)?

Don't you think it's a pretty "out there" step to simply invent new fields and particles? Shouldn't we be able to quantify them and measure them like we measure neutrinos, especially if they are presumed to be able to affect matter and the flow of matter?

That's certainly a worthy objective.

However, the ability to account for observational results is also important, as is internal consistency, and consistency with other well-established theories.

For example, we know that the Standard Model (of particle physics) is incomplete. There are several approaches (extensions) that are both more general and internally consistent. Some of these also have the benefit of producing 'inflation fields'; others 'dark matter particles'. We know that what we can produce, and test, in our Earth-bound labs is very limited wrt what the universe produces in abundance and with ease, so we welcome every opportunity to devise testable hypotheses, involving these extensions, as long as they are also consistent with GR (mostly).

In other words, we engage in science.

2) In the [Michael Mozina] view of the science of astronomy, must an entity be "documented in a lab" before it can be 'legal'?

Whenever and wherever possible, sure. I certainly see no point in simply inventing particles and fields that do not exist, and are not necessary in GR, QM or particle physics. How does dark energy relate to particle physics? Inflaton fields? How do they fit into particle physics?

Glad you asked ... I hope that you have now had a chance to read up on some of the background; if you'd like more references, please ask.

Oh, and BTW, how much more massive than the proton is the top quark?

How much more energetic than the best Fermilab, CERN, etc can produce are the most energetic cosmic ray particles observed to date?

Or, how does the energy of the gamma rays detected by CANGAROO and H.E.S.S. compare with the highest energy particle beams produced by CERN?

3) there are theories, in physics, astronomy, cosmology, ... which are NOT creations of {someone's} mind?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Birkeland currents were a "creation of Birkeland's mind" in the sense that he was not "sure" that electricity flowed between the sun and the earth, but he didn't invent the concept of electricity like Guth did! It's one thing to "create" an "explanation" based on known laws of physics and lab tests. It's quite another thing to simply invent new fields and particles we've never seen before.

So Higgs is not doing science (in the Michael Mozina view), nor was Murray Gell-Mann, nor Dirac, ... and the people who dreamed up super-symmetry, well!

4) wrt "the first law of thermodynamics", can you show that inflation violates this? With math (not just words)?

Sure 0+0=0. The energy of this universe must have predated the BB.
[snip]

Why?

More generally, can you show that 'energy' is conserved in GR?

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

Michael Mozina wrote:Here is what I'm getting at astro_uk:

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html

When I was a kid growing up, the idea was that galaxies didn't form and become "mature" for many "billions" (plural) of years. Today, the "new and improved" version of BB theory concedes that galaxies develop "earlier" than previously predicted, but there is very little literature today explain why the early predictions were wrong, and to explain the new "timelines" in great detail.

That you may not be able to find much such literature online may be true.

Ok.

That it does not exist at all is false - the pages of journals such as ApJ have not been censored, nor copies taken out of university libraries and burned.

Ok. Then again, I used the term "very little", not "none at all".

For the sake of argument, let's see you stick your neck out then and tell me where the "consensus" on this galaxy formation thing might be at the moment? When might we expect to find "large" galaxies with spiral arms and things like that based on the "new and improved" BB theories of today? What is the "definitive" version of timelines now that the old ones were proven to be inaccurate?

You will find many of the answers you seek from here and here, and by following the various links (e.g. to this publications page).

Perhaps this comment says more about your own, personal, lack of familiarity with the enormous volume of technical literature?

Well, it does say something about *your* debate style, that's for sure. I was not the one that said it does not exist at all. The problem has "very little" to do with me evidently.

It's very easy to suggest that there is "some" literature. Which *specific* literature would you say is "definitive" as it relates to when we might expect to find "mature" galaxies form after the "quark soup" stage?

See above. The specific papers depend rather a lot on just what you're looking for - AFAIK, this is a vibrant field of active research, and is being pursued in many directions, simultaneously.

Instead of being taught the "history" of failed predictions, the old predictions are replaced with new ones, earlier ones, and the "new and improved" version is said to jive with "observation".

You mean that cosmology is just the same as any other branch of science?

No, astronomy today is rather a different sort of "science" actually. No other field of science speaks of "dark energy" or "monopole problems", or inflaton fields. Those things seem to be exclusively related to the "science" of astronomy. Such things certainly don't exist in QM or GR or particle physics for instance.

I'm sure your statement will come as a big surprise to the hundreds of particle physicists in the PDG then!

More generally, particle physicists (and theoretical physicists) have a strong interest in observational cosmology (as well as high energy astronomy) - it's a natural laboratory in which 'experiments' were conducted (and are still being conducted) that are utterly beyond anything we can do, in particle accelerators, here on Earth.

Astronomy is different also in the sense that it's not a very "hands on" field of science, and it's more a "big picture guestimate" of how the whole universe might be strung together. No other field of "science" is quite like astronomy in that sense.

That's true, and cosmology is even more distinct - whereas there are billions of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc, there is only one universe.

That the theories and models are changed and adjusted in light of new observations and experiments?

There's a valid question however that has to be asked and answered. Not "every" theory of cosmology requires a "quark soup" phase where all matter existed only as subatomic energy. There is therefore likely to be some time required for atoms to form and stars to form, and galaxies to form, and mature and grow massive, form spiral arms, etc. If there is merit to the idea of a "quark soup" phase of BB theory, then why are we finding "mature" galaxies, many times more massive than our own as far back as we can see? When should the idea of a quark soup phase be "scrapped" rather than just "tweaked"? How exactly *would* you suggest we go about falsifying your position?

First, there are no alternatives, in cosmology, that even address one of key cosmological (sets of) observations, much less four (or more). If and when there are, I'm sure they will be pursued with great vigour.

Second, the extent to which a handful of early mature galaxies constrains the concordance model is weak indeed (the selection effects alone are a nightmare to handle).

Third, detailed theoretical work on galaxy formation and evolution is still rather young, so the more good observational constraints there are, the better.

It seems to me that your complaint is misplaced - science is not religion;

Well, it's certainly not "supposed" to function that way, but I've observed similarities. It is made up of humans, and humans tend to be very "political" in "groups". I've been burned at the stake for my scientific beliefs in cyberspace. It certainly *can* operate a lot like a cult. I've seen in first hand.

theories are not dogma.

Well, the current "theories" of astronomy are certainly full of all sorts of "dogma". For instance it is simply "assumed" that plasmas on the sun do not significantly mass separate by the element but stay "mixed" to a large degree, even to great depth. If that single "assumption" isn't true, then a lot of other "dogma" goes out the window too, starting with the notion of which element is the most abundant element in the universe.

I think I'm missing something here ... on the one hand you complain that the BBT today is quite different from the BBT of your youth - it's been changed to account for a wide range of new, and much better, observations; on the other hand you assert that it's dogma?

Perhaps you might clarify, by explaining what you understand to be the role of hypothesis formation and testing, in modern astronomy and cosmology? Also, how hypotheses relate to models, and each relates to theories.

In fact however, the early BB theories did *not* jive with observation and were simply "modified" after the fact, with little to explain these timelines in full detail, or to explain why the early predictions were false. It's sort of a catch 22 then for you to ask for observations that don't match predictions, particularly as it relates to the formation of galaxies.

This summary may be relevant to how the results of the work of scientists in the field of cosmology and astrophysics has been portrayed in the popular press.

No, it simply a matter of how I've seen the field of astronomy work since my college days.

However, I think you will have a very hard time making this kind of case, using only primary sources.

This is really a round about appeal to popularity fallacy in the final analysis. So what?

Truth isn't dictated by what is "popular", or what you personally decide is a "primary" source. Is the Journal of Fusion Energy a "primary" source, or a secondary one? The Physics of Atomic Nuclei?

In regard to cosmology (the topic of this thread), they are (at best) secondary sources. I certainly wouldn't expect to find papers on the CMB in either of those (for example)!

Reality is defined by what exists and what can be "observed" in nature. Theories that are based on blind math formulas and ancient dogma are not a scientific surrogate for direct observational confirmation. Nobody has ever "observed" a monopole, or an inflaton field or "dark energy" in any other area of ""science" outside of "astronomy". Lots of fields of science have observed and recognized the role of electricity in relationship to matter. The "science" of astronomy seems to be the only holdout, at least from my plasma cosmology perspective.

Perhaps that's because 'plasma cosmology' can't even get to first base?

I'm still waiting for you to provide us with papers which show how 'plasma cosmology' addresses Olbers' paradox, the CMB, large-scale structure, ....

Oh, and let's not forget those >12,000 papers (published between 1990 and 2005), in ADS (an astronomy database), with "MHD" (magnetohydrodynamics, pioneered by Alfvén) as a keyword!

Your reply is all messed up, in places, Michael - could you please edit it?

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:Your reply is all messed up, in places, Michael - could you please edit it?

I think it's better as it relates to format, but I probably should have proofread it while I was at it, but it's rather busy today at the office.

OK; I'll not comment on it (the contents that is) for another day or so ...

(there still seems to be at least one formatting error too ...)

N: More generally, can you show that 'energy' is conserved in GR?

MM: Can you show it's not? The thing about "laws" is that I don't have to "prove" them to be true. Some pretty smart folks have done that already. If you believe there is a "special case" where "laws" no longer apply, it becomes beholden on you to demonstrate your case.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
That energy is not conserved, in general, in GR, has been known for almost as long as GR has been in existence.

It get's a bit technical, but here is a brief summary.

Kinda weird, don't you think? Perhaps not as weird as the resolution of the EPR paradox (take away: "Uncle Al woz rong"), but still weird enough that you might disbelieve it.

And yet, and yet, ... General Relativity has been tested in hundreds of different ways, by thousands of scientists. And it has passed every test, with flying colours (so far).

In doing cosmology, it would be a very good idea to have an extremely solid case - both observationally and experimentally - ready, should you choose to discard GR, don't you think?

Hello All


Neried
Thank you for the link:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Art ... rr-2006-3/

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi ... gy_gr.html

I'm connsistently reading.
=============================================

as for the link
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504097

Why do people assume that the BBT is correct and than proceed with eye flaps?

I wish for the scientists of this world to be more evidence or obsevation driven rather than developing ideas that can be disputed and making people go round and round discussing issues that go nowhere.

My comments to that link are the same as Michaels'

Alright Harry how do you expect us to act?

Taking four very simple observations (I could list about 20 but that would be overkill):

1) That all galaxies outside the local group are observed to be moving away from us.

2) That the further into space you look the less galaxies look like those seen today.

3) That all stars are observed to have ages less than 13Gyr.

4) That all of space is permeated by an almost uniform temperature radiation, exactly what
you would expect from the redshifted remains of a high temperature BB spectrum.

What would you infer from this?

I'm incredibly curious to know. These are observations that are not affected by our theories, so what picture do you have that explains them? Remember none of these observations requires any input from BBT, they are simply the way the Universe is independent of our own ideas and imaginations, so any theory you have must explain them. BBT very naturally explains them, how would you?

So please Harry enlighten us poor blind fools, let us know the truth, we who are so blinded by facts and knowledge and reason, tell me what I am missing. How can you explain those observations without a finife start for the Universe?