APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
What's the matter, Harry? Did you get so lost out there in fringe science that you can't find your way back? I'm fairly certain if you tried, you could find something that supported BBT all by yourself.harry wrote:Post me a link that he gives evidence to support the BBT.
Give me a break! The guy practically invented the inflationary model. Do your own research. I have no idea why you think that the BB model hasn't been extensively tested and found to hold up better than any other theory. Or why you think that most cosmologists don't think it is substantially correct. And yet you'll hold up any hare-brained idea as if it must automatically be given equal footing, even if it's nothing more than speculation.harry wrote:Ok, lets pick on Alan Guth
Post me a link that he gives evidence to support the BBT.
Sorry, that's not the way it works. The BBT represents the consensus viewpoint because most people are satisfied that the evidence is strong. They are interested when new pieces of evidence come along (as happens fairly often), but don't spend their time reiterating past tests. If you want evidence, I suggest you go to Wikipedia (which has an excellent article on the BB), or any first year college astronomy textbook, and follow the references.harry wrote:I have read Alan Guth papers.
Now refer me to one that you think provides evidence to support the BBT.
Why do you need volume or circumference to rotate? The math works fine for a rotating singularity, so the real question becomes whether a mathematical singularity has a physical analog? And the jury is still out on that one.aristarchusinexile wrote:An article mentioned a rotating point with 0 volume .. to me this seems ludicrous as 0 volume means 0 circumference. Any explanations?
I would seriously have to doubt that math even if I knew it .. reality may be spinny but it isn't totally whacked.Chris Peterson wrote:Why do you need volume or circumference to rotate? The math works fine for a rotating singularity, so the real question becomes whether a mathematical singularity has a physical analog? And the jury is still out on that one.aristarchusinexile wrote:An article mentioned a rotating point with 0 volume .. to me this seems ludicrous as 0 volume means 0 circumference. Any explanations?
Plus momentum and direction of travel .. of course, some on the forum say everything reacts gravitationally to everything else in the universe .. or at least they say everything is 'felt' gravitationally by everything else, and I say if it feels it, it reacts to it .. you would too if you saw the blonde that just left the computer opposite me.apodman wrote:Proximity.
Harry, you're speaking as if you're a believer in Black Holes. Did you submit this before you had your morning coffee?harry wrote:
The bigger the BH the bigger the jet formation.
Surfin' the big Book, dude.harry wrote:G'day Aris
I did not see Jonah at the beach, is he a surfer?
Smile
Physics commonly treats masses as points, and charged and magnetized particles as points. Any of these can rotate, resulting in rotating fields of different sorts. The math is very simple- much more simple than when you treat the objects as extended. There is no doubt at all that the math is consistent and correct.aristarchusinexile wrote:I would seriously have to doubt that math even if I knew it .. reality may be spinny but it isn't totally whacked.Chris Peterson wrote:Why do you need volume or circumference to rotate? The math works fine for a rotating singularity, so the real question becomes whether a mathematical singularity has a physical analog? And the jury is still out on that one.
Mate your statement is a cop out. People ask you for what ever evidence you know and you hide behind the skirts of the so called standard model called BBT.Sorry, that's not the way it works. The BBT represents the consensus viewpoint because most people are satisfied that the evidence is strong. They are interested when new pieces of evidence come along (as happens fairly often), but don't spend their time reiterating past tests. If you want evidence, I suggest you go to Wikipedia (which has an excellent article on the BB), or any first year college astronomy textbook, and follow the references.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1I can’t pick my favorite contradiction between plasma cosmology and BB, but I will give you my favorite two.
On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1
Second—and equal—BBN with inflation clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian. Plasma cosmology predicts that anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. This is clearly not Gaussian. Observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian. There are too many papers to cite on this. You can find plenty on arXiv.
Have fun with your debate.
Abstract: We present a new abundance analysis of HE 1327-2326, the currently most iron-poor star, based on observational data obtained with VLT/UVES. We correct the 1D LTE abundances for 3D effects to provide an abundance pattern that supersedes previous works, and should be used to observationally test current models of the chemical yields of the first-generation SNe. Apart from confirming the 1D LTE abundances found in previous studies before accounting for 3D effects, we make use of a novel technique to apply the 3D-1D corrections for CNO which are a function of excitation potential and line strength for the molecular lines that comprise the observable CH, NH, and OH features. We find that the fit to the NH band at 3360 A is greatly improved due to the application of the 3D-1D corrections. This may indicate that 3D effects are actually observable in this star. We also report the first detection of several weak Ni lines. The cosmologically important element Li is still not detected; the new Li upper limit is extremely low, A(Li)<0.62, and in stark contrast with results not only from WMAP but also from other metal-poor stars. We also discuss how the new corrected abundance pattern of HE 1327-2326 is being reproduced by individual and integrated yields of SNe.
Abstract: We have determined Li abundances for eleven metal-poor turn-off stars, among which eight have [Fe/H]<-3, based on LTE analyses of high-resolution spectra obtained with the HDS on the Subaru telescope. The Li abundances for four of these eight stars are determined for the first time by this study. Effective temperatures are determined by a profile analysis of H-alpha and H-beta. While seven stars have Li abundances as high as the Spite Plateau value, the remaining four objects with [Fe/H] <-3 have A(Li)=log(Li/H)+12 ~< 2.0, confirming the existence of extremely metal-poor turn-off stars having low Li abundances, as reported by previous work. The average of the Li abundances for stars with [Fe/H]<-3 is lower by 0.2 dex than that of the stars with higher metallicity. No clear constraint on the metallicity dependence or scatter of the Li abundances is derived from our measurements for the stars with [Fe/H]<-3. Correlations of the Li abundance with effective temperatures, with abundances of Na, Mg and Sr, and with the kinematical properties are investigated, but no clear correlation is seen in the extremely metal-poor star sample.
I don't know what the heck you're talking about. You asked for evidence supporting the BBT and inflation, and I pointed you directly to an accurate, accessible source, the articles in Wikipedia about the Big Bang, and cosmological inflation. Both articles are chock full of specific observational examples, complete with bibliographic references.harry wrote:Chris saidMate your statement is a cop out. People ask you for what ever evidence you know and you hide behind the skirts of the so called standard model called BBT.Sorry, that's not the way it works. The BBT represents the consensus viewpoint because most people are satisfied that the evidence is strong. They are interested when new pieces of evidence come along (as happens fairly often), but don't spend their time reiterating past tests. If you want evidence, I suggest you go to Wikipedia (which has an excellent article on the BB), or any first year college astronomy textbook, and follow the references.
