Starship Asterisk*

From 'Science News' magazine - Oct 25/08, Page 12.

'Galaxy clusters slide to the south'.

700 clusters are measured as 'flowing' from all directions at 1000 ks per second in a southerly direction towards one particular spot. If the Big Bang were fact, the clusters would all be running away from each other. So .. instead of questioning whether the Big Bang really happened, some scientists are so blindsided by faith in their favourite theory of Big Bang that they account for the slide by possible "random energy fluctuations in the earliest split second after the big bang". Of course there will be random energy flucutations in an explosion.

One possible explanation? The same magazine contains an article about supermassive black holes .. yet the two articles do not take each other into consideration. Too much specialization can result in black holes not allowing information out.

Does the Slide fit into the Plasma theory of creation of the universe, with flowing currents of energy, these currents possibly having the potential of carrying 700 galaxy clusters in a 'slide' - in a 'flow'??

Galaxies on the move
By Davide Castelvecchi

Science News
October 25th, 2008
Vol 174 #9 (p 12)

Scientists detect a mysterious flow of galactic clusters

A newly discovered “dark flow” appears to carry clusters of galaxies toward a point in the southern sky, a new study suggests.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... n_the_move

FOR KIDS: Galaxies on the go

By Susan Gaidos
November 4th, 2008
Science News

Millions of stars are mysteriously racing toward one point in the sky

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... _on_the_go

Sputnick wrote:700 clusters are measured as 'flowing' from all directions at 1000 ks per second in a southerly direction towards one particular spot. If the Big Bang were fact, the clusters would all be running away from each other.

Again, the Big Bang theory does not require that either galaxies or galaxy clusters be moving apart. The actual relative velocities between objects depends also on the initial velocities of their precursor regions during the very early Universe, and on their relative gravitational attraction. This observation of large scale movement provides additional information about the early Universe. It in no way argues against the Big Bang at all- indeed, it adds support for the standard cosmological model. That's why no scientists are using this observation to question the Big Bang theories.

Does the Slide fit into the Plasma theory of creation of the universe, with flowing currents of energy, these currents possibly having the potential of carrying 700 galaxy clusters in a 'slide' - in a 'flow'??

No. There really isn't such a thing as a "plasma theory of creation". The idea of electric currents and plasmas having wide influence on the structure of the Universe was explored decades ago, but has since been rather solidly disproven. These theories utterly fail to explain actual observations. Very few scientists waste their time on these theories anymore, and even the few that continue to explore the effects of plasmas admit that the Big Bang theory is a much better fit to reality.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:700 clusters are measured as 'flowing' from all directions at 1000 ks per second in a southerly direction towards one particular spot. If the Big Bang were fact, the clusters would all be running away from each other.

Again, the Big Bang theory does not require that either galaxies or galaxy clusters be moving apart. The actual relative velocities between objects depends also on the initial velocities of their precursor regions during the very early Universe, and on their relative gravitational attraction. This observation of large scale movement provides additional information about the early Universe. It in no way argues against the Big Bang at all- indeed, it adds support for the standard cosmological model. That's why no scientists are using this observation to question the Big Bang theories.

Did you even read the article? It says the slide raises huge problems with current understanding. And Chris .. you weren't around in your 'early universe' so you know nothing about it except what you've been brainwashed into thinking what might have happened. Your statements are all so 'solid' and 'factual' when you really know nothing more than someone looking outside at a starry sky. B.S. (Brainwashing Scholastics) does not baffle my brain.)

Does the Slide fit into the Plasma theory of creation of the universe, with flowing currents of energy, these currents possibly having the potential of carrying 700 galaxy clusters in a 'slide' - in a 'flow'??

No. There really isn't such a thing as a "plasma theory of creation". The idea of electric currents and plasmas having wide influence on the structure of the Universe was explored decades ago, but has since been rather solidly disproven. These theories utterly fail to explain actual observations. Very few scientists waste their time on these theories anymore, and even the few that continue to explore the effects of plasmas admit that the Big Bang theory is a much better fit to reality.

Read some more, Chris, 'The Electric Universe' is on the web. Still - this is an interesting study of human nature. I see you have your own telescope? Nice.

Sputnick wrote:Did you even read the article? It says the slide raises huge problems with current understanding.

Exactly. Nearly every new scientific observation does that. "Raising problems with current understanding" does not even remotely mean that there are any flaws in current theory. What it usually means is that we have an opportunity to refine our theories and to fill in detail. And in this case, everything points to our lack of a complete understanding of the inflationary period. Observations like this (if they hold up to scrutiny, which isn't certain) allow for a better understanding of a component of basic theory that is currently in need of improvement. There's nothing about it all that argues against the Big Bang in general.

And Chris .. you weren't around in your 'early universe' so you know nothing about it except what you've been brainwashed into thinking what might have happened.

There's no issue of brainwashing. It is simply rational, critical thinking. It makes sense to place high confidence in theories that do a good job of explaining what we observe (e.g. the standard cosmological model) and very low confidence in those that don't, or aren't even testable (e.g. plasma cosmology, electric universe).

Read some more, Chris, 'The Electric Universe' is on the web.

There's nothing to read. Nearly every aspect of this theory has been discredited, and what's left fails to predict most of our observations. I won't go so far as some and call it "non-science", but it is not good science, and it has rightly been relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. If somebody actually proposes something viable, I'll read it. Until then, why waste my time?

Chris - you've been hopelessly brainwashed and there is no hope for helping you see the light .. so .. it's been nice talking to you .. adieu.

Sputnick wrote:... 'The Electric Universe' is on the web ...

Yes, it is! < Electric Universe > - Official site of the psychedelic trance producers from Germany

Sputnick wrote:Chris - you've been hopelessly brainwashed and there is no hope for helping you see the light .. so .. it's been nice talking to you .. adieu.

Since this is a scientific forum, allow me to offer some advice on how a scientific discussion is conducted, taking the current topic as an example.

You appear to have a problem with the standard model, which is very widely accepted. That's fine, but you need to understand that in challenging a dominant theory, you assume a burden of demonstration. First, that means you need to clearly state what it is you take issue with, and specifically why. For instance, "I don't find the Big Bang theory convincing because it fails to predict our observations of [something specific]", or, "I don't find the Big Bang theory convincing because [some specific observation] contradicts [some specific component of the theory]." All the better if you can provide references that support exactly these points.

You also wish to argue in support of a theory that is not well accepted. Again, fine. But again, you assume a burden of demonstration. You need to compare your theory with the standard theory, and you need to do it critically. "I believe the Electric Universe theory is stronger than the Big Bang theory because it explains [specific observation], which the Big Bang theory does not".

If you cannot discuss your beliefs in this format, you will not be taken seriously. Accusing those who disagree with you of being "brainwashed" is not productive, but does serve to discredit you, and therefore your opinions. Ad hominem attacks are a hallmark of the pseudoscientist.

Telling those who disagree with you to educate themselves about the theory you are supporting is not productive. It is your job to provide that education, not everyone else's job to go out and try to figure out what sources you are using.

Providing references without explaining exactly what point you are using them to support is not productive. You cannot expect those who disagree with you to read multiple papers in an attempt to figure out what you are basing your arguments on.

If you can follow these guidelines, it will be possible to have constructive discussions about scientific topics that are out of the mainstream. Otherwise, best to leave your opinions at home.

Applause! Standing Ovation!

All good points, and very well stated.

Thanks, Chris

Right .. let's burn those people with new ideas at the stake .. in the name of science or religion it doesn't matter as long as the flames are hot. Smell their flesh burning?

There's another thread, in this forum, that I'd encourage you to participate in Sputnick. It goes under the inelegant title of "Café posts split from Stormy Lagoon Nebula (19Oct)", and a post you wrote is contained in the OP.

In any case, I urge you to concentrate on the specific observations that the paper you indirectly mentioned in the OP of this thread builds on, the Kashlinsky et al. paper itself, papers (or preprints) which present different explanations of the same (or similar) underlying observations, ... or engage in a discussion on how your ideas of the nature of astronomy, as science, differ from those of astronomers such as Kashlinsky.

Chris, Nereid, Bystander ..

First of all Chris you should not be objecting to how people respond in this forum unless the posts are objectionable according to the rules of respect for others, language, etc. Your formulas of response are your own, not mine.

Secondly, there seems to be animosity here, the group who adheres to the Big Bang having true animosity towards anyone who presents suggestions that the Big Bang is mere theory and not fact. Why such animosity? I suggest it is because new discoveries are casting huge doubts on the Big Bang ever having happened, and supporters of the Big Bang becoming fatigued with groping for new explanations to fit the new discoveries into the Big Bang picture. I have no animosity towards you believing in the Big Bang .. my animosity comes from reading terms like "garbage" being thrown at another person's views when expressing his doubt that the Big Bang happened .. and also being criticized by administration for comparing this name calling and condemnation to the historical fact of people being burned at the stake for expressing unorthodox scientific and religious views. Let's be honest .. none of us have the whole picture, and we can only learn from each other through respect for each other's person and right to express their ideas. I have admitted a few times on the forum that I am not a scientist and do not speak scientific language .. but I did have a 160 to 170 IQ in high school and that measure allows me a certain respect for my own observations and conclusions and musings .. and tells me that I may be able to learn from others, and that their ideas may be affected by mine. Let's keep this fun as well as informative, please .. learning should be a beautiful experience, not a war.

bystander wrote:

Sputnick wrote:... 'The Electric Universe' is on the web ...

Yes, it is! < Electric Universe > - Official site of the psychedelic trance producers from Germany

Bystander - this is another example of derision and condemnation of ideas which do not fit orthodox views. I'm surprised at you. Germany? Do you mean the same Germany that was so far ahead of British and U.S. technology that they would probably have a manned base on Mars today if they weren't destroyed by WW2, resulting in their scientists being split between the U.S. and Russia, and affording those countries their space programs? That Germany? Orthodoxy is a Black Hole into which new ideas are sucked before being explored .. crushed, destroyed, but eventually emerging as jet streams of power and knowledge.

Sputnick wrote:Chris, Nereid, Bystander ..

First of all Chris you should not be objecting to how people respond in this forum unless the posts are objectionable according to the rules of respect for others, language, etc. Your formulas of response are your own, not mine.

No, they are the universally accepted rules for reasoned discussion. I'm not objecting to your posts, I'm simply pointing out that it's in your own interest to adopt this formula if you want to be taken seriously. I would think it is important to you that your points be made successfully (I know it's important to me). If you adopt a presentation style that doesn't work for others, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Secondly, there seems to be animosity here, the group who adheres to the Big Bang having true animosity towards anyone who presents suggestions that the Big Bang is mere theory and not fact.

I think you are misreading things. The animosity is towards those who refuse to follow the rules of reasoned discussion. And that's because those who don't do so have adopted the style of pseudoscientists. I'm not saying you are a pseudoscientist, but if you don't observe the norms of scientific discussion, how are we to know otherwise? And I do believe- strongly- that pseudoscience deserves animosity, and that it has no place in this forum.

With respect to the Big Bang, the actual evidence that it happened is overwhelming. That is not just my opinion, but is the opinion even of the small number of scientists pursuing other theories. There is certainly not an increasing body of evidence arguing against it- just the opposite. As I stated earlier, this means that arguments against it need to articulated very carefully if they are to be taken seriously. That's just the way things work, and it doesn't matter if you like that or not. If you want others here to invest the effort in trying to understand the ideas you put forward, I'd strongly advise the discussion style I proposed earlier.

Like I said already Chris, you're too 'firm in your opinion' to receive any ideas outside of your collective of the Big Bang mentality. Also .. you try to convert others to your image of communication .. your 'presentation style' rather than allowing freedom .. so I have no further wish to discuss these things on this thread with you, and I will sign out of this discussion. Thanks for your time. Goodbye.

Sputnick wrote:... 'The Electric Universe' is on the web ...

bystander wrote:Yes, it is! < Electric Universe > - Official site of the psychedelic trance producers from Germany

Sputnick wrote:Bystander - this is another example of derision and condemnation of ideas which do not fit orthodox views. I'm surprised at you. Germany? Do you mean the same Germany that was so far ahead of British and U.S. technology that they would probably have a manned base on Mars today if they weren't destroyed by WW2, resulting in their scientists being split between the U.S. and Russia, and affording those countries their space programs? That Germany? Orthodoxy is a Black Hole into which new ideas are sucked before being explored .. crushed, destroyed, but eventually emerging as jet streams of power and knowledge.

No derision or condemnation, just a little levity. Lighten up, sputnick. Apparently Electric Universe is the name of a German psytrance (electronic music) project. Google returns their home page as the second link in a search on 'Electric Universe'.

xkcd.com - A WebComic - Dark Flow

Google Search: Dark Flow

Why would nature (or whoever) spend effort assembling a singularity into which all the matter of the universe is packed - when a simple quantum fluctuation could create everything out of nothing? Nature always (or almost always) takes the easy path.

Another observation - granted that I live in a small town of only 70,000 people having only one university and one college.. but the public llibrary seems to have no books which even consider theories of cosmology outside the Big Bang .. and it took a whole week reading seven books written by PHDs before I even found that the universe could be created out of nothing by a quantum fluctuation (Pascual Jordan). In the same way that Vera Rubin's paper on the sideways motion of galaxies (1954) was rejected by every top journal until 15 years later when it was used by Gerard de Vaucouleurs to prove the Milky Way and neighbours are moving towards a larger cluster .. so too do I see a huge 'conspiracy' to bury any idea other than Big Bang. I don't think science benefits by suppression.

Sputnick wrote:Another observation - granted that I live in a small town of only 70,000 people having only one university and one college.. but the public llibrary seems to have no books which even consider theories of cosmology outside the Big Bang .. and it took a whole week reading seven books written by PHDs before I even found that the universe could be created out of nothing by a quantum fluctuation (Pascual Jordan). In the same way that Vera Rubin's paper on the sideways motion of galaxies (1954) was rejected by every top journal until 15 years later when it was used by Gerard de Vaucouleurs to prove the Milky Way and neighbours are moving towards a larger cluster .. so too do I see a huge 'conspiracy' to bury any idea other than Big Bang. I don't think science benefits by suppression.

I sympathize with the plight of a curious mind in a town with an inadequate library. Every library I've known has come up short, and I've tried quite a few. Though some are heads and shoulders above the rest. Surely it's a matter of budget as well as the selection process for material. The librarian can't review everything, nor can the purchaser, nor can the publisher (though getting your idea published is the traditional hard point to get past).

But think of the mighty blow the internet and google have dealt to establishment conspiracies with regard to controlling what gets published. A quick search returned:

215,000 results for Pascual Jordan
453,000 results for quantum fluctuation
1,430 results for quantum fluctuation Pascual Jordan
184,000 results for Vera Rubin
10,900 results for Gerard de Vaucouleurs

If somebody is trying to keep these people and topics a secret, they are doing a poor job. Anyone can publish their idea inexpensively if not free on the internet, and search engines will find it. If I put three unusual terms in this post today, the whole world will be able to find my post by those terms next week. And that's a fact.

So our problem is not finding out more about these people and topics once we've heard of them - it's finding about them to begin with from many sources (libraries, book stores, magazines, newspapers, radio, tv, whatever media there are), and all I can tell you is that purchasers and distributors deal in volume and ignore what's out of the mainstream. We just don't have shelf space in our tiny convenience store for your favorite variation of caffeine-free diet lime vanilla soda, and all the other stores are the same way - did you try ordering online?

So it's back to the internet. It won't get us the ultimate depth in every topic (we'll have to go dig elsewhere), but it is the best thing ever invented for helping us find where to dig. Hyperlinks are the conspiracy buster. Just keep clicking, and they can't repress us any more.

P.S. I'm sure you've noticed: The internet is now in the library. Kind of cheating on their part, nonetheless beneficial.

But if a library is going to put science books on its shelves, I prefer a substantial proportion of textbooks among all the books that are published to try to promote authors' ideas. Textbooks are not immune from authors' bias either, but at least they have a better chance of telling it straight.

apodman wrote: I sympathize with the plight of a curious mind in a town with an inadequate library. Every library I've known has come up short, and I've tried quite a few. Though some are heads and shoulders above the rest. Surely it's a matter of budget as well as the selection process for material. The librarian can't review everything, nor can the purchaser, nor can the publisher (though getting your idea published is the traditional hard point to get past).

But think of the mighty blow the internet and google have dealt to establishment conspiracies with regard to controlling what gets published. A quick search returned:

215,000 results for Pascual Jordan
453,000 results for quantum fluctuation
1,430 results for quantum fluctuation Pascual Jordan
184,000 results for Vera Rubin
10,900 results for Gerard de Vaucouleurs

If somebody is trying to keep these people and topics a secret, they are doing a poor job. Anyone can publish their idea inexpensively if not free on the internet, and search engines will find it. If I put three unusual terms in this post today, the whole world will be able to find my post by those terms next week. And that's a fact.

So our problem is not finding out more about these people and topics once we've heard of them - it's finding about them to begin with from many sources (libraries, book stores, magazines, newspapers, radio, tv, whatever media there are), and all I can tell you is that purchasers and distributors deal in volume and ignore what's out of the mainstream. We just don't have shelf space in our tiny convenience store for your favorite variation of caffeine-free diet lime vanilla soda, and all the other stores are the same way - did you try ordering online?

So it's back to the internet. It won't get us the ultimate depth in every topic (we'll have to go dig elsewhere), but it is the best thing ever invented for helping us find where to dig. Hyperlinks are the conspiracy buster. Just keep clicking, and they can't repress us any more.

P.S. I'm sure you've noticed: The internet is now in the library. Kind of cheating on their part, nonetheless beneficial.

Good points, Apodman. I'd appreciate your comments on my new cafe topic - Infinity.

I just read that Technetium has a half life of 2 million years .. "far shorter than the age and life expectancy of the stars in which we observe it." ('peculiar' Red Giants. To me this is another example that the current 'concensus' if there is one, supporting Big Bang and theorized ages of stars and universe, is based on supposition rather than observation.

Sputnick wrote:I just read that Technetium has a half life of 2 million years .. "far shorter than the age and life expectancy of the stars in which we observe it." ('peculiar' Red Giants. To me this is another example that the current 'concensus' if there is one, supporting Big Bang and theorized ages of stars and universe, is based on supposition rather than observation.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Technetium stars are seen as evidence supporting the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis- in fact, their discovery provided the first direct evidence of the formation of heavy elements from lighter ones inside stars. There's really no connection between the BBT and the existence of technetium in stars.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:I just read that Technetium has a half life of 2 million years .. "far shorter than the age and life expectancy of the stars in which we observe it." ('peculiar' Red Giants. To me this is another example that the current 'concensus' if there is one, supporting Big Bang and theorized ages of stars and universe, is based on supposition rather than observation.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Technetium stars are seen as evidence supporting the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis- in fact, their discovery provided the first direct evidence of the formation of heavy elements from lighter ones inside stars. There's really no connection between the BBT and the existence of technetium in stars.

If the age of the Red Giants has been measured accurately as astrophysicists say it has, and if the age of the universe has been measured accurately as it is said to have been, then there should be no technitium remaining in those Red Giants .. therefore, the ages have been measured wrong to a huge, huge, huge degree. Perhaps the universe is only 6,777 years old after all (just kidding about the last part of this post).