Page 1 of 2
Crank Theory of the Week
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:33 am
by astro_uk
Further to the discussions that have been raging in several threads:
Origins of the UNIVERSE
Globular Clusters and why the "Big Bang" is Wrong!
etc
I thought it may be fun to have a semi regular discussion of the latest crank theories of astronomy/cosmology etc. Astronomy tends to get more than its fair share of outrageous
theories postulated by people whose motivations run from a desire for attention, simple
misunderstanding of accepted physics to more serious mental disorders that lead them
to seek out controversy. However usually its quite fun to have a look at their ideas.
I generally find that I learn more about actual physics when I have
to try to disprove something. (Of course its no point trying to explain to them theyre wrong
as their theory of a neutron star in the sun, black hole ejecta or omnipresent gods etc must be
right.)
So onto the first crank theory of the week, the most amusing Autodynamics, check out
http://www.autodynamics.org/
http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/
In brief this is just another good old fashioned "I've spotted something wrong with relativity" theory.
But my favourite bit from the website is the documentary they are trying to make check it out at:
http://www.themiracleyear.com/main/
Apparently us physicists should be afraid to walk the streets.
My second favourite bit is this "explanation" of the theory found here:
http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/Velocity%20Sum.htm
According to the Web page, the velocity sum equation in AD is:
Bsum = sqrt(1 - (1-B1^2) * (1-B2^2) * ... * (1-B3^2))
Well, I plugged in the following scenario:
B1 = 0.926 * 10^-9 = 1 km/hour B2 = 0.926 * 10^-9 = 1 km/hour
Going through the equation, I obtain:
Bsum = 1.31 * 10^-9 = 1.41 km/hour
If the velocity sum equation means anything like the velocity equation in SR, then this is telling me that if I am walking a 1 km/hour, and I see Bob pass me at 1 km/hour, then Bob is moving at 1.41 km/hour.
What' s wrong here? Is the equation misstated? Am I misinterpreting the equation (and if so, what does the equation mean)? Is AD invalid at speeds <<c? Is Bob actually moving at 1.41 km/hour and we don't realize it for some reason?
Answer: ***You are right. There is no mistake in your calculation.
Classic Mechanics give 2 km/h SR gives 1.9999 km/h AD gives 1.41 km/h
At small velocities SR is closer to Classic Mechanics, but at large and at small velocities AD conserves energy and momentum, and SR doesn't.
Basically this is rubbish, but does anyone have anything in support of this?
I'm lookin forward to Dr S. and Qevs opinions on this.
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:45 am
by cosmo_uk
Genius.
I love the maths - you can't argue with that kind of logic!!
The picture of the crank/nutcase in question which suggests that he is the next in line after Einstein, Newton and Galileo. Classic crank behaviour thinking that they are far more important than they really are.
"Authored an experiment at Stanford's Linear Accelerator in attempt to support Autodynamics theory. Results make Ricardo conclude that Autodynamics and Special Relativity cannot be compared in the experiment performed." or in other words his theory is toss
I also love the cast and production team of the movie:
* Lead:
Patricia de Hilster
* Main:
Robert de Hilster
Doris de Hilster
* Supporting:
Geoff Hunter
Michael de Hilster
Addie de Hilster
Luanda de Hilster
Crew
* Director:
David de Hilster
* Producer:
David de Hilster
* Writer:
David de Hilster
* Editors:
Andrea Tucker
Nick Tamburri
* Original Music:
tba
* Cinematographer:
David de Hilster
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:56 pm
by Qev
I'm not well-founded enough in the mathematics to really understand where Autodynamics and Relativity clash, but it's mostly the behaviour of the proponents of Autodynamics that really put up the red flags for me.
When someone with a controversial and poorly supported theory starts claiming that
every experimental result that invalidates their theory is due to experimental error or an incorrectly-designed experiment, then either every scientist on Earth (except them) is incompetent, or their theory is wrong.
I have to wonder... if neutrinos don't exist, what were the neutrino detectors detecting during observations of distant supernovae?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:53 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
Three people enter a hotel to rent a $26 room. Splitting the cost they each hand the patron a ten dollar bill, get one dollar back and leave 1 dollar as a tip.
10 X 3 = 26 + 4
9 X 3 +1 = ?
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:25 pm
by cosmo_uk
v funny Dr S. An old classic in misdirection
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:27 pm
by Martin
Next week I am going to grab my video recorder and tape my grandma who is going to say that our planet Earth is indeed the center of our universe, while she makes me a huge steak dinner. Please stay tuned.....
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:01 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
cosmo_uk wrote:v funny Dr S. An old classic in misdirection
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
And hard to catch by the unaware.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:06 am
by harry
Hello All
Re: link
http://www.autodynamics.org/main/
Vision
It is the vision of the SAA to have all science done under the predication that observation should precede theory and not visa versa. This is very different from much of physics in the 20th century, starting with relativity. We must step back from many inventions like relativity, black holes, and the big bang and start once again from solid observation to drive the physics of the 21st century. It is then and only then when we will begin to understand gravity, the sub-atomic world, and light, and produce technical advances such as gravity control, viable types of fusion, and faster-than-light speed technologies.
Rather than jumping on the wagon and rejecting what these people say.
Look at the parts.
The vision is quite logical. I have to read their info to get a better idea.
Observation should precede theory.
Relativity is another issue for interpretation.
Understanding gravity will always be an issue.
The subatomic world is an important issue in compact stars and the so called black holes and their play in recyling matter.
The definition of black hole with a singularity is a special issue in that if singularities do not exist than black holes will need to be re-defined as MECO.
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai ... %2F0602453
For the next few years I will keep an open mind.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:28 am
by Qev
Observation should preceed theory? Nonsense.
Any functional theory must account for known phenomena. But if a theory can also predict as-yet unobserved phenomena, and then those phenomena are afterwards observed, that lends a great deal of support to the theory's validity.
This is one of the reasons why relativity, for example, is such a strong theory. It made predictions that even seemed outlandish at the time, but they've all been borne out by later observations.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:58 am
by harry
Hello Qev
You say
Any functional theory must account for known phenomena. But if a theory can also predict as-yet unobserved phenomena, and then those phenomena are afterwards observed, that lends a great deal of support to the theory's validity.
yes I agree.
But where observations are in conflict with theory,,,,, observations come first. But! than again its not a golden rule.
Relativity is a strong theory, but there are issues with it and each point needs to be tested. Its not 100%.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:31 am
by cosmo_uk
Hello Harry
The reason why we scientists dismiss things like autodynamics is not because of a huge conspiracy of closed minds (which I'm sure is what they think), it is because autodynamics is just plain wrong. Get yourself an eductaion in physics and then you can also pick massive holes in other peoples crank theories, believe me its fun. Much more fun than fighting the corner of a bunch of maniacs from the "Einstein was wrong" camp. Interestingly you rarely hear any of these cranks saying scientists such as Dirac, Maxwell or Pauli " was wrong". this is because they have never heard of any scientists other than Einstein (saw a documentary once), Hawking (own an unread copy of a brief history of time) or Galileo (love the idea that people didn't believe him at first as this somehow prooves that all people who are outside of the scientific norm are correct).
Cosmo
By the way I know you are about to tell me not to have a closed mind and then post a load of other links to some dross like plasma cosmology or alien abduction or cold fusion or a perpetual motion machine so don't bother
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:12 pm
by harry
Hello Cosmo
You made me smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you read my mind.
For one thing,,,,,,,,,,,,you do not know the level of education I have.
State what is wrong.
What part of autodymics?
=========================================
As for crank theories,,,,,,,,,,,,,the big bang is the tallest. This will be proven and the is enough evidence out there to sink it. The number of people against it is growing quickly.
http://cosmologystatement.org/
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:32 pm
by astro_uk
Harry everything is wrong with Autodynamics, it fails to even reproduce the behaviour of classical mechanics, never mind matching the experimental results of GR. If we are lead by the observations as we suggest it has been uterly falsified by its inability to predict even the everyday low energy Universe.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:34 pm
by cosmo_uk
Apologies, I am not trying to play the i've got more degrees than you game and it is good for people to have an interest in astronomy regardless of their level.
I think the quote by astro in the first comment of this thread is one mathematical reason not to believe in autodynamics. I can probably come up with many more if I look into it further.
I would be interested to know what theory you prefer as you seem to be anti big bang but pro autodynamics and plasma cosmology and a number of variants. These are presumably incompatible with each other as well as the big bang.
Cosmo
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:23 pm
by harry
Hello Cosmo
Each model has something to give, some more than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not looking for models, because many in my opinion were formed when we had little info and observations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Big Bang is out,,,,,,,,,,,,very little supporting evidence.
===========================================
M (Brain)- theory,,,,,,,,,,,,,String theory is just a good story, should make a movie out of it. I saw the special on it. Lots of Bull.
==========================================
Plasma Cosmology, recycling universe is the way to go.
First by observation,,,,,star formation and galaxy evolution.
The problem with alot of papers is that they were written by BB people, as they talk about the early universe and young stars, and logic that does not work.
=====================================
Time will tell,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as soon as two years,,,,, which model will stay.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:31 pm
by cosmo_uk
so you support plasma cosmology?
so why waste our time talking about rubbish like autodynamics (a theory that is entirely unrelated)? Instead I'll go away and find numerous reasons why plasma cosmology is wrong
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:54 pm
by astro_uk
The Big Bang is out,,,,,,,,,,,,very little supporting evidence.
I think we should all be very grateful that we have a towering intellect like Harry here, us little people could surely never get by if we didnt have Harry here to point out that the opinions of many thousands of very clever people who have devoted their lives to looking at this issue, years of research, dozens of independent lines of evidence, countless thousands of experimental verifications, and millions of journal articles only add up to ",,,,,,,,,,,,very little supporting evidence." I guess one Universe isnt enough eh?
He does it so effortlessly too, no proof, no contradictions of any observed evidence and certainly no grasp of what he's talking about.
Excuse me I'm off to push Creationism because there is so little evidence for evolution.
Then maybe ill sort out those pesky people that have some crazy idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, there is definitely very little supporting evidence for that. I mean just look up, its obvious.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:41 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
Time will tell,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as soon as two years,,,,, which model will stay.
_________________
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Two more years until you prostrate in submission? !!!!
I think you're a faster learner than that.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:04 pm
by harry
Hello AStro and Mr Skeptic
If you think that the Big Bang has any legs to stand on, show me the evidence and not some hoo hah info.
A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
Abstract
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7s from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2s level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large scale structures and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.
The dominant theory of cosmology, the Big Bang, is contradicted by observation, and has been for some time. The theory's predictions of light element abundance, large-scale structure, the age of the universe and the cosmic background radiation(CBR) are in clear contradiction with massive observational evidence, using almost any standard criteria for scientific validity. This situation is not new. In 1992, I reviewed these contradictions[1], and concluded that theory had already been clearly falsified. Since that time, the evidence against the Big Bang has only strengthened.
There is a second framework for cosmology--plasma cosmology. This approach, which assumes no origin in time for the universe and no hot, ultradense phase of universal evolution, uses the known laws of electromagnetism and the phenomena of plasma behavior to explain the main features of the universe. It was pioneered by Hannes Alfven, Carl-Gunne Falthammar and others [2-4] and has been developed since then by a small group of researchers including the present author and A.L. Peratt [5-13]. In contrast to the predictions of the Big Bang, which have been continuously falsified by observation, the predictions of plasma cosmology have continued to be verified.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade.
Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis
In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.
Large Scale Structure and Voids
The large scale structure of the universe is inhomogeneous at all scales that have been observed[31]. In particular, galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These void typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[32].
These vast structures pose acute problems for the Big Bang theory, for there simply is not enough time to form them in the hypothesized 14 Gy since the Big Bang, given the observed velocities of galaxies in the present-day universe. Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies indicate average velocities around 200-250km/sec[33-34]. The well-known smoothness of the Hubble relation also indicates intrinsic velocities in this same range, as do the observation of relatively narrow filaments of galaxies in redshift-space, which would be widened by high intrinsic velocities.
Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[35]. An average particle will have to move d= D/8 Mpc, where D is the diameter of the void. For void diameters of 170Mpc, d=21Mpc. For a final galaxy velocity of 220km/sec, travel time would be 87Gy or 6.3H-1, the assumed time since the Big Bang, taking this to be 13.7Gy. Of course this is a crude estimate, since in the Big Bang theory, distances to be covered would be smaller early in the universe's history, reducing travel time. On the other hand, no physical process could produce instantaneous velocities, so velocities would also presumably be smaller in the past. This is especially true if acceleration is by gravitational attraction, since time would have to pass before substantial gravitational concentrations are built up from assumed homogenous initial conditions of the Big Bang
IV. The Cosmic Background Radiation
Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR.
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%.
Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect[5,7].
IV Why is the Big Bang still dominant?
All the basic predictions of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly refuted by observation. The theory is now cluttered with a multiplying collection of ad-hoc hypotheses, such as the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter and dark energy, for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, continued discovery of more ordinary matter in the form of white dwarfs and diffuse plasma clouds has further decreased the ability of theorists to claim that there is far more matter detected by gravitational attraction than can be accounted for by ordinary matter[43].
Currently there are at least eight known contradictions between theory and observation: the abundances of 4He, 3He, and 7Li are too low; there is too much dispersion in the high-z value of D abundances; the halo white dwarfs would have produced too much helium; the voids are far too large and old; there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of cold dark mater; and there is evidence for absorption of long wavelength radiation in the IGM. Yet in no cases are these contradiction viewed as reasons for questioning the Big Bang theory.
In many cases, every effort is made to either attack or manipulate the data so as to reduce the contradiction with theory. For example, in the early '90's He abundances were measured as relatively low, implying (given BBN) a high primordial value of D abundance. But when later observations showed that D abundances in high-Z objects were low, the quoted value for He abundance mysteriously began to move upwards, ultimately by five to ten standard deviations, so as to minimize the contradiction with theory, even if this required the arbitrary elimination of data from the samples.
When data manipulation failed, even the most blunt contradictions of theory and observation are viewed by Big Bang advocates as, at most, the indications of "new physics", new parameters. For example, Pebbles, in considering the void phenomenon, admits that there is an "apparent inconsistency between theory and observation", but does not conclude that theory is in any way imperiled[44], rather only that an "adjustment of the model" may be necessary. Similarly, Cyburt et al[15] conclude that there are "clear contradictions" between BBN predictions and light element abundances, but conclude that "systematic uncertainties have been underestimated", not that the theory is wrong'
It is amazing how people hold onto a theory with such emotion.
The question is. Why??????????
The Big Bang people see evidence and just ingnore the observations.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... o.htm#cos1
http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/DidTheU ... inning.htm
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:
1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Quasa ... susFar.asp
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
Note the list of people who do not think much about the Big Bang.
The above link.
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones.
At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined.
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology.
I can show you a flood of papers against the Big Bang. But! if you have a closed mind, it serves no purpose.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:34 am
by Dr. Skeptic
It is amazing how people hold onto a theory with such emotion.
The question is. Why??????????
The Big Bang people see evidence and just ingnore the observations.
I could ask you that question.
I have already shown you ignore observation.
I have shown you ignore math.
You have already posted a flood of papers, you have been informed of their errors and flawed scientific deductions.
PS. Being right for the wrong reasons is still being wrong.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:02 am
by harry
Hello Dr Skeptic
You make false statements and hope that others will accept your info.
So be it.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:14 am
by astro_uk
Harry you certainly are one long lived Troll.
As I patiently pointed out your list of 10 "problems" with the BB are all false, anyone whos interested check out Origins of the Universe.
You have not rebutted my corrections and continue to post what you now know to be false, that sounds like someone who has some sort of agenda unrelated to facts as far as I can tell.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:49 am
by harry
Hello Astro
I tried to look at an issue of importance, but you are trying to avoid the issue and just sit on the fence line.
I will come back after further discussions with Professor Oliver Manuel.
In the mean time try to read his papers. If you think that this is a crank, you are mistaken.
I'm starting to think that you lack the knowledge to understand the great issues here.
As for being a TROLL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,smile
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:12 am
by harry
Hello Astro
Response from Professor Oliver Manuel
> Hello Oliver
>
> I have read your paper. You have done well. I'm also
reading other papers from you.
>
>
I have many questions, here are some.
>
>
What is the Trigger that starts the Supernova?
NOBODY KNOWS. WE KNOW SUPERNOVA OCCUR. THE SIMPLE
PICTURE WE PROPOSED IN 1975 IS PROBABLY AS GOOD/BAD AS
ANY OTHER MODEL
>
Where does the energy come from to explode the solar
envelope?
PERHAPS SELF-SUSTAINING FUSION, LIKE IN A HYDROGEN
BOMB. WE KNOW RAPID NEUTRON CAPTURE MAKES
TRANS-URANIUM ELEMENTS AND THE NEUTRON-RICH ISOTOPES
OF OTHER ELEMENTS (XE-136, ETC) ABOVE IRON. WE ALSO
KOW THAT THE P-PROCESS MAKES PROTON-RICH ISOTOPES
(XE-124, ETC) IN THE EXPLOSION. BOTH PROCESSES
REQUIRE LIGHT ELEMENTS AS FUEL. THE EXPLOSION
EXPOSES A NEUTRON STAR, BUT MAY NOT MAKE IT BY
GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE AT THE TIME OF THE EXPLOSION
(AS WE ONCE THOUGHT).
>The existing inner core ultra dense matter does it
> completely run out or is there some equilibrium
point, so as to provide a seed for a mechanism
> to collect neutrons during the supernova? As in a rejuvenation
> process.
WE HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. WE KNOW NEUTRON
STARS ARE SEEN NEAR THE CENTER OF SUPERNOVA DEBRIS. I
NOW THINK MOST STARS HAVE THE NEUTRON STAR THERE AND
THE EXPLOSION SIMPLY EXPOSES IT.
> I need to take it step by step, so that each part
> can be explained.
REMEMBER THAT IT IS OKAY TO NOT KNOW. SCIENCE IS
ALWAYS EVOLVING. HAVING THE ANSWER TO ALL QUESTIONS
IS A KEY INDICATOR OF BAD SCIENCE.
> I know that fusion makes up many of the light
> elements up to Iron and Nickel. What process makes
the heavier elements?
YOU ARE RIGHT. FUSION MAKES ELEMENTS UP TO
IRON/NICKEL. AS THIS IS OCCURRING, A STAR EVOLVES
OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS, AND THE S-PROCESS (SLOW
NEUTRON-CAPTURE) MAKES THE MIDDLE ISOTOPES OF ELEMENTS
UP TO BI-209 (INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE XE-128, XE-129,
XE-130, XE-131, AND XE-132). AT THE TIME OF THE
SUPERNOVA, THE R-PROCESS (RAPID NEUTRON CAPTURE) MAKES
THE ACTINIDE ELEMENTS (TH, U, PU, ETC) AND THE HEAVY
ISOTOPES OF THE ELEMENTS ABOVE IRON (E.G., XE-134,
XE-136). AT THE SAME TIME THE LIGHTEST ISOTOPES OF
ELEMENTS ABOVE IRON ARE MADE BY THE P-PROCESS (PROTON
CAPTURE, E.G., XE-124 AND XE-126).
THE R-PROCESS AND THE P-PROCESS OCCUR IN THE
ENVELOPES. THESE PRODUCTS ARE LINKED WITH LIGHT
ELEMENTS LIKE H, HE, C IN METEORITES AND IN PLANETS
(JUPITER).
> I have my thoughts on the above.
YOU MAY WANT TO READ AT LEAST THE INTRODUCTION TO THE
1957 PAPER BY BURBIDGE, BURBIDGE, FOWLER AND HOYLE,
"THE SYNTHESIS OF ELEMENTS IN STARS"
LEO TOLSTOY'S QUOTE FOR AUG 22 IS FROM LUCY MALORY:
"FALSE SCIENCE AND FALSE RELIGION EXPRESS THEIR DOGMAS
IN HIGHLY ELEVATED LANGUAGE TO MAKE SIMPLE PEOPLE
THINK THEY ARE MYSTERIOUS, IMPORTANT, AND ATTRACTIVE."
> PS: Yes the Big Bang is Bull. But! 95% of people
> that I speak to use it as a standard model and they
become agro and try to support the theory
> with fantasy ideas.
EXACTLY RIGHT. I WILL SEND A COPY OF THIS MESSAGE TO
MY GOOD FRIEND IN SOUTH AFRICA, HILTON RATCLIFFE, WHO
IS WRITING A BOOK THAT CORRECTS MUCH OF THE FALSE
NONSENSE OF MODERN ASTRONOMY AND COSMOLOGY!
Astro there is another response that is coming, on the information that I posted on the previous posts.
I'm also contacting NASA on the link posted by ?? Qev I think. OOPs no it was Pete.
There are questions that I have and cannot be answered. That does not mean I will give up. Even if you think I'm a TROLL,,,,,,,,,,smile
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:50 am
by astro_uk
Fine Harry, perhaps you could ask him a few questions from us?
If all stars form around Supernovae remnants, how did the first stars form?
If all normal (i.e average ~1 Msun stars) form around supernovae remnants why are there vastly more lower mass stars than large ones?
My guess for that one is that he will suggest that there were more larger mass stars in the past, this is of course not what we see in the distant Universe, but never mind. If this is the contention how do we reconcile the observed element enhancement ratios (things like the metallicity [Z/H] and the [alpha/Fe] ratio) which demonstrate that spiral galaxies have a prolonged star formation, at a fairly steady rate (for the last several Gyr) with an IMF (initial mass function of stars) that is not top heavy (i.e most stars formed at any time are lower mass stars and therefore incapable of becoming a SN themselves).
Now that there is no solar neutrino problem what does this theory have to stand on?
The theory states that planets form from material from the progenitor star (as in figure 1) after the SN, but that they somehow retain knowledge of the types of elements present where their orbits were within the progenitor star. This is supposed to explain why terrestial planets are closer to the Sun and gas planets further away, due to mass segregation in the progenitor star. This is despite the fact that the SN has totally mixed the envelope of the star, and spread the material over several LY. How does the thoroughly mixed material know where to separate itself out into?
The minimum mass of a neutron star formed in a conventional SN is 1.4 x that of the Sun, no neutron stars with a mass of less than this has ever been observed how is this reconciled?
Assume that you can form a neutron star smaller than 1.4xMsun though. A neutron star of say 90% of the mass of the Sun would have a radius of ~10km, meaning the density of the outer layers of the Sun must be far below what is measured by Helioseismology or any other method. How is this reconciled?
I have many more but Ill wait for the responses, cheers.