A new puzzle that Hubble has found....

Thanks for that.

As I used the same argument I have to accept the point. There is a major caveat though. If you have two competing models and one is accurate to 10% and the other to better than one part in a million, most accept the latter. Nothing to date has predicted the WMAP data so accurately.

I have heard this argument countless of times by people who can not accept that science has a more radical explanation for reality. The number of people believing something does not alter how reality works.

The problem here is that the Steady State idea was predominant before Hubble/Einstein. They, the steady state followers, are only following what the majority believed before them. As you are arguing that the (modern) majority are wrong and that dissenters are right, you are being logically inconsistent.

I've heard that argument many times, again by people who can not accept that reality is vastly more complex than they realise. The point that science is not like religion has been thrashed out many times. Simply put, science does not work that way. If some one puts forward a hypothesis that is better than the current models science listens.

If there was even a shred of truth to this assertion then Hoyle/Narlikar/Wickramasingh would not even have jobs. Let alone Hoyle being head of the Astrophysics Dept. at Cardiff Uni.

What you believe and your ideas of common sense and logic have no bearing on the nature of reality. As the Buddhists would say, you need to unlearn everything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thed

Thanks for your reply To my last post.Your arguments are completely consistand with the "beleivers' in the B B T . And
the point is, you will never covince me, and I will never convince you, of our different positions on the subject. So let us agree to disagree.
The only thing I can add, is that I beleive in 10 years from now, the S S T will win the day.

You may agree or disagree on this point of course.

Regards APOLO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apolo

My last word on the subject as such.

If my stance is consistent with the scientific method then I am doing the right thing. If the observable evidence starts supporting a steady state model then I will accept that in favour of the Big bang. Similar for any other model.

It is not that I believe in the Big Bang, I only accept it as the better model. That is a position subject to change as evidence changes.

I strongly suspect that the Big bang model is going to be heavily revised, even rewritten, as better observations come in. There are several new telescopes in developement that will allow greater detail to be gleaned. No doubt these will find something to seriously doubt current models.

Same for particle accelerators. The Inflation model relies on a Higgs type mechanism. CERN/SLAC have yet to find evidence for the original Higgs particle, the one responsible for mass. That is becoming a serious problem in modern physics.

Dark Energy may yet cause a lot of trouble.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thed
Right you are. New evidence may challence the BBT. The string theory and the speculation about branes etc, etc is gradually, moveing away from one beginning (BBT) towards something that smells like a neverending perpetual universe.
but as I have aaid before, scientists are humans and they have their pride and egoes, and that sometimes comes in the way of their objective evaluation of new discoveries. just look at Halton Arp, in his book "Seeing Red"he proved by observation at Mount Palomar, that some of the strange powerful burst of energi from (supposedly distant) galaxies was really galaxie quite close. he was barred from using the Mount Palomar telescope, because his observation did'nt agree with the BBT. He is now employed by the university of Munic in Germani, and I'm told they are happy to have him.
Regards APOLO.

 

Arp has been discussed to death elsewhere. You may want to read

These sci.astro discussions

and these sci.physics discussion

If you wish to ressurect a discussion on Arp please do so, in another thread. Bear in mind that his work is now dated and thoroughly debunked. The only people who think he has validity are usenet trolls with no understanding of details. And yes, I have a copy of "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies". Next you'll be telling me that Wal Thornhill or Jack Sarfatti are squelched by the Sekrit Cabal of Illuminati (Astrophysics division).

ïa Cthlhu, ftagn.

 

thed.
I appreciate the joke in your last line. It proves you have a sense of humor. But you know, when I read (in Scientific American) that mature galaxies have been found at a distance and time that coinsides with the time of the B B, I wonder -as do many physisists - how they would have had time to form. And when I read the latest developement in string theory with universes within universes, and the theory as a landscape of a complex multidimential mountain range with hundreds of independent directions, where quantum effects alows tunneling from one valley to annother. That when the final theory, when ever it is found, will be totally different from todays BBT of today.

REGARDS APOLO

 

BBT is no more a religion than evolution. There is a huge body of evidence in support of both. No faith required, just facts. Crackpots have become adept at using scientific objections to the lack of evidence for their goofy concepts to point out how the mainstream consensus is just as vulnerable to the same objections. The problem is the mainstream has more facts in support of theory than the pottery magicians have theories in support of facts.

 

I ceme accross a website that may be of interest to those who have doubts about the BBT.

And it is not written by cracpots.

 

sorry I forgot to name the site www.newtonphysics.on.ca

 

I suggest you read that again. They've been found at ages puzzlingly soon after the Big Bang - less than a billion years after.

Not quite conciding.

Are you sure?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think that the conclusion of mature galaxies from the very limited deep field images, especially without detailed spectrums, is inconclusive. All we have is long CCD dumps. We need a spectral exposed from space for the same length of time to be able to make any reliable assumptions about the make up of these galaxies.. This is not going to happen for some time.

 

Hum,
i suspect that the very first stars were rather big, and lived very short lives, perhaps in the space of a million years...
And i suppose that you could argue that a galaxy with stars that `shine` are mature.
So at the distance (of 750 million years after BIG bang) that these first galaxies are found, it doesn't seem that strange...

 

Hi blobrana,
I suspect that you'll find that theories of galactic development are a little more complicated than that.