Desperate denial of General Relativity by The God

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The God, Jun 4, 2016.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    IMO there is no need to propose a new model to find issues with the existing one.

    It helps but not necessary. Secondly they are certainly not fools or senile...they have raised their voice for some reason.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    I recognized Eric Lerner's name and knew where to find that page. Did some research on the others.
    No, you only need a conflict between predictions of the model and observational data to find problems with a model. I found such data problems with everything I could find your group of 33 proposed. They have not found such problems with Big Bang cosmology.

    But the only reason I know who some of these people are is because they did propose a model and in Eric Lerner's case published a pop science book about it before answering the question of "is it better."

    But because their models weren't better, they didn't have a rational, communicable or scientific reason to.

    We've only got one universe to study, so it stands to reason that ultimately there will be only one physics and one cosmology and that any schisms that develop between advocacy of different models will be decided by empirical observation. But when the empirical observations exist debunking your hypothesis before you publish, one questions how you are doing science.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Desperation times continue!
    Note: During the Hitler regime, there was a book published called " 101 Author's against Einstein"[or words to that effect]
    Einstein retorted, "If I was wrong, one would be enough"!

    PS: I have also read the book by Eric J Lerner, "The BB NEVER Happened" and it was totally rebuffed by 3 professionals on an old defunct forum I took part in.
    Halton Arp also has a less then reputable reputation.
    Bondi, and Gold were also the proponents of Steady State theory, along with Fred Hoyle.
    While some of those did certainly have professional credentials, they also had agendas.
    Hoyle disliked the BB simply because he was an Atheist and disliked any theory that proposed a beginning or event that could be construed as a creation event.
    The others though like Lerner were obviously cranks and Mavericks. Lerner was a proponent of the Electric/Plasma Universe hypothesis.
    Obviously also many you mentioned and the article in general is somewhat dated.

    And while actual science certainly does not rest on consensus, and weight of numbers, it does rest on the simple premise of the evidence and observational data, without any preconceived ideas that may blinker the interpretation.
    On those grounds, the BB, like GR, rests on solid ground.

    Yes, Dissent for dissent's sake.
    With all due respect the god, , you need to do much better.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2016
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Errors in some popular attacks on the Big Bang
    Errors in Irving Segal's Chronometric Cosmology
    Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"
    Errors in tired light models
    Errors in the Steady State and QSSC Models
    Eddington did not predict the CMB
    Please note that non-inclusion on this page does not mean that a theory is correct. Only erroneous theories by famous authors or authors that have been particularly annoying (to me) are listed. For each theory debunked here there are a hundred more that are totally crazy, but I don't have the time or the inclination to debunk all of them.
    Sean Carroll
    Saturday, May 29, 2004
    Pharyngula fame has pointed me to an online petition that was apparently first published in New Scientist. No, it's not complaining about the Bush administration making a travesty of science (although David Appell points to one of those, too); it's about the terrible dominance of the Big Bang model.

    The complaints are not new. The Big Bang just rubs some people the wrong way, and they won't believe in it no matter how many successes it accumulates. Some of the disbelief stems from religious conviction, but in other cases it seems to be a particular kind of philosophical outlook. Most of the skeptics, of course, have their own favorite alternatives. The most popular is undoubtedly the Steady-State model (or one of its increasingly twisted modern incarnations), but there is also something called the "plasma cosmology", championed by the late Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven. (His Nobel was for plasma physics, not cosmology; and the fact that he was Swedish didn't hurt.) If you want to know in detail why the various alternatives are wrong, Ned Wright tells you.

    Here is the kind of thing the petition says:What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.Really? How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves? These are just the very quantitative predictions that have come true in the last few years; the Big Bang has had a long history of many observational successes. (This is a very incomplete list; usually one doesn't pay much attention to straightforward tests of the Big Bang framework, since they are taken for granted.)

    But here is the important issue, again from the petition:Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.Something actually interesting is being raised here: at what point does a scientific theory become so well-established that it's no longer worth listening to alternatives?

    There's no easy answer. Scientific theories are never "proven" correct; they simply gather increasing evidence in their favor, until consideration of alternatives becomes a waste of time. Even then, they are typically only considered correct in some domain. Einstein's general relativity, for example, works very well in a certain regime, but that doesn't stop us from consideringalternatives that may be relevant outside that regime.

    So, shouldn't we devote a certain fraction of our scientific resources, or our high-school and secondary curricula, to considering alternatives to the Big Bang, or for that matter Darwinian evolution? No. Simply because resources are finite, and we have to use them the best we can. It is conceivable in principle that the basics of the Big Bang model (an expanding universe that was much hotter and denser in the past) are somehow wrong, but the chances are so infinitesimally small that it's just not worth the bother. If individual researchers would like to pursue a non-Big-Bang line, they are welcome to do so; that's what tenure is for, to allow people to work out ideas that others think are a waste of time. But the community is under no obligation to spend its money supporting them. And yes, young people who disbelieve in the Big Bang are unlikely to get invited to speak at major conferences, or get permanent jobs at research universities. Likewise astrophysicists who believe in astrology, or medical doctors who use leeches to fight cancer. Just because scientific claims are never proven with metaphysical certainty doesn't mean we can't ever reach a conclusion and move on.

    And to be sure, the alternatives to the Big Bang are just silly. Usually I try to keep my intellectual disagreements on the level of reasoned debate, rather than labeling people I disagree with as "dumb" (that I reserve for the President); but in this case I have to make an exception. They just aren't, for the most part, very smart. Consider this quote by Eric Lerner, petition signatory and author of The Big Bang Never Happened:
    No Conservation of Energy
    The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not conserved: it's called general relativity. In an expanding universe, as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved. Nothing fancy to do with dark energy -- the same thing is true for ordinary radiation. Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands, while the total number of photons remains conserved, so the total energy decreases. An effect which has, of course, been observed.

    Just because a person doesn't understand general relativity doesn't mean they are dumb, by any means. But if your professional activity consists of combating a cosmological model that is based on GR, you shouldn't open your mouth without understanding at least the basics. So if I get to decide whether to allocate money or jobs to one of the bright graduate students working on some of the many fruitful issues raised by the Big Bang cosmology, or divert it to a crackpot who claims that the Big Bang has no empirical successes, it's an easy choice. Not censorship, just sensible allocation of resources in a finite world.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2016
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Which is fine - when in the form of a question.

    Why does X happen when our model seems to predict Y?

    Then you will get answers that are educational on the details of the current, best model - or you will get 'that is something we don't fully understand yet, and is an active area of study'.

    But to say This doesn't fit with my common sense (as if it is possible to apply common sense to the extreme edges of physics - high velocity, high energy, strong gravity and deep time) therefore it's false false false! - is folly.

    You're falling into the classic trap of pretending you're thinking outside the box - when you haven't yet learned where the box is.

    Learn where the box is, and your questions will be more on-point, and will be treated with more mindfulness.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2016
    rpenner and Daecon like this.
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    1. I hope this common sense part is read by Paddoboy.

    2. The unfortunate thing is 'the box' is quite funny.

    3. I feel Rpenner being a Mod should not so openly side...I have no objection to his liking any post, but here it is visible that he is siding with those who are opposing me. I suggested invisibility for Mod...this forum staff should consider this idea.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Love it!
    Dissent for dissent's sake is highly illogical.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That's quite the opposite of what you have said previously, when others have put correct scenarios which you ignorantly reject, and you have demanded the mods step in and "correct" them.........
    And that's all the mod is doing, stepping in and correcting your errors, faux pas, misinterpretations and just plain fantasy illusions!

    In case you havn't realised it yet, this is a science forum: Not a forum for delusional characters to pretend they are going to rewrite 21st century cosmology.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sure it is, and agrees with everything I have said, particularly the part where common sense is guided by our scientific discoveries and theories.
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Paddo my dear, you don't understand physics.......

    Lets do one simple find out the perimeter of a parallelogram with sides 100 meters and 50 meters. That will tell me what you understood out of Rpenner post.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Silly boy! It's your threads in the fringes...It's your nonsensical anti GR ideas that are being rebuffed......
    I understand far more that you, for the simple reason, I am not hindered by any agenda, religious or otherwise.
    Again, so it will sink in.....
    That's quite the opposite of what you have said previously, when others have put correct scenarios which you ignorantly reject, and you have demanded the mods step in and "correct" them.........
    And that's all the mod is doing, stepping in and correcting your errors, faux pas, misinterpretations and just plain fantasy illusions!

    In case you havn't realised it yet, this is a science forum: Not a forum for delusional characters to pretend they are going to rewrite 21st century cosmology.
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Find out the perimeter pl...
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    In other words my foolish friend, common sense
    Stop trolling please.
    How many times do you need to be told you are not the boss of this forum. You are a member of this forum just as I am...You are a nobody as far as the scientific community is also unheard of nobody [again, just as I am]
    When you accept that, and when you answer the questions I have politely asked you many times, then I'll consider your request. ok?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Why? Even if Paddoboy does bother to jump through your hoops, you'll probably just complain that he's parroting the mainstream with his answer.
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    You claim that you are streets ahead of me ? You could not find out volume of a sphere, you could not find out surface area of a sphere. So I have given you a simple exercise to find out the perimeter... Pl do.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Knock knock! Anyone home?
    I'm not interested in answering your irrelevant questions and excuses for cop outs.
    I'm not on trial here, you are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are the one that continuously tries to invalidate 21st century cosmology and GR and always comes up with a big fat fail.
    Now I have some questions: Are you going to answer them? It's been two or three days now.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2016
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    I am not on trial here.....I am putting the entire drama woven around GR (BH, curvature of spacetime, time travel, worm holes, singularities, inflation, BB, inflation, dark energy, dark matter) etc on trial.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sorry my friend: All you are doing, is seriously deluding yourself for many reasons.
    [1] You are not competent or qualified to put anyone or anything on trial.
    [2] You obviously have a fanatical agenda that blinkers you to real science.
    [3] Most of what you claim to put on trial has already run the gauntlet of scientific methodology and review.
    [4] You ignore reputable links, explaining accepted cosmology and GR, in favour of total cranks, Mavericks and pseudoscience.
    [5] You have no evidence at all, other than a religiously driven desire and gut feel with regards to what you do not want to understand.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Why is Einstein’s general relativity such a popular target for cranks?

    Scientists maybe celebrating the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but there was also a death in 1915. It was one of the many deaths of simple and intuitive physics that has happened over the past four centuries.

    Today the concepts and mathematics of physics are often removed from everyday experience. Consequently, cutting edge physics is largely the domain of professional physicists, with years of university education.

    But there are people who hanker for a simpler physics, toiling away on their own cosmologies. Rightly or wrongly, these people are often labelled cranks, but their endeavours tell us much misconceptions of science, its history and what it should be.

    I regularly browse open access website to look for the latest astrophysics research. Real astrophysics, that is. But if I want to take a look at what pseudoscientists are up to, I can browse That’s right, “arxiv” backwards. The website was founded by “scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to” because that website’s owners filter material they “consider inappropriate”.

    There are more than 1,800 articles on discussing relativity and cosmology, and many don’t like relativity at all. Perhaps one reason why cranks particularly dislike relativity is because it is so unlike our everyday experiences.

    Einstein predicted that the passage of time is not absolute, and can slow for speeding objects and near very massive bodies such as planets, stars and black holes. Over the past century, this bizarre predication has been measured with planes, satellites, and speeding muons.

    But the varying passage of time is nothing like our everyday experience, which isn’t surprising as we don’t swing by black holes on our way to the shops. Everyday experience is often central to cranky ideas, with the most extreme example being flat earthers.

    Thus many crank theories postulate that time is absolute, because that matches everyday experience. Of course, these crank theories are overlooking experimental data, or at least most of it.

    History and linearity
    One of the most curious aspects of pseudoscience is an oddly linear approach to science. To be fair, this can result from an overly literal approach to popular histories of science, which emphasise pioneering work over replication.

    A pivotal moment in relativity’s genesis was Albert Michelson and Edward Morley’s demonstration that the speed of light didn’t depend on its direction of travel nor the motion of the Earth.

    Of course, since 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment has been confirmed many times. Modern measurements have a precision orders of magnitude better than the original 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, but these don’t feature prominently in popular histories of science.

    Interestingly many pseudoscientists are fixated on the original Michelson-Morley experiment, and how it could be in error. This fixation assumes science is so linear that the downfall a 19th century experiment will rewrite 21st century physics. This overlooks how key theories are tested (and retested) with a myriad of experiments with greater precision and different methodologies.

    Another consequence of the pseudoscientific approach to history is that debunked results from decades past are often used by buttress pseudoscientific ideas. For example, many pseudoscientists claim Dayton Miller detected “aether drift” in the 1930s. But Miller probably underestimated his errors, as far more precise studies in subsequent decades did not confirm his findings.

    Unfortunately this linear and selective approach to science isn’t limited to relativity. It turns up in cranky theories ranging from evolution to climate.

    Climate scientist Michael E Mann is still dealing with cranky accusations about his seminal 1998 paper on the Earth’s temperature history, despite the fact it has been superseded by more recent studies that achieve comparable results. Indeed, it devoured so much of Mann’s time he has literally written a book about his experience.

    What about the maths?
    During the birth of physics, one could gain insights with relatively simple (and beautiful) mathematics. My favourite example is Johannes Kepler’s charting of the orbit of Mars via triangulation.

    Over subsequent centuries, the mathematics required for new physical insights has become more complex, as illustrated by Newton’s use of calculus and Einstein’s use of tensors. This level of mathematics is rarely in the domain of the enthusiastic but untrained amateur. So what do they do?

    One option is to hark back to an earlier era. For example, trying to disprove general relativity by using the assumptions of special relativity or even Newtonian physics (again, despite the experiments to the contrary). Occasionally even numerology makes an appearance.

    Another option is arguments by analogy. Analogies are useful when explaining science to a broad audience, but they aren’t the be-all and end-all of science.

    In pseudoscience, the analogy is taken to the point of absurdity, with sprawling articles (or blog posts) weighed down with laboured analogies rather than meaningful analyses.

    Desiring simplicity but getting complexity
    Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of pseudoscientific theories is they hark for simplicity, but really just displace complexity.

    Ardents of the most simplistic pseudoscientific theories often project complexity onto the motives of professional scientists. How else can one explain scientists ignoring their brilliant theories? Claims of hoaxes and scams are commonplace. Although, to be honest, even I laughed out loud the first time I saw someone describe dark matter as a “modelling scam”.

    Again, this isn’t limited to those who don’t believe in relativity. Simple misunderstandings about photography, lighting and perspective are the launch pad formoon landing conspiracy theories. Naively simple approaches to science can lead to complex conspiracy theories.

    Changing intuition
    Some have suggested that pseudoscience is becoming more popular and the internet certainly aids the transmission of nonsense. But when I look at history I wonder if pseudoscience will decay.

    In the 19th century, Samuel Rowbotham promoted Flat Earthism to large audiences via lectures that combined wit and fierce debating skills. Perhaps in the 19th century a spherical world orbiting a sun millions of kilometres away didn’t seem intuitive.

    But today we can fly around the globe, navigate with GPS and Skype friends in different timezones. Today, a spherical Earth is far more intuitive than it once was, and Flat Earthism is the exemplar of absurd beliefs.

    Could history repeat with relativity? Already GPS utilises general relativity to achieve its amazing precision. A key plot device in the movie Interstellar was relativistic time dilation.

    Perhaps with time, a greater exposure to general relativity will make it more intuitive. And if this happens, a key motivation of crank theories will be diminished.


Share This Page