Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RJBeery, Oct 3, 2012.
Heads up: you are debating with the infamous Reiku.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Even though being emotionally biased in favor of Continuous Creation (aka Steady State), I gave up on it circa 1960. Observational evidence strongly indicates that the universe has changed significantly in the last 13 billion years.
Quasars existed in the distant past: There have been none in the last 3-6 billion years.
The observed expansion has sped up.
The CMB is probably part of the contrary evidence.
There are probably other differences of which I am ignorant.
The strongest evidence supporting the Big Bang is the observed expansion. The weakest notion in Big Bang Cosmology seems to be the assumption that it is valid to extrapolate the expansion backwards in time to a universe with all the matter in a volume less than light years in radius. The only cogent argument in favor of this assumption is the lack of any reason to stop the backward extrapolation until it results in a singularity.
Inflation seems a bit ad hoc.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine any initial conditions which do not result in the question: "What caused this initial state?" If it started with all the matter in a Black Hole type of singularity, how did that state occur? Similarly: If it started with the radiation dominated universe which produced the CMB, How did this state occur?
Even an intelligent theist who believes in a creator must sometimes ask: "Where did he/she/it come from & what was he/she/it doing prior to the creation?"
Is intelligent thesist who believes in a creator an oxymoron?
BTW: Is anyone else bothered when comparing the Big Bang starting singularity with a Black Hole singularity? If nothing escapes from a Black Hole, how did our universe escape from an even more extreme singularity? The expansion (especially inflation) does not seem like evaporation via Hawking radiation.
You are a troll and a liar. Go stalk yourself, dummy.
I see that you chose to answer none of the questions. You chose to provide no support, no evidence, not even a "I don't know."
Nothing. Instead, you chose straw men and touting inaccurate claims as fact without supporting them with any evidence.
In short, you've fully demonstrated that you're full of it.
I prefer solid answers. You could say, "What if sky gnomes came down and stole our underpants?"
Questions need to be meaningful and nothing is wrong with asking them. However, basing claims on questions is unreasonable.
I have no interest in asking the same questions you have. I have an interest in you finding answers to your questions. There is nothing wrong with a person asking such questions or with them asking valid questions like, "Can something interfere with or alter the CMBR? Are the measurements accurate? What steps did astronomers take to ensure accuracy?" You are not asking questions like this. You have been running with your own assumptions; disinterested in educating yourself on solid answers. I believe you're using the questions as proposals so you don't have to answer questions or have to support your claims. Using Straw men about religion and philosophy and the like suggests dishonesty on your part- dishonesty to misrepresent others in order to give the illusion of validity on your part.
You've just made a clear claim about CMB interference. Support that claim instead of feigning innocence.
No, you do the math and see what you get. I'm not the one proposing questions here, you claim to be.
You are making claims, not asking questions.
I agree with most of what you said. But about the assumed bb and expansion supporting evidence: if the CMB is found to be produced all over the cosmos since then (based on the the agreed facts about MW interactivity with all sorts of plasma and neutral and charged matter which I reported on from the CMB Photons discussion thread), then that is one less support for a bb and expansion assumptions which interpreted MW background incorrectly against all Occam's Razor evidence to the contrary being discussed now. If all the other bb and expansion "supporting evidence" is equally based on such anti-Occam's Razor interpretations of redshift, then the whole thing becomes a "house of cards" built on the incorrect CMB interpretations. If there is even the slightest possibility that the CMB is not a support for bb and expansion, then all the other "supporting evidence" and redshift interpretations based on them will bear scrutiny in light of present discussions and questions which arise from them in the other thread and many other places around. After reading these discussions I cannot rid myself of the deep impression that something is amiss with many of the redshift assumptions and the assumptions these assumptions are based on one upon the other like a house of cards edifice which has escaped proper scrutiny for far too long. Fred Hoyle was no fool or crackpot. His only mistake (like Einstein's with his "cosmological term") was to add a 'spontaneous matter' assumption to his already sufficient theory of steady state without expansion or contraction of infinite universe as such. It now appears that both Fred and Albert were probably too easily bamboozled by suspect "evidence" of bb and expansion into adding such ad hoc things to satisfy possibly erroneous bb and expansion myth-making by people in denial of the evidence all around which fit Occam's Razor better than all this "bb from nothing" and "inflation and expansion into some unknown dimensions" or whatever the latest excuses and fixes are. Very exciting to think that both Albert and Fred had it right all along, and were conned into adding all that nonsense from others into their own lucid theories!
Trolls and liars usually have to return with a new handle. How many times have you had to do that? A bunch. Hard to come back and hide idiosyncratic ignorance even with a new handle.
What's this, a wolf pack of dumb stalkers and trolls with a "Reiku" fetish? Is this site owned by trolls and talkers or their daddies?
Crackpot comments in a public science forum thread don't raise questions concerning empirically confirmed science. Maybe in your scientifically illiterate circles.
But the facts speak for themselves, don't they? What have your opinions as troll and stalkers to do with science? If the facts are as agreed in that CMB Photons thread which I reported into here, then the questions raised by them means all bets may be off regarding the reliability of your "empirically confirmed" science, aren't they! Why do some people here talk so much about everything but the facts as agreed? Is it a "religious" disease running through the place? Is your daddy one of this site's owners too, troll?
Spurious ad hom attacks removed. Granted- it's flying from both sides.
Careful wording: "Assumed."
If this is shown to be the case, however unlikely, then yes, you would be vindicated to some small degree of claiming it- but you would not be vindicated for having provided no evidence for your claims, no calculations, no observational evidence nor any proposal for how to test your hypothesis that the CMBR is interfered with or altered in some way. You're not showing that it's Being Produced nor are you even consistent with this claim- one moment you're saying it's being absorbed, next saying it's being produced and lastly, suggesting it's being altered.
Similarly, if Santa Clause was proven to be a real and magical being, skeptics everywhere would be eating their hats. The trouble is, stating a "what if" is irrelevant. You are making claims and you must support them.
No, they do not. One must present facts with verifiable solid evidence, not simply spouting whatever, posing claims as questions and the like.
These claims of agreement are annoying.
What is agreed upon? Will you answer one question even as you refuse to answer then other ten or so?
Yes, I know- the most telling trait is the method of denial of being Reiku. It's almost always the same.
On Mars Rovers behalf, however, the behavior patterns of Reiku are not uncommon.
Simply put, I don't care if it's Reiku or not- that's up to Prometheus or Alphanumeric to deal with. Bad science and bogus claims, failure to support claims and typical C.T. "The religion of Science is out to deceive you" will be responded to.
Is it so hard? I didn't claim anything. I reported the facts agreed upon in that CMB Photons thread (read it yourself). I made a comment that IF that discussion was valid there as to the facts, then maybe Fred Hole (and Einstein too) were right the first time, when they made their original theory on Occam's Razor evidence and assumptions which led them to first conclude the universe was an infinite steady state universe. It was all these other bb and inflation and expansion hypotheses afterwards which essentially assumed that the redshift "evidence" supported such hypotheses. So it's only reasonable to ask now, based on those facts in evidence now which are more Occam's Razor friendly than bb and expansion contortions: what IF these redshift and CMB assumptions is not evidence or support for bb and expansion, but instead support for original Einstein and Hoyle theories without any ad hoc "cosmological constant" and "spontaneous matter creation" necessary? Since these other bb and expansion hypotheses may be wrong if the CMB is found to be produced all over all the time just as that CMB Photons thread discussion indicates? I am not interested in any other philosophies or orthodox denials. I only reported that that other thread had implications for this thread and Fred Hoyle's (and Einstein's) original views about a infinite and steady state universe where no expansion or collapse was indicated by their very first Occam's Razor observations. Adios.
I am posing that you have.
Perhaps and IF one ignored the evidence or was unaware of the extent of the evidence, they might consider this as a possibility. But as it is, the evidence is quite strong even if not "proven." The data matches precisely. It doesn't get much stronger than that. You are repeatedly claiming these as assumptions- No, they are observed, measured and verified.
This is why I pose that you are making claims. You must ignore the above bolded statement in order to keep postulating as you do.
Redshift is only one part of the picture. Are you claiming that is the only evidence for BB cosmology and that the evidence is feeble simply because you're unaware of all the evidence?
Perhaps you should brush up on your understanding of the Lambda-CDM model before you get too engrossed in posing claims as questions.
The BB Model is very extensive, covering a lot of cosmology and a great many predictions (verified and some currently unverified). From predictions about distribution, abundance and patterns for measurable elements (such as hydrogen, helium, etc) to primordial consistency to star formation. It's not something summed up on one page, nor weak in mathematics. It's tied into QM, Relativity, as well as base astronomy and cosmology. Experiments and predictions within all of the above come together under BB. It's not just supported by "redshift" but by the Standard Model, quantum chromodynamics, experiments and verifications with GR, SR and possibly it may be verified with String Theory (note- I may have String Theory's place described inaccurately here-). Prometheus or Alphanumeric can educate us all here.
Enter stage Left: WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)
It's very reasonable to ask this. It's very reasonable to take provided answers and research them, as well.
What is unreasonable is ignoring the answers which contain data and descriptions of how this data was gathered and claim that the other speaks of philosophy or religion.
It is the vigorous denial you take part in that shows what you are really up to. It is that you provide no support whatsoever for your claims, pretending to only be asking the question, while rejecting all answers.
Then consider your report complete. You were not only reporting it, however. You were claiming that the black body spectrum is altered, that CMBR is being produced, that there is no expansion- etc.
You are posing alright. Just not relevant pose. And the measurements are what they are. But what is it that they deducing from those measurements? That is the question raised by what was agreed to in that other thread. Do you understand this? There is no claim. There is an agreed position on the fact that MWs do interact and may be produced continuously and that any 'old' MWs from hypothetical big bang and expansion would not be detected now because of that observation about plasma etc all over the place now and for a long time which would have intercepted any alleged bb and expansion CMB waves. It's not a question of why assume that background MWs could be produced constantly all around always, it's a question of why believe that CMB is bb and expansion origin and support for that bb and expansion? The current discussion of the facts agreed to indicate that constant ubiquitous production is more Occam's Razor friendly than hypothesis of bb and expansion based on less Occam's Razor friendly interpretations of the same observations which can be interpreted differently IF the facts as agreed in that other thread are so. My report and comments here is completed. If you still want to argue your own back to front idea of who needs to justify what assumptions, then I leave the field because I cannot discuss when you take it and make it about me instead of the agreed facts now and their implications for the house of cards built upon a bb and expansion hypothesis whose validity of interpretation of its most important cornerstone assumptions (CMB from bb) may be not so solid if examined again in the new discussion as in the other thread. Adios and adios.
Yes. See my post above again to which you replied with this commentary.
There are several claims.
These are the several claims.
I do not care if it was agreed to on an internet forum. It may have been agreed to on the MickyMouseClubForum for all the difference it makes.
I saw No Viable Evidence to support the claims "Agreed to" in that thread- I saw a shouting match.
Very well, the facts agreed to in that thread are not so.
In one of my earlier posts, I gave two diagrams.
The qualitative difference in your attempted interpretation is there. You claim that interference background Radiation can currently be produced and in, itself, is not evidence of BB Cosmology Theory. Ignoring what I pointed out earlier about the methods used for COBE and later for WMAP (I didn't cover that bit about WMAP, actually)...
You claim that we can see the CMBR and it could have numerous sources and there is no evidence that the source must be supportive of BB Theory.
The problem is, is that description accurate? It is not. The accuracy lies in how the data matches the theory. Random interference from currently produced radiation would not have matched the predicted data because the prediction required the conditions of the early semi-homogenous Universe.
Inflation of the Universe redistributed matter as well as energy. Currently produced black body would be distributed against current matter distribution. CMBR is not- it's distributed against the Early Universe and does not conform to current distribution. It does, however, demonstrate the inflation that resulted in current distribution, allowing for prediction of future distribution that, so far, matches observation as well. Back to this in a moment...
Next, you may suggest that CMBR has been Altered or Absorbed, as you say by plasma, matter, dark matter, "thickly" gooey stuff twixt the stars.
We have another problem. Two, actually.
As I already pointed out, the "thick" you claimed is actually very, very "thin." Leads to number two problem: Uniformity.
The uniformity of CMBR (which matches the uniformity of the Early Universe, stated above) would not be present in altered or absorbed radiation as your 'questions' suggest they would need to be. They would lack the Uniformity observed and instead, be turbulent with splotches of excessive activity in contrast to empty regions of space. This falls back into the speed limit imposed even on Light by Relativity, which as I pointed out above, supports BB cosmology. Again, that the observed data not only matches predictions made of an Early Universe, but matches it dead on, is conclusive, not suggestive. Refer back above where Uniformity demonstrates a source that can ONLY be the Early Universe.
It IS about you as the part in bold clearly demonstrates. It is not a house of cards, little wolf. This suckers solid brick with a three foot mortar foundation.
Does saying it twice make a difference?
By the way:
The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect has been used to observe dense clusters of galaxies.
Isn't that a bit like taking an unsupported "what if", from one thread and using it as a basis, of support for another "what if", in another?
I have some conceptual problems with the BB model, but as Dinosaur mentioned, the facts as we undestand them at present, do seem when projected into the past, to support that particular model.
Is matter spontaneously appearing or is our consciousness suddenly becoming "aware" of it?
It should be noted that BB expansion is supported by a lot of observational evidence.
Fred Hoyle had to assume continuous creation of a small amount of matter to balance the matter lost to the observable universe. Galaxies at the edge of the observable universe had FTL recession speeds & were lost to the observable universe.
The CMB was not the only problem not explained by Steady State. A serious problem related to observations of quasars (& perhaps other phenomena) in the very distant past, but not in the past 2-4 billion years. Steady State postulated that the universe was unchanging in its major properties.
Since, as I already intimated, I am trailing off from internet forum participations/postings to concentrate on other work, I will briefly trail off this exchange between you and me (started under alias of Mars Rover 'experiment') regarding the universal expansion perspective.
First and foremost please see that I make no claims, just observations which lead to questions about the redshift/space-expansion hypotheses currently 'accepted' based on certain 'evidence' which may now not be so conclusive as you might think.
Since the redshift/expansion/big bang scenario was constructed, the new discoveries in astronomy regarding the content/behaviour of the energy-matter-space constituents make it desirable for us to review all the assumptions and interpretations which are currently 'accepted'.
As a parting comment, I refer you to the literature about WMAP and the CMB exercise which involved much 'adjusting' of the results in oder to allow for foreground effects/artifacts and other 'features' which would show up in the raw MICROWAVE detection data. You will appreciate that mush 'manipulation' has gone into the 'final result' which is assumed to be the last word on the CMB distribution etc.
Since then we have discovered dark matter features/processes which we know nothing about yet insofar as 'passive/active dispersion' effects on CMB range of photons are concerned. Then there is all that 'extra' plasma/neutral clouds/gases which have shown up to significant degree different from the earlier estimates/observations. The effects of such widespread gas/clouds will have significant effects on CMB photons if they do (as has been established/agreed) interact with both neutral and plasma state matter/processes.
For example, reverse compton scattering can 'redshift' CMB photons, and the more probability of this (extra clouds/gases in interstellar, inter-galactic and inter-gal-cluster space) must be reviewed in the context of the CMB being possibly diffuse/scattered photons of higher energy which have been 'redshifted by such mechanisms in the ever-more-crowded space we are discovering by the day. CO and other molecules, plus free electrons and ionised particles, going away from us may absorb/scatter in a cascade/serial manner many higher energy photons heading our way and so redshift them to the point they become diffuse and CMB wavelengths.
Then there is what is being discovered about our own sun's heliosphere/boundary where outgoing photons may be reflected back 'redshifted' by the outgoing solar wind which may take energy away from the photons in a serial/cascade manner into and back from the 'heliosphere' zones where reverse compton scattering may be significant. The same thing can be happening with incoming photons entering the heliosphere from outside the solar system and being absorbed and re-emitted as redshifted, some of which may end up as CMB range photons.
That is the point of the discussion I tried to have. There are now myriad ways/processes/features which may affect the CMB distribution/range observations/interpretations. These should be rigorously pursued and the current assumptions/perspectives reviewed accordingly. No more and no less.
Since all the troll-mod behaviour and distractions have wasted too much time which I could have spent in trying to discuss this aspect here, I must now leave you and others to discuss (or not) these matters as presented as you see fit.
For anyone thinking the CMB observations/interpretations are complete and settled and beyond question, it might b prudent to read at least the wiki articles on CMB, WMAP and Normal/Reverse Compton Scattering etc in the light of all the other recent discoveries of astronomical/local features involving plasma/neutral gas/clouds/processes which may have not yet been allowed for, and hence may make the current CMB assumptions/interpretations as 'support' for expanding space etc hypotheses questionable until all such things are properly investigated.
Cheers Neverfly, everyone...I will post as I can just to keep in touch...but I will not have time for long discussions!
I disagree. And let me explain why: It's far better to take a position, even if you're wrong- and present it.
This does not mean defend the position to death, it only means present a position.
Then read the refutations to that position.
To say, "I'm only asking questions" smacks of Alex Jones. It makes the reader disbelieve your motive. I'd have to write a long psychology post to explain how this all works. So for now, you can take my word for it- or... Just cope with the fact that I will always treat you as presenting a position even if you deny doing so.
That said- from the previous:
Forgive some of my poor wording. As I read what I previously wrote- I see some ugly errors- Please bear with me. I did not want to change it now, after the fact.
EDIT TO ADD:
I'm short on time, myself at the moment, to immerse myself in details. I will do so later.
But in brief, there is a sound and solid refutation to what you posted above about redshift scattering--- a reminder, you're not the only one to have thought of these things. BBTheorists have as well.
The short of it is that yes, redshift scattering does occur- you're right.
The refutation is that this is accounted for and corrected for in the final released data. Bear in mind that the data is gathered, then analyzed heavily- a long time can pass between the conduction of the measurements and the release of the results.
For example, the suns heliosphere- at the time of WMAP and COBE, this was not known- but is irrelevant. The reason why it is irrelevant is because the way the measurements were conducted by the satellites (I'd have to go into a lot of detail to explain this, so this is precursory) was designed to reduce such unknown variables - taking measurements from different portions of the sky and comparing them. The premise in mind was to avoid error caused by the Earths Heliosphere, actually... but the effect is the same for the Suns. What you're referring to is the turbulent portion of the Suns magnetosphere just ahead of our systems orbit of the Galaxy.
That's one example and in this edit (which I intended to be short) but if you're interested, we can go in depth as to how your concerns have been addressed already, just not personally to you.
If this is going to turn into a conspiracy theory about how BBTheorists have fudged or faked the data over the issues in the concerns you presented- let's not bother. That's too far over the edge for any of us to bother with at that point.
Separate names with a comma.