Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cris, Jan 1, 2006.
Nonsense. BB theory hasn't lost any credit.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So 90% of the universe's mass being unaccounted for by the Big Bang is...not a bother to you?
What's next? You're going to start supporting goecentrism because scientists said it was right?
Nonsesnse, the BB theory is a theory that has no credible credit at all, fact is it's a hypothesis that will probably never be proven, one started by a damn priest, to further support the "creation" universe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That would be the non-baryonic matter, why would you say it's unnaccounted?
haha, funny. Why do you support the crackpot theories, because scientists say they are unfounded or because the crackpots say they are correct?
It's interesting to note that plasma theory also models creationism, in fact, it must.
Oh, you mean the unobserved matter which we've been searching for in vain for over thirty years? Which is rapidly losing scientific credibility even as we speak?
Funny, you discredit God, yet you are fine with purely conjectural entities which account for the vast majority of space.
So, what you're struggling with is the fact that "observed" matter which does not emit or reflect eletromagnetic radiation simply doesn't exist, according to you. And clouds of nonluminous gas and dwarf stars don't exist?
Or perhaps, more accurately, you're losing credibility here?
Doesn't appear that way.
With all due respect, the BB is in extremely good shape. The fact that there are features of the universe that we have yet to explain (dark matter, dark energy, the prevalence of matter over antimatter, etc...) has nothing to do with the validity of the conception of the universe rapidly expanding from a hot, dense state to what we currently observe. This is supported so far by all observations.
We know that evolution is a fact, but just because the exact mechanisms are under debate and we don't have a "complete" fossil record does not cause us to toss evolution out the window.
With all due respect, once upon a time Copernicus & Galileo were considered crackpot by the mainstream scientist supported by theistic religions. Cause they believe the heliocentric theory observed by Copernicus rather than the accepted notion of Heraclides (330 B.C.) the geocentric theory.
These observations of space where done in very primitive times, however the accepted "theory" of Heraclides was the dominant theory of how space worked for over thousands of years, the church embrased it, and to contradicted it was considered blasphemy punishable by church rule.
No difference exists today how theistic "scientific" agenda try to usurp and manipulate science to fit their interpretation of origins of our universe. Whether one model or the other fits their "fantasy" is to me irrevelent, what is at stake here is that some scientist have observed, have proof of observations that contradict the accepted notion that a big bang happened at all. What science is supposed to do is embrase any theory with an ounce of credibility and try to discredit, show further evidence to support the accepted notion. However what has been observed by me and many other sertainly and obviously more qualified than all of us, is that they are fixing new observations to fit their model, thus deceit the main stream to accepted notion.
(NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 - Why Hide a Cosmic Bridge?
In 1971 with the 5 meter telescope on Mt. Palomar a luminous bridge was discovered between the low redshift galaxy NGC 4319 and the much higher redshift quasar, Markarian 205. Because this contradicted the assumption that redshift was unvariably a measure of velocity and distance, it invalidated the hypothsesis of an expanding universe. Conventional astronomers fiercely resisted this evidence but as it accumulated for this and numerous other similar examples the results were increasingly suppressed and ignored.
Flash forward to October 2002. The Space Science Telescope Institute issued a press release with a picture of NGC 4319/Mrk 205 showing no bridge and with the imputation that it never existed. After all these years we suddenly learn there was serious evidence which has now been finally refuted. But wait a minute! The picture actually does show the bridge. If you just down load the web image and increase the contrast at faint levels, there it is! Actually the NASA "proof" picture was not even printed deeply enough to show the outer spiral arms of the galaxy! There is a narrower core to the bridge, a kind of umbilical cord which the higher resolution HST can now pick out. Many non professionals immediately produced very good pictures of the bridge from the same NASA picture. Here is shown a comparison of the press release picture and a deep print of the same picture by Jack Sulentic of the University of Alabama. (JPEG image of NGC4319/Mark205 by B. Lempel)
Science, 11 Oct. 2002, p. 345, ran a small article on the statements from both sides, but most science magazines just accepted the NASA release as refutation of the connection. Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.)
**(A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.
The Big Bang was dismantled by direct observation—including a highly redshifted quasar in front of a nearby galaxy!)**http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041227prediction-bigbang.htm
Yes I know, the mainstream will say! Hogwash, bull shit sites, bla,bla,bla, but nothing to say about human nature.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, if your argument is based on the attacking of a "mainstream" theory (one with enormous support from actual scientists) just because it's mainstream, then good luck with that.
That's a pretty sad view of current science. Look around you and tell me that our current understanding of the world and the cosmos is based on dogma and ignorance. Then shut off your PC (or MAC), give up electricity, and never again accept treatment at a hospital other than the occasional blood-letting.
Isn't that what science is suppose to do? Look at the data, come up with an interpretation, and see if it fits existing and future observations?
You can "dismantle" any current branch of science completely and utterly by referring to some crackpots with no training who jump on one or two instances of observations (that are very difficult to make or resolve in many cases) and declare the "theory" dead.
It takes overwhelmingly convincing evidence to "dismantle" an established theory that has proven itself under intense scrutiny. Your examples of Copernicus and Galileo are disengenuous because the preceeding "theories" were not based on intensly scrutinized observations and data.
If you are going to dismantle the BB then you need to show, conclusively, that the .01% of "anamalous observations" represent reality, while the 99.99% that remain are somehow wrong.
Again, good luck with that.
Superluminal, I am sorry. You are completely and utterly wrong.
Mac is not an acronym. You're only supposed to capitalize the first letter.
Hmmm....No training? are you kiding? LOL.. Here's a list of these crackpot's creditials:
Short Biography for Halton C. Arp
Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt.Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.
Yea! Harvard is puting out crackpots now a days Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Eric J Lerner:
Michael Ibison, Ph.D.
Dr. Michael Ibison is a Senior Research Physicist with the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. He joined the Institute in 1997 from Princeton University's PEAR Laboratory, where he was a visiting scholar. His primary research interest is in extensions to classical electromagnetism. He received a first class honors Bachelor of Science in Electronics from Southampton University, UK. In 1987 he completed his Ph.D. in Laser Physics - analysis of space and time confinement of laser beams in non-linear media. He has published some papers in physics and other fields.
In 1948, Bondi, Hoyle and Gold formulated the steady-state theory, which holds that the universe is contantly expanding but matter is constantly created to form new stars and galaxies to maintain a constant average density. It is probably fair to say that this theory dominated over the rival Big Bang theory until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation caused a sudden change in fortune.
Bondi was a major contributor to the golden age of general relativity (roughly 1960-1975). He was one of the first to correctly appreciate the nature of gravitational radiation, introducing Bondi radiation coordinates, the Bondi k-calculus, and the notion of Bondi mass, and writing influential review articles. He popularized the sticky bead argument which was said to be originally due, anonymously, to Richard Feynman, for the claim that physically meaningful gravitational radiation is indeed predicted by general relativity, an assertion which was controversial up until about 1955. He codiscovered an important family of exact dust solutions now called the LTB dust (Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi dust). Bondi also contributed to the theory of accretion of matter from a cloud of gas onto a star or a black hole, working with Raymond Lyttleton and giving his name to "Bondi accretion" and the "Bondi radius".
He became a professor at King's College London in 1954, and was given the title of Emeritus Professor there in 1985. He was secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1956 to 1964.
needless to say super, these are not just your ordinary "crackpots"
Thomas Gold (May 22, 1920 – June 22, 2004) was an Austrian astrophysicist, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. Gold was one of three young Cambridge scientists who in the 1950s proposed the now mostly abandoned 'steady state' hypothesis of the universe. Gold's work crossed academic and scientific boundaries, into biophysics, astrophysics, space engineering, and geophysics.
Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University
O. C. (Order of Canada)
F. R. S. C.
Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy.
Professor, Physics, Laval University, Québec, Canada: 1962-83,
Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90,
Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99.
These scientist have creditials super, they are not just blowing wind out of their ass without good reason! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A history of crackpots!
THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO:
Being a 'credential' junkie does not good science make.
The problem is when those with credentials are shown to be wrong from their peers refuse to listen.
Arp, Lerner and Marmet are perfect examples, who have now attained crackpot status as a result.
The problem is not wether they are wrong, the problem is that their peer refuse to funnel further inquiry accepting a theory as fact! BBT is not a fact, and they themselves proclaim this, however every observation made is made to fit their model of what they now perceive to be fact!
*American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.* http://amasci.com/supress1.html
That is where you're wrong, scientists don't consider BB theory as fact, the only fact is that the universe had a beginning, and BB theory is the best model to show what happened just after that beginning.
I read Arp's book several years ago. It was well written with lots of intersting photos of seemingly paired objects with a low red-shift and a high red-shift component.
While some of the paired objects might be just coincidence (super-imposition of distant and near objects, with the 'bridge' being the coincidence), the large number of examples found by Arp suggests another explanation needs to be found. I suspect that gravitational red-shift might well be a major factor for some of the anomalous high red-shift quasars found 'associated' with much lower red-shift galaxies.
In any event, his work calls for further investigation of his anomalies. I do not believe that BBT theory is invalidated by his examples, as the great bulk of observation fully supports BBT theory. It does, however, call into question some of the 'cherished' beliefs regarding quasars, etc., and hence deserves further serious investigation. My views on the BBT are posted elsewhere here in Sciforums.
Arp is a well-seasoned astronomer with tons of observation time under his belt.
Along the lines of anomalous results, relating to the investigation of BBT to be undertaken at the LHC, is a recent (December 9, 2005) paper by G.X. Peng, X.J. Wen, and Y.D. Chen of the China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (World Lab.) [Beijing], the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing], and the Center for Theoretical Physics MIT [Cambridge] entitled:
"New Solutions for the Color-Flavor Locked Strangelets"
It can be accessed at: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512112
click on the link, then click on the FDF file.
In their paper, they find that strangelets can be negatively charged, with the charge approaching neutral as the strangelet grows in mass.
It is well written, supported by extensive mathematical argument, graphs, and lots of valid citations.
Essentially, as for other work on strangelets, they find that negative strangelets are more stable than Iron nuclei (Z=26), the most stable form of normal nuclear matter, even for the lowest mass (A) strangelet. They show that as A increases, Z approaches zero from the negative side.
Unlike positive strangelets, in which the LHC safety review postulates that the Coulomb 'barrier' would preclude a runaway fusion event, negatively charged strangelets would have no such barrier, and would be a certainty to engage in such an event. Hence, the concern for the LHC safety.
Now, I must return to my work on focused-ultrasound in medical theapy, and PET/CT in medical diagnostics.
Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)
Would it be correct to assume from this you are returning to your "stone busting" job?
Shit. My first mistake this year. Damn you for pointing it out. In public no less. Bah.
Ok godless. That's fine. I think it would be fascinating if the BB were shown to be wrong and the universe evolved in some completely different way.
Let me just remind you of a bit of motivational history behind scientific revolutions regarding your stance on the "scientific ruling elite".
In the time of Copernicus and Galileo, and many others, the rewards for pointing out and proving that the accepted paradigm was wrong ranged from banishment to torture and execution. Today the incentive is a bit different. Namely, worldwide recognition in the scientific community, and a treat in the form of about a million dollars or more.
Just keep this in mind.
Separate names with a comma.