big bang "pillars" of proof

[H4rd2bme]

Well, dark energy is having the opposite effect of gravity. Gravity doesn't cause things to repel.

The opposite effect? Are you saying that dark energy repels? Please explain.

 

[BenTheMan]

The opposite effect? Are you saying that dark energy repels? Please explain.

The universe is expanding, but it is also accelerating. If gravity dominated the universe, then the expansion would be slowing. The expansion must be caused by something with the opposite properties of gravity.

 

[BenTheMan]

Our model of gravity needs revisited. Heavily. We already know it breaks down on the smallest scales but now we observe it breaking down on larger scales? To call it "fantastically" consistent. Well, that's just...

But gravity IS fantasically consistent, and only needs to be revised in the regimes that it becomes strong. To call gravity fantastically consistent is to acknowledge the fact that GR is the second most accurately tested theory in the history of science.

I'm glad you have done all the calculations you have and I did make some broad strokes there but this is a time for theorists.

Ummm.... I am a theorist? If you can't put any equations to your explanations, then your theories are useless. You are doing metaphysics, which (almost by definition) cannot be tested.

Go calculate something and show where your theory predicts experimental results better than the current theories. Unless you can do that, then this is all just a bunch of hot air.

 

[H4rd2bme]

But gravity IS fantasically consistent, and only needs to be revised in the regimes that it becomes strong. To call gravity fantastically consistent is to acknowledge the fact that GR is the second most accurately tested theory in the history of science.



Ummm.... I am a theorist? If you can't put any equations to your explanations, then your theories are useless. You are doing metaphysics, which (almost by definition) cannot be tested.

Go calculate something and show where your theory predicts experimental results better than the current theories. Unless you can do that, then this is all just a bunch of hot air.

I'm "doing" metaphysics? I never even met her! What are you doing? I didn't post anything that arose out of my own speculation. You're getting testy over nothing. The topic of the thread is "pillars" of proof. There are no "pillars"... yet. We have here, many houses of cards.

You say: If you can't put equations to your explanations, then your theories are useless.

I say: Your equations are useless if they don't support your theories and explanations.

Are you physically or mentally incapable of discussing something philosophically?

And hot air? Well what do you think theoretical physics is? I don't want to argue about it. You think I relish the idea of becoming number 12 in your "debunked" list? I'm just thinking that we will eventually need to modify GR.

 

[H4rd2bme]

The universe is expanding, but it is also accelerating. If gravity dominated the universe, then the expansion would be slowing. The expansion must be caused by something with the opposite properties of gravity.

It does not have to have the opposite properties of gravity, only oppose the forces of gravity.

 

[BenTheMan]

There are no "pillars"... yet.

It depends on what you call a "pillar". I mean, every cosmological model predicts it. Every cosmological observation supports it. If you want an eyewitness account, then you'll probably never believe that the big bang actually occured.

You say: If you can't put equations to your explanations, then your theories are useless.

I say: Your equations are useless if they don't support your theories and explanations.

I would take this as honest criticism if I thought you knew what you were talking about. I feel confident, however, that you have never done these calculations, so you have no basis to make claims like this. The truth is you have no idea whether the equations support the theories, because you have never done the calculations.

The fact is, theoretical physics is a process of thinking and deriving. One thinks of an idea, then tries to stick some equations to it. If the idea is a good one, and consistent, then the equations work. If the idea is a bad one, the equations don't work, and one starts over again. This process is repeated and repeated, untill we eventually have a complete theory. Then we write articles so that the laypeople can understand the idea.

So you saying that "my equations are useless if they don't support my theories" is a bit humorous---scientists have explained their theories to you, and you presume to understand those theories better than the scientists who invented them.

Are you physically or mentally incapable of discussing something philosophically?

Oh. Nice. An attack on my character. If we were discussing philosophy I might be offended. But we (or I, at least) are talking about science, which is a priori NOT philosophy.

And hot air? Well what do you think theoretical physics is?

Spoken as only someone who has never really calculated anything can...

I don't want to argue about it.

You are doing a poor job, then.

You think I relish the idea of becoming number 12 in your "debunked" list?

You're not up to the level of a crackpot yet, but you're close.

I'm just thinking that we will eventually need to modify GR.

Good. So do I. At least this we can agree on.

It does not have to have the opposite properties of gravity, only oppose the forces of gravity.

??? What's the difference??? The property of gravity is that it is attractive. The Dark energy is repulsive. Thus, Dark Energy has the opposite property of gravity, namely it is repulsive as opposed to attractive.

 

[H4rd2bme]

It depends on what you call a "pillar". I mean, every cosmological model predicts it. Every cosmological observation supports it. If you want an eyewitness account, then you'll probably never believe that the big bang actually occured.

Not every model and not every observation. Perhaps the interpretation of the observation. Maybe at least qualify the remark like "Every model I lend credence to..." or "Every observation I've made..."

I would take this as honest criticism if I thought you knew what you were talking about. I feel confident, however, that you have never done these calculations, so you have no basis to make claims like this. The truth is you have no idea whether the equations support the theories, because you have never done the calculations.

You show me ONE cosmological observation you have personally made, a resultant theory, and the corresponding equations to prove it as a reality. Just ONE observation, just one proof and swear to God I will BEG your forgiveness. I'm guessing you're a hack. Not that your studies have been in vain or don't have value but you, like me, build on what others have done and hopefully, if we're lucky, we can stamp our name on one little piece of that pie. You probably just work with a different pie than I do.

The fact is, theoretical physics is a process of thinking and deriving. One thinks of an idea, then tries to stick some equations to it. If the idea is a good one, and consistent, then the equations work. If the idea is a bad one, the equations don't work, and one starts over again. This process is repeated and repeated, untill we eventually have a complete theory. Then we write articles so that the laypeople can understand the idea.

So you saying that "my equations are useless if they don't support my theories" is a bit humorous---scientists have explained their theories to you, and you presume to understand those theories better than the scientists who invented them.

I am a scientist myself. But my ego is not so large that if someone questions my logic, I immediately disregard them because they haven't done the math! I've proven more equations than I care to think about but I am not a cosmologist. Some are beyond my intelligence. My employers do not understand the full scope of my research but they understand enough to be able to question the validity and value of it. Thanks for the clarification though... I get it... YOU SMART, ME NOT SMART...

Oh. Nice. An attack on my character. If we were discussing philosophy I might be offended. But we (or I, at least) are talking about science, which is a priori NOT philosophy.

So philo is what? a posteriori? Your character? I attacked your character?!? Everything we're talking about falls under philosophy in one form or another! Have you received your PhD? Your entire post is an attack on my intelligence. Anyway, I sincerely apologize if I offended you. That wasn't my intension.

Good. So do I. At least this we can agree on.

You don't even have a choice. The science is flawed. Or to a layperson like myself, "The milk's gone bad."

??? What's the difference??? The property of gravity is that it is attractive. The Dark energy is repulsive. Thus, Dark Energy has the opposite property of gravity, namely it is repulsive as opposed to attractive.

I hope you're not the one writing for us laypeople! So the more massive an object becomes the more repulsive it becomes??? Wow. Sounds like your ego. What I stated previously is still true nonetheless. "It does not have to have the opposite properties of gravity, only oppose the forces of gravity." The difference is HUGE. You make it seem like some reverse form of gravity... or like we say down on the farm "apples ta' oranges"

Again, sorry if I offended you.

 

[BenTheMan]

Again, sorry if I offended you.

Sorry---but people in internet fora never offend me.

Your entire post is an attack on my intelligence.

Only if you take it this way. I am attacking your opinions. Your science is certainly flawed. This doesn't mean you are not an intelligent person. It is your choice to take my criticisms as attacks on your intelligence. If you are a scientists, you surely know that people disagree about science all the time. IF you've ever been to a conference where controversial research has been presented, you surely know about the ensuing firestorm. And, of course, you know that the same people who attack each other's research can separate that part of their lives from their personal interactions with the same people.

I'm not going to bother going through your post line by line, working around your attacks on "my ego", as I have physics to do. This has clearly dissentigrated past intelligent conversation, so I will reitterate my points, and let you have a last word, as I'm sure you will.

The first comment is on the nature of dark energy. I thought it was quite clear that "having the opposite properties of gravity" meant that dark energy is a repulsive force. Dark energy is ostensibly a property of space-time, and is a constant irrespective of how much matter is present, I think. The fact that it is so small (~10^-120 in some units) that it is completely negligible in even galaxy sized objects.

You are claiming that a large portion of physics is wrong, without any reason to do so, and without a viable alternative. Sure, gravity will eventually have to be modified, but this doesn't mean that GR is wrong, or that "the science is flawed". If you would sit down and work through some of the calculations, and look at some of the comparissons between theory and experiment, you would see this. Of course, as a scientist, you surely know that the only way to appreciate the results of an experiment is to see the data yourself.

Further, every relevant observation made seems to support inflation and a big bang. I challenge you to point to an experiment which contradicts the big bang, and/or inflation. Personally, I have never made an experimental observation of (for example) the CMB---of course, I am quite sure that you haven't either. I have not chosen to do experiments, I have chosen to do theory. When my experimentalist colleagues tell me "The spectral index that WMAP predicts is 0.95 +/- 2%", I am inclined to believe them, because it is their job to measure such things. When my cosmologist friends tell me "A spectral index of 0.95 is only consistent with a small class of inflationary models", I believe them, because it is their job to calculate such things. As a scientist you surely know that the only way large advances are made is through the dedication of a large number of people. Surely you appreciate the technical challenges involved in building and mainting a billion dollar sattelite. And surely you know that some people are interested in experiments and some in theory---the interface between the two groups of people drives science.

If, however, I want to build an alternative to inflation, or I don't believe the cosmologists, then I should go and do the calculations myself. As a scientist, you surely know that this is how the field works. The very least one can do is understand the calculations before attacking the theory, which it is clear that you do not. When challenged about this, you shift the argument away from your ignorance towards "my ego".

If you are a scientist, you don't seem to be a very good one---you seem willing to reject experiment and theory out of hand, without any good reason to do so. I certainly hope that your view of science with regard to your trade is different form the way you view physics.

 

[H4rd2bme]

If it would be okay with you, I would prefer this be the (or at least my) last word not only on the degeneration of this particular discussion but also certainly my last words on this forum as well. From the information you posted, I gather you are a paid physicist (i.e. "I've got physics to do"). That's actually a very rare and exciting position to be in. The nature of my current research is developmental in a very specific area and does not involve cosmology. Transdermal delivery and adhesives is not nearly as fun as cosmology but I'm digressing. I certainly meet the definition of an "armchair" cosmologist, as I am a hobbyist and do not get paid for anything I do in the area of cosmology. I am admittedly somewhat bummed that I have nothing to contribute here. I mistakenly made the assumption that I could offer something. If it makes any difference, it was an “honest” mistake.

Regarding what I said about your ego… Personally, I like a little ego. You can't deny that yours is less than humble. Even the fact that you chose the definite article "the" (as opposed to the indefinite "a") in your username suggests egocentricity. Additionally, you list your "crackpots debunked" as if you take pride in somehow breaking down another, which I'm going to tentatively presume. I suppose the culmination of that behavior is to eventually attack another man's worth to the scientific community at large because he does not or did not meet your standards of "good".

Maybe it's best if this forum is left for just specifically paid physicists and cosmologists and their respective academia. Maybe that's already in a sticky somewhere. However much I disagree with you (as I certainly do in many areas), perhaps you are correct that I have no entitlement as you have done more work in the area than I have.

The one final point I want to make is a personal one directly to you. I would have preferred, for the sake of the thread, to have done this privately but I cannot send PM's so I'm forced to say this openly and you can have it this post deleted or edited as necessary. The point is that I want to call a very serious foul on your part for the following:

"If you are a scientist, you don't seem to be a very good one---you seem willing to reject experiment and theory out of hand, without any good reason to do so."

This presumption is perhaps the most ignorant thing you could have possibly done. If you say that I am drawing conclusions "out of hand" scientifically, than you have at least accomplished the same thing on a completely personal level. I cannot tell you the amount of respect you lost (at least from my point of view) in just that one sentence alone. I sincerely hope anyone reading this understands exactly why. Not just because you have no idea what I've done or accomplished (professionally or academically), nor have you viewed my resume, nor work with me on a day-to-day basis, but when a man attacks another man's work in the general way you did it is perhaps the lowest form of attack and I think you should be ashamed of yourself. I never resorted to anything as malevolent as attacking your personal worth to the scientific community. I believe I am good at what I do. I know that my work has had an industry-wide impact on the effectiveness of transdermal delivery systems. So if the worth of a scientist (how "good" he is, as you put it) is measured by the quality of the work he has produced than I believe I am a good scientist. Am I a "good" cosmologist? In that sense, probably not. Do I have anything to offer cosmology? By your standards, no.

I disagree but for what does it matter?

So I'll step aside and let you folks get back to work. I hope your work affords you the ability to eventually know that you have made discoveries of import in your chosen field of study. Even it does not, however, please note that I consider your efforts worthwhile and hope you continue working toward that optimistically inevitable end.

 

[phlogistician]

Thank Dog for that. A noob with the arrogant self proclaiming handle of 'H4rd2bme' resigns after a complete failure to even set the terms of debate.

I guess this noob never wrote up a science experiment and went through the 'abstract, equipment, method, data, conclusion' phases, falling short on the first hurdle, here.