| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitchell Jones" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2008 01:15:12 PM |
| Object: |
Big Bang Refuted--Again |
***{The following article is on the Discover website. Inconveniently, a
supermassive black hole appears to have formed before the first galaxy,
if we accept the current iteration of the constantly mutating "Big Bang"
theory. In reality, this is just more evidence to be added to the
already massive heap, indicating that the universe always existed.
"Astronomers," however, never see it that way. Instead, the current
version of the Big Bang theory will simply be "tweaked" until it fits
the new fact, giving rise to Big Bang Theory #10,762, which will be
treated as absolute, undeniable fact, just like the previous 10,761
versions were treated, and anyone who doubts it will be subjected to
jeers and catcalls, just as those who doubted the first 10,761 versions
were subjected to jeers and catcalls. --MJ)***
Black Hole Is Most Distant Ever Found
June 7, 2007 ‹ An ongoing survey of the heavens has spotted the most
distant, and therefore earliest, giant black hole in the universe.
The object, called a quasar and given the catchy name CFHQS J2329-0301,
was found with three other extremely distant quasars in the
Canada-France High-z Quasar Survey, which uses an imaging instrument
called the MegaCam on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT).
"This is indeed the most distant," said Christian Veillet, director of
the CFHT. But he wouldn't be surprised, he said, if something even more
remote turns up soon. "They are really in the middle of the survey, so
there are more to come."
The previously most distant quasar was sighted by astronomers doing the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey."That is an exciting discovery indeed!" said
Sloan Survey and Princeton University astronomer Michael Strauss. "We
knew that our record would have to be broken eventually."
The team's discovery was presented on June 7 by University of Ottawa
astronomer Chris Willott at the meeting of the Canadian Astronomical
Society (CASCA) in Kingston, Ontario.
The distance of CFHQS J2329-0301 is about 13 billion light-years, say
the scientists. That figure comes from splitting the quasar's light into
a rainbow of colors and seeing how far to the red side of the spectrum
some telltale lines have shifted. The greater the red-shift, the greater
the distance.
As for how there can be any light from a black hole about 500 million
times the mass of the sun, it comes from the superheated material that's
falling into it.
Because the light from the quasar has traveled 13 billion years to reach
Earth, it offers two interesting avenues of study for researchers. On
the one hand, the light suggests something about the nature of the very
earliest galaxies, which are generally required to build such gigantic
black holes.
The problem is, 13 billion years ago is just 700 million years after the
Big Bang. That's generally thought to be a time before galaxies were
constructed, according to one of the discovery team members, John
Hutchings of the National Research Council Canada's Herzberg Institute
of Astrophysics.
It could be that galaxies formed earlier than expected or something else
entirely is going on. It's a puzzle, says Hutchings.
[Source: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/07/quasar_spa.html.]
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
19 Jan 2008 01:40:00 PM |
|
|
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-FF337D.13151119012008@news.thundernews.com...
[snip]
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
If we seem to be ingoring you, consider the possibility
that you are an idiot of the uninteresting kind:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/JonesMath.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
19 Jan 2008 06:07:35 PM |
|
|
On Jan 19, 1:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in messagenews:mjones-FF337D.13151119012008@news.thundernews.com...
[snip]
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
If we seem to be ingoring you, consider the possibility
that you are an idiot of the uninteresting kind:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/JonesMath.html
Dirk Vdm
'Reading comprehension', was my conclusion.
I see you caught the last bit, anyway.
Nice catch.
This is a distant Quasar they're imaging.
Energy output and distance don't match with quasars
unless you assume intrinsic redshift in some objects.
This is an intrinsically-redshifted object that is at
least two orders of magnitude closer than pure
redshift data says.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
20 Jan 2008 12:12:49 AM |
|
|
On Jan 19, 7:07 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
This is a distant Quasar they're imaging.
Energy output and distance don't match with quasars
unless you assume intrinsic redshift in some objects.
This is an intrinsically-redshifted object that is at
least two orders of magnitude closer than pure
redshift data says.
Red Shift cannot estimate Quasar distance because these entities lie
outside of our 3D reality in the 4th dimension thus the angles with
the observer that generate the apparent shift do not correspond with
distance in our space.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
20 Jan 2008 09:39:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:15:12 -0600, Mitchell Jones
<mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
***{The following article is on the Discover website. Inconveniently, a
supermassive black hole appears to have formed before the first galaxy,
if we accept the current iteration of the constantly mutating "Big Bang"
theory. In reality, this is just more evidence to be added to the
already massive heap, indicating that the universe always existed.
"Astronomers," however, never see it that way. Instead, the current
version of the Big Bang theory will simply be "tweaked" until it fits
the new fact, giving rise to Big Bang Theory #10,762, which will be
treated as absolute, undeniable fact, just like the previous 10,761
versions were treated, and anyone who doubts it will be subjected to
jeers and catcalls, just as those who doubted the first 10,761 versions
were subjected to jeers and catcalls. --MJ)***
Black Hole Is Most Distant Ever Found
June 7, 2007 ‹ An ongoing survey of the heavens has spotted the most
distant, and therefore earliest, giant black hole in the universe.
The object, called a quasar and given the catchy name CFHQS J2329-0301,
was found with three other extremely distant quasars in the
Canada-France High-z Quasar Survey, which uses an imaging instrument
called the MegaCam on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT).
"This is indeed the most distant," said Christian Veillet, director of
the CFHT. But he wouldn't be surprised, he said, if something even more
remote turns up soon. "They are really in the middle of the survey, so
there are more to come."
The previously most distant quasar was sighted by astronomers doing the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey."That is an exciting discovery indeed!" said
Sloan Survey and Princeton University astronomer Michael Strauss. "We
knew that our record would have to be broken eventually."
The team's discovery was presented on June 7 by University of Ottawa
astronomer Chris Willott at the meeting of the Canadian Astronomical
Society (CASCA) in Kingston, Ontario.
The distance of CFHQS J2329-0301 is about 13 billion light-years, say
the scientists. That figure comes from splitting the quasar's light into
a rainbow of colors and seeing how far to the red side of the spectrum
some telltale lines have shifted. The greater the red-shift, the greater
the distance.
As for how there can be any light from a black hole about 500 million
times the mass of the sun, it comes from the superheated material that's
falling into it.
Because the light from the quasar has traveled 13 billion years to reach
Earth, it offers two interesting avenues of study for researchers. On
the one hand, the light suggests something about the nature of the very
earliest galaxies, which are generally required to build such gigantic
black holes.
The problem is, 13 billion years ago is just 700 million years after the
Big Bang. That's generally thought to be a time before galaxies were
constructed, according to one of the discovery team members, John
Hutchings of the National Research Council Canada's Herzberg Institute
of Astrophysics.
It could be that galaxies formed earlier than expected or something else
entirely is going on. It's a puzzle, says Hutchings.
[Source: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/07/quasar_spa.html.]
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
So, how much was the redshift?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
27 Jan 2008 04:55:08 PM |
|
|
In article <0u48p3p9lpjatd5hjmm0giqu178qbkp2d1@4ax.com>,
John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:15:12 -0600, Mitchell Jones
<mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
***{The following article is on the Discover website. Inconveniently, a
supermassive black hole appears to have formed before the first galaxy,
if we accept the current iteration of the constantly mutating "Big Bang"
theory. In reality, this is just more evidence to be added to the
already massive heap, indicating that the universe always existed.
"Astronomers," however, never see it that way. Instead, the current
version of the Big Bang theory will simply be "tweaked" until it fits
the new fact, giving rise to Big Bang Theory #10,762, which will be
treated as absolute, undeniable fact, just like the previous 10,761
versions were treated, and anyone who doubts it will be subjected to
jeers and catcalls, just as those who doubted the first 10,761 versions
were subjected to jeers and catcalls. --MJ)***
Black Hole Is Most Distant Ever Found
June 7, 2007 ‹ An ongoing survey of the heavens has spotted the most
distant, and therefore earliest, giant black hole in the universe.
The object, called a quasar and given the catchy name CFHQS J2329-0301,
was found with three other extremely distant quasars in the
Canada-France High-z Quasar Survey, which uses an imaging instrument
called the MegaCam on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT).
"This is indeed the most distant," said Christian Veillet, director of
the CFHT. But he wouldn't be surprised, he said, if something even more
remote turns up soon. "They are really in the middle of the survey, so
there are more to come."
The previously most distant quasar was sighted by astronomers doing the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey."That is an exciting discovery indeed!" said
Sloan Survey and Princeton University astronomer Michael Strauss. "We
knew that our record would have to be broken eventually."
The team's discovery was presented on June 7 by University of Ottawa
astronomer Chris Willott at the meeting of the Canadian Astronomical
Society (CASCA) in Kingston, Ontario.
The distance of CFHQS J2329-0301 is about 13 billion light-years, say
the scientists. That figure comes from splitting the quasar's light into
a rainbow of colors and seeing how far to the red side of the spectrum
some telltale lines have shifted. The greater the red-shift, the greater
the distance.
As for how there can be any light from a black hole about 500 million
times the mass of the sun, it comes from the superheated material that's
falling into it.
Because the light from the quasar has traveled 13 billion years to reach
Earth, it offers two interesting avenues of study for researchers. On
the one hand, the light suggests something about the nature of the very
earliest galaxies, which are generally required to build such gigantic
black holes.
The problem is, 13 billion years ago is just 700 million years after the
Big Bang. That's generally thought to be a time before galaxies were
constructed, according to one of the discovery team members, John
Hutchings of the National Research Council Canada's Herzberg Institute
of Astrophysics.
It could be that galaxies formed earlier than expected or something else
entirely is going on. It's a puzzle, says Hutchings.
[Source: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/07/quasar_spa.html.]
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
So, how much was the redshift?
***{The observed wavelength was 7.14 times the emitted wavelength (z =
6.14). You can download the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0914. If
you do a web search on "Quasar CFHQS J2329-0301" you will get links to
lots of details and speculation about this object.
Black holes form primarily by the acretion of stellar masses. Any
planets, gas, dust, comets, asteroids, etc., which may be associated
with those masses will, of course, also be sucked in, but the vastly
greater part of the accreted mass comes from the stars themselves. That
means a black hole which has a mass of 500 million solar masses has
accreted roughly 500 million stars. When that happened, it wasn't
sitting out by itself in empty space, but was surrounded by lots of
nearby stars--which means: it was inside a galaxy. And galaxies form by
the agonizingly slow gravitational coalescence of vast clouds of
hydrogen in intergalactic space. As the clouds contract, dark solar
systems consisting of gas giants form, and, at some point, the larger of
the gas giants in such a system acquires sufficient mass for robust
fusion to begin. It then lights up, becoming a star. That process is
then repeated elsewhere in the contracting cloud and, one by one, other
stars light up. Result: an infant galaxy slowly appears out of the
darkness.
However, reasonableness argues against the presence of supermassive
black holes in incipient galaxies, much less monsters containing 500
million solar masses: first you have to form dark gas giants, then
stellar systems, then a young galaxy, and, finally, the galaxy must age
sufficiently so that 500 million solar masses can come together within
it. That requires vast amounts of time. Those who say otherwise are not
thinking about observational reality, but about mathematical fantasies
concocted, ultimately, for the purpose of validating creation stories of
the sort found in various non-scientific religious writings. That is why
facts can continue to emerge endlessly which conflict with the "Big
Bang" theory, as they have been doing for decades, without prompting its
abandonment. Instead, the theory's proponents simply "tweak" it a bit to
fit the new facts, and continue spouting the same basic nonsense as
before. The process goes on endlessly because the "Big Bang," at root,
is an instance of religion dressed in the trappings of science, rather
than science itself.
It can, of course, be argued that "scientific facts" are simply the
generally-accepted beliefs, the consensus, among "scientists," and that
a "scientist" requires nothing more than government certification (via
an advanced degree from an "accredited" institution) to be such,
irrespective of whatever knowledge, objectivity, reasoning, and respect
for observational reality enters into his fact identification process.
Given such a concept, it logically follows that governments can create
"truth" and "facts" at will, by the simple expedient of declaring the
proponents of favored viewpoints to be "scientists," and their
detractors to be "non-scientists." Under such an approach, "science"
becomes essentially a social enterprise, and "scientific facts" become
whatever views the ruling elite chooses to support. If the elite favors
an essentially religious theory on the grounds of political expediency,
conformists with "science" degrees will not be disturbed in the
slightest and, by the simple expedient of counting noses, that theory
will be declared to be "scientific truth."
If, on the other hand, "scientific facts" are viewed as the conclusions
of the strongest arguments being debated among scientists, then truth
will be determined by evaluating arguments, not by counting noses. In
such an environment, the term "scientist" will refer to any person who
has demonstrated a long-term commitment to studying and debating such
issues, and "science" will not be a social enterprise subject to
government control, but rather a process of experimentation and
substantive debate which, by the creative destruction of unsound
reasoning, moves its participants toward better and better
approximations of objective truth. Under such a regime, observational
reality controls the scientific debate, via the principle that the laws
of science must be in clear accord with actual experience. Since the
more distant in time the source of an observation or the longer the
chain of inference supporting a conclusion, the more debatable it
becomes, the weakening effect which loss of clarity has on arguments
will prevent the kinds of wild logical leaps and mathematically based
fantasy extrapolations that, in the present-day "scientific" world, has
led to horrors such as the constantly mutating, infinitely adjustable,
hence obviously unfalsifiable "big bang" theory.
Have any of you "Big Bang" theorists ever asked yourselves whether there
is any limit to the distance in time to the source of an observation
beyond which it is improper to use it as the base of a chain of
reasoning? Is there a limit to the number of steps in a chain of
reasoning, beyond which it becomes improper to call its conclusion a
"fact"? Have you ever asked yourselves whether there is a limit to the
number of times you are allowed to "tweak" a theory after it has been
repeatedly contradicted by newly discovered facts? Do you get to "tweak"
it forever? And if you do, does not that privilege, of and by itself,
render the theory unfalsifiable?
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
03 Feb 2008 09:49:43 AM |
|
|
In article <4f687357c8rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk>,
Rodney Blackall <rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
***{Note to those reading the group "sci.astro": I am reposting this
because, since I read sci.physics, not sci.astro, my original post did
not appear in the group that I read, nor did any replies to it. So why
did I post solely to a group that I do not read? The answer: I didn't.
The fellow to whom I replied, Rodney Blackall, set followups to divert
my reply solely to sci.astro. Thus I have had to repost this article,
and have killfiled Rodney Blackall. --MJ}***
In article <mjones-CD3EE5.16550727012008@news.thundernews.com>, Mitchell
Jones <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
In article <0u48p3p9lpjatd5hjmm0giqu178qbkp2d1@4ax.com>, John C. Polasek
<jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:15:12 -0600, Mitchell Jones
<mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
***{The following article is on the Discover website. Inconveniently,
a supermassive black hole appears to have formed before the first
galaxy, if we accept the current iteration of the constantly mutating
"Big Bang" theory.
So we have a glimpse of the original big bang itself?
***{No, what we have is a fact that clashes with the currently accepted
version of the "Big Bang" theory, which holds that no galaxies, hence no
supermassive black holes, could have existed just 700 million years
after the Big Bang.
Of course, reason permits the proponents of a theory to tweak it a few
times, but at some point, if the theory is to be falsifiable--and it is
a basic tenet of science that theories must be falsifiable--permission
for proponents to tweak their theory must expire and, after that point,
they must face the test of empirical fact--which means: thereafter, if a
fact emerges which contradicts their theory, they must declare the
theory to be false and move on.
Unfortunately, in the case of the Big Bang theory no such limit seems to
apply. Instead, its proponents have been allowed to tweak it endlessly,
in response to literally hundreds of inconvenient facts--facts that have
been emerging for decades. In reason, the theory long since should have
been declared false, and investigators should have turned to the
alternative: the fashioning of a theory that envisions a universe which
had no beginning, that existed always, for that is the only possibility
now remaining, among reasoning men who insist on adjusting their views
to fit the facts.
Since no response of that sort has taken place, since those who dare to
suggest that it ought to take place continue to be dealt with by means
of jeers, catcalls, subject switching, ad hominem attacks, etc., rather
than by reasoned arguments, I concluded long ago that the so called "Big
Bang" theory is properly classified under the heading of religion, not
science. It is enshrined as "fact" for one reason, and one reason only:
it is politically expedient to support a theoretical framework that does
not clash with religious creation theories, and so those who question
the Big Bang either keep their mouths tightly shut, or else find
themselves on the grant givers' ***** list. Thus by controlling the purse
strings of "science," politics determines the content of "scientific
truth."
For those of us who are interested in real truth, however, political and
financial expediency are quite irrelevant.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "brad" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
03 Feb 2008 12:54:20 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 10:49=A0am, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
In article <4f687357c8rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk>,
=A0Rodney Blackall <rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
reason permits the proponents of a theory to tweak it a few
times, but at some point, if the theory is to be falsifiable--and it is
a basic tenet of science that theories must be falsifiable--permission
for proponents to tweak their theory must expire and, after that point,
they must face the test of empirical fact--which means: thereafter, if a
fact emerges which contradicts their theory, they must declare the
theory to be false and move on.
=
=
=
=
a low entropy beginning shoul=
d be reason enough to question the current BB theory , or at least its relia=
nce on GR as a means to evaluate initial conditions.
Unfortunately, in the case of the Big Bang theory no such limit seems to
apply. Instead, its proponents have been allowed to tweak it endlessly,
in response to literally hundreds of inconvenient facts--facts that have
been emerging for decades. In reason, the theory long since should have
been declared false, and investigators should have turned to the
alternative: the fashioning of a theory that envisions a universe which
had no beginning, that existed always, for that is the only possibility
now remaining, among reasoning men who insist on adjusting their views
to fit the facts.
=
=
=
=
no! I cannot accept an eterna=
l universe either. if for no other reason than that proton decay hasn't been=
observed as would be expected for a universe many orders of magnitude older=
.. in addition entropy is still increasing and the universe hasn't achieved t=
hermal equilibrium.
Since no response of that sort has taken place, since those who dare to
suggest that it ought to take place continue to be dealt with by means
of jeers, catcalls, subject switching, ad hominem attacks, etc., rather
than by reasoned arguments, I concluded long ago that the so called "Big
Bang" theory is properly classified under the heading of religion, not
science. It is enshrined as "fact" for one reason, and one reason only:
it is politically expedient to support a theoretical framework that does
not clash with religious creation theories, and so those who question
the Big Bang either keep their mouths tightly shut, or else find
themselves on the grant givers' ***** list. Thus by controlling the purse
strings of "science," politics determines the content of "scientific
truth."
For those of us who are interested in real truth, however, political and
financial expediency are quite irrelevant.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
it is an axiom of science that advances come at the expense of the
establishment . so don't lose any sleep. unless you're counting on a
Nobel to help with the mortgage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
04 Feb 2008 12:31:38 PM |
|
|
In article
<59989c7f-6a4f-4c4d-b372-327e3061823c@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
brad <lbjohnson1949@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:49 am, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
In article <4f687357c8rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk>,
Rodney Blackall <rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
reason permits the proponents of a theory to tweak it a few
times, but at some point, if the theory is to be falsifiable--and it is
a basic tenet of science that theories must be falsifiable--permission
for proponents to tweak their theory must expire and, after that point,
they must face the test of empirical fact--which means: thereafter, if a
fact emerges which contradicts their theory, they must declare the
theory to be false and move on.
a low entropy beginning should be reason enough to question the current
BB theory , or at least its reliance on GR as a means to evaluate initial
conditions.
Unfortunately, in the case of the Big Bang theory no such limit seems to
apply. Instead, its proponents have been allowed to tweak it endlessly,
in response to literally hundreds of inconvenient facts--facts that have
been emerging for decades. In reason, the theory long since should have
been declared false, and investigators should have turned to the
alternative: the fashioning of a theory that envisions a universe which
had no beginning, that existed always, for that is the only possibility
now remaining, among reasoning men who insist on adjusting their views
to fit the facts.
no! I cannot accept an eternal universe either. if for no other reason
than that proton decay hasn't been observed as would be expected
for a universe many orders of magnitude older.
***{The lower the probability of a proton decay per year, the larger the
sample size that is required to render a detection likely. For example,
in the Super Kameokande neutrino detector, the number of protons has
been estimated to be 7.5x10^33. Thus if the probability that a proton
will decay in a year is 10^-33, we would expect a year of observations
to show 7.5 decays. If, as is the actual case, it shows none, we would
conclude that the probability is less than 10^-33. This inference,
however, is not dependent on how long the universe has existed, but on
how long the sample has been observed. --MJ}***
in addition entropy
is still increasing and the universe hasn't achieved thermal equilibrium.
***{Those are theories, not facts. It is a fact, for example, that the
spectra of galaxies outside the local group are redshifted, but you
enter the realm of theory when you infer that the number of galaxies
per unit volume of space, hence the average temperature of space, is
decreasing. To reach that conclusion, (a) you must first infer that the
redshift is a measure of recession velocity, and (b) you must discount
the possibility that new galaxies form in the voids that older galaxies
leave behind as they recede away from one another. While (a) is probably
true, (b) rests on little more than wishful thinking. --MJ}***
Since no response of that sort has taken place, since those who dare to
suggest that it ought to take place continue to be dealt with by means
of jeers, catcalls, subject switching, ad hominem attacks, etc., rather
than by reasoned arguments, I concluded long ago that the so called "Big
Bang" theory is properly classified under the heading of religion, not
science. It is enshrined as "fact" for one reason, and one reason only:
it is politically expedient to support a theoretical framework that does
not clash with religious creation theories, and so those who question
the Big Bang either keep their mouths tightly shut, or else find
themselves on the grant givers' ***** list. Thus by controlling the purse
strings of "science," politics determines the content of "scientific
truth."
For those of us who are interested in real truth, however, political and
financial expediency are quite irrelevant.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ- Hide quoted text -
it is an axiom of science that advances come at the expense of the
establishment . so don't lose any sleep. unless you're counting on a
Nobel to help with the mortgage.
***{Whether one ought to lose sleep due to having criticized the
scientific establishment depends on how powerful the establishment is
that one is dealing with. In Russia under Stalin, for example,
criticizing the establishment often resulted in death. In America, by
way of contrast, we have traditionally been protected by our
Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which grants all
of us legal protection if we voice unpopular opinions. However, under
the global slave system that is presently being erected around us, the
expression of unapproved opinions is likely to be considerably less
safe. --MJ}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
04 Feb 2008 05:31:21 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 10:31=A0am, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
In article
<59989c7f-6a4f-4c4d-b372-327e30618...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
=A0brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:49=A0am, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
In article <4f687357c8rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk>,
=A0Rodney Blackall <rblack...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
=A0reason permits the proponents of a theory to tweak it a few
times, but at some point, if the theory is to be falsifiable--and it i=
s
a basic tenet of science that theories must be falsifiable--permission=
for proponents to tweak their theory must expire and, after that point=
,
they must face the test of empirical fact--which means: thereafter, if=
a
fact emerges which contradicts their theory, they must declare the
theory to be false and move on.
=A0 =A0a low entropy beginning should be reason enough to question the c=
urrent
=A0 =A0BB theory , or at least its reliance on GR as a means to evaluate=
initial
=A0 =A0conditions.
Unfortunately, in the case of the Big Bang theory no such limit seems =
to
apply. Instead, its proponents have been allowed to tweak it endlessly=
,
in response to literally hundreds of inconvenient facts--facts that ha=
ve
been emerging for decades. In reason, the theory long since should hav=
e
been declared false, and investigators should have turned to the
alternative: the fashioning of a theory that envisions a universe whic=
h
had no beginning, that existed always, for that is the only possibilit=
y
now remaining, among reasoning men who insist on adjusting their views=
to fit the facts.
=A0 =A0no! I cannot accept an eternal universe either. if for no other r=
eason
=A0 =A0than that proton decay hasn't been observed as would be expected
=A0 =A0for a universe many orders of magnitude older.
***{The lower the probability of a proton decay per year, the larger the
sample size that is required to render a detection likely. For example,
in the Super Kameokande neutrino detector, the number of protons has
been estimated to be 7.5x10^33. Thus if the probability that a proton
will decay in a year is 10^-33, we would expect a year of observations
to show 7.5 decays. If, as is the actual case, it shows none, we would
conclude that the probability is less than 10^-33. This inference,
however, is not dependent on how long the universe has existed, but on
how long the sample has been observed. --MJ}***
=A0 =A0in addition entropy
=A0 =A0is still increasing and the universe hasn't achieved thermal equi=
librium.
***{Those are theories, not facts. It is a fact, for example, that the
spectra of galaxies outside the local group are redshifted, but you
enter the realm of theory when you infer that the =A0number of galaxies
per unit volume of space, hence the average temperature of space, is
decreasing. To reach that conclusion, (a) you must first infer that the
redshift is a measure of recession velocity, and (b) you must discount
the possibility that new galaxies form in the voids that older galaxies
leave behind as they recede away from one another. While (a) is probably
true, (b) rests on little more than wishful thinking. --MJ}*** =A0
Since no response of that sort has taken place, since those who dare t=
o
suggest that it ought to take place continue to be dealt with by means=
of jeers, catcalls, subject switching, ad hominem attacks, etc., rathe=
r
than by reasoned arguments, I concluded long ago that the so called "B=
ig
Bang" theory is properly classified under the heading of religion, not=
science. It is enshrined as "fact" for one reason, and one reason only=
:
it is politically expedient to support a theoretical framework that do=
es
not clash with religious creation theories, and so those who question
the Big Bang either keep their mouths tightly shut, or else find
themselves on the grant givers' ***** list. Thus by controlling the pur=
se
strings of "science," politics determines the content of "scientific
truth."
For those of us who are interested in real truth, however, political a=
nd
financial expediency are quite irrelevant.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ- Hide quoted text -
=A0 =A0it is an axiom of science that advances come at the expense of th=
e
=A0 =A0establishment . so don't lose any sleep. unless you're counting o=
n a
=A0 =A0Nobel to help with the mortgage.
***{Whether one ought to lose sleep due to having criticized the
scientific establishment depends on how powerful the establishment is
that one is dealing with. In Russia under Stalin, for example,
criticizing the establishment often resulted in death. In America, by
way of contrast, we have traditionally been protected by our
Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which grants all
of us legal protection if we voice unpopular opinions. However, under
the global slave system that is presently being erected around us, the
expression of unapproved opinions is likely to be considerably less
safe. --MJ}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The age of the universe must include expansion. The objects most
distant got there first by universal expansion. It then took 13 more
billion years for their light to reach our telescopes. When expansion
is included in the calculation of the age of the universe it
calculates at 35 billion years old.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again |
27 Jan 2008 05:47:36 PM |
|
|
if redshift is due to the inergalactic medium
-- nevermind the term, aether --
then perhaps quasars simply have got an awful lot
of gas immediately outside of their lightsources.
However, reasonableness argues against the presence of supermassive
black holes in incipient galaxies, much less monsters containing 500
million solar masses: first you have to form dark gas giants, then
thus:
I so agree. most of the effects of cellphones
-- knowing of no structures in the body that could
act as antennae for RF --
are sociological, as in "being tethered
to the boss at all times with a GPS,
as any phone already is."
p.s., Same jerks who give you a dirty look when you look at them
believing that they are speaking to you.
thus:
you probably believe that "capitalism" is the same
as British liberal "free trade" a la Smith'n'Marx. anyway,
the supranational corporations have largely moved all
of industry out of here, a huge part of our rapidly-
declining CO2-bootprint ... "Daddy,
why is every thing made in China,
like my boots?"
in spite of the Cheeny Administration,
the USA is still the only truly republican system (NB:
I recently learned from a Castroite, that
Cuba uses a parliamentary system,
which is easily "no-confidenced" by the CEO,
as in Blair's Cool Brittania:
the PM is not the head of state, though !-)
Failure to do so will force the imposition of trade sanctions and oil
export embargo's on the KKKorrupt AmeriKKKan state.
thus:
possibly, the salesman's dollar/time problem has
yet to be asked in a fungible manner -- a-hem. now,
since the four-color mapping theorem has
historically been approached as the (dual) graphing,
owing to the old ink-minimization solution,
maybe that's what it really is related-to;
eh?
however i dont want to start a debate about perpetuum mobile since it's off-topic.
thus:
of course, Strangelove was a composite, but
you have to get into the real spirit of the matter
-- starts with an S, has two syllables --
to settle upon Szilard. now, since I actually
only saw tiny fragments of Sagan's "Weaponeers"
series on PBS, long ago, this is really based
on an article-or-three from the Larouchiacs;
just don't assume that it's wrong, any more
than Sagan's idolizing take is not even wrong!
as for Teller, it is probably so in the minds
of the artistes who made the movie, just as
MacArthur is universally trashed re Korea,
in spite of the facts and, probably, because
he would never have allowed the nuking
of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, if he had been asked....
more things that only Larouchies seem
to have even heard about.
On Szilard? I think not. Szilard was
passionately against the idea of atomic weapons
from day one, and he cajoled Einstein
Dr. Strangelove is an amalgam
of individuals like Edward Teller,
Herman Kahn and maybe a few others -
all closely connected to RAND.
thus:
Androcles may be a lard-***** cyberjerk, but
the digest in Wired leaves so many simple questions out,
in reply to the assumedly-required infinities
of this finite Universe ideal,
you have to wonder. that is, even if
you believe in "black holes of the Standard Model."
Tipler puts everything into the heretofore visible part
of Universe, like Einstein, Bucky et al, and
the assumption that the redshift is Dopplerian,
a la the belief in a Big Bang cosmogeny. as well,
he assumes that the problem of decoherence
in quantum computing can ever be overcome; I mean,
lots of technical schemes & specs have been designed
for such QC, but has decoherence really ever been
fundamentally addressed (other than a big, fat,
"it's just impossible to do this"), or sooner?
Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired.
http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time....
964.http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf
DeWitt, among others. But because
these physicists were looking
for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e.,
derivatives no higher than second order),
they abandoned this qualitatively unique
quantum gravity theory since in order for it
to be consistent, it requires an arbitrarily
higher number of terms. Further,
they didn't realize that
this proper theory of quantum gravity is
thus:
origami is the n'est-plus ultra
of numbertheory, using the Pierpont primes....
you only have to know how to make paper,
or pay for it.
thus:
so, it may be simple to see that
the productivity of Fermat was not only due
to his establishing numbertheorie as a science,
but to some fundamental method. I'm sure,
Wiles's collegiate advisors, at least, would
have made this deduction, by the time
that he started on his "secret basement lab,"
in the mid-seventies, since the historiography would
have been available to them. to be really cynical,
let's say, they were the ones
to promote "le derniere theorem" misdirection. or,
was it *derriere* ??
thus:
the operating system of chess,
is the systematization of all
of the possible games that can end in a draw, or
just those that have been recorded
in games between grandmasters?...
plus, games where the first player
gets one or n extra moves, such that
he'll almost always win?...
fine, at least, it seems somewhat testable; now,
put it into a shakespearean play (that is
to say, English!)
personally, I'd guess that
any "2D" analysis is doomed to failure,
not including time as a dimension -- bogus,
undeadminkowsispeak!
thus:
anyway, it seemed that the OP did not quite
"get" _Laws of Form_, itself, before diving
into the alleged 4CT proof. well,
in the very beginning, there's a reference
to an endnote that clearly shows the relation
to first-order boolean logic and,
since that is really the same as arithmetic,
you should be able to configure it.
thus:
erratum: the Swedish Bank Prize
for Economics is not a Nobel Prize, as
you might discern from the roster
of freaks of british liberal free trade and
Chicago U. alumni, like Milton Friedman,
author of Schulz's and Sir Henry
of Kiss.*****.'s Chile experiment. so,
some bankers really are Jewish!
as for Al's Nobel,
he should really have gotten it for acting,
like a shill for Occidental Petroleum,
which made his (and Al, Sr.'s) carreer.... oh, wait;
he'd already gotten that!
No they aren't. They are selected
by the Swedish Academy of Science, and the
Norwegian Parliament. The claim that these are 60% Jewish
thus:
I looked, again, at monsieur H's "effect" page, and
was rather nonplussed by the jabber
about zero-point energy, casamir effect etc. any way,
"effects happen," whether or not H. can explain them,
which he seems unable to do, or was that you?...
what ever experimental results he has,
they hardly disprove the effect
of a 757-model missile; do they?
thus:
can you give a precis of those pages, like,
in words?... as for the idea of a missile,
whether or not carrying a 3d movie, isn't that
what a 757 diving at 500mph, full of fuel, is?... I mean,
movies are *extra*, nowadays....
why is any more energy needed for an uncontrolled demo,
since it would take much less
for a correspodingly controlled job
a la Prez Trickier *****?
My current working-hypothesis is that a missile,
carrying a hologramme crashed into the tower.
I am now sure that *no* 767 jumbo crashed into any tower.
thus:
not sure about the whole chronology, but
Nahin said that the n=3 proof was never found,
as typical a la Fermat, but, then, blandly assumes that
it was a different proof from the *mirabile dictu* one
from the margin -- that's silly; eh?... now,
F. put the whole "infinite decent" proof
for n=4 in the blank endpapers of his _Bachet's
Diophantus_, then presumably issued the challenge
for n=3. a long time, later,
Sophie Germaine proved the conjecture
for all prime exponents of the form, 2p - 1,
where p is also prime, pretty much ending (or,
at least, bookending) any case-by-case proofs
for further n.
without being paid-off by Oscar and Noby, c) ... so,
what was the reason for them?
--***** Cheeny, National Treasure:
Run, Trickier ***** -- Run for Indy superVeep!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
