Who gives a ***** what you think?
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mt2.0-19429-1161680565@star.bris.ac.uk...
|I think this is getting outside the charter for the
| group so I've cross-posted and set follow-ups
| to sci.astro.
|
| wrote:
| > George Dishman wrote:
| > > Of course it is falsifiable. If there were no CMBR, the
| > > model would be in serious trouble and if the universe
| > > were 99.9% hydrogen then our model of nucleogenesis
| > > would be falsified.
| >
| > I mean falsified in a future definitive test.
|
| By that approach if I make a prediction today
| and it is borne out by measurement tomorrow
| that is great, but the day after it doesn't count
| because it is then in the past. The big bang
| model has made many predictions that have
| been confirmed, some of which have been
| mentioned in these threads. The fact that they
| were successfully done some time ago doesn't
| diminish their significance.
|
| > Predictions must be made
| > prior to observations in a definitive test. What sense does it make to
| > say "if there were no CMBR..." and "if the universe were 99.9%
| > hydrogen"?
|
| The first makes sense because the prediction _was_
| made prior to the measurement, other were already
| looking when Penzias and Wilson got lucky. The
| second makes sense because the prediction is
| not based on a free parameter that can be adjusted
| to get that value whle still meeting other observations.
| The term "prediction" doesn't just refer to whether the
| value was calculated prior to its measurement but can
| also mean that it is derivable without fitting.
|
| > Think of moving forward. How can we test the BB paradigm
| > vs the discrete fractal paradigm NOW?
|
| I already answered that, the most obvious test to do
| is the angular power spectrum. Where is the fractal
| prediction? You complain about the big bang model
| not making predictions yet you ignore the fact that
| you cannot provide that key prediction from your
| theory.
|
| However, let me correct another point. You don't test
| one theory against another in science, you test each
| against observation. Your theory suggests _all_ dark
| matter should be in MACHOs, does it not? If so then
| the microlensing evidence is strongly against it.
|
| > > For recent specific predictions, note that the angular
| > > power spectrum of the CMBR was predicted before WMAP
| > > using GR both with a cosmological constant and without
| > > but including quintessence instead as the nature of
| > > dark energy. the subsequent results are a better fit to
| > > the cosmological constant than quintessence so GR made
| > > a prediction and passed the test.
| >
| > This is mostly model-building, ...
|
| Nope, the predictions were made before the results
| were known, not fitted retrospectively. GR passed
| the test, you have not yet even provided a prediction.
|
| George
.
|
