SDR wrote:
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Subject: Re: Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported
Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, alt.sci.physics
Date: 2005-01-14 04:30:02 PST
SDR wrote:
[snip]
According to that picture, matter was evenly distributed in all
directions for the first instant after the Big Bang. But then
"burbling caused by the physics of quantum mechanics" created
slight imperfections, clumps that were slightly denser with
ordinary matter, as well as dark matter, the unknown material
that accounts for most of the mass in the universe.
SDR: "burbling caused by the physics of quantum
mechanics" is a descriptive phrase which describes
no understood meaning, since no one seems to
understand how/why/wherefore this "burbling" except
to ascribe it NOT to the boiling of water.
No. The usage of such a phrase is merely due to the fact
that this is a popular science article. In actual papers
published in peer-reviewed journals, the effect which is
called "burbling" here is quantified in great detail.
If you ever had looked at the literature, you would
not come up with silly claims that this has "no understood
meaning".
I was trying to match the silliness of the standard claim,
You don't know the "standard claim". You only know dumbed
down versions of it which you read in pop science articles.
So you are not in the position to argue against it.
which stems from guesses and self-evidently NOT from
direct observation
False dichotomy. Ever heard of indirect observations?
(I don't imagine you will claim you own
a microscope capable of witnessing events at the quantum
level, although you might... as I don't know you). The claim
is derived from the very inability to directly observe the
connecting dots,
What "connecting dots"?
and therefore the silly claim that ours is a
magical universe in which there are and can be any uncaused
effects
What is silly or magical about that?
(obviously at ANY level because otherwise such
uncaused effects would propagate upwards and we'd end up
with elephants sharpening their trunks on pencil sharpeners
& ice cream trucks).
Ever heard of decoherence?
A violation of the laws of physics is a
religious doctrine and ought not to play any part in science.
Where are violations of the laws of physics here?
Sir, any claim that there can exist at ANY level in our reality any
uncaused effect comes about as a result of progressions of
mathematical equations every level of which depends on the
previous level agreeing with reality to perfection
If you can explain effects like radioactive decay
*quantitativily* without using Quantum Mechanics, feel
free to show your work.
and, as I have
already said, at some point in the process somebody seems to
have missed the fact that in our reality there are NO uncaused
effects
How do you know? Have you examined every single effect in
the universe?
(if garbage come into it, garbage will be what ultimately
comes out of it). But do not go back over the figures, because
you are very likely to find the math to be flawless: The problem
is not in the math but in the basic assumptions that the numbers
really do stand for some reality more absolute than... reality.
That's where the mistake lies.
Stop the rhetoric. Show your work.
(It is
but a "guess" of quantum theory rather than a
directly observed effect, necessarily.)
Wrong. Quantum fluctuations are an experimentally checked
phenomenon.
I wonder whether you even know what you're trying to say at all:
Yes.
You don't.
Quantum fluctuations is merely a description (an acknowledgement
if you will) of our inability to predict such things as particle decay
Support that claim, please.
BECAUSE we are "forever" banned from the direct observation
that would be required to connect the dots. The silly notion that
because we may never have the means to determine the cause of
every effect there are uncaused effects is an abomination to logic
and reason... and, frankly, the heights of arrogance.
I think it is far more arrogant to proclaim that because
we in general observe caused effects in the macro world,
uncaused effects are impossible to occur everywhere and
under all circumstances.
Just as ripples spread out from a pebble dropped in a pond,
sound waves spread out from the dense clumps, traveling
about half the speed of light through the hot gas made of matter,
which is composed of electrons and protons, and of photons, or
particles of light. About 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the
universe cooled enough that the charged electrons and protons
combined to form hydrogen atoms, which allowed most of the
photons to escape the hot gas. Several years ago, astronomers
detected the sound waves etched by the photons.
SDR: I was expecting to have to argue that any
unitarian "pattern" across a substantial portion of
the visible universe could be as much evidence of an
imploding universe as of an "exploding" (or, Big
Bang) one,
Conveniently ignoring that the BBT provides a *quantitative*
description of what is observed, instead of your qualitative
hand wavings.
The fact that the world's greatest minds are quite capable of
inventing equations with which to predict the movements of
all the heavenly bodies FROM an assumption that the universe
revolves around the earth...
The BB does not use such an assumption. So what are you
talking about?
does NOT prove that the universe
revolves around the earth.
I did not talk about proof anywhere.
Sorry. There are many more
observations which contradict the Big Bang Theory than there
are observations that agree with it.
Please list them for comparison:
1) Observations which contradict the BBT:
2) Observations which agree with it:
And, frankly, because of
what I have just said... were there millions of observation that
support it and only a single one that puts it into question THAT
ought to be enough to put it into question until such time as
the contradiction is resolved.
No, that's not how science works. There is in general
not one "smoking gun" observations which shoots down a theory
in flames. Only accumulating evidence can disprove a well-established
theory.
But what usually happens is that
every contradictory observation is "explained away" by inventing
theories rather than finding facts (this is why we have such
nonsense as the theories of "dark matter"
Err, dark matter was not invented due to problems with the
BB theory. It was around much longer.
and "dark energy"
The cosmological constant also was not invented due to
the problems we had some years ago with the BBT. It had been
around much longer as a parameter of the BBT, and only recently
was found to have a non-zero value. By observations.
I see that you conveniently ignore that we have several different
lines of evidence which all agree with each other on the amount
of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. How could that
be, if they don't exist?
when Big Bang theory clearly demands that the acceleration of
the universe either be slowing down or reversing).
It does not clearly demand that. Why do you think so?
There are no such contradictions in an assumption that ours
is an imploding universe.
If you can explain the data *quantitatively*, feel free to
show your work.
[snip more empty rhetoric]
Put up or shut up.
since "mass/matter" falling towards a
center point in an imploding universe would create
"stretch ripples" (or "waves") looking not unlike the
rings of Saturn as matter necessarily "averaged" away
from a solidly massed body into "bands" of lower/higher
densities.
Then the ripples should be in the form of concentric spheres,
centered around your "center point".
Are spiral galaxies seen to form as your spherical "doctrine"
dictates?
Huh? What doctrine are you talking about???
And yet I am saying it is the same effect might be
producing both.
What effect? And both what?
This is not observed.
Bad for your idea, don't you think?
I don't believe you have thought this through sufficiently:
If my contention is that we might be seeing the localized effects
of the Hubble Constant, then most such gatherings should be
under the same pressures what individual galaxies themselves
are experiencing. And why they should not mimic them you
would need to explain to me.
What has the Hubble Constant to do with pressures?
However this is not what is being described here
Indeed. So, how can your idea explain what actually
is observed?
I don't know whether you were reading what I wrote, but
I said that this newly observed effect was not evidence
for/against Big Bang/implosion.
Err, it was something which was predicted by the BBT,
so why is it not evidence for it?
What I am saying is that
it's likely to be patterns resulting from the "random"
distribution of mass/matter densities (collections) very
naturally producing these "apparent" concentric ripples
because of the Hubble Constant.
Err, what "concentric" ripples are you talking about?
The ripples which were found were not concentric. If they
had been, that actually would have contradicted the BBT!
In an imploding universe
everything is necessarily moving toward everything else
and this law produced our solar system, and produces
every spiral galaxy (if not all galaxies)...
Hand wavings. Show your *quantitative* work.
and now we can
see structures which are many, many times larger than
galaxies being produced by the same effect (and not every
one necessarily spherically). The effect of the Hubble Constant
would be to stretch out these structures in such a way
that the densities would produce wave-like banding.
How could the Hubble Constant do that?
And why do you think that "wave-like banding" was observed?
[snip]
SDR: Although computer models would be the only way
to answer this, it's likely that this latest reported effect is
somehow a macro result of the Hubble Constant
Why is that "likely"?
For all the reasons I have spoken of above (namely, that this
effect reflects some local condition rather than a universal one).
Then why was the BBT able to predict these observations?
(since, as
I said before, it has not been reported [yet] that the "ripples"
share any kind of universal bias/orientation which would lead
us to conclude that what we are seeing is connected to any
positive evidence either of an imploding or a Big Bang universe).
Why on earth do you think that a universal bias/orientation
would be evidence for a BB?
You are right that this would indeed be evidence for your
assertion of the existence of a center.
If a flat Big Bang universe doesn't have a center, what does?!
Oh my goodness. Why on earth do you think that a flat
Big Bang universe has a center???
That's cosmology 101: the cosmological principle. The universe
is homogeneous and isotropic, i.e. all points and directions
are equivalent. That implies that there is no center and no
edge.
Statistical analysis (computer models) are therefore needed to
better understand this effect.
Hint: computer simulations of structure formation in the universe
have been done for well over a decade now.
Well I want to do one to disprove that the Hubble Constant has
anything to do with producing this particular effect, or that it does.
And I want you to disprove that there are planets in the universe
consisting of green cheese.
[snip]
Dr. Eisenstein and his colleagues used information from
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which is mapping galaxies
with a telescope in New Mexico. The other team used data
from a project called the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey that
is scanning the sky with a telescope in Australia. The research
has also refined estimates on the amount of matter - 18 percent
of matter is ordinary matter that makes up stars and planets,
and the remaining 82 percent is dark matter. And it offers
further evidence that the geometry of the universe is perfectly
flat, where the angles of all triangles always add up to 180 degrees.
SDR: Again an imploding universe would also be this flat.
And the "refinement" on so-called "dark matter" above only
"reflects" the fact that it is only in an imploding universe
that we would observe such behavior WITHOUT having to
invent some "invisible" anything to account for it.
How does an imploding universe explain the rotation curves
of galaxies?
It means that it is NOT the pull of gravity from their centers
which rule the spiral structure
I was not talking about the spiral structure. Try again.
[snip a lot of irrelevant rhetoric]
"It's more than confirmation of what we already knew from the
microwave background," said Dr. Richard S. Ellis, a professor of
astronomy at the California Institute of Technology and a
member of the 2dF team.
SDR: You'll be sorry, professor! Don't say I didn't warn you
that it's not what the evidence says to God but what it says
to some one or two very provincial fellows... necessarily
looking at it from some always limited perspective.
Can you explain all the existing data quantitatively with
your ideas? If yes, show your work. If not, shut up.
My Goodness, what emotion! It's almost proof that you are
not a scientist yourself but some institution administrator, no?
Why does showing emotion prove that I am not a scientist???
BTW: I am one.
But, what have I not explained already?! SEE:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
A lot of empty rhetoric on this page, but not even *one*
attempt to deal *quantitatively* with the data. The same
at some of the links. No surprise.
Again:
Can you explain all the existing data quantitatively with
your ideas? If yes, show your work. If not, shut up.
Perhaps the old place needs an update soon.
Yes. Hint: the update should include some actual
calculations, showing that your ideas can deal
*quantitatively* with the data.
However, what I
am describing IS the universe.
Unsupported assertion.
Eventually every last Big Bang
recreant will come around to it (who know, you yourself might
live long enough to see this).
Man, you are really full of yourself.
<http://www.geocities.com/jrstrader2000/Incompetent.htm>
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
