S D Rodrian wrote:
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Subject: Re: Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported
View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, alt.sci.physics
Date: 2005-01-17 04:00:02 PST
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.
Ha! I read it all in toilet paper while waiting to poop!
This should at least give you pause when trying to
pigeonhole your fellow human beings, although I doubt
it will do that... as I have pigeonholed you in a dirty
little cubbyhole filled with rats' droppings.
which stems from guesses and self-evidently NOT from
direct observation
False dichotomy. Ever heard of indirect observations?
You mean guesses? Sure. I already know all there is to be
known about you from indirect observations, see!
(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"?
Precisely! [In a sequence of them, the fact that
there are none missing and thereby we can observe
the sequence without interruption.] Every step.
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?
Science is the elucidation of the inevitability of
the/a process, the understanding of its every step.
Otherwise, what we have is a series of guesses (and
ALL guesses are informed guesses, there is no way
to avoid measuring door #1 when trying to guess
what might be behind it). Religion and magic are, all
of it, non sequitur subtle deceit or a blatant con. And
the way to tell them apart is that science offers you
all the connecting dots while religion/magic do not.
AGAIN:
Science is the elucidation of the inevitabilities in Nature.
One can not underestimate how crucial it is that knowledge
is perfectly communicated (it's the only way it can be
established that the scientist himself actually understand
what he/she is talking about and is not just talking gibberish).
Too much of present day physics is gibberish. And I cheer
anybody who prefers to say he does not know rather than
claim it's all done by magic: If you do not show me how
something is inevitable you are not showing me science.
(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?
The word itself says it all: It's a cheap (subtle deceit or
blatant con) to pass off mental insanity as science. Trying
to explain entanglement without understanding the content
in which the effect is occurring is a form of insanity, and must
result in the craziest malarkey. Sir, eventually all entanglement
must be explained as a consequence of it occurring within an
imploding universe--Only then will it make any scientific sense.
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?
The religious notion that one can get something from nothing.
It is true that of late (string theory) has posited fluttering sheets
behind the magical curtain (all numbers of silly dimensions
sprouting out of shifting branes, pun) to explain the Big Bang
magic bean, but trust me on this: the sillier it gets the sillier
it must get. There is NO inevitability to ANY of it. It's ALL just
religious mumbo-jumbo/science fiction with no end to clever
invention.
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.
Who the devil told you I am disallowing quantum mechanics?
I am trying to explain it! What may be confusing you is that
I am trying to explain it in human terms, so there can be no
question but that it's real--My objection is to people who do not
understand it trying to present it as magic. Oooooo!
Magic is the violation of the laws of physics.
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?
Actually, yes I have. You see, that's the beauty of a reality
in which there can be no uncaused effects; If one should
pop up for some utterly crazy reason... the entire universe
would very quickly go utterly insane (in fact, almost in no
time at all, to speak of). This is why I can safely say not only
that there is no God, but that there has NEVER been a God,
not ever, ever. If there had been such a God (your uncaused
effect), the world as we know it would have vanished and
where ducks now waddle all in a row... dogs with faucets for
heads would be playing ping pong against telephone wires
with semi-detached legs and spoons for eyes.
This is also why I know that there are no uncaused effects
at the quantum level, only our inability to understand (to see)
all the connecting dots... the steps that lead inevitably to
the next steps and so on ad infinitum.
(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.
Why! You have seen it. You continue to see it.
And yet you don't see it, do you? I doubt you'll EVER
see it. I can only feel sorry for you (and feel the girl
next door).
(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.
O yeah?
(This could get ugly... and prolonged.)
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.
I explained it above. Read what you're reading.
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.
I think it's murder to claim that there exists or can exist
magic in the world... at ANY level, for whatever reason. And
it is the worst murder of all (of human reason and logic)
to back such a claim with the assertion that it's happening
behind the magician's curtain (in the unseen & unseeable world)
.... and that therefore one should not be asking to see how
such a thing is possible! Ooooo, it makes me so mad! [Peter
Lorre]
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?
Ah, finally someone who owns a Polaroid of the first few
thousands of a second after the Big Bang banged! My fax
number is Bensonhurst 4554555445
does NOT prove that the universe
revolves around the earth.
I did not talk about proof anywhere.
I thought not.
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:
The expansion of the universe is accelerating.
(And please do not use magic as an explanation: "You know
that THERE HAS to be some invisible/unfathomable "dark
energy" out there which in the same place and at the same
time as gravity is pulling it all together is pushing it all
apart, only just so much to explain the acceleration, mind you,
but not enough to thwart the slowing down due to gravity
expansion which otherwise would show the present day universe
going as fast as it was a minute & 3/4s after it banged...") et al
2) Observations which agree with it:
START QUOTE
The reason why Einstein's generation could not "see" it
(that the universe is imploding) has to do with the fact that
when the Big Bang notions were being contemplated they
did not yet have our concept of matter being composed by
ever more reducible sub-particles: Their notion of matter
being absolute led Einstein to immediately discard any notion
that the universe was in implosion because his idea of
implosion was a pile-up of absolute "atoms" at the center
of the universe (or, half, split atoms). His only options were
that the universe was either expanding or that it was in
steady-state (and he actually preferred it to be in steady-
state, his infamous Lambada dance, because... what could
possibly cause the universe to expand?!?!?! Until Hubble's
observations said that the universe was expanding). Now...
what must HAVE caused such expansion, Oh, I know, I know:
some kind of an explosion (some really Big Bang). Ergo, the
Big Bang was something which primitive scientists believed
MUST have happened, and not anything real anybody stumbled
over). Exactly like "dark matter" and "dark energy" nowadays.
It has never been confirmed, and it never will BECAUSE every
so-called proof that fits it like trying to bottle a cat... fits the
implosion model like a kid glove.
END QUOTE
You don't "get" much of what you read, do you?
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.
You are talking politics. I am talking science:
In mathematics, if 2+2 is not 4 it's "not 4" everywhere,
and ALL equations which claim it to be 5 are instantly
shot down. No ifs, ands, or buts. That's the difference
between science and politics.
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.
If one tries to explain the higher velocities of outer stars in
spiral galaxies under the assumption that ours is a Big Bang
universe, one will be utterly dumbfounded and this will lead
one to imagine that these galaxies MUST BE filled with all
sorts of "dark matters." This is the trouble with guesses.
Which is not to say that we shouldn't guess, merely that
it should never stop at guesses--And yet I am constantly
bombarded by all sorts of people who have accepted the
"dark" guesses as THE real/true descriptions of the universe!
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.
Please read the quote above until you understand it.
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?
If I hang a donkey from an invisible (to you) wire in front
of your face MUST you automatically ASSume that you have
stumbled upon evidence of magic?!?!?! (Actually, the answer
is obviously yes, just as with your buddies, who not "seeing"
the reason for the universe's acceleration and for the behavior
of galaxies in an imploding universe must propose that there
MUST BE some "dark" magical forces at work here). Remember:
Science connects the dots, magic/religion don't have to.
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?
I'm sorry. You've obviously never heard of an effect called
"gravity."
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.
This post just isn't brief enough for you I see!
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???
Your spherical doctrine. Apparently the universe prefers
another doctrine.
And yet I am saying it is the same effect might be
producing both.
What effect? And both what?
The imploding universe effect. And both spiral galaxies
as we see them and this newly discovered effect we just saw.
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?
If you could not use the word "pressures" in the above
context, can you use the word "influences?"
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?
Because from an assumption that the universe revolved around
the earth many correct prediction arose as well. This should be
simple enough for a two year old to grasp, yet this must be
about the third or fourth time I have mentioned this to you.
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!
Did you read AT ALL the findings as reported?
What else could "they" be in a flat universe?!
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.
It's all about you. But it's one thing to show something
to one who can see, and a blind man is quite something else.
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?
By considering individual densities in an universe in which
matter is not perfectly evenly distributed throughout: That is
what you're doing when you look at an individual galaxy,
and a cluster of galaxies, groups, and so forth... and that's
what you're doing when considering the universe in all.
And why do you think that "wave-like banding" was observed?
That's merely my description in the context of this conversation
and I am merely trying to make a point of my argument clearer,
not parrot the original article (which seems farther and farther
away as we go on). But even the spiral arms of galaxies are
"wave-like banding" without their being concentric. Nor does
concentric mean the same as its every article being perfectly
equidistantly distributed around a center.
[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?
Once you understand that the Big Bang expansion model mirrors
the true imploding nature of the universe, you will understand how
it can appear to perfectly predict a great many effects. However,
the pudding proof comes from the Big Bang model NOT agreeing
with EVERY observatioin---that is what ultimately proves the
implosion model to be the true one: it does.
(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???
Because otherwise it could touch the back of its head with
its toes, and every triangle in its pockets would be bent.
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.
That is strictly from the point of view of a very provincial
critter inside it. From my more general point of view, it is
no different than a great big globe, and you and every other
small creature in it has a definite little place in it, somewhere
where I can point to from an absolute position outside it...
or mine.
I don't imagine you could ever see it that way, but even very
common mappers of the cosmic background radiation distribution
now draw their maps that way. Sorry.
This, however, exemplifies your general confusion about these
matters: There are many concepts in quantum theory, for example,
in which it's convenient to take up a temporarily impossible
point of reference in order to better understand (not "see") the
matter... and if you're not careful, you may be too tempted to
ASSume that that impossible/temporary (purely for as long as it
may take you to "see" the matter) point of reference... is the
reality's place of permanence. This is the very thing I am always
arguing against.
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.
Oh, I'm sure this is a worthy task for the competence you
have displayed so far. I look forward to your findings.
[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.
They are inseparable. Newton's law would require that the
movement of stars around galactic center slow down with ever
increasing distances, and the crucial assumption is whether
gravity is the only factor acting here (note that it was not the
same assumption when the expansion of the universe was
found to be accelerating... in which case "dark energy" was
invented as another factor). I have always wondered how these
inventive fellows could look at two different effects supposedly
cause by gravity and yet invent two entirely different "dark"
factors to go with the same "gravity" factor supposedly ruling
them both. It would have been much more logical to simply say
that "dark energy" was speeding up the outer stars of galaxies...
or that "dark matters" were "pulling" the visible universe
expansion from way out there. Well, there is neither "dark matter"
(to any critical substantial amount) nor any "dark energy" (at all).
The real answer is that what we are seeing is the result of ours
being an imploding universe... and this explains everything
(including the constancy of the speed of light here, et al).
[snip a lot of irrelevant rhetoric]
Rats, those were my best lines!
"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???
Because a scientist should be impartial, dispassionate and
cool-headed enough to follow the facts wherever they may lead
instead of angrily trying to force the facts to follow him/her.
All this emotion is best left to administrators after the last buck.
Rather: A scientist presents his/her facts and lets them argue
it all out.
BTW: I am one.
And people actually want to work with you?!
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.
I interpret the data from the correct perspective.
All the data is well known. What would be the point of
repeating it all when it's the body of human knowledge?!?
I've made enough points for any lifetime.
Again:
Can you explain all the existing data quantitatively with
your ideas? If yes, show your work. If not, shut up.
I think you're confusing repetitiveness with tenacity.
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.
Why? When my point is so succint: Every observation
can be explained better/perfectly from the assumption
that ours is an imploding universe.
However, what I
am describing IS the universe.
Unsupported assertion.
Rather begin from the reality that so many assertions
which purport to support a Big Bang expansion model
are so perversely contradictory, counterintuitive, and
all too often merely the contention that magic rules the
world--Or, do you really believe that the reason the Big
Bang model is beloved of all religions is pure coincidence?
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.
Yes I am! How sad were I stuffed with the contents
of the crap that fills your tripes! Lord.
<http://www.geocities.com/jrstrader2000/Incompetent.htm>
Remember to practice what you preach, Bjoern. This is
as good for everyone as for anyone in particular.
Could I be wrong. Absolutely. But it doesn't bother me
if I have considered every alternative I could have considered.
The world remains the way it is regardless of what any of us
may think of it.
Bye,
Bjoern
I hope you can be as clear of conscience as I am.
S D Rodrian
http://poms.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
.
