Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Basically, it's not a void at all.<hr /></blockquote> Well, basically it's not totally "empty", but no area of space should be so poorly populated according to the Lambda-CDM model. One of the most important "predictions" of Lambda theory (and inflation) is that the inflation phase of the expansion process created a nearly homogeneous layout of matter. Keep in mind that nobody has ever shown that inflation ever occurred or that inflaton fields exist or ever existed. If the key "prediction" of a nearly impossible to falsify theory is that the universe is homogeneous, and it's not homogeneous, then obviously it's time to abandon that theory. Inflation is pseudo-scientific dogma, just like the dark things of astronomy. The only tangle value of a metaphysical entity is it's ability to allow us to "predict" something useful. If it can't be trusted to predict something useful, then what is the value of a metaphysical concept? I see nothing about Lambda theory that is viable based on current observation. As we explore other dark regions of that WMAP data, I suspect we'll find exactly the same thing, namely a distinct and definite lack of uniform distribution of matter in the physical universe, just the opposite of what inflation and Lambda theory "predicts". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

pyoko · Oct 3, 2007

I understand what you mean, and actually I am not planning to interfere with this thread. Just a note: calling Inflation pseudo-scientific dogma is a bit harsh. Its a theory. A dogma is defined as not being able to be disputed or doubted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I understand what you mean, and actually I am not planning to interfere with this thread. Just a note: calling Inflation pseudo-scientific dogma is a bit harsh. Its a theory. A dogma is defined as not being able to be disputed or doubted.<hr /></blockquote> As a skeptic of inflation, how would you suggest I go about disputing or doubting it's existence within the mainstream community? I've tried, but it's simply not possible. Nothing like inflation has even been shown to exist, and it's only really useful "prediction" turns out to be false. Now in every other field of real "science", the onus of responsibility to demonstrate something exists falls to the one making the claim. In astronomy however, the dogma "presumes" that inflation occurred, it lacks any controlled test to demonstrate that it ever occurs in nature, and the obvious and most noticeable failures of the theory are simply swept under the rug. Science is based on observation and *controlled* scientific testing. Pseudo-science cannot be tested. I can't test inflation or dark things because there are no controlled tests to demonstrate these things are real or have any effect on normal matter. None the less, I'm dogmatically assured by the mainstream community that most of the universe is "dark" and inflation distributed the mass of the universe in a uniform manner. Nothing like that occurred as far as I can tell, but the dogma persists. IMO that makes it pseudo-scientific dogma, not scientifically testable theory. I know that sounds harsh, but I don't know what else to say about it. A theory that is based on physics and testable concepts in controlled tests is certainly "science" even if turns out to be wrong. A theory that is based on no less than three metaphysical entities that cannot be tested or falsified cannot be considered "science" , but rather it is pure speculation. Imagine if I came <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

tdamskov · Oct 4, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In astronomy however, the dogma "presumes" that inflation occurred, it lacks any controlled test to demonstrate that it ever occurs in nature, and the obvious and most noticeable failures of the theory are simply swept under the rug.<hr /></blockquote> Actually I think you're wrong about the mainstream. Of course when proposing an alternative theory you will mostly experience your fellow scientists as "opponents" when they defend BB theory. But that doesn't mean that they don't have doubts. I think most cosmologists are acutely aware of the problem of inventing new, unknown forces to explain observations. As speedfreak explained above, most cosmologist currently weigh the evidence to be in favor of CMD/Inflation theory, even if they have trouble accepting that they know all too little. But going at BB theory with the basic intention of destroying it and replacing it with something just as bad will clearly get you many dogmatic responses. And I say this as a layman; EU theory appears to be just as full of imaginary and undocumented assumptions. How the heck does plasma between stars explain the rotational properties of galaxies? Where there's attraction there should also be repulsion - but EU completely fails at explaining how these forces would balance to produce what we observe. Additionally there is NO observational evidence of large scale flows of plasma between stars. For those plasma flows to have any impact they would be of a size where they should be clearly visible at many frequencies. Even the basic premise is flawed; over time electric charges even out to a neutral equilibrium - and there's no explanation where the galactic or interstellar differences in charge would come into being or stay replenished. EU proponents need to be just as aware of the glaring holes in their theory as mainstream cosmologists are of BB theory to have any chance of being heard. And in

michaelmozina · Oct 4, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Actually I think you're wrong about the mainstream. Of course when proposing an alternative theory you will mostly experience your fellow scientists as "opponents" when they defend BB theory. But that doesn't mean that they don't have doubts. I think most cosmologists are acutely aware of the problem of inventing new, unknown forces to explain observations. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I can tell you from personal experience that the industry of astronomy is not nearly as open minded as you presume. While the Livescience forums are in fact an excellent example of true science in action, many of the other astronomy websites I've participated in over the years are not nearly as open to new ideas or open to criticism as one might hope. The Bad Astronomy forum (aptly named IMO) for instance, has a completely different policy for discussions related to "ATM", (against the mainstream) topics as they have for discussions that support the mainstream position. In fact they will not even allow anyone to discuss an ATM topic beyond 30 days. Once that topic has been discussed there, it may not be discussed again. They have a more or less a "witch trial" approach to dealing with dissent that ultimately leads to virtual execution if they don't like your ideas, or you "bug them" with your style. I grant you however that this is an extreme example of the problem and I grant you that forums such as this one are much more "professional" in their approach. Unfortunately however, that is not true of astronomy forums in general based on my personal experiences over the past two years. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As speedfreak explained above, most cosmologist currently weigh the evidence to be in favor of CMD/Inflation theory, even if they have trouble accepting that they know all too little. <hr /></blockquote> I think you will agree however that the notion of "w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 4, 2007

"Well, I can tell you from personal experience that the industry of astronomy is not nearly as open minded as you presume. While the Livescience forums are in fact an excellent example of true science in action, many of the other astronomy websites I've participated in over the years are not nearly as open to new ideas or open to criticism as one might hope. The Bad Astronomy forum (aptly named IMO) for instance, has a completely different policy for discussions related to "ATM", (against the mainstream) topics as they have for discussions that support the mainstream position. In fact they will not even allow anyone to discuss an ATM topic beyond 30 days. Once that topic has been discussed there, it may not be discussed again. They have a more or less a "witch trial" approach to dealing with dissent that ultimately leads to virtual execution if they don't like your ideas, or you "bug them" with your style. I grant you however that this is an extreme example of the problem and I grant you that forums such as this one are much more "professional" in their approach. Unfortunately however, that is not true of astronomy forums in general based on my personal experiences over the past two years." Well, it pains me to say it here, but - "that is how science works". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If an alternative theory is proposed, scientists leap on it and try to pick as many holes in it as they can (to see if it has more holes in it than the current mainstream theory). The BAUT forum has, IMO, a higher proportion of "real" scientists on it, and they do tend to act as you say. If you can defend your new theory against them, your new theory will be accepted. The 30 day rule stops people from proposing half-formed hypotheses, and the no repeat rule stops people starting threads on subjects that have already been covered. If you do have something new to add to a discussion that is closed, you can <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 4, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Well, it pains me to say it here, but - "that is how science works".<hr /></blockquote> No, that's how cults work. They banish any and all heretics. More specifically there are special "rules" and special treatment for dissenters of the group. Science as a whole operates quite differently than astronomy. Most fields of science, like my own computer science industry, are based on competition. If for instance I believe I offer a "better" product, I can sell it in the marketplace and let consumers decide which technology is "better". Astronomy on the other hand produces little if anything in the way of consumer products. It takes fantastic images, but there is nothing that is being "sold" to a consumer, and nothing that resembles the competitive marketplace. Cosmology is a whole different type of science compared to most areas of science in the sense that competing ideas cannot be taken to a consumer level. All decisions are made within a very "tight knit" little community, and that small community takes it upon themselves to subjectively decide what is "better" than any other theory. Most areas of science welcome and embrace competition. This particular forum also welcomes and embraces EU theory, even if it does not support it financially. Several moderators at this forum have welcomed me here. That is typical of the science industry as a whole, but unfortunately it is not the case at many astronomy oriented websites. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If an alternative theory is proposed, scientists leap on it and try to pick as many holes in it as they can (to see if it has more holes in it than the current mainstream theory).<hr /></blockquote> But that process is highly subjective and there is no "larger market" to override the minority. What makes a Lambda theory, that requires no less than three different metaphysical <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 4, 2007

True, I suppose I should have said "that's how cosmology works", not science. We cannot detect gravity, can we? We can only infer its existence by measuring its effects on other objects. And yet we accept it. Well, I say that, but some alternative views of gravity persist, like the idea that objects don't fall towards planets, but planets expand to meet those objects! We can ask physicists to produce some gravity, or a graviton, or gravity waves - but nobody has succeeded in that endeavour yet. We accept gravity because we can see the effect it has, without seeing gravity itself. The same applies to the "unseen mass" required for galaxies to hold together. We can see the effects this unseen mass has on the baryonic matter in those galaxies. Or something that acts like unseen mass, at least. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Now the LCDM model is based on the FLRW metric. Because the FLRW assumes homogeneity, some popular accounts mistakenly assert that the big bang model cannot account for the observed lumpiness of the universe. In a strictly FLRW model, there are no clusters of galaxies, stars or people, since these are objects much denser than a typical part of the universe. Nonetheless, the FLRW is used as a first approximation for the evolution of the universe because it is simple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpiness in the universe are added onto FLRW as extensions. Most cosmologists agree that the observable universe is well approximated by an almost FLRW model, that is, a model which follows the FLRW metric apart from primordial density fluctuations. Those fluctuations are of course introduced by your initial spread of "fairy dust" - inflation... Surely, as we come to understand plasma theory and electromagnetism more accurately, if the universe is indeed more "electric" than we currently think, we will start to notice more and more correlations between EU and our observations. Or <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 4, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We cannot detect gravity, can we? We can only infer its existence by measuring its effects on other objects. And yet we accept it. Well, I say that, but some alternative views of gravity persist, like the idea that objects don't fall towards planets, but planets expand to meet those objects!<hr /></blockquote> I think the key issue here is that if I have any doubts about the existence of gravity, I can test it by jumping off a curb. In fact I can test that gravity is "real" in a "conventional" scientific manner. Even if I cannot observe gravity directly, I can observe it's effects on real objects in controlled scientific experiments. I can experiment with gravity in orbit around earth and it can be tested on the moon as well. There is nothing about the idea that cannot be tested in a controlled manner, even if I can't "observe" gravity directly. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The same applies to the "unseen mass" required for galaxies to hold together. We can see the effects this unseen mass has on the baryonic matter in those galaxies. Or something that acts like unseen mass, at least. <hr /></blockquote> There are at least two significant problems with that logic from my perspective. First you have no control mechanisms of any sort and no experiment here on earth to show that "dark matter" even exists in nature, so IMO it's very premature to claim that "dark matter" exists "out there" somewhere. You're also simply "assuming" that the movements of galaxies can only be explained by adding mass to the system. That's particular issue is less of a "problem" in the sense that proposing "missing mass" to explain that movement is still a viable and legitimate scientific theory, even if it's not the cause of the movements in question. You haven't necessarily suggested anything new in nature by suggesting that more mass is required to explain these gala <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

genius2007 · Nov 8, 2007

I am surprised that after the comet Holmes increased in brightness a million fold this EU thread wasn't right back at the top of the list. Close up pictures show a massive jet. Now it would seem a bit much to believe that all the 'inflation' was caused by the comet. It looks more like the universe plugged in its own electric cable and super charged a very cold object in the gravity well of this solar system. It will be interesting to see what happens when the other well known very cold and getting colder object does. In an electric universe expanding into itself as is suggested (where does the balloon of space-time expand - into itself) what would compress most space or matter??? An electric universe is an energy universe and so space would be fairly 'stiff' able to hold its own. Matter and there is so little of it say a proton by comparison nucleus the size of an orange electron . the size of a dot anywhere in a cloud of possibility up to a mile away. If space is not easily squeezed (and it is expanding) are we being squeezed and it just looks like it is expanding. Incidentally while I believe in God, I take serious issue with the concept of a big bang. A circular collapse would not give anything spin therefore no coriolis motion. One needs r^2 = x^2 + y^2 for an acceleration and that is all the big bang gives but no tangent or velocity to induce rotation. It is one thing to magically create space to expand into and entirely out of the question to have a velocity through it before it came into existence. Ipso facto, the big bang is wrong.

michaelmozina · Nov 9, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I am surprised that after the comet Holmes increased in brightness a million fold this EU thread wasn't right back at the top of the list. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I actually started on new EU thread on that topic. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=814859&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= FYI, Lambda-CDM failed yet another significant test of concept this month too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Indirect detection efforts rest upon the theoretical prediction that halo WIMPs may, as they pass through the Sun, interact with solar protons and helium nuclei. Such an interaction would cause a WIMP to lose energy and become "captured" by the Sun (see Solar WIMP capture). As more and more WIMPs thermalize inside the Sun, they begin to annihilate with each other, forming a variety of particles including high-energy neutrinos.[1] These neutrinos may then travel to the Earth to be detected in one of the many neutrino telescopes, such as the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan. The number of neutrino events detected per day at these detectors depends upon the properties of the WIMP, as well as on the mass of the Higgs boson. Similar experiments are underway to detect neutrinos from WIMP annihilations within the Earth and from within the galactic center.[2][3]<hr /></blockquote> That's not what the Super-K team found at all: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0053v1.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

vandivx · Nov 9, 2007

""Tired light" theory has been around since the late 1920's and is one of the alternative theories I was referring to, one which has less observational evidence to support it than Lambda-CDM." --- tired light is a hypothesis, not a theory, in fact the term hypothesis has in effect become part of its name 'tired light hypothesis' point is nobody has any explanation (i.e., a theory of a mechanism) why light should get 'tired', that is get redshifted on the way across space, tired light so far is an empty assertion @mozina, if you don't like dark matter or energy use 'unknown matter' or energy monikers, this harping on nomenclature won't do you service you know so far we only know that matter exerts gravitational force and so its natural that we provisionally expect matter of some kind to be at work in anomalous spin of galaxies at outer perimeters but when its found out and it will be something else than matter then the name DM or DE will be abandoned and will live in history account only also, whatever is causing the anomalous galaxies rotation, there is no reason to assume it is located only 'out there', it is very likely right here around us but its effects are minuscule and can't be demonstrated, same as with speed of light in SR it also doesn't show its effects when you drive car, for DE or DM to become observable in its effects you need mass assembly at least as large as galaxy, for now anyway, I think in time we might be able to see its effects even on smaller scales vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />tired light is a hypothesis, not a theory, in fact the term hypothesis has in effect become part of its name 'tired light hypothesis'<hr /></blockquote> Then by the same token, "inflation' is not a "theory", it is a metaphysical hypothesis. So is "dark energy", and "dark matter" for that matter. That moves the whole Lambda-CDM theory into the range of "hypothesis" as well, particularly since it's metaphysical constructs are based on hypothetical entities. The notion that Lambba-CDM is any "better than" tired light theories is a misnomer. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />point is nobody has any explanation (i.e., a theory of a mechanism) why light should get 'tired', that is get redshifted on the way across space, tired light so far is an empty assertion<hr /></blockquote> That is not so. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />@mozina, if you don't like dark matter or energy use 'unknown matter' or energy monikers, this harping on nomenclature won't do you service you know<hr /></blockquote> It does no good when astronomers claim to have "proof" (not "evidence" mind you) of "dark matter" when MOND theories can explain these same observations with no need for "dark matter" of any sort. It does no good when astronomers talk about "inflation" as some sort of dogma when nothing like it has ever been shown to exist in nature. In fact, the whole thing violates known laws of physics. There is no "free" lunch, despite Guth's claim of having solved a "monopole" problem. The galaxy is not homogeneous as Guth predicted, so essentially inflation has been disproved, astronomers simply don't want to accept it. It does me no good to put faith in placeholder terms <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

vandivx · Nov 10, 2007

"If you wish to propose MACHO theories to explain these movement patters, that's fine too, because I know that normal matter exists in nature. If however astronomers propose some kind of "dark energy" or "dark matter" is responsible for these movement patterns, then they must further demonstrate the DE or DM actually exist and influence matter." --- for now I will only reply to this 'dark matter' is a generic name for any particles, hypothetical or not, that is nobody expects to find some dark matter as such but that which would explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies which rotation is experimentally observed effect, same for DEnergy I also don't believe any of that stuff like axions and what not but that doesn't mean I automatically buy into the electric universe I have only sketchy inkling what is is about (EU) but when I see somebody fixing on one facet of nature and trying to see in it universal solution to all of nature or anything near it I grow maximally suspicious and unbelieving, you seem to have put horse behind cart in that you (proponents of EU) after possibly some initial valid observation have decided to interpret the whole works in terms of electricity phenomena regardless how it fits, you just make everything fit (which of itself is very suspicious) and it seems you are little concerned with simply studying nature but are forcing on it the hat of your making "Then by the same token, "inflation' is not a "theory", it is a metaphysical hypothesis. So is "dark energy", and "dark matter" for that matter. That moves the whole Lambda-CDM theory into the range of "hypothesis" as well, particularly since it's metaphysical constructs are based on hypothetical entities. The notion that Lambba-CDM is any "better than" tired light theories is a misnomer." ---- inflation has theoretical development and DE & DM are just experimental observation with as good validity as such observation can suppl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alokmohan · Nov 11, 2007

MACHOs are dar k matter.

alokmohan · Nov 11, 2007

Too much talk of void.Are they trying to cover up the latches of big bang theory?

genius2007 · Nov 12, 2007

Too much talk of void. Are they trying to cover up the latches of big bang theory? ____________________________ I find it interesting just how central it seems we have to be to all of our observations. First flat earth, then round non spinning earth, then round sinning earth in the solar system. But the galaxy must stay central and also that there is both no centre and everything is the centre of the universe. What if the universe was not shaped like a balloon how about ... say more like what you see with the magnificent chefs making noodles from a single roll of dough. Form and flow, just plain old basic movement or co-moving reference doesn't seem to get much of an airing ... always we must be central. And spin, it all has spin. Newton made four assertions:- 1. There is an expansion we can not see 2. There is a contraction we can not see 3. There is a rotation we can not see 4. The universe is infinite I just think it would be incredibly interesting if bright light developed from within the void or the void increased rapidly in size becoming larger. How would we deny motion then? Of course there is why doesn't relativity describe things over a certain size like where is the pioneer supposed to be. Why when looking at a distant star should one of four gyros point roughly in the right direction two were sideways and one was backwards (oh that's right we have mathematics to turn all that around). Did the gyros accurately go through their maximum to minimum polhode motion through the intermediate position or not? More info required. Finally why reject an anti-matter possibility when anti-matter forms through cosmic particle interaction in the upper atmosphere not just at CERN? Does anyone use cloud chambers to track the path or interaction of cosmic particles in super saturated cloud chambers? There are still so many questions, simple ones like if we are expanding b

michaelmozina · Nov 14, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />'dark matter' is a generic name for any particles, hypothetical or not, that is nobody expects to find some dark matter as such but that which would explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies which rotation is experimentally observed effect, same for DEnergy<hr /></blockquote> MOND theories explain these rotation patterns without the need for dark matter. While you personally may not expect to find any exotic forms of mass to explain these observations, that is not true of all astronomers. WIMP theories and axion theories are specifically put forth to describe a new form of mass that is not even known to exist in nature. DE IMO is pure metaphysics. "Space" does not expand or accelerate. Only particles can expand and accelerate. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I also don't believe any of that stuff like axions and what not but that doesn't mean I automatically buy into the electric universe <hr /></blockquote> I don't buy into EU theory because of any failures in current theory. I buy into EU theory because of observations of million degree plasma in the solar corona, and the electrical currents we see in the aurora. We live inside an electric universe. Period. The failures of Lambda-CDM theory are simply a side issue as I see it. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I have only sketchy inkling what is is about (EU) <hr /></blockquote> IMO, that is a big problem. In fact, it's my mission to make sure that others do have the opportunity to learn about EU theory. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />but when I see somebody fixing on one facet of nature and trying to see in it universal solution to all of nature or anything near it I grow maximally suspicious and unbelieving, you seem to have put horse behind cart in that you (proponents of EU) after possibly some initial valid</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 14, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />MACHOs are dark matter.<hr /></blockquote> MACHO's are *normal* matter that we simply can't see because of our limited technology. It's not an extraordinary claim because we know that planets and asteroids exist in nature. Compare and contrast that now with WIMP theory. WIMPS are an extraordinary claim. They do not exist as far as we know. The onus of responsibility in science falls to the one making the claim. If Lambda proponents believe that the "missing mass" they are looking for is contained in WIMPS then they must demonstrate that such things exist. They have never done so. Inflation is also an extraordinary claim. No other vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation is presumed to act like. Dark energy does not exist. It too is a metaphysical construct. When Lambda-CMD proponents claim that "space" expands, what are they talking about in terms of testable physics? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

vandivx · Nov 15, 2007

ooops, ok observation it is, I hand it to you can you enlighten me on the theory of tired light? I fail to see any theory there, honest, and everywhere semirespectable I look it is called hypothesis so god help me, I am not making it up, its just you want to give it some respectability to give you some level against establishment - the mainstream theories that you attack here in fact I more or less agree with you on that count but you can never bolster your theories by debunking the false ones by saying they are false no matter how loud you can be as I see it there always were groups of scientists with false theories when the progress in sciences stagnated as it does now, I think there is whole legion of scientists who think it is all bunk but they have no better solution to offer or see one offered by others and they keep silent and their silence doesn't mean necessarily they agree with inflation theory etc and that idea that space doesn't, can't expand, I bet that is some philosophical idea more than anything else that you have and it is almost certainly wrong one I think, it recalls to mind Einstein and his unbelief in probability in QMs on fundamental level (God doesn't play dice...) vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Nov 15, 2007

If there is no metric expansion of space, how does one explain the connection between the apparent angular diameter of galaxies when compared to their brightness and redshift? Why do the the smallest of the dimmest, most redshifted galaxies of a given type have a larger angular diameter than the smallest of brighter, less redshifted galaxies of the same type? Why does a galaxy at redshift z=7 look like it was closer when it emitted the light we see (due to its apparent angular size) than a galaxy of the same type (which looks like it should be of a similar absolute size) at redshift z=2? When we use the angular diameter to estimate the distance an object was when it emitted the light we see, we find that the smallest (most distant) galaxies with a redshift of z=7 were only around 3 billion light years away when they emitted their light, whereas the smallest of the galaxies at redshift z=2 were over 5 billion light years away when they emitted their light, some 3 billion years later? If redshift is caused by tired light, it still means the more redshifted the light is, the more tired it is, and thus the longer it has been travelling. So, how come the dimmer galaxies whose light has been travelling the longest look like they were closer to us when they emitted their light than galaxies whose light has been travelling for 3 billion years less time? Wiki link for basic reference <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

vandivx · Nov 15, 2007

IMO the redshift is a combination of the two effects - space expansion and light getting tired - for which later I have a theory why it should be loosing energy (that is getting tired - what a delicious term BTW <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 15, 2007

What happens when the energy gets loose? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

tom_hobbes · Nov 15, 2007

I've noticed that many American posters substitute loos [sic] for lose. Is this a genuine American spelling difference or something else? Lose. def: 1 a: to bring to destruction â€”used chiefly in passive construction <the ship was lost on the reef /> b: damn <if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul â€” Matthew 16:26(Authorized Version)>2: to miss from one's possession or from a customary or supposed place3: to suffer deprivation of : part with especially in an unforeseen or accidental manner4 a: to suffer loss through the death or removal of or final separation from (a person) b: to fail to keep control of or allegiance of <lose votes> <lost his temper>5 a: to fail to use : let slip by : waste <no time to lose> b (1): to fail to win, gain, or obtain <lose a prize> <lose a contest> (2): to undergo defeat in <lost every battle> c: to fail to catch with the senses or the mind <lost what she said>6: to cause the loss of7: to fail to keep, sustain, or maintain <lost my balance>8 a: to cause to miss one's way or bearings <lost himself in the maze of streets> b: to make (oneself) withdrawn from immediate reality <lost herself in daydreaming>9 a: to wander or go astray from <lost his way> b: to draw away from : outstrip <lost his pursuers>10: to fail to keep in sight or in mind Loose def: 1 a: not rigidly fastened or securely attached b (1): having worked partly free from attachments <a loose tooth /> (2): having relative freedom of movement c: produced freely and accompanied by raising of mucus <a loose cough> d: not tight-fitting 2 a: free from a state of confinement, restraint, or obligation <a lion loose in the streets /> <spend loose funds wisely> b: not brought together in a bundle, container, or binding carchaic : disconnected, detached 3 a: not dense, close, or compact in structure or arrangement b: not sol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 15, 2007

It's not reading what you have written, letting a spell checker vet the words. Or not caring enough about what you are saying, IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

michaelmozina

Guest

pyoko

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

genius2007

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

vandivx

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

vandivx

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

genius2007

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

vandivx

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

vandivx

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page