Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[CommonMan]

We should rename this tread "Harrycostas verses SpeedFreek" you have to admit neither one of these guys are giving up.

 

[noblackhole]

G'day noblackhole

You may find this interesting by Prof Hilton

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papers0001.htm
A Review of Anomalous Redshift Data

Hi Harry,

Thanks for the link to the excellent article by astronomer Dr. Hilton Ratcliffe.

I suspect that you are wasting your time with many of the people on this site. So many of them irrationally cling to their desired concepts despite the facts, trying to convince us all that white is black (never let the truth get in the way of a good story). By way of example, to my previous post speedfreak replied thus:

"Well, in that case we will have to see what data PLANCK gives us, won't we? It is far more sensitive than any experiment that has gone before, and should easily show if the Earths oceans contaminated the earlier experiments."

This remark does not change the fact that both the WMAP and COBE teams have committed fraud by their deliberate doctoring of their data sets. COBE members were awarded a Nobel prize for this fraud. The astrophysical scientists have misled all and sundry with their false claims for COBE and WMAP. Prof. Robitaill has predicted that PLANCK will find no signal. Even if the PLANCK team claims a signal, their data, instruments, calibration methods, and signal processing will have to be carefully examined once again by an independent imaging specialist, such as Prof. Robitaille, to see if what the PLANCK team ultimately claims is valid. After all, the claims made with fanfare for WMAP and COBE by the astrophysical scientists have now been proven not just erroneous but fraudulent.

Also, the Defenders of the Realm here have still not addressed the fact that matter cannot be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, i.e. Ric = 0, from which it inescapably follows that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and so are in conflict with the experimental evidence on a deep level, and therefore fail.

Thus, there is no valid theoretical basis for big BANG and no valid observational data for it either (COBE and WMAP are frauds). All talk of big BANG (and black holes) is wishful thinking; mysticism, not science.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day noblackhole

You said

Also, the Defenders of the Realm here have still not addressed the fact that matter cannot be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, i.e. Ric = 0, from which it inescapably follows that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and so are in conflict with the experimental evidence on a deep level, and therefore fail.

Thus, there is no valid theoretical basis for big BANG and no valid observational data for it either (COBE and WMAP are frauds). All talk of big BANG (and black holes) is wishful thinking; mysticism, not science.

That is aboslutely correct, by now you must know that the King does not wear invisble robes.

Do you do alot of reading?

You may have come across this link before.
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm

 

[csmyth3025]

Noblackhole wrote: "...both the WMAP and COBE teams have committed fraud by their deliberate doctoring of their data sets..."

You've made this assertion several times - I'm wondering why you feel that their data sets have been "doctored'.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

We should rename this tread "Harrycostas verses SpeedFreek" you have to admit neither one of these guys are giving up.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Speedfreek spend more time trying to understand the deep field links.

10,000 galaxies in one small area deep field when calaculated for the total sky you get over 100 billion galaxies.

I know that already, of course, and the figure might be as high as 500 billion. I do actually understand what the deep field images represent, but it seems to me that you do not. My earlier reply to you was due to your outrageous statement:

and if you think that a supercluster of galaxies ( over 100 billion galaxies) located at 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years, I'd love to know how without ad hoc theories to make it work.

Something is cooking at the OK barn.

You have to admit you were wrong, do you not? Either that, or you are not very good at putting your thoughts into words.

When you say "a supercluster of galaxies (over 100 billion galaxies)", you imply with the statement in those brackets that a supercluster of galaxies contains 100 billion galaxies. When you say "located at 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years", you imply that there is a supercluster of 100 billion galaxies located at 13.2 Gyrs look-back time, which puts it 500 million years after the Big Bang. When you say " I'd love to know how without ad hoc theories to make it work." you imply that we have to try to explain how a supercluster of 100 billion galaxies can have formed in only 500 million years.

Your statement made no sense, and I said so. Now you are backtracking and claiming I was taking the statement out of context, when it was the only statement you made in that post! I did not take your statement out of context, your statement was just plain wrong. Go on... admit it, and we can move on.

As for redshift data and the expanding universe, you will need to further research as to their value.

Most papers assume that the BBT is correct then proceed to fit the data.

In time you will understand this.

May I suggest you start to research on galaxy evolution and star formation.

I assume you are a smart cookie.

We adjust the theory to fit the data, of course, not the other way round. How else have we revised the age of the universe downwards during the last decade or so? How else have we changed the theory to accommodate the data that the rate of expansion is accelerating? The acceleration of the expansion was very surprising, and really complicates the theory. Why did we not fudge that data then?

Redshift data is taken from supernova so called explosions. They do not understand the intrinsic magnetic and gravitational waves that carry EMR from the point of origin that makes it look reshifted and accelerating away. This information is not new and can be researched.

Wrong again (or worded so badly it negates your meaning)! Redshift data is taken from the spectra of all the galaxies we observe.

Now the supernovae you refer to are known as "standard candles" and are used to help calibrate the redshift data. Is that what you meant to say?

But we do not only use Type 1a supernovae for "standard candles", there are many different observations used to calibrate the redshift data, and it is when the data for all these different types of distance indicator is combined that we can see the big picture. Some other forms of distance indicator are:

Cepheid Variables.
Dynamical parallax, using the orbital parameters of binary stars.
Eclipsing binary stars.
RR Lyrae variables.
The tip of the red branch in population II stars.
Planetary nebula luminosity.
Globular cluster luminosity.
Surface brightness fluctuation.
X-ray peak flux.
The Tulley-Fischer relation.
The Faber-Jackson relation.

You might want to educate yourself a little more, or express yourself a little better.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

I know whar redshift is and you know what redshift is.

The question is:

Is redshift correct and I say its not.

Wrong again (or worded so badly it negates your meaning)! Redshift data is taken from the spectra of all the galaxies we observe.

You said and I agree

Now the supernovae you refer to are known as "standard candles" and are used to help calibrate the redshift data. Is that what you meant to say?

But we do not only use Type 1a supernovae for "standard candles", there are many different observations used to calibrate the redshift data, and it is when the data for all these different types of distance indicator is combined that we can see the big picture. Some other forms of distance indicator are:

Cepheid Variables.
Dynamical parallax, using the orbital parameters of binary stars.
Eclipsing binary stars.
RR Lyrae variables.
The tip of the red branch in population II stars.
Planetary nebula luminosity.
Globular cluster luminosity.
Surface brightness fluctuation.
X-ray peak flux.
The Tulley-Fischer relation.
The Faber-Jackson relation.

There is an error within the COBE and WMAP data as per noblackhole's post. The error lies in the lack of understanding of galaxy spectrum and supernova candles.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This paper is interesting reading, stating that "The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae"

Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe
Jan-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0901.4172C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

Analysis of type 1a supernovae observations out to a redshift of $z$=1.6 shows that there is good agreement between the light-curve widths and $(1+z)$ which is usually interpreted as a strong support for time dilation due to an expanding universe. This paper argues that a strong case can be made for a static universe where the supernovae light-curve-width dependence on redshift is due to selection effects. The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae. A simple model using a static cosmology provides an excellent prediction for the dependence of light curve width on redshift and the luminosity-width relationship for nearby supernovae. The width dependence arises from the assumption of constant absolute magnitude resulting in strong selection of lower luminosity supernovae at higher redshifts due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Using a static cosmology, curvature-cosmology, and without fitting any parameters the analysis shows that the total energy is independent of redshift and provides a Hubble constant of $63.1\pm2.5$ kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. There is no indication of any deviation at large redshifts that has been ascribed to the occurrence of dark energy.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day commonman


ooops did not see your comment.

Naming the files and shifting it to the unexplained reminds me of a cleaner who used to sweep the rubbish under the carpet.

 

[noblackhole]

Noblackhole wrote: "...both the WMAP and COBE teams have committed fraud by their deliberate doctoring of their data sets..."

You've made this assertion several times - I'm wondering why you feel that their data sets have been "doctored'.

Chris

Chris, study the papers by Prof. Robitaille, the links to which I have posted on this site. You will see for yourself. These papers are hitting the WMAP and COBE teams, and the astrophysical scientists, very hard. Robitaille's papers are being studied by the international community of scientists, engineers and technologists, causing much disquiet. For instance, the designer of the antennae on the Voyager spacecraft has recently studied Robitaille's papers and concluded that Robitaille has produced a brilliant analysis. Anybody who studies Robitaille's papers will see for themselves that his papers are outstanding. The WMAP and COBE teams and the astrophysical scientists have no place to hide. They are finished, and rightly so, for scientific fraud.

Here are a few of the issues. Collectively, the WMAP and COBE teams deliberately omit data that impinges adversely upon their claims, they arbitrarily weight the V band in their ILC images to get a desired outcome, they arbitrarily vary ICL coefficients to get a desired outcome, they deliberately present signal traces within the one diagram but at different vertical scales to mask significant differences, they deliberately shift the axis of the blackbody spectrum trace to hide the fact that they omit data below 20cm^(-1), they introduce inadmissible methods of signal processing and thereby generate images that are in fact meaningless but claim then significant, they introduce ghost signal remnants of signal processing and claim them data, they deliberately omit all data obtained when the instruments' fields contained the Earth, they deliberately withhold images from reports, they apply unacceptable methods of image processing by sectioning images and using different processing coefficients in adjacent sections, they deliberately shift things they had trouble doctoring into the calibration files to hide them, they deliberately mislead as to calibrations and instrument validation and testing, they have a signal to noise about 1.5 but still claim that they have detailed data (extracted from a contamination that is ~1000 times larger than their alleged underlying signal), they arbitrarily adjust their error bars to give the impression of precision where there is in fact much error, they claim a 1mK error when there is actually 64mK error. This is but a partial list of the doctoring. It is fraud. They have been caught with their pants down.

 

[noblackhole]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This paper is interesting reading, stating that "The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae"

Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe
Jan-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0901.4172C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

Harry, I had to laugh when I read this, by SpeedFreek, in one of his replies to you:

"We adjust the theory to fit the data, of course, not the other way round."

Well, that is NOT what the astrophysical fraudsters do. They deliberately adjust the data to fit their precious theories, and they deliberately ignore the demonstrable inconsistencies in their theories. See my reply above to csmyth3025 and the papers of Robitaille, and my previous posts generally. I'm still waiting for a Defender of the Realm to prove their claims that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day noblackhole

Mate you are a smart cookie.

Tell me did you read the Crisis in Cosmology link. Alternative cosmology. So to speak.

Also the papers written by Crawford:

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Cr ... /0/all/0/1

For over a decade I have being posting emails to NASA questioning their lines of discussion when assuming that the BBT is correct. Smile they thought I was a crank pot. In the last 12 months some have changed the way they write their responses, but! still they have not moved away from the BBT. Takes time to move a sleeping giant.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Harry, I had to laugh when I read this, by SpeedFreek, in one of his replies to you:

"We adjust the theory to fit the data, of course, not the other way round."

Well, that is NOT what the astrophysical fraudsters do. They deliberately adjust the data to fit their precious theories, and they deliberately ignore the demonstrable inconsistencies in their theories. See my reply above to csmyth3025 and the papers of Robitaille, and my previous posts generally. I'm still waiting for a Defender of the Realm to prove their claims that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

So, why did we not deliberately adjust the data that showed that the rate of expansion was accelerating, which was flying in the face of all the predictions previously made using Big-Bang theory, where gravity was supposed to be still slowing the rate of expansion? It was a very awkward set of observations for Big-Bang theory, and surprised everyone in the scientific community - we had to revise a lot of the parameters in the theory (and add a few!) in order to accommodate this new information.

Surely, if what you say is true, they would have falsified the data so that it was consistent with a universe where the expansion was still decelerating?

Now then, as for the papers of Robitaille, he hasn't managed to get them published in a reputable journal, like some of his earlier papers were. He can only get them published in the dodgy "alternative" journal edited by a certain S. Crothers, who failed his PhD in General Relativity.

Anyone can get a paper published in "Progress in Physics", you do not even need to have any formal qualifications! Now, I know that Robitaille does have formal qualifications, so what is he doing posting his paper in such a dodgy journal?

You might say that I should judge Robitailles paper on its contents, but I am sure he would have submitted it to a reputable journal if he thought it would pass peer-review, so the fact that he has only managed to get it published at ptep speaks volumes.

But possibly you misunderstand my motivation for posting here. I am here to translate the current mainstream theory of cosmology into terms the layman will understand. I understand the current theory, and will point out when people like you or harry are harbouring misconceptions about it, or when they totally misunderstand it.

If, or when, the mainstream view of cosmology changes, then so I will change what I post, but until then you can rely on me to post the mainstream view. I am not nearly arrogant enough to think I know better than the mainstream.

 

[SpeedFreek]

There is an error within the COBE and WMAP data as per noblackhole's post. The error lies in the lack of understanding of galaxy spectrum and supernova candles.

I thought the error was supposed to lie in the contamination of the data by the Earth's oceans...

 

[noblackhole]

G'day noblackhole

Mate you are a smart cookie.

Tell me did you read the Crisis in Cosmology link. Alternative cosmology. So to speak.

Also the papers written by Crawford:

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Cr ... /0/all/0/1

For over a decade I have being posting emails to NASA questioning their lines of discussion when assuming that the BBT is correct. Smile they thought I was a crank pot. In the last 12 months some have changed the way they write their responses, but! still they have not moved away from the BBT. Takes time to move a sleeping giant.

Hi Harry,

Yes, I read some of the material on the link you gave to the Crisis in Cosmology, thanks for the link; and I read the paper by Crawford, "Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe". Thanks for the link to his other papers. After reading his "type 1a supernovae" paper I sent Crawford Robitaille's WMAP and COBE papers.

This SpeedFreek fellow continues to clutch at straws and deliver unscientific barbs in his frustration. Here is some of what he has now directed at me (see his full post):

"Now then, as for the papers of Robitaille, he hasn't managed to get them published in a reputable journal, like some of his earlier papers were. He can only get them published in the dodgy "alternative" journal edited by a certain S. Crothers, who failed his PhD in General Relativity.

"You might say that I should judge Robitailles paper on its contents, but I am sure he would have submitted it to a reputable journal if he thought it would pass peer-review, so the fact that he has only managed to get it published at ptep speaks volumes.

"If, or when, the mainstream view of cosmology changes, then so I will change what I post, but until then you can rely on me to post the mainstream view. I am not nearly arrogant enough to think I know better than the mainstream."

Instead of addressing the content of Robitaille's papers this guy reverts to the tired and lame "argument" of peer-review authority and attempts to prevail by ridiculing the journal in which Robitaille's papers are published, and by vilifying the theoretician Crothers, all of which we know has a great deal to do with the price of fish. Furthermore, in the same fashion of the astrophysical fraudsters, SpeedFreek falsely asserts that Crothers is a failed PhD. The fact is that Crothers was expelled for challenging the black hole dogma, and the professors at UNSW condoned the alteration of Crothers work by one Prof. C. Hamer at UNSW, who, based upon that alteration, claimed that Crothers was mistaken and should not be allowed to submit for his PhD. The affair has been reported by Crothers in its entirety on his website, with copies of all documents in evidence (http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html). SpeedFreek's desperate jibes have nothing to do with scientific discourse. Also note that he admits that he refuses to think for himself and refuses to make judgments on the balance of the scientific evidence; according to him, what the mainstream says is the truth and is not to be questioned - only the mainstream can question the mainstream, if at all. Well, the democratic vote of a mainstream does not make scientific truth, or any truth for that matter. And SpeedFreek has not even attempted to refute, on scientific grounds, anything that Robitaille has in his papers. One can only wonder if SpeedFreek has even studied Robitaille's papers. But then again, I suppose that makes no difference, since according to SpeedFreek only what the mainstream publishes in mainstream journals is allowed to be considered. Nonsense! And I'm still waiting for the Defenders of the mainstream Realm here to prove that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (i.e. Ric = 0): after all, the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

Oh, by the way Harry, NASA has publicly stated that it will not fund any research that questions the big BANG. Very scientific! And let's not forget that the Gravity Probe B did not detect the alleged dragging of spacetime (the Lense-Thirring effect) predicted by General Relativity. NASA has canceled further funding of that project (it has wasted at least $750 M on it) and the astrophysical scientists have stopped talking about it, hoping that nobody will notice that spacetime drag was not detected.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day noblackhole

I understand speedfreeks position, he reminds me of a mate who thought the same way and after 3 years of reading it clicked that he was floating down main stream without questioning. Now he is angry with me for not ppointing him in the the right direction.

I told him he needed to discover the information. Now he is free to undertsand the workings of the universe without being trapped by the BBT, which restricted his research.

As for NASA they are soon to get a CLEANER in there. Billions of dollars are hanging on the BBT and if that collapses hundreds of projects and jobs are out fishing.

In NASA some of their departments are being overseen.


You said and I agree that that Crothers was misstreated by NSW uni and in time he will be given his PHD. Crothers will become an important scientist.

The fact is that Crothers was expelled for challenging the black hole dogma, and the professors at UNSW condoned the alteration of Crothers work by one Prof. C. Hamer at UNSW, who, based upon that alteration, claimed that Crothers was mistaken and should not be allowed to submit for his PhD. The affair has been reported by Crothers in its entirety on his website, with copies of all documents in evidence (http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html).

 

[SpeedFreek]

This SpeedFreek fellow continues to clutch at straws and deliver unscientific barbs in his frustration. Here is some of what he has now directed at me (see his full post):

"Now then, as for the papers of Robitaille, he hasn't managed to get them published in a reputable journal, like some of his earlier papers were. He can only get them published in the dodgy "alternative" journal edited by a certain S. Crothers, who failed his PhD in General Relativity.

"You might say that I should judge Robitailles paper on its contents, but I am sure he would have submitted it to a reputable journal if he thought it would pass peer-review, so the fact that he has only managed to get it published at ptep speaks volumes.

"If, or when, the mainstream view of cosmology changes, then so I will change what I post, but until then you can rely on me to post the mainstream view. I am not nearly arrogant enough to think I know better than the mainstream."

Instead of addressing the content of Robitaille's papers this guy reverts to the tired and lame "argument" of peer-review authority and attempts to prevail by ridiculing the journal in which Robitaille's papers are published, and by vilifying the theoretician Crothers, all of which we know has a great deal to do with the price of fish. Furthermore, in the same fashion of the astrophysical fraudsters, SpeedFreek falsely asserts that Crothers is a failed PhD. The fact is that Crothers was expelled for challenging the black hole dogma, and the professors at UNSW condoned the alteration of Crothers work by one Prof. C. Hamer at UNSW, who, based upon that alteration, claimed that Crothers was mistaken and should not be allowed to submit for his PhD. The affair has been reported by Crothers in its entirety on his website, with copies of all documents in evidence (http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html). SpeedFreek's desperate jibes have nothing to do with scientific discourse.

I am not at all frustrated or desperate, I am simply saddened that people without the requisite knowledge feel they can reject the basis of pretty much all of modern classical physics. Such arrogance! Did Crothers get his PhD, or did he fail to get his PhD? He failed. Why? Because all the major theoretical physicists insist he is wrong about General Relativity. My assertion was certainly not false.

Perhaps you should read this very enlightening open letter to the editor in chief of "Progress in Physics".

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... 30508.html

Do you now understand why Crothers was wrong about black holes, and threw his career down the drain due to a misconception?

Do you now understand why Thorne, Misner, Israel, Rees, Penrose, Hawking, Ellis, Wald, Szekeres, Magueijo, Hamer, Cohen, MacCallum, Berkenstein, Wright, Pullin, Sennovilla and even Roy Kerr rejected his work?

Crothers is one of a few dissenting voices against all the prominent theoretical physicists of the last century.

My question was why Robitaille, who has had papers published in respected journals, could only get his paper on the WMAP and COBE "fraud" published at PTEP, a journal whose editors reject the current gold standard theory in physics, General Relativity. A journal that claims to be free from censorship, but itself refuses to publish papers that refute Crothers work.

Also note that he admits that he refuses to think for himself and refuses to make judgments on the balance of the scientific evidence; according to him, what the mainstream says is the truth and is not to be questioned - only the mainstream can question the mainstream, if at all. Well, the democratic vote of a mainstream does not make scientific truth, or any truth for that matter.

I do not refuse to think for myself (what a slanderous comment, take it easy there), I simply don't have the knowledge to challenge all these theoretical physicists. I wouldn't even try, as I am not a theoretical physicist myself. Are you? I think not. You have simply chosen to blindly believe Crothers, and I seriously doubt if you even understand why.

But if I am wrong and you think you do understand why, then you should easily be able to refute the following:

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... Views.html

I will await your refutation. If you cannot refute the above, then why are you so sure that Crothers is right?

I always make judgements based on the balance of scientific evidence. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence is for the Big-Bang theory, is it not? This is not a 50/50 situation, there is no balance in the conflicting views, there are but a few dissenters.

The mainstream consensus has worked throughout history so far. The mainstream view will change with new evidence. Do we still think the world is flat? No. Do we still think the Sun orbits the Earth? No. Do we still think that gravity is slowing the expansion of the universe? No. Do you think that scientists will be able to hide "the truth" forever?

You have failed to answer my earlier question. Why, if the mainstream always fits the data to the theory, do we currently have an accelerating universe, dark matter and dark energy? Why did they not fudge these things out, like you claim they have done with all the evidence that the universe is not expanding?

Lastly, if you look at my posts in this thread, you will see that all I have been doing is correcting peoples misconceptions about the current mainstream theory. I am only attacking the straw-man arguments being presented. Where there are serious arguments against the mainstream theory, that are not based on misconceptions, I listen. I have looked at some of the papers posted with great interest, and look forward to seeing how our best cosmological model develops over the next decade.

I am quite prepared to believe that the universe is not expanding, if I am shown enough evidence, as is the scientific method. But what we will not do is drop a theory that has successfully explained the majority of our observations better than any other, for an argument that is based on misconceived views.

So far, claims that Big-Bang theory has been thoroughly "debunked" are greatly exaggerated!

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

You said

I am quite prepared to believe that the universe is not expanding, if I am shown enough evidence, as is the scientific method. But what we will not do is drop a theory that has successfully explained the majority of our observations better than any other, for an argument that is based on misconceived views.

Because of the flow of mainstream it is difficult to swim upstream. For this to occur you will need to go out of your way and read and read and question and question.

A good start is the formation of galaxies and compact matter forming jets.

Also research if Blackholes do form.

Look I'm not a smart cookie

Read some of these papers Baryshev and others
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Ba ... /0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1084
Practical cosmology and cosmological physics

Authors: Yu. Baryshev (1), I. Taganov (2), P. Teerikorpi (3) ((1)Astron. Inst. St.-Petersburg Univ., (2)Russ. Geograph. Soc., (3)Tuorla Obs. Turku Univ.)
(Submitted on 5 Sep 2008)

Abstract: We present a summary of the International conference "Problems of practical cosmology", held at Russian Geographical Society, 23-27 June 2008, St.-Petersburg, Russia, where original reports were offered for discussion of new developments in modern cosmological physics, including the large scale structure of the Universe, the evolution of galaxies, cosmological effects in the local stellar systems, gravity physics for cosmology, cosmological models, and crucial observational tests of rival world models. The term "Practical Cosmology" was introduced by Allan Sandage in 1995 when he formulated "23 astronomical problems for the next three decades" at the conference on "Key Problems in Astronomy and Astrophysics" held at Canary Islands. Now when the first decade has passed, we can summarise the present situation in cosmological physics emphasizing interesting hot problems that have arisen during the last decade. Full texts of all reports are available at the website of the conference.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Look I'm not a smart cookie

Yes, we already realize that

 

[greddytalon]

I wish I was there for the Big Bang...to be followed by the Big Cigarette. :lol:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Smile

I gave up smoking 4 mths ago

But not the Bang

All good

 

[CommonMan]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Now that we know harrycostas is from the land of ozzz, we can understand why his veiw of the big bang is not like ours. The big bang in ozzz must work different than in this reality. So it's not his fault.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Commonman

Smile, you got that right

We see thing down under and upside down

 

[csmyth3025]

NoBlackHole wrote in an earlier post:

"...And I'm still waiting for the Defenders of the mainstream Realm here to prove that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter (i.e. Ric = 0): after all, the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter...."

I apologize if these seem like lame questions, but what does "Ric=0" mean? Also, what does "...the mainstream claim that matter is present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter..." mean?

Chris

 

[RodBrett]

This is my first comment on this site and on this topic. Initially I believed in a creation aspect to this universe and thus the Big Bang theory. I am not a scientist but have a deep interest in the subject. I am an engineering accountant and planner.

I have read some of the interesting theories, but once Hubble was launched my whole view changed. I believe the universe is infinite and under no circumstances can true depth and breadth be determined.

I remember being taught that if you count every grain of sand in the world you would not be there with eternity. I believe the universe in stars, sun, galaxies, black holes and planets keep generating energy and infinity continues apace.

Science can look at the structure and complexity which is of benefit to us all and should look at evolution in this regard. This is necessary to identify life in other worlds and the way they communicate. Though the universe I believe is infinite, Planets are not and go through a cycle of life.
Rod from the Great OZ land