JEROME - Life and Linear Time

aggle-rithm said:
Speaking of which...where did he go?

Hope we weren't boring him.
Click to expand...
I do not know. I'm willing to guess he's working and not free to goof on a website 24/7.

Although, it does seem that he doesn't like me holding him accountable for not actually reading sources that he presents. I've caught him twice doing so and feel that his claims of "being unconvinced by the evidence" rings hollow.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But you said the universe is eternal. Why aren't all the stars dead?
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Were you unaware that stars die?

I think we should move this back to the atheists don't understand science thread. :mgbanghead
Click to expand...
There is a certain irony in that head bangin', but let me address the same problem to you in a different way.

Consider a particular star. Heck, let's just boil it down to just a specific hydrogen atom. This hydrogen atom has, under your theory, has existed infinitely long ago in the past. Let's say the the hydrogen atom has a time of some sort. What does that time read when the atom reaches the present? Can it even reach the present? If so, how can it if it must wait in infinitely long period of time to get here?
 
sol invictus said:
You think it's infinite and eternal?

Nice trap, arth. [......]
sol invictus said:
Yes, Jerome - we'd see an infinitely bright background radiation which would burn us to a crisp instantaneously. One doesn't need to know any physics at all to see that. Have you already forgotten about Olbers?

You might also learn how to spell, or at least how to use a spellchecker.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that are perfectly consistent with an infinite universe, and dont support the Big Bang. Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.


On Hubble’s Law of Redshift, Olbers’ Paradox and the Cosmic Background Radiation
Discussion and Conclusions.

In this paper we have utilized a single principle, namely, emission, absorption and conservation of energy, to understand and correlate many phenomena. In particular we applied this principle to a study of the cosmological redshift, Olbers’ paradox, and the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation. We showed how the cosmological redshift can be coherently interpreted with this hypothesis and discussed how this can give a better quantitative fit for data in this field than other interpretations. Our model is based on a stationary and boundless Universe, homogeneous on a large scale, infinite in extent and in duration. With regard to the many assumptions needed for expanding Universe cosmologies to fit the known redshift data, we might ask, with Kellermann (1972): “Are we drawing too many epicycles?”. The model developed here can accommodate a number of the anomalies in Hubble’s law, such as those observed by Arp et al. (Arp 1967, 1971, 1974, and 1987; Field, Arp and Bahcall 1973; Arp, Burbidge, Hoyle, Narlikar and Wickramasinghe 1990), in which two physically linked astronomical objects have quite dissimilar redshifts. To understand these findings we only need to remember that aL is roughly proportional to the absorption coefficient between the object and the Earth. Since each object is surrounded by a different environment (atmospheres, charged particles forming a diffuse plasma, etc.), we would expect the redshifts associated with different types of objects to show these peculiarities. This framework for explaining the redshift of the quasars and galaxies is thus in general agreement with the mechanism proposed by Marmet (1991).
Click to expand...



And that briefly answers some of the comments posited on other threads that a plasma cosmology, or static, infinite universe does not account for Arps observations. It quite clearly does, and far better than the standard model, buts thats another issue to be discussed in the future.....


In conclusion, a stationary model of the Universe, extending without limit in all directions, and in time, is consistent with all known cosmological data. But it should be remarked that our model more resembles Nernst’s proposal (Nernst 1937 and 1938) than the steady state theory of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle (Bondi and Gold 1948; Hoyle 1948). The main difference is that since we do not have expansion of the Universe, we do not need to postulate continuous creation of matter. Consequently, we also avoid the problems that arise from a finite time for the Universe. Harrison has shown that in all big bang models with suitable evolution, the Universe has existed for only a finite time (Harrison 1964, 1974 and 1981). Because we have given a plausible resolution of Olbers’ paradox with a homogeneous, limitless Universe, without any singularity in time, we cannot agree with Tipler’s statement that “there were (and are) only two ways of resolving the Paradox: the Universe of stars must be either inhomogeneous in space, or inhomogeneous in time” (1988). [......]

We then studied Olbers’ paradox in the context of absorption of electromagnetic energy. We concluded that this is a very reasonable assumption, provided the mean temperature of matter in the Universe is that given by the cosmic background radiation. We developed some important consequences from this hypothesis (luminosity-to-mass and luminosity-to-area constant for galaxies) and pointed out that exactly these scaling laws are found in nature. Even the numerical values of the constants agree with observations.
Click to expand...



I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc. This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.

Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]). An excellent study of the many theories of a stationary Universe in which the photons lose energy in inelastic collisions with matter distributed throughout interstellar and intergalactic space was done by Pecker (1976[10]). And a further criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretations of the redshift and why these models should be replaced by static ones was originally presented by Kierein (1988[11]), and has been followed by many others since.



[1] Cosmic plasma Alfven, H. (Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Volume 82), 1981. 178 p.

[2] Cosmology in the plasma universe Alfven, Hannes, Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 389-398.

[3] Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium Lerner, Eric J. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, p. 63-68. (Full Text)

[4] Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and space science, 1993, vol. 207, no1, pp. 17-26 (Full Text)

[5] Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe data EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995 (Full Text)

[6] The Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Hubble Effect Apeiron, No. 9-10, Winter-Spring 1991

[7] The Work of R.A. Waldron Assembled by Thomas E. Phipps

[8] Problems in Quantum Physics: Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations Proceedings of the International Summer Research Workshop

[9] Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vacuum-induced dissipative red-shift mechanism JP Vigier. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 64-72.

[10] Additional evidence and possible interpretation of angular redshift anisotropy Jaakkola, T., Karoji, H., Le Denmat, G., Moles, M., Nottale, L., Vigier, J.-P. Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, vol. 177, Oct. 1976, p. 191-213.

[11] A criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretation of the red shift Kierein, J. W. Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 453-456.





I personally like to adhere to the plasma cosmology approach, that feels no need to put a beginning or end on the universe, the universe is infinite for all we know, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.


In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.


The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang, that claims to be closing in on the final answer.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
What does that time read when the atom reaches the present? Can it even reach the present? If so, how can it if it must wait in infinitely long period of time to get here?
Click to expand...

A good point, Upchurch, some people mistakenly consider infinity to be an obtainable value like some finite value would be. It reminds me of Zeno’s paradoxes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
 
Zeuzzz said:
I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that in fact seem to be more consistent with an infinite universe than the Big Bang. Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.


On Hubble’s Law of Redshift, Olbers’ Paradox and the Cosmic Background Radiation




And that answers some of the comments posited on other threads that a plasma cosmology, or static, infinite universe does not account for Arps observations. It quite clearly does, and far better than the standard model, buts thats another issue to be discussed in the future.....






I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc. This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.

Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]). An excellent study of the many theories of a stationary Universe in which the photons lose energy in inelastic collisions with matter distributed throughout interstellar and intergalactic space was done by Pecker (1976[10]). And a further criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretations of the redshift and why these models should be replaced by static ones was originally presented by Kierein (1988[11]), and has been followed by many others since.



[1] Cosmic plasma Alfven, H. (Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Volume 82), 1981. 178 p.

[2] Cosmology in the plasma universe Alfven, Hannes, Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 389-398.

[3] Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium Lerner, Eric J. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, p. 63-68. (Full Text)

[4] Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and space science, 1993, vol. 207, no1, pp. 17-26 (Full Text)

[5] Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe data EJ Lerner. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995 (Full Text)

[6] The Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Hubble Effect Apeiron, No. 9-10, Winter-Spring 1991

[7] The Work of R.A. Waldron Assembled by Thomas E. Phipps

[8] Problems in Quantum Physics: Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations Proceedings of the International Summer Research Workshop

[9] Evidence for nonzero mass photons associated with a vacuum-induced dissipative red-shift mechanism JP Vigier. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 64-72.

[10] Additional evidence and possible interpretation of angular redshift anisotropy Jaakkola, T., Karoji, H., Le Denmat, G., Moles, M., Nottale, L., Vigier, J.-P. Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, vol. 177, Oct. 1976, p. 191-213.

[11] A criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretation of the red shift Kierein, J. W. Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 453-456.





I personally like to adhere to the plasma cosmology approach, that feels no need to put a beginning or end on the universe, the universe is infinite for all we know, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.


In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.


The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang that claims to be closing in on the final answer.
Click to expand...
.

Wow! I'm impressed! :)

For someone who's really busy (with exams, was it?), and who won't be dropping by the JREF forum for a month or so (or did I mis-read), such a long post - with a full set of references no less! - is surely evidence of a great deal of time, even just writing it.

But wait! Perhaps you didn't spend much time at all on it? Perhaps there's some secret PC website, where the PC seagulls can go to load up with woo, to spam wherever and whenever they wish? Kinda like paying someone to write your term paper for you, only in bulk.

For example: In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open ...
 
Zeuzzz said:
The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang that claims to be closing in on the final answer.
Click to expand...


No, if the universe were infinitely old then we would know the “*true origin*” in that it must have no origin and already be as old as it could possibly be (infinitely old). Since the universe is still going then it can not be as old as it can possibly be or infinitely old. That is the big difference with plasma cosmology, claims that are not even self consistent.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
.

Wow! I'm impressed! :)

For someone who's really busy (with exams, was it?), and who won't be dropping by the JREF forum for a month or so (or did I mis-read), such a long post - with a full set of references no less! - is surely evidence of a great deal of time, even just writing it.

But wait! Perhaps you didn't spend much time at all on it? Perhaps there's some secret PC website, where the PC seagulls can go to load up with woo, to spam wherever and whenever they wish? Kinda like paying someone to write your term paper for you, only in bulk.

For example: In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open ...
Click to expand...


Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

I guess, if you cant address the message, just shoot the messenger, and do some frantic hand waving.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
No, if the universe were infinitely old then we would know the “*true origin*” in that it must have no origin and already be as old as it could possibly be (infinitely old).
Click to expand...


Exactly. It has no assertainable *origin* as it is infinitely old and constantly ongoing.

That is the big difference with plasma cosmology, claims that are not even self consistent.
Click to expand...


Its amazing how you can be so critical of a concept without ever coming up with any concrete, consistant, valid scientific reason to dismiss it. This is because the approach of Plasma Cosmology adheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than the Big Bang creation fairy tale.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.
Click to expand...

Hi Zeuzz: Neither can I :rolleyes: !

Zeuzzz said:
There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that in fact seem to be more consistent with an infinite universe than the Big Bang. Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.
On Hubble’s Law of Redshift, Olbers’ Paradox and the Cosmic Background Radiation
And that answers some of the comments posited on other threads that a plasma cosmology, or static, infinite universe does not account for Arps observations. It quite clearly does, and far better than the standard model, buts thats another issue to be discussed in the future.....
Click to expand...

The good old tired-light theory yet again.

Zeuzzz said:
I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc. This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.
Click to expand...

Wrong - astromomers have long known that light is affected by the inter-galactic media, e.g. see the Lyman alpha forest. Absorption does not change redshift.

Zeuzzz said:
Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]). An excellent study of the many theories of a stationary Universe in which the photons lose energy in inelastic collisions with matter distributed throughout interstellar and intergalactic space was done by Pecker (1976[10]). And a further criticism of big bang cosmological models based on interpretations of the redshift and why these models should be replaced by static ones was originally presented by Kierein (1988[11]), and has been followed by many others since.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
I personally like to adhere to the plasma cosmology approach, that feels no need to put a beginning or end on the universe, the universe is infinite for all we know, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: Quantum mechanics and special relativity.
By your logic quantum mechanics, special relativity and general relativity (the mathematical formula basis of Big Bang cosmology) should thrown away. I suspect that you would also throw away Newtonian mechanics since Newton used general principles to formulate the laws.

Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: The various steady state theories are derived from the Perfect Cosmological Principle and Mach's Principle.
But wait - these are the theories you quote. Why do you not also reject these?

The fact is that the scientific method works from both theory and observations. A theory that does not produce testable predictions is useless. General relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics would never be accepted if they did not make testable predictions that have been observed. The principles that they are based on were derived from observations.
It does not matter whether theory of observation comes first, e.g. the primary reason that the steady theory was dumped for Big Bang theory was the observation of the cosmic microwave background (theory first then rejected/confirmed by observation).

Zeuzzz said:
The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.
Click to expand...

Is this then correct:
The reason many people think that the steady state theory is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to Buddhism.

The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep body of evidence.

Zeuzzz said:
In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.

The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang that claims to be closing in on the final answer.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many adjustable parameters Plasma Cosmology has?

I have started a thread just for Plasma Cosmology. Zeuzzz - you may want to add a concise description of plasma cosmology as the first posting.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Its amazing how you can be so critical of a concept without ever coming up with any concrete, consistant, valid scientific reason to dismiss it. This is because the approach of Plasma Cosmology adheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than the Big Bang creation fairy tale.
Click to expand...
It appears that the majority of scientists disagree with you.

From Wikipedia:
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a few researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science that are co-edited by plasma cosmology proponent Anthony Peratt. A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other non-standard cosmologies). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence or peer-reviewed research that isn't over 10 years old?
 
Reality Check said:
Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: Quantum mechanics and special relativity.
By your logic quantum mechanics, special relativity and general relativity (the mathematical formula basis of Big Bang cosmology) should thrown away. I suspect that you would also throw away Newtonian mechanics since Newton used general principles to formulate the laws.

Lets see: What else "works from mathematical formulas, deductions"?
Answer: The various steady state theories are derived from the Perfect Cosmological Principle and Mach's Principle.
But wait - these are the theories you quote. Why do you not also reject these?
Click to expand...


You are as usual misrepresenting what I say. I am not trying to uproot the entire mathematical deductive method :) To assert “all of known physics must be wrong if this is true”, without stating specifically why this is the case, is a symptom of overt pseudoskeptisism.

The fact is that the scientific method works from both theory and observations. A theory that does not produce testable predictions is useless. General relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics would never be accepted if they did not make testable predictions that have been observed. The principles that they are based on were derived from observations.
It does not matter whether theory of observation comes first, e.g. the primary reason that the steady theory was dumped for Big Bang theory was the observation of the cosmic microwave background (theory first then rejected/confirmed by observation).
Click to expand...


Again, you are misrepresenting me. I have not stated that there is anything wrong with "General relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics", you seem to have inferred that in your mind.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep body of evidence.
Click to expand...


That can all be explained very well by plasma astrophysics and cosmology.


I wonder how many adjustable parameters Plasma Cosmology has?
Click to expand...


In comparison the to Big Bang, hardly any at all.


I have started a thread just for Plasma Cosmology. Zeuzzz - you may want to add a concise description of plasma cosmology as the first posting.
Click to expand...


Can't you just read the material online already? or so you require me to spoonfeed you everything?
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
It appears that the majority of scientists disagree with you.
Click to expand...


I'm well aware of that. Scientific popularity does not lead to scientific veracity, by any means. And since when did using wikipedia as a reliable source suffice? :) And before you quote me Ned Wrights ridiculous attempt, heres the rebuttal; http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html

Do you have any evidence or peer-reviewed research that isn't over 10 years old?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I forgot that any science publication that is over ten years old can be immedietly discounted :rolleyes:

Some of these publications may be a good place to start;

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Part: 1 Date: Aug. 2007 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4287017

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 31 Issue: 6 Part: 1 Date: Dec. 2003 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2003&isnumber=28301

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 28 Issue: 6 Date: Dec 2000 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2000&isnumber=19507

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

Can't you just read the material online already? or so you require me to spoonfeed you everything?
Click to expand...
Um, ... er, ...

I can't speak for RC, but for myself, what would be really, really nice would be some straight answers to the dozens (hundreds?) of questions asked, by many JREF forum members, about material that you yourself had posted, in various other threads ... material which you yourself had said, in no uncertain terms, was plasma cosmology (PC).

As you say, the online material is easy enough to find; what's almost impossible to find is anyone claiming to have a degree in physics (or astrophysics, or ...) who is willing to spend time explaining that material.

It's also easy enough to see why there are essentially zero papers on PC, in the last ~decade or so, as you have defined it, in ApJ, or MNRAS, or AJ, or ...

And no, "PC" is not the same as application of plasma physics to astrophysics; relativistic MHD (to take one example) is a perfectly respectable topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with how certain stone carvings can be interpreted as plasma discharges, or how the Sun's total power is derived from giant, galaxy-wide currents.
 
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.
Click to expand...
My goodness, a new field of science! :jaw-dropp

Would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Exactly. It has no assertainable *origin* as it is infinitely old and constantly ongoing.

Its amazing how you can be so critical of a concept without ever coming up with any concrete, consistant, valid scientific reason to dismiss it. This is because the approach of Plasma Cosmology adheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than the Big Bang creation fairy tale.
Click to expand...


It is amazing how you can quote every part of my post except for the one sentence that indicated the self inconsistency of your assertion. The universe is constantly ongoing to where? infinity? Which by your own assretion it has already reached. If infinity is something that is unobtainable then the universe can not be infinitely old. If infinity is something you think is obtainable and has already been obtained by the universe being infinitely old then the universe has already gone as far as you say it can. You seem to want it both ways, unobtainable, yet already obtained, this concept dismisses itself.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
My goodness, a new field of science! :jaw-dropp

Would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?
Click to expand...


Amazing. I think you are suffering from a quite severe case of inattentional blindness DRD, as you seem incapable of seeing my posts.

I would certainly count these as plasma astrophysics journals, and since the very definition of plasma cosmolgy is the study of the plasma universe, it falls under that bracket.

Some of these publications may be a good place to start;

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Part: 1 Date: Aug. 2007 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4287017

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 31 Issue: 6 Part: 1 Date: Dec. 2003 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2003&isnumber=28301

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 28 Issue: 6 Date: Dec 2000 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2000&isnumber=19507

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.
Click to expand...


And there are a good few more plasma groups and societies that often advocate a PC type approach listed at plasmas.org, run by head of Raytheon space and astrophysics groups and President of plasmas international, Timothy E Eastman, who is himself a Plasma cosmology advocate;

http://www.plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm
http://www.plasmas.org/space-plasmas.htm

You can see some of his other affiliations here; http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/about/editorialTeamBio/41 If you have any questions, you can E-mail him from that link. But dont give him the usual angry, naive comments you make here, he likely doesnt have time that sort of thing.

Can you see this one? :)
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
I'm sorry, I just can’t let this sort of reasoning pass.

There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that are perfectly consistent with an infinite universe, and dont support the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make the solutions correct.

Numerous perfectly valid models have been proposed, but, of course, you don’t hear about these in your standard physics course; as they do not support the dominant paradigm, the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Is this the Zeuzzz interpretation of perfectly valid. Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?

I should also point out that one of the original main reasons for saying that the doppler effect is the cause of redshifts is that intergalactic space is void, and that there are no effects on light as it travels from distant objects through space towards us. But we now know this is not the case at all; interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, plasma, clouds of dust, etc.
Click to expand...
So if we know this do you know not think its been dismissed as a legit cause of redshift? Or are you implying the majority of cosmologists are incompetent?

This is what lead Hannes Alfvén to originally speak of the cosmos as a “Plasma Universe”[1][2]. Recently, Lerner has shown, conclusively, the existence of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (Lerner 1990 [3][4][5]). The existence of intergalactic dust and gases had been deduced a long time ago, based on direct observations.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that astronomers/cosmologists don't consider dust ever?

Other mechanisms have been proposed, such as an instability of the photon with a steady reduction of mass as it ages (Waldron, [6][7]) or energy depletion due to an electrical conductivity of the background space (Monti 1988 [8]; Vigier 1990[9]).
Click to expand...
Ah, the Perfect Cosmological Principle. Sigh.

In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards.
Click to expand...
The Big Bang idea came from Hubble's observation of the redshift distance relation.

The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future.
Click to expand...
Its a bad thing that the BB mathematical formulas work?

This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe.
Click to expand...
That would be the old "scientists have been wrong before so must be wrong now" argument.

What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework.
Click to expand...
Says someone trying to tell us about how great the perfect cosmological principle is.

However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be more explicit? Were you not touting the greatness of quasi steady state theory recently (I may be wrong)? If so then you are an unbelievably big hippocrite.

The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available.
Click to expand...
What like BB theory predicted the CMBR? The CMBR that you're trying to explain away by suggesting cosmologists don't consider dust? Hippocrite.

To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.
Click to expand...
So you're using arguments from an authority on the side you're arguing against now?

The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end.
Click to expand...
Utter nonesense. I bet a large fraction of BB proponents are atheists.

Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago.
Click to expand...
We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.
Click to expand...
You'd better go to the local farm to top up on that straw you're using to create this big man.

In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.
Click to expand...
And evolution is just a theory :rolleyes: .
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Doesn't make the solutions correct.


Is this the Zeuzzz interpretation of perfectly valid. Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?


So if we know this do you know not think its been dismissed as a legit cause of redshift? Or are you implying the majority of cosmologists are incompetent?


Are you suggesting that astronomers/cosmologists don't consider dust ever?


Ah, the Perfect Cosmological Principle. Sigh.


The Big Bang idea came from Hubble's observation of the redshift distance relation.


Its a bad thing that the BB mathematical formulas work?


That would be the old "scientists have been wrong before so must be wrong now" argument.


Says someone trying to tell us about how great the perfect cosmological principle is.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be more explicit? Were you not touting the greatness of quasi steady state theory recently (I may be wrong)? If so then you are an unbelievably big hippocrite.


What like BB theory predicted the CMBR? The CMBR that you're trying to explain away by suggesting cosmologists don't consider dust? Hippocrite.


So you're using arguments from an authority on the side you're arguing against now?


Utter nonesense. I bet a large fraction of BB proponents are atheists.


We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.


You'd better go to the local farm to top up on that straw you're using to create this big man.


And evolution is just a theory :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...


:D

This kind of reasoning is sometimes disparigingly referred to as "word salad", on the face of it, it looks like a pretty extensive responce, but it contains no meat, scientifically speaking.

There is not one comment there that I can respond to directly with any science. Its a host of generalizations and personal opinions, which you are welcome to vent here, but it really does nothing to progress the topic at hand.

Example:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago."

= opinion.

Productive statement:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, which is clearly demonstrated by ............ [enter scientific reason here]"

Example:

"And evolution is just a theory"

= opinion

Productive statement:

"And evolution is just a theory, because [enter person here] has observed [enter object here]"

Example:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR?"

Productive statement:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR. The prediction was [enter prediction] Which was confirmed [enter confirmation here]"

Example:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?"

Productive statement:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core? Which we know not to be true because .........."



If you did that, then I would be able to respond directly to your claims, but as it stands, it just comes across as a rather large plate of word salad.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
DeiRenDopa said:
My goodness, a new field of science!

Would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?
Click to expand...
Amazing. I think you are suffering from a quite severe case of inattentional blindness DRD, as you seem incapable of seeing my posts.
Click to expand...
.
No need to be so amazed, the explanation is extremely simple and straight-forward (stay tuned, and read carefully now).
.
I would certainly count these as plasma astrophysics journals, and since the very definition of plasma cosmolgy is the study of the plasma universe, it falls under that bracket.
[IEEE references snipped]

Or any other similar plasma astrophysics journal would be likely candidate.
Click to expand...

[rest of post snipped; it contains the names of no 'plasma astrophysics journals']
Click to expand...
.
Yep, I must now fall upon my sword ... I did not explicitly exclude the one (and only) journal you had already referenced, and I did not take care to quote the word 'other' ... (I added bolding).

So, other than IEEE journal(s), would you be kind enough to tell readers of this thread just what journals meet your standards, as being a "plasma astrophysics journal"?
 
Zeuzzz said:
:D

This kind of reasoning is sometimes disparigingly referred to as "word salad", on the face of it, it looks like a pretty extensive responce, but it contains no meat, scientifically speaking.

There is not one comment there that I can respond to directly with any science. Its a host of generalizations and personal opinions, which you are welcome to vent here, but it really does nothing to progress the topic at hand.

Example:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago."

= opinion.

Productive statement:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, which is clearly demonstrated by ............ [enter scientific reason here]"

Example:

"And evolution is just a theory"

= opinion

Productive statement:

"And evolution is just a theory, because [enter person here] has observed [enter object here]"

Example:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR?"

Productive statement:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR. The prediction was [enter prediction] Which was confirmed [enter confirmation here]"

Example:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?"

Productive statement:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core? Which we know not to be true because .........."



If you did that, then I would be able to respond directly to your claims, but as it stands, it just comes across as a rather large plate of word salad.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Didn't you say, two posts ago?
Anyways, I'm all done for the day. Good night.
Click to expand...
Anyhoo ....

Would you be kind enough to explain how the post of yours which Tubbythin is quoting from meets your standards of 'science' (and is not 'word salad')?

Anyhoo2 ...

I seem to have missed this: in which of the material you cited is there a quantitative explanation, based on PC (including references to the landmark texts and/or papers), of the observed relative abundances of the elements? Or even a subset of them, say H, He, C, O, and Fe?

I particularly want to read such a source, starting with how its description of an infinite universe matches what you posted earlier in this thread.
 
Zeuzzz said:
This kind of reasoning is sometimes disparigingly referred to as "word salad", on the face of it, it looks like a pretty extensive responce, but it contains no meat, scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...

This is coming from the person who just wrote...
In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


The reason many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today is that it has a deep connection to the biblical story of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.


In what is perhaps a sign that popular science journals are becoming more open to talking about the problems of conventional cosmology, American Scientist has published in its September-October issue a critique of the Big Bang by Dr. Michael Disney. The article, forthrightly titled ”Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk-tale” demonstrates that at all points in its history the Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.


The universe is infinite; we can not possibly know the *true origin* of the universe accurately with our current knowledge, and we may never know. That is the big difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang, that claims to be closing in on the final answer.
Click to expand...




There is not one comment there that I can respond to directly with any science. Its a host of generalizations and personal opinions, which you are welcome to vent here, but it really does nothing to progress the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Generalizations? Do elaborate.

Example:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago."

= opinion.
Click to expand...
Er no. An opinion would contain something like "I think..." or "I believe" or something similar. What I said was either the truth or a lie. You can accuse me of lieing if you so wish.

Productive statement:

"We have independent estimates suggesting the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, which is clearly demonstrated by ............ [enter scientific reason here]"
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the phrase "practice what you preach?" Maybe you could quantify some of your assertions over in the thread on the pioneer anomaly?

Example:

"And evolution is just a theory"

= opinion

Productive statement:

"And evolution is just a theory, because [enter person here] has observed [enter object here]"
Click to expand...
Erm. You do realise I was being sarcastic here right?

Example:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR?"

Productive statement:

"What like BB theory predicted the CMBR. The prediction was [enter prediction] Which was confirmed [enter confirmation here]"
Click to expand...
Erm, sorry. I thought you said you had a degree in physics. I mean I wouldn't want to have to "spoonfeed you everything".

Example:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core?"

Productive statement:

"Like your claims that the Sun might not be powered by fusion in the core? Which we know not to be true because .........."
Click to expand...
Erm. I already explained in the other thread why this was impossible. And you just ignored it. Why would I bother doing so again?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...
Upchurch said:
Do you have any evidence or peer-reviewed research that isn't over 10 years old?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot that any science publication that is over ten years old can be immedietly discounted :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
.
Well 10 might be a bit too restrictive, but papers from much before ~1992 cannot have addressed observations of the CMB angular power spectrum, and for them to have real meat they'd need to be no more than about 10 years' old.

If you don't understand how important the CMB angular power spectrum is, in terms of observational cosmology, by all means please ask ... there are plenty of JREF members who'd be only too happy to explain it to you.
.
Some of these publications may be a good place to start;

IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Part: 1 Date: Aug. 2007 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4287017
Click to expand...
.
I'm confused (sadly, it happens rather often when I read material you post) ... there seems to be nothing here on cosmology (with one, marginally possible, exception).

I mean, to pick just one example, what does "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current $Z$-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity Part II: Directionality and Source" have to do with the origin and evolution of the universe for example, or its large scale structure? This really looks like woo of the purest kind. :eye-poppi
.
IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 31 Issue: 6 Part: 1 Date: Dec. 2003 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2003&isnumber=28301
Click to expand...
Ditto, with one definite and one possible exception?
IEEE Transactions on plasma Science, Cosmic plasma. Volume: 28 Issue: 6 Date: Dec 2000 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2000&isnumber=19507
... snip ...
Click to expand...
Ditto2, only for these, everything seems to be about 'space weather', and other (inner) solar system phenomena.

Would you please point to what, specifically, any of these papers have to do with cosmology (other than the Lerner 2003 one)?
 
Upchurch said:
Heck, let's just boil it down to just a specific hydrogen atom. This hydrogen atom has, under your theory, has existed infinitely long ago in the past. Let's say the the hydrogen atom has a time of some sort. What does that time read when the atom reaches the present? Can it even reach the present? If so, how can it if it must wait in infinitely long period of time to get here?
Click to expand...

Duuuuuude.

I need to stop coming here when I'm high....
 
Interesting though this subject is, it is not addressing the original topic. Can we please move all discussion of plasma cosmology to the other thread, which was created for that purpose, and return to Jerome's steady-state theories?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Interesting though this subject is, it is not addressing the original topic. Can we please move all discussion of plasma cosmology to the other thread, which was created for that purpose, and return to Jerome's steady-state theories?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
Click to expand...

The obvious response is:
"I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that steady state supporters are nothing more than sycophants to unpopular ideology."

Keeping to this thread: What brand of steady state theory do you believe in Jerome?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
Click to expand...
That wasn't my intention, and I think you know it, Jerome. I would prefer it if the details of plasma cosmology were discussed in a different thread. For the purposes of this thread, it can be assumed that plasma cosmology is a steady-state alternative to mainstream inflationary cosmology and leave it at that.

So the question now stands:

Reality Check said:
What brand of steady state theory do you believe in Jerome?
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
That wasn't my intention, and I think you know it, Jerome. I would prefer it if the details of plasma cosmology were discussed in a different thread. For the purposes of this thread, it can be assumed that plasma cosmology is a steady-state alternative to mainstream inflationary cosmology and leave it at that.

So the question now stands:
Click to expand...

I am sorry. You have always been honest and respectful. :blush:

I do not subcribe to Steady-State. I was attemtping to make the point that science does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
Click to expand...
I'm a sycophant to the evidence. Yes, I admit it, I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads me, even if I find that place unsettling.

If I'd lived 1000 years ago I'd have said that God created the Earth and set the Sun, Moon and stars in motion around it. Because that was the best guess on the evidence available, which was, basically, none.

If I'd lived 100 years ago I'd have said that the Universe was infinite and unchanging, and that the Sun's energy came from the fact that it was a huge pile of cometary material rubbing together to produce huge amounts of friction. Because that was the best theory available to the science that was known at that time.

If I'm alive in 100 years I may laugh at the inability of current scientists to combine relativity and quantum mechanics, but I'd probably marvel at the progress that had been made to get to our current understanding.

If I were to live 1000 years from now I might be sitting on the porch of my little house on a planet orbiting a star 100 light years from Earth, gazing through a telescope at Sol, and wondering how the physicists of the 21st century could have failed to spot the obvious. But more likely I'd gaze at that little yellow star and marvel at the intellects that made the advances, against tides of public opinion, religious objections and professional scorn, that laid the foundations for FTL travel, terraforming, and countless other technological marvels.

But this one thing I'm sure of - whatever the prevailing physical paradigm is 1000 years from now, it will be based on the evidence. And I'd follow it.

If the evidence said the Universe were static and infinite I'd accept that as fact.

If the evidence said that the Universe was dominated by electric fields, and the Sun was powered by low level electric fields permeating the Galaxy, I'd accept that.

If the evidence showed that the Earth was a flat disk sitting on the backs of 4 elephants, carried by a cosmic turtle swimming in a sea of milk I'd accept that as fact.

But the evidence doesn't show any of these things. What it shows is that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, started in an event called the Big Bang, has been expanding ever since, and may keep on expanding forever. It shows that stars are powered by nuclear fusion reactions caused by high pressures and temperatures in their cores. It shows that each generation of stars adds more and more heavy elements to the Universe, changing the chemical make-up of the next generation of stars.

And that's the problem your arguments have JEROME. You're arguing against a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence. You're arguing for a theory which used to be the prevailing mode of thought, but was shown to be wrong by the evidence. You try to point out little problems with small bits of the theory, but these objections are shown time and again to be false. In response to the whole theory, you simply accuse it of being false because it's based on a false initial premise. I've lost count of the number of times that objection has been shown to be pointless.

So, one last time, I'm going to lay out the way in which the evidence for the Big Bang piled up.

Einstein produces his theory of relativity. The natural conclusion of the theory is that the Universe should be expanding or contracting, but he doesn't like this for aesthetic reasons, so he adds a constant to his equations to maintain the static nature of the Universe. The theory is confirmed by the orbit of Mercury, and also, a few years later, during a total Solar eclipse, when light from a star near the Sun's limb is shown to have been bent by the Sun's gravity, exactly the amount relativity predicts (relativity has since been demonstrated by a huge number of experiments including the fact that GPS satellites need to take it into account to give accurate measurements). Hubble measures the redshifts of galaxies and comparing these to their distances (calculated from the magnitudes of different types of stars they contain) discovers that the further away they are the faster they're travelling away from us. Einstein calls his Cosmological constant "The greatest mistake I ever made!" Hoyle tries to argue against the theory, dubbing it the "Big Bang" and complaining that it opens the door for theists to say that God did it.

It is reasoned that if the Universe began as a tiny fireball then there should be a tell-tale radiation signature, a near perfect blackbody radiation curve at just a few degrees above absolute zero, called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Penzias and Wilson, while setting up their microwave antenna find a constant signal from all areas of the sky which they first mistake as being due to pigeon droppings in the feed horn of their antenna. After cleaning it out, and discovering that the signal is still there, they try numerous other ideas, until, in desperation they call a friend, hoping he might know what it is. He does, he was planning to set up a microwave antenna to look for it. They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have. By accident.

Boomerang, a balloon borne microwave antenna, maps the CBR and shows it to have a near perfect blackbody curve. This is followed by COBE, a satellite that shows there are minute anisotropies in the CBR. Theory predicts this, since a perfectly smooth Big Bang would not have allowed the galaxies to form as they have. WMAP, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe shows the anisotropies in far more detail, obtaining a power spectrum which agrees to a very high degree with the predictions of theory.

Nucleosynthesis, a field of physics made possible by relativity, shows that stars are powered by core nuclear fusion reactions, and even allows scientists to work out how much energy any given star is producing, and which nuclear reactions are happening in its core (actually, it's a little more complicated than that, but it all agrees with the theory). Particle physics predicts that the Sun's core nuclear fusion reactions should produce massive numbers of near massless particles called neutrinos which should be cascading through the Earth from the Sun. Neutrinos are discovered in exactly the amounts that theory predicts.

Relativity makes other predictions - black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, time dilation, all of which have been evidenced, confirming the power of relativity, which is is the basis predicting the Big bang, which has also been evidenced in many different ways.

The only initial premise in all of this is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere and everywhen, with the sole exception of the inside of a singularity (this is because the maths we have can't cope with such an extreme situation, not because it breaks the laws of physics). You might try to argue that the laws of physics aren't constant, but then you can't be sure of anything, and you might as well give up on astronomy completely.

The evidence leads, inexorably, to the conclusion that the Universe started as a tiny fireball. What set that fireball off is completely unknown, and may be unknowable. But it's where the evidence leads. And that's where I follow.

You can protest "Western Religious thinking", and "Dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy" all you like. You can pooh-pooh linear time, and the idea of a beginning. You can make erroneous statements like "science evidences that life only arises from non life" until you're blue in the face.

I choose to follow the evidence.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...


I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
Click to expand...

Care to explain how you concluded this? The Big Bang has science to back it up. Many of us here are scientists. We follow the evidence. Evidence like the redshift-distance relation, the dating of stars, the CMBR etc. The evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Which bit of the evidence comes from popular ideology? Is there an ancient Greek myth that says the galaxies will fly apart at approximately 70km/s per Mpc? Have I missed the part in Genesis where God says "Let there be cosmic microwave backround radiation. Let it have a blackbody temperature of 2.7K and let it be discovered by a couple of men taking measurements with a new antenna. Let them mistakenly think its noise as a result of pigeon poo"?
 
Zeuzzz said:
There are numerous solutions to Olbers paradox that are perfectly consistent with an infinite universe, and dont support the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Consistent with an infinite universe, yes - and inconsistent with the laws of physics.

There's no point in responding to you Zeuzzz - you and your pet theories were quite thoroughly discredited in another thread, you were exposed as a petulant liar, and you ran away claiming to be too busy to post. Spamming other threads with the same old nonsense just makes you look desperate and gives the lie to your excuses.

Enough Zeuzzz woo, back to the regularly scheduled JdG woo.
 
Last edited:
Lest it be forgotten in the plasma cosmology sub-discussion, I was quite serious in my earlier question (with the typos corrected):
Upchurch said:
Consider a particular star. Heck, let's just boil it down to just a specific hydrogen atom. This hydrogen atom has, under your theory, has existed infinitely long ago in the past. Let's say the the hydrogen atom has a timer of some sort. What does that timer read when the atom reaches the present? Can it even reach the present? If so, how can it if it must wait in infinitely long period of time to get here?
Click to expand...
There are infinities and then there are infinities and then there are also just really really large, but finite, numbers. There are consequences and paradoxes that arise when you invoke an unbounded infinity that could result in logically inconsistencies in your model.

...and no evidence is needed to disprove an logically inconsistent argument.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am sorry. You have always been honest and respectful. :blush:

I do not subcribe to Steady-State. I was attemtping to make the point that science does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, the baby has drowned in that bathwater.

Like arthwollipot and others I would be interested to hear what you consider to be a viable alternative to the big bang and steady state. Or is it that you do not choose to accept anything, so you can argue whatever suits you at the moment?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom