JEROME - Life and Linear Time

wollery said:
They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly at the temperature it was predicted to have. Penzias and Wilson made their observation in 1965. Before that, I understand estimates for the "temperature of the universe" ranged from 50K (Gamow, 1948) to 5K (Herman, Alpher, 1948).

There were many, many predictions, with some persons (Gamow, for example) changing predictions a number of times, due to new observational evidence, or tweaks to their model.

So, I suppose that a observation of a 3K CBR is exactly at the predictions of 5K to 50K.

I suppose.



wollery said:
I choose to follow the evidence.
Click to expand...

What about the evidence that speaks to a fundamental problem with the current cosmology paradigm?

Such as the evidentiary problems associated with Big Bang nucleosynthesis, especially regarding lithium?
 
aggle-rithm said:
I wasn't aware that the creation of lithium at the Big Bang was much of an issue. Doesn't it get created in stars?
Click to expand...

I apologize: my reference should have been to the primordial lithium abundance.

Sorry I did not make that clear.
 
Wangler said:
I apologize: my reference should have been to the primordial lithium abundance.

Sorry I did not make that clear.
Click to expand...
Being pedantic ...

It's also the primordial 7Li abundance; the other stable isotope of Li (6Li) is expected to have a primordial abundance of zero.

It it important to note that, unlike D, 3He and 4He, the primordial abundance of 7Li is very difficult to estimate, not least because 7Li is so fragile.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
OK, so what's your problem with primordial lithium?
Click to expand...
It's not his problem, it's one of the (very) few discrepant BBN datapoints ... the estimated abundance of primordial 7Li is several sigma from that expected, based on the estimated primordial abundance of D and He (estimated using ΛLCDM models with parameters that fit all the other data).

However, the estimated abundance of primordial 7Li is a conclusion which relies upon a quite long logic chain (albeit one built with components from standard astrophysics) with many parameters; if there important processes that create or destroy 7Li, in the objects in which it is observed (or their precursors), which have been mis-modelled (or not even modelled at all), then the estimates will be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Thanks DeiRenDopa, but are you sure that's going to be Wangler's objection?
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Thanks DeiRenDopa, but are you sure that's going to be Wangler's objection?
Click to expand...
.
Based on his earlier post, pretty sure.

My guess is he's boning up on the material from an earlier 'alternative' conference (something about a crisis in cosmology), by reading some material compiled by those who dislike (or stronger) modern cosmology (for whatever combination of reasons). The 'BBT failed to predict the CMB temperature!', together with the content that followed, is pretty standard in such lists, and the discrepant primordial 7Li abundance comes close behind. The good news is that he is choosing well from such lists ... he leaves out much of the woo-ier material (like 'intrinsic redshifts'); the bad news is that I doubt he knows much about the 'BBT failures' he posts, beyond what's in 'BBT is wrong! WRONG!! WRONG!!!' compilations he's glossing.

But I could well be quite wrong ...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
.
Based on his earlier post, pretty sure.

My guess is he's boning up on the material from an earlier 'alternative' conference (something about a crisis in cosmology), by reading some material compiled by those who dislike (or stronger) modern cosmology (for whatever combination of reasons). The 'BBT failed to predict the CMB temperature!', together with the content that followed, is pretty standard in such lists, and the discrepant primordial 7Li abundance comes close behind. The good news is that he is choosing well from such lists ... he leaves out much of the woo-ier material (like 'intrinsic redshifts'); the bad news is that I doubt he knows much about the 'BBT failures' he posts, beyond what's in 'BBT is wrong! WRONG!! WRONG!!!' compilations he's glossing.

But I could well be quite wrong ...
Click to expand...

DRD,

You not only pay attention to these myriad posts, but you also draw good conclusions from the post material.

Well done, sir!

The only very slight miss was that I found that "alternative cosmology conference" just in the last day, most of my other "mulling about" for contrarian points has been done since I have joined JREF earlier this year.

Now, I must freely confess that your bit of 'bad news' hits the nail on the head: I know very little about the 'BBT failures' that I post; I am trying to learn, though. :(

At this time, I usually must always concede to those on this forum who actually know the stuff, but perhaps that will change as I broaden my understanding.

The only reason I speak up, when not knowing some of this stuff 100%, is because I think that some presentations of standard theories are presented in a somewhat dogmatic manner.

Especially for a sceptics forum. :)

So, I chime in with my 1/2 cents worth at that point.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
So you were being sarcastic with "fundamental problem with the current cosmology paradigm"?
Click to expand...

Well, being partly sarcastic is probably a fair assessment.

I think that there are problems with the current cosmology paradigm. I do lack the education and experience to claim unequivocally that they are 'fundamental'.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
.The 'BBT failed to predict the CMB temperature!', together with the content that followed, is pretty standard in such lists, and the discrepant primordial 7Li abundance comes close behind.
Click to expand...

Just an example of the process leading me to the Li issue:

When I was reading another post, and the subject of the CMB spectrum came up, I was fascinated to learn all the things that the CMB spectrum could tell us....very cool.

That lead me looking for more information on CMB, and current cosmology observational tests.

It was in looking in one of these papers (I can't remember which), that they talked about the primorial abundances of H, He, Li as predicted by the BBT.

It was there I saw the Li problem; they also talked about the He problem, which apparently has improved somewhat recently.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that theories like the BBT, which does not match all observational evidence, is not as concrete as, say, General Relativity, which does match all observational evidence.

That is not to say that BBT is the wrong theory, it is just not the only theory.

Another example:

One thing I am trying to learn more about is the predictions on the matter density of the universe, and what leads us to the energy, DM, DE, and matter fractions that we hold to in the concordance LCDM theory.

Sure, I can listen to people tell me that it is the best theory we have, but I want to try to understand why.

I am sure to come across other reasonable (to this layman) objections to LCDM throughout this learning process, which I will not hesitate to bring to discussions here, if I think it would be useful.

Also:

There are many "alternative cosmology" websites out there. It can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. May just make claims, but there little or no trail for discovering the scientific rational behind the claims.

Some are better than others, obviously.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Being pedantic ...

It's also the primordial 7Li abundance; the other stable isotope of Li (6Li) is expected to have a primordial abundance of zero.
Click to expand...

That's not being pedantic. In nuclear physics the neutron number is as important as the proton number. Being vague about the neutron number creates as much of a problem as being vague about Z.

EDIT: How did the thumbs down symbol appear at the top? It wasn't deliberate.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
EDIT: How did the thumbs down symbol appear at the top? It wasn't deliberate.
Click to expand...


A mere slip of the finger as your cursor passed over that smilie activator. I had that happen before myself, the title smilie activators are located under the post reply dialog box and you can deactivate it in advanced editing.

ETA: Or maybe it was just a subconscious action?
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
I apologize: my reference should have been to the primordial lithium abundance.

Sorry I did not make that clear.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest, how can one tell the difference between primordial lithium and lithium that is manufactured through stellar nucleosynthesis?
 
arthwollipot said:
Just out of interest, how can one tell the difference between primordial lithium and lithium that is manufactured through stellar nucleosynthesis?
Click to expand...
I'm not Wrangler, but I hope you won't mind me jumping in with a (very) brief answer ...

A: with considerable difficulty!

Not only is 7Li generated by BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), but it is also generated in stellar nucleosynthesis. However, it is also destroyed in stellar cores, so its observed abundance, due to this process, must come from somewhere else. There are several sources, such as flares, novae, and AGB stars; supernovae are also expected to produce some.

But wait! It gets more complicated!!

When a high energy particle collides with the nucleus of an atom such as C or O - which are not rare in the interstellar medium (ISM) - the products include 7Li. This process is called spallation, and as the ISM (and the IGM - inter-galactic medium) has plenty of high energy particles passing through it (they're called cosmic rays, or, rarely today, galactic cosmic rays), 7Li will be produced.

So, three+ sources, and two+ sinks (spallation also destroys 7Li).

However, the other stable Li isotope (6Li) is different: no BBN source, very small source in stars (flares), and prolific cosmic ray spallation source. Sinks are the same, except that for 6Li, destruction in stars is even more efficient than for 7Li.

The principal method of estimating primordial Li abundance is interpretation of the spectra of 'low metallicity stars' (stars with low abundances of 'metals'- astronomers call all elements other than H and He 'metals') - the 7Li in them is assumed to be primordial, once a correction for the contribution of ancient cosmic ray spallation is added (estimated from the abundance of 6Li in such stars) ... metal-poor stars are very old, they formed from gas which had been only slightly enriched with metals, from earlier generations of stars).

Needless to say, there is a great deal of astrophysics involved in this conclusion, not to mention the uncertainties of estimates of both 6Li and 7Li in the spectra of faint stars!

The logic chains, and the astrophysics, have been checked, tested, independently verified, etc, etc, etc six ways to Sunday, and the conclusions (concerning primordial 7Li abundance) seem to be quite consistent. However, given some of the uncertainties, it is premature to say the conclusions are robust (IMHO). For example, the ratio of 6Li to 7Li produced by cosmic ray spallation depends on several factors, and extrapolating from what today's cosmic ray energy spectrum is to that of the time when the old stars we observe were accumulating 6Li may be an extrapolation too far (IMHO).
 
wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for an explaination of the theology of Big Bang.


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.
Click to expand...

Evidence that stars are powered by fusion? Did not think so.

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

I redacted the paragrph which was nothing but a history of the theology.

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.
Click to expand...

Please, what exactly was the prediction made by the BBT concering CBR?

Just stating that it was a correct prediction is nothing more than faith. You have yet to present eveidence, just story telling as to how the "evidence" was acquired.

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.
Click to expand...

What causes these anisotropies according to BBT? How are they consistent with BBT? Opps, they are not!

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.
Click to expand...

Would it not be detrimental for scientists in this field if the stars are not powered by fusion? Predictions sans evidence are nothing more than the beginings of science. Unless, are you aware of science experimentaly producing fusion?

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.
Click to expand...

Have they been evidenced or has the evidence been made to fit?

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.
Click to expand...

The laws of physics and math are violated by the BBT. Here you are making the excuse that we just do not have the math and physics to explain it.

Can you think of any other scientific theory in which the laws of physics and math are discarded in this manner?

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.
Click to expand...

No, BBT started with the premise that there was "In the Begining" a tiny fireball.

I choose to follow the evidence.
Click to expand...

You did a lot of story telling and provided nothing in the way of Mountains of evidence.

I might as well read the bible and claim that it is evidence of what happened at "The Begining".
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Evidence that stars are powered by fusion? Did not think so.

What causes these anisotropies according to BBT? How are they consistent with BBT? Opps, they are not!

Unless, are you aware of science experimentaly producing fusion?

The laws of physics and math are violated by the BBT. Here you are making the excuse that we just do not have the math and physics to explain it.

No, BBT started with the premise that there was "In the Begining" a tiny fireball.
Click to expand...

Every statement quoted above is by itself sufficient evidence that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

And yet you write with such arrogance and vitriol... where does that come from?

Did a cosmologist run over your dog? Step on your favorite toy?
 
Last edited:
Is denying that stars are powered by fusion a new twist to all this or have I just missed this until now?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I'm not Wrangler, but I hope you won't mind me jumping in with a (very) brief answer ...
Click to expand...

Do I mind? You are kidding, right?

You think I could have answered that question so clearly and succinctly?

I'll consider that a compliment!

I knew a litte of what you posted, but your faith in my grasp of the minutae of this argument is ill founded, unfortunately.
 
sol invictus said:
Every statement quoted above is by itself sufficient evidence that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

And yet you write with such arrogance and vitriol... where does that come from?
Click to expand...

If every ststement you quoted is evidence that I have no clue as to what I am talking about than you should easly be able to counter.

Why not attack to argument? Why are you attacking me? Is it that you fear not being part of the backslapping party?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why not attack to argument?
Click to expand...

Because every time someone does that you ignore them and continue to make the same nonsensical and false statements. But since you asked, I will do so.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Evidence that stars are powered by fusion? Did not think so.
Click to expand...

There is massive evidence for that. First, we understand the laws of physics enough to know when fusion will occur. That's why we can build hydrogen bombs and controlled fusion tokamaks. The necessary conditions are satisfied in the sun. Second, we can observe the sun and ask whether the predicted spectrum of light, neutrino flux, temperature, etc. are consistent with the standard solar model. They all are, mostly to within 1%, and moreover the uncertainties are well controlled and understood (they mostly have to do with the fluid dynamics of the interior, which is hard to model in detail).

What causes these anisotropies according to BBT? How are they consistent with BBT? Opps, they are not!
Click to expand...

One of the great successes of the modern BB model is that it produces a flat, homogeneous, and isotropic universe with a scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations, consistent with observations.

Unless, are you aware of science experimentaly producing fusion?
Click to expand...

Have you never heard of hydrogen bombs? Tokamaks? Lawrence Livermore Laboratory? Any of the many plasma physics labs? ITER?

The laws of physics and math are violated by the BBT.
Click to expand...

Really? Last time I checked the laws of physics - namely general relativity - do not allow anything else. In fact there are actually a set of mathematical theorems (due to Stephen Hawking and George Ellis) which prove that a big bang is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

No, BBT started with the premise that there was "In the Begining" a tiny fireball.
Click to expand...

This is not even wrong, and I'm not sure what to say about it. The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us with a speed proportional to distance, and asked what that implies.

Now after requesting it, I'm sure you'll ignore this post and just go on repeating your silly falsehoods.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
There is massive evidence for that. First, we understand the laws of physics enough to know when fusion will occur. That's why we can build hydrogen bombs and controlled fusion tokamaks. The necessary conditions are satisfied in the sun. Second, we can observe the sun and ask whether the predicted spectrum of light, neutrino flux, temperature, etc. are consistent with the standard solar model. They all are, mostly to within 1%, and moreover the uncertainties are well controlled and understood (they mostly have to do with the fluid dynamics of the interior, which is hard to model in detail).
Click to expand...


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.


One of the great successes of the modern BB model is that it produces a flat, homogeneous, and isotropic universe with a scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations, consistent with observations.
Click to expand...

As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.



Have you never heard of hydrogen bombs? Tokamaks? Lawrence Livermore Laboratory? Any of the many plasma physics labs? ITER?
Click to expand...


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.



Really? Last time I checked the laws of physics - namely general relativity - do not allow anything else. In fact there are actually a set of mathematical theorems (due to Stephen Hawking and George Ellis) which prove that a big bang is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.



This is not even wrong, and I'm not sure what to say about it. The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us with a speed proportional to distance, and asked what that implies.
Click to expand...

Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.




You may try again if you like.:)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

You have failed to research even the most simple of his examples, the Hydrogen Bomb.

A fission trigger may be used, but the hydrogen bomb ends in a fusion reaction.

When you call fail on someone without even researching the material...

Epic Fail happens.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

HYDROGEN bombs, Jerome. They FUSE hydrogen and its isotopes into helium and its isotopes. That's called FUSION, and it's the process that occurs in the sun.

As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

You seem to be incapable of reading. As I already said, the BBT predicts inhomogeneities (and therefore also anisotropies).

You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

No, Jerome. Every experiment I listed there is a FUSION experiment.

You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

Try to tell that to Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and every general relativity book every written. As I said, not only does the BB not contradict the laws of physics, there is a mathematical proof that it must always have occurred (subject to some assumptions which are satisfied by our universe).

Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.
Click to expand...

At least 46, according to wiki

You may try again if you like.:)
Click to expand...

You're making yourself look really, really dumb, Jerome. My advice is to run away now.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.




As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.






You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.





You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.





Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.




You may try again if you like.:)
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3652250#post3652250

What a momentous day. Jerome you've finally succeeded.
 
As we are an educational group...

The sun is mainly hydrogen and helium. Due to the heat and gravitational force at the core, the sun fuses hydrogen into helium. The helium formed is just a bit less massive than the original hydrogen...the release of energy based on Einstein's famous formula is what keeps us warm.

As the sun ages, it will continue to fuse elements until carbon, oxygen...etc form. This will continue until Iron and Nickel are formed. Nickel and Iron have the highest binding energy per nucleon holding the nuclei together--the nucleai of iron and nickel are the most "stuck together" with the strong nuclear force. Therefore elements higher on the periodic table are not formed.

Eventually, the fusion reaction will spread out from the core and the sun will become a red giant and toast the inner planets...in about 5 billion years; when that happens, it will pulse and blow iron and other stuff out into space. Then it will collapse into a white dwarf.

Our sun isn't big enough to blow up like a super nova...in super novas, the energy of the explosion will actually manufactor the entire periodic table of elements--since they are rare, the heavier elements are rare as well. (this has sort of been reproduced during underground hydrogen bomb tests.)

Hmmm forgot fission

fission is splitting heavy elements with a neutron...such as uranium 235. This doesn't happen in the sun, but does occur at your local nuclear power plant.


glenn

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Wow. Just wow.
Did you not even think to google what Sol listed before making such an unbelievably ridiculous statement?
Click to expand...

Well, he probably will have to admit he was wrong on this issue.

I have a feeling that the reason he disappeared earlier could be embarrassment related.
 
Tubbythin said:
Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you just can't ignore stupidity of that magnitude.

Tubbythin said:
Did you not even think to google what Sol listed before making such an unbelievably ridiculous statement?
Click to expand...

Anyone who was paying attention in high school physics (hell, middle school physics) would learn the difference between fission and fusion.

I'm going to assume that Jerome spent most of his high school days in metal shop.
 
Last edited:
Gate2501 said:
Well, he probably will have to admit he was wrong on this issue.

I have a feeling that the reason he disappeared earlier could be embarrassment related.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom