IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th September 2021, 10:43 AM   #1
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 43,963
Paul from Niskayuna solves the mystery of the universe

Well, I guess this wraps it up. Physicists, cosmologists and astronomers can all quit their jobs now.

Niskayuna man believes he solved mystery of the universe

Guess what. It's "tired light" again, and the universe is static.

Quote:
Sitting in the top-floor study of his childhood Niskayuna home, Paul LaViolette puzzles over the deepest questions of the universe.
Quote:
“I disproved the Big Bang theory,” LaViolette said in a phone call last month, adding that he recently published a pair of papers this summer in the International Journal of Astrophysics, a peer-reviewed journal, outlining his definitive takedown of what has been considered the definitive scientific model of the origin of the universe.

The first article’s title, “Expanding or Static Universe: Emergence of a New Paradigm,” understates what LaViolette is proposing: scrap the dominant theory of the history of the universe taught in nearly every grade in nearly every school in the country.

The Big Bang theory basically holds that the history of our universe traces back to a single point of energy that exploded into existence and over a long period of time expanded into the universe we know today.

But LaViolette thinks most scientists are looking at the data from the wrong perspective, misunderstanding shifts on the light spectrum as they observe faraway galaxies as evidence of an expanding universe. Rather, he thinks the so-called “redshift” most scientists point to as evidence of an expanding universe is just a sign of the loss of energy that photons from distant galaxies have as they travel through space. That theory of the redshift, known as the “tired light” theory, has been around for decades. But LaViolette has repurposed it to demonstrate that a static universe, one that is not expanding as is commonly understood, makes a simpler explanation of numerous astronomical phenomena. His paper presents a series of cosmology tests, used to test different theories of the universe against various data sets, and argues that a static model of the universe bests an expanding model of the universe on all of the tests he presents — unless various assumptions are added into the models about anything from the angles of galaxies to factors about their distance. Even then, LaViolette argues, assumptions made to improve the performance of a traditional expanding-universe model on one test worsen the theory’s performance on other tests.

“In overview, it is concluded that a static universe cosmology must be sought to explain the origin of the universe,” he declared in the paper’s abstract.
Quote:
If mainstream science ever does adopt LaViolette’s theory of the universe, it will spell doom for many fundamental tenets of physics and astronomy. No black holes, he said. No quantum mechanics (which helps explain physics at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles). No Einstein’s theory of general relativity (which helps explain gravitational physics at a large scale).

“You have to throw it out,” he said. “Even the ages of stars change.”
Yeah, that Einstein guy was an idiot!

tl/dr: Local newspaper reporter gives crackpot lots of space to ramble about his great discovery.
__________________
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please stop killing kittens.

I used to think that Republicans were just jerks. Now I'm convinced that they're all sick, evil, twisted pieces of [first of George Carlin's seven dirty words].

"Biden's a Commie, like the Rockefellers!" -- some idiot overheard
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2021, 03:27 PM   #2
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,370
Man, I was just in Niskayuna last month, a close call with greatness.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2021, 03:50 PM   #3
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 43,963
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Man, I was just in Niskayuna last month, a close call with greatness.
Next time you're there, drop by. I'm sure he'd love to spend several hundred hours explaining his theory to you.
__________________
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please stop killing kittens.

I used to think that Republicans were just jerks. Now I'm convinced that they're all sick, evil, twisted pieces of [first of George Carlin's seven dirty words].

"Biden's a Commie, like the Rockefellers!" -- some idiot overheard
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2021, 03:58 PM   #4
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,370
Lots of things to do in Niskayuna, that's not one of them.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2021, 06:29 AM   #5
Armitage72
Philosopher
 
Armitage72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,327
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Man, I was just in Niskayuna last month, a close call with greatness.

Back when I worked for an environmental and construction materials testing lab in Albany, I was assigned to do concrete testing for a new administrative building they were constructing at the Knolls Atomic Power Lab in Niskayuna. I was driving a rental car because I was having work done after a contractor had backed into my car at another job site, and the previous renter had apparently driven through a farm region while fertilizer was being applied, because the car triggered the explosive residue screening at the main gate. Guards with rifles slung over their shoulders, asking "Can you pull over there please?" so they could do a thorough examination of the car.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2021, 07:40 AM   #6
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 19,338
Some people are proof that light is faster than sound: they appear bright before you hear them speak
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2021, 05:16 AM   #7
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,949
Oh dear, IJAA strikes again. One of SCIRP's 'pay to publish' "open access" "journals". Hence it's NSI rated zero.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2021, 06:07 AM   #8
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU, IT
Posts: 427
Is this "I don't think space is expanding." part III ?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post13310788
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2021, 06:38 AM   #9
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,949
Originally Posted by wea View Post
Is this "I don't think space is expanding." part III ?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post13310788
A variation. It was reasonable science once (~1930-1955, between the determination by Hubble of the expansion rate and the development of the Cepheid yardstick); Zwicky for example.
Since then 'tired light' fails observational tests and is therefore nonsense.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2021, 01:35 PM   #10
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Paul A. LaViolette is yet another ignorant science amateur as his statement about the Big Bang shows. There is nothing "that exploded into existence" in the Big Bang. Especially energy which is a property of a system, not a physical thing! the Big Bang starts with the universe in a hot dense state.
Read his paper in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics. He ignores the textbook cosmological tests that support the Big Bang by cherry picking a few other tests.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

He destroys his "tests" in the introduction where he dismisses galaxy evolution. There is the ignorant assertion that this is cosmology when galaxy evolution is astrophysics. The structure of galaxies evolves (Galaxy formation and evolution). The population of stars within galaxies evolves, e.g. the amount of He, etc. (metals) of stars increases as they fuse elements over time. That stars exist at all is evidence against a static universe with no origin . They have to add a mechanism to keep stars "young". The Steady State model added hydrogen atoms popping out of nowhere which LaViolette would not like.

"3.1. No Evidence for Time Dilation" lies. We do not know the origin of gamma ray bursts but the most likely candidate is relativistic jets, not supernova. Obviously the light curves in this test have to come from comparable mechanisms such as type 1a supernova. The break out of relativistic jets from massive stars of various masses collapsing directly to black holes would be variable. The cited On the Lack of Time Dilation Signatures in Gamma-Ray Burst Light Curves. paper is a simulation showing the GRB will not have the expected cosmological time dilation.
Time dilation of supernova light curves has been observed for decades, e.g. Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24. He has Malmquist bias, etc. fantasies about the confirmation of this by the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP).

"3.2. The Redshift Quantization Effect" idiocy. If this existed it also would invalidate his model! Some "more recently been confirmed" ignorance by citing a 1996 paper. Actually more recently (2001 to 2007) redshift quantization suggests this is a selection effect and any periodicity invalidates previous findings.

"3.3. Multi-Megaparsec Structures" is a "regular spacing of galaxy superclusters" evidence against the Big Bang fantasy. He cherry picks a 1990 paper. Large-scale distribution of galaxies at the Galactic poles

"3.4. The Age of the Universe" lies. Astronomers have no problem with galaxies forming ~300 million years after the Big Bang. He seems to make up "at least 750 million years to form".

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th September 2021 at 01:47 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2021, 05:39 AM   #11
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,721
Originally Posted by wea View Post
Is this "I don't think space is expanding." part III ?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post13310788
Thanks much!

I was thinking that there are few posters on this Forum who also have some silly ideas about the universe as well.
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2021, 01:02 PM   #12
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Thanks much!

I was thinking that there are few posters on this Forum who also have some silly ideas about the universe as well.
I think it's silly not to have doubts about what happened 14 billion years ago.

https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...ce-or-folktale

Quote:
Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.

In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2021, 01:58 PM   #13
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,721
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I think it's silly not to have doubts about what happened 14 billion years ago.

https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...ce-or-folktale
Of course it is not silly to have doubts as to what happened 14 billion years ago.

However, there are some posters on this Forum who have some quite silly ideas about the universe all the same.
__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency.

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2021, 02:06 PM   #14
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,949
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I think it's silly not to have doubts about what happened 14 billion years ago.
"Tired light" is nonsense and fails to agree with basic observations.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2021, 07:21 PM   #15
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I think it's silly not to have doubts about what happened 14 billion years ago.
It is totally silly to dismiss the overlewlming evidence that we have about what happened those "14 billion years ago" like the crank Paul LaViolette and others.

Tired light theories were invalid even when first proposed. Fritz Zwicky proposed that light could just lose energy somehow but that would lead to blurring of distant objects. We have never observed this.
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology also has
  • The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.
  • The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
  • The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.
Tired light theories fail tests by several orders of magnitude .

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th September 2021 at 07:22 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2021, 07:36 PM   #16
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You pick an obviously invalid and irrelevant American Scientist article. Looks like an bad opinion piece.
The expansion of the universe causing redshift is historically and historically rooted in general relativity ! That an expanding universe would cause light to redshift was derived from GR in 1927 before Hubble's published measurements that light was redshifted in 1929.
The cosmic background radiation.is accounted for by the universe once being in a hot dense state, i.e. not a static universe. Expansion accounts for the temperature of the CMB.
Ignorance about the Tolman surface brightness test when we have known since 2001 that the results are consistent with an expanding universe and rule outfired light theories.
Gibberish about "ugly bandages".

This is not about having doubts about the evidence for a Big Bang. It is someone going on about the contents of the Lambda-CDM model. Other people will say that if the universe insists on telling us that it can be explained by expansion, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, then that is the universe we live in!

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th September 2021 at 07:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2021, 10:13 AM   #17
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The expansion of the universe causing redshift is historically and historically rooted in general relativity !
Both?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 12:45 PM   #18
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Both?
Yes. Predication of an cosmological redshift from GR so obviously rooted theoretically in GR! 1927 is before 1929 thus also rooted historically. Anyone who knows about cosmology knows these basic facts.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2021 at 12:46 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 12:52 PM   #19
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yes. Predication of an cosmological redshift from GR so obviously rooted theoretically in GR! 1927 is before 1929 thus also rooted historically. Anyone who knows about cosmology knows these basic facts.
I thought GR predicted the universe would collapse.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 01:10 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I thought GR predicted the universe would collapse.
In 1915, GR predicted that the universe would expand or collapse or be static. The last option is ruled out by random fluctuations in density making the universe expand or collapse. This is all stuff you should know because you have tired light fantasies in another thread. Cosmological redshift for an expanding universe was worked out in 1927 and confirmed in 1929.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 01:27 PM   #21
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In 1915, GR predicted that the universe would expand or collapse or be static.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0217102545.htm

Quote:
In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse -- an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 03:05 PM   #22
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Quote mining Einstein's conversion from a belief in a static to an expanding universe
Quote:
Albert Einstein accepted the modern cosmological view that the universe is expanding long after many of his contemporaries. Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae -- today known as galaxies. But the reality is more complex. The change in Einstein’s viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process. Now researchers explain how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.
Your quote is wrong or at lease incomplete as anyone who knows about cosmology will realize. GR predicts an expanding or collapsing universe from gravitation alone depending on density. Too little and the universe expands. Too much and it collapses. This was in GR from basically the start. The full solution showing this is Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric developed in 1924.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2021 at 03:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 03:35 PM   #23
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your quote is wrong or at lease incomplete as anyone who knows about cosmology will realize. GR predicts an expanding or collapsing universe from gravitation alone depending on density. Too little and the universe expands. Too much and it collapses.
You're saying gravitation alone can cause an expanding universe?

Without the cosmological constant?

How does a theory of attractive gravity alone cause an expanding universe?

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fullte...7/03/0254-0273

Quote:
GR, being a theory of attractive gravity, predicted that a large
mass (like our universe) will either keep collapsing under
its own weight or exhibit deceleration in its expansion
rate if it was growing in size to begin with. In either
case, a static universe from GR was out of the question.
Einstein was in a fix.


His next step was to modify GR by introducing a term
representing a kind of universal repulsion. This extra
feature ¤ g 1o , called the cosmological constant term,
on the left-hand side of Einstein equations helps in pre-
venting gravitational collapse of the universe and, hence,
leads to a static solution provided that value of the con-
stant is positive (corresponding to cosmic repulsion).
*edit* I think the key phrase is "exhibit deceleration in its expansion rate if it was growing in size to begin with".

The Friedman equations have a scale factor a(t). Given the ability to change the size of the universe, means it can be either getting larger or getting smaller. That's a bit different than saying "gravity alone" causes an expanding universe.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 3rd October 2021 at 04:41 PM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2021, 06:36 PM   #24
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
...
I am saying what the textbooks say. GR predicts the universe will expand or contract. Einstein wrongly added a cosmological constant to try to prevent this (his "greatest blunder").
Ignorance about a quote from General Relativity and the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe.
Quote:
GR, being a theory of attractive gravity, predicted that a large mass (like our universe) will either keep collapsing under its own weight or exhibit deceleration in its expansion rate if it was growing in size to begin with. In either case, a static universe from GR was out of the question.
Einstein was in a fix.
That is what I have been saying. GR predicts that universe either collapses or expands. What gravity does is govern the rate of collapse or expansion. We live in a universe where it seems a positive cosmological constant is causing the measured expansion of the universe to accelerate. A large enough negative cosmological constant would cause a hypothetical collapsing universe to expand. Einstein wanted a static universe, thus just the right value of the cosmological constant would be needed to turn an expanding or collapsing universe into a static (but unstable) one.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2021 at 06:50 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2021, 11:54 AM   #25
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
GR predicts that universe either collapses or expands.
That's a bit like saying Newtonian physics predicts an object will be in motion or at rest. A pretty loose definition of prediction.

Here's what I gather:

1915: GR created
1917: Einstein found it predicted a collapsing universe, so added the cosmological constant to prevent that
1922: Friedmann equations use a scale factor to control to the size of the universe (ie, universe can get bigger or smaller) without the cosmological constant
1929: Reshifts observed/confirmed and scale factor is associated with Hubble's parameter
1998: Redshift-distance data diverges from theory, cosmological constant reintroduced
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 07:48 AM   #26
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
GR predicts that universe either collapses or expands.
That's a bit like saying Newtonian physics predicts an object will be in motion or at rest. A pretty loose definition of prediction.
That prediction was significant because it ruled out the idea of a static, largely unchanging universe, an idea that had prevailed for centuries and was still the prevailing prejudice of the time, even among scientists as original as Einstein.

Even today, many of those who oppose the idea of a Big Bang, such as the fellow named in the title of this thread, appear to be motivated primarily by their prejudice in favor of a static universe.

A prediction that knocks over long-standing and persistent prejudice on such a basic aspect of cosmology is significant.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Here's what I gather:

1915: GR created
1917: Einstein found it predicted a collapsing universe, so added the cosmological constant to prevent that
1922: Friedmann equations use a scale factor to control to the size of the universe (ie, universe can get bigger or smaller) without the cosmological constant
1929: Reshifts observed/confirmed and scale factor is associated with Hubble's parameter
1998: Redshift-distance data diverges from theory, cosmological constant reintroduced
Your "1922" item is misleading because the scale factor does not "control" the size of the universe, it describes the size of the universe. That scale factor was not some arbitrary parameter introduced to allow the universe to expand. It was a mathematical consequence of the fundamental field equations of general relativity combined with reasonable assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity.

Furthermore, the FLRW family of solutions are not "without the cosmological constant". Some authors may omit the cosmological constant for simplicity when explaining those solutions to non-specialists, but the cosmological constant is very much present in the FLRW family of solutions.

The cosmological constant was not "reintroduced" in 1998. Mathematically, omitting the cosmological constant from a derivation of Einstein's field equations is a mistake analogous to omitting the constant of integration when solving an indefinite integral.
  • In 1973, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's Gravitation wrote pretty much what I just said. Although they described Einstein's use of the cosmological constant as a "great mistake" and a "mischievous genie" (page 411), they acknowledged that
    Originally Posted by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler
    Many workers in cosmology are unwilling to abandon the cosmological constant. They insist that it be abandoned only after cosmological observations reveal it to be negligibly small. As a modern-day motivation for retaining the cosmological constant, [it can be interpreted as vacuum energy]....

    [After calculating an upper bound for the cosmological constant...] Evidently, even if Λ ≠ 0, Λ is so small that it is totally unimportant on the scale of a galaxy or a star or a planet or a man or an atom. Consequently, it is reasonable to stick with Einstein's original geometrodynamic law (G = 8πT; Λ = 0) everywhere, except occasionally when discussing cosmology (Chapters 27-30).
    The cosmological constant appears prominently in their Chapters 27-30.
  • Also in 1973, Hawking and Ellis's The large scale structure of space-time derives the field equations correctly, which means the cosmological constant appears in their first statement of those equations on page 73, where they go on to say
    Originally Posted by Hawking and Ellis
    Sandage's (1961, 1968) observations of distant galaxies place limits on |Λ| of the order of 10-56cm-2; we shall normally take Λ to be zero, but shall bear in mind the possibility of other values.
  • In 1984, Wald's General Relativity omits the cosmological constant from its first statement of the field equations in equation (4.3.21) on page 72, but Wald was sketching Einstein's original derivation. The cosmological constant reappears in Wald's equation (5.2.17) on page 99, where once again Wald is describing the historical evolution of the field equations. Wald then writes
    Originally Posted by Wald
    (It can be shown [Lovelock 1972] that a linear combination of Gab and gab is the most general two-index symmetric tensor which is divergence free and can be constructed locally from the metric and its derivatives up to second order, so eq. [5.2.17] gives the most general modification which does not grossly alter the basic properties of Einstein's equation....) ....After Hubble's redshift observations in 1929 demonstrated the expansion of the universe, the original motivation for the introduction of Λ was lost. Nevertheless, Λ has been reintroduced on numerous occasions when discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations, only to be abandoned again when those discrepancies have been resolved. In the following, we shall assume Λ = 0.
  • In 1993, Peebles's Principles of Physical Cosmology quotes Einstein's original field equations (without the cosmological constant) in equation (4.19) on page 62, but goes on to derive, on page 64, the unique constant of integration compatible with a static universe. The cosmological constant therefore appears in the more general statement of the field equations in equation (4.30). Following that equation, Peebles goes on to write
    Originally Posted by Peebles
    The recent tendency is to move the cosmological constant term to the right-hand side of the equation, so it appears as a contribution to the stress-energy tensor (Zel'dovich 1968; Zel'dovich and Novikov 1983). On comparing equations (2.3) for the metric tensor gij and (4.20) for the stress-energy tensor Tij for an ideal fluid in locally Minkowski coordinates, we see the the cosmological constant acts like a fluid with effective mass density and pressure
    ρΛ[/i] = Λ / (8πG), pA = - ρΛ....
    That last equation is equation (4.31), which will be mentioned below.

    The cosmological constant shows up in later chapters as well, notably in the discussion of inflation in chapter 13:
    Originally Posted by Peebles
    The residual energy density V0, if nonzero, would act as a cosmological constant, Λ = 8πGV0 (eqs. [4.31] and [17.10]). In effect, Einstein's Λ term was large during inflation, dumped most of its energy into entropy at the end of inflation, and then settled down to a value that is very much smaller or perhaps vanishes.
To summarize, the cosmological constant is discussed in all four of those standard texts, published between 1973 and 1993. All of them state the fact that Λ is known to be very close to zero, so it is not unreasonable to omit Λ when simplifying calculations for which a small value of the cosmological constant cannot matter, but all four also acknowledge the fact that Λ is present in the most general statement of Einstein's field equations.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 09:55 AM   #27
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Even today, many of those who oppose the idea of a Big Bang, such as the fellow named in the title of this thread, appear to be motivated primarily by their prejudice in favor of a static universe.
How people appear to be motivated is irrelevant, and often mistaken.


Quote:
Your "1922" item is misleading because the scale factor does not "control" the size of the universe, it describes the size of the universe.
The scale factor is a parameter. This is a quibble about applying spoken language to mathematics.

Quote:
Furthermore, the FLRW family of solutions are not "without the cosmological constant".
Friedmann's 1922 equations were.


Quote:
The cosmological constant was not "reintroduced" in 1998.
As your sources indicate, up until that point, it could have been reasonably omitted.

*edit* Perhaps I should have said in 1998 the cosmological constant became more of a "sure" thing than it had been.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 6th October 2021 at 10:02 AM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 11:00 AM   #28
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,999
Wonder how he explains observed gravitational lensing if no black holes



There are always cranks about ...the worry is when they get published.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 11:50 AM   #29
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
THere's what I gather:

1915: GR created
1917: Einstein found it predicted a collapsing universe, so added the cosmological constant to prevent that
1922: Friedmann equations use a scale factor to control to the size of the universe (ie, universe can get bigger or smaller) without the cosmological constant
1929: Reshifts observed/confirmed and scale factor is associated with Hubble's parameter
1998: Redshift-distance data diverges from theory, cosmological constant reintroduced
Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity
Quote:
General relativity.[119] This seminal paper marks the beginning of physical cosmology. Under certain simplifying assumptions, general relativity describes the birth, the expansion and the ultimate fate of the Universe.
1917: Einstein found GR predicted a non-static universe, so added the cosmological constant to allow a static universe.
Paper in English Einstein started with Newtonian theory for bodies of matter like stars and pointed out they could extend to infinity. He notes that there is "a foil for what is to follow" where this difficulty can be removed by adding a "universal constant" term to Poisson's equation.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th October 2021 at 12:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 11:53 AM   #30
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,617
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's a bit like saying Newtonian physics predicts an object will be in motion or at rest. A pretty loose definition of prediction.

Here's what I gather:

1915: GR created
1917: Einstein found it predicted a collapsing universe, so added the cosmological constant to prevent that
1922: Friedmann equations use a scale factor to control to the size of the universe (ie, universe can get bigger or smaller) without the cosmological constant
1929: Reshifts observed/confirmed and scale factor is associated with Hubble's parameter
1998: Redshift-distance data diverges from theory, cosmological constant reintroduced
So you do not gather much is what you are claiming?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 11:58 AM   #31
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The scale factor is a parameter. This is a quibble about applying spoken language to mathematics.

Friedmann's 1922 equations were.
Wrong, Mike Helland.
It is important to get the language of mathematics correct even when speaking. The scale factor is a function in the metric for a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe. The scale factor has a parameter of time. Read Friedmann equations.
On the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space (PDF of English translation) by A. Friedmann has the cosmological constant.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th October 2021 at 12:06 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 11:59 AM   #32
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
general relativity describes the birth, the expansion and the ultimate fate of the Universe.

And even if that turns out to be wildly wrong, GR is still successful with other metrics in experimentally verifiable domains.

A theory can still be valuable even if it doesn't tell us how existence begins and ends.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 12:05 PM   #33
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wrong again, Mike Helland.
On the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space (PDF of English translation) by A. Friedmann has the cosmological constant.
Set to zero.

*edit* Actually, this is a second work from 1924, not 1922.

https://inspirehep.net/literature/8572

*edit2* and since you added to your reply after I replied:

"The relative expansion of the universe is parametrized by a dimensionless scale factor a. Also known as the cosmic scale factor or sometimes the Robertson Walker scale factor, this is a key parameter of the Friedmann equations. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

Last edited by Mike Helland; 6th October 2021 at 12:34 PM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 01:18 PM   #34
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 26,913
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Oh dear, IJAA strikes again. One of SCIRP's 'pay to publish' "open access" "journals". Hence it's NSI rated zero.
Thanks for that.


I was thinking that the published article was at least suggestive of some measure of credibility. I wasn't expecting much, but I thought if it had been published, someone must have thought something in it was worth reading. Thanks for the correction.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 01:36 PM   #35
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,949
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Wonder how he explains observed gravitational lensing if no black holes

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/9...%3Ffit%3Dscale

There are always cranks about ...the worry is when they get published.
That's the problem with "pay to print" pseudo-journals, they can be used to give a patina of truth to any cretinous crank with money.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks for that.


I was thinking that the published article was at least suggestive of some measure of credibility. I wasn't expecting much, but I thought if it had been published, someone must have thought something in it was worth reading. Thanks for the correction.
My pleasure. While the Open Access journals are, in principle, a good thing, they're open to abuse by the greedy and unscrupulous aiding the cranks to publish, purely for money.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

Last edited by catsmate; 6th October 2021 at 01:38 PM.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 01:52 PM   #36
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
While the Open Access journals are, in principle, a good thing, they're open to abuse by the greedy and unscrupulous aiding the cranks to publish, purely for money.
I think some of them aid the cranks to publish purely because they are cranks. I believe 'Progress in Physics' (a misnomer if ever there was one), only charge $15 per page. A journal set up by cranks, for cranks. Stephen Crothers was formerly on the editorial board. Say no more. They claim to be peer-reviewed, but that is a lie.
I can recall a 'paper' by an EU loon, Don Scott, that was published in that 'journal'. He lied about what other authors had claimed. Not only that, he only referenced a pop-sci article. The paper was free access! Even if it hadn't been, no self respecting journal would have allowed such things. I pointed this out to the editor, having also contacted the author whose work had been lied about by Scott. I only received a bunch of crackpot invective back from the editor, about freedom to publish, etc! The papers' author agreed with me that it probably wasn't worth bothering with a formal complaint, given that Scott is independent, and retired, and the 'journal' is never going to be read by real scientists, and has a zero impact factor.
There was also a similar thread on here, some years back, about crackpot EU 'papers' getting published in a Bentham open journal.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2021, 02:05 PM   #37
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Oh, strewth! LaViolette, again. He is almost certainly insane. If you have never been to his website (etheric dot com, iirc), then give your eyes and ears a treat by not bothering. It is something to do with a Sphincter Stargate. Or something similar. This guy totally lost it. Long since. Should be on the same ward as Robitaille and Thornhill, under 24 hour surveillance. For everybody's good. Including their own.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 01:45 PM   #38
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And even if that turns out to be wildly wrong, GR is still successful with other metrics in experimentally verifiable domains.

A theory can still be valuable even if it doesn't tell us how existence begins and ends.
More ignorance from Mike Helland.
GR is experimentally verified in cosmology. GR predicts an expanding or contracting universe. We have overwhelming physical evidence that the universe is expanding.
GR does not say how the universe came to existence. The singularity as we run time backwards says that GR fails as time tends to 0!
GR does say how the universe will end. It will not! There is no limit to the measured expansion of the universe.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 01:53 PM   #39
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,475
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Set to zero....
More ignorance from Mike Helland.
If he had actually clicked on the link he would have found that I got the title wrong. That was the paper published in 1922.
On the Curvature of Space (PDF of English translation) by A. Friedmann has the cosmological constant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2021, 05:49 PM   #40
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We have overwhelming physical evidence that the universe is expanding.
That's your opinion.

I used to think the expansion of the universe was a fact.

Now I find the evidence, with respect to the conclusions we've reached, pretty underwhelming.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.