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 7th October 2021, 06:02 PM   #41
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So you do not gather much is what you are claiming?
What I gather seems to mirror what the wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmol...5%E2%80%931998

* In 1915 Einstein publishes his equations of General Relativity, without a cosmological constant Λ.
* In 1917 Einstein adds the parameter Λ to his equations when he realizes that his theory implies a dynamic universe for which space is function of time. He then gives this constant a very particular value to force his Universe model to remain static and eternal (Einstein static universe), which he will later call "the greatest stupidity of his life".
* In 1922 the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann mathematically shows that Einstein's equations (whatever Λ) remain valid in a dynamic universe.
* In 1927 the Belgian astrophysicist Georges Lemaître shows that the Universe is in expansion by combining General Relativity with some astronomical observations, those of Hubble in particular.
* In 1931 Einstein finally accepts the theory of an expanding universe and proposed, in 1932 with the Dutch physicist and astronomer Willem de Sitter, a model of a continuously expanding Universe with zero cosmological constant (Einstein-de Sitter space-time).
* In 1998 two teams of astrophysicists, one led by Saul Perlmutter, the other led by Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, carried out measurements on distant supernovae and show that the speed of galaxies recession in relation to the Milky Way increases over time. The universe is in accelerated expansion, which requires having a strictly positive Λ. The universe would contain a mysterious dark energy producing a repulsive force that counterbalances the gravitational braking produced by the matter contained in the universe (see standard cosmological model).
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 7th October 2021, 07:59 PM   #42
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,466
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's your opinion....
More ignorance from Mike Helland.
It is not just my opinion: What is the evidence for the Big Bang? That overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe is why
  • It is textbook cosmology,.
  • The vast majority of astronomers have the opinion that the universe is expanding.
  • Most people who learn the physical evidence have the opinion that the universe is expanding.
It is largely cranks like Paul LaViolette who find the evidence lacking or just ignore it.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th October 2021 at 08:01 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 7th October 2021, 08:03 PM   #43
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
More ignorance from Mike Helland.
It is not just my opinion: What is the evidence for the Big Bang? That overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe is why
  • It is textbook cosmology,.
  • The vast majority of astronomers have the opinion that the universe is expanding.
  • Most people who learn the physical evidence have the opinion that the universe is expanding.
It is largely cranks like Paul LaViolette who find the evidence lacking or just ignore it.
"Overwhelming" is a subjective claim.

It is an opinion. One that many people, and formerly myself, hold.
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 7th October 2021, 10:47 PM   #44
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Now I find the evidence, with respect to the conclusions we've reached, pretty underwhelming.
Well, actual scientists disagree with you. Who should we listen to? So, are you going to refute the supernovae observations? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe observations? The BAO observations? Has anybody with an actual physics degree done this? In the peer-reviewed literature? If not, why should we care what laymen think of actual science?
__________________
“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, 11:12 PM   #45
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Well, actual scientists disagree with you. Who should we listen to? So, are you going to refute the supernovae observations? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe observations? The BAO observations? Has anybody with an actual physics degree done this? In the peer-reviewed literature? If not, why should we care what laymen think of actual science?
I think you have to judge for yourself whether you are overwhelmed or underwhelmed by the evidence.

I don't think the Friedmann equations or cosmological constant are necessary for GR to still be a better theory of gravity than Newton. GPS, used everyday by many people, is evidence of that.

The idea that light should travel forever, which means the redshifts are caused by the universe expanding, which means it was small 14 billion years ago, which doesn't work without a special nanosecond of hyper expansion or the universe to 70% of dark energy, well, none of that can be tested in controlled experiments, unlike the other applications of GR.

When I was younger, I never had any doubts about the big bang. Now I look back and think I just wanted to believe in it, because it's a creation myth and we secretly want that.

In a poll, half of Americans said they believe in the big bang. I suspect very few of them actually know what the evidence is for it. It's less an issue of the evidence, than a contemporary cultural mythos.
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 7th October 2021, 11:31 PM   #46
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I think you have to judge for yourself whether you are overwhelmed or underwhelmed by the evidence.

I don't think the Friedmann equations or cosmological constant are necessary for GR to still be a better theory of gravity than Newton. GPS, used everyday by many people, is evidence of that.

The idea that light should travel forever, which means the redshifts are caused by the universe expanding, which means it was small 14 billion years ago, which doesn't work without a special nanosecond of hyper expansion or the universe to 70% of dark energy, well, none of that can be tested in controlled experiments, unlike the other applications of GR.

When I was younger, I never had any doubts about the big bang. Now I look back and think I just wanted to believe in it, because it's a creation myth and we secretly want that.

In a poll, half of Americans said they believe in the big bang. I suspect very few of them actually know what the evidence is for it. It's less an issue of the evidence, than a contemporary cultural mythos.
Nice way of avoiding the questions. The observations say it is expanding. The CMB shows there was a big bang. Deal with the observations, and quit with the word salad.
__________________
“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, 11:43 PM   #47
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Nice way of avoiding the questions. The observations say it is expanding. The CMB shows there was a big bang. Deal with the observations, and quit with the word salad.
The observations show that light redshifts, and loses energy as it does.

We also detect excess energy from all directions as the CMB.

We also observed the most distant galaxies to be the less evolved than nearby galaxies.

That's the evidence.

And in the last 25 years, the redshift-distance relation was so far off, we loaded the universe with dark energy to rectify it, the CMB has confirmed anomalies and predicts the wrong expansion rate, and observations show there are highly evolved galaxies at all observable distances.

Skeptics of the big bang aren't ignoring the evidence. Just interpreting it without expanding space.

Hopefully with JWST we can get better results for the Tolman surface brightness test.

The expanding universe predicts an exponent of 4. We seem to measure an exponent of 3. Something's up.
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 7th October 2021, 11:53 PM   #48
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Fresh article:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...bang-happened/

Quote:
Cosmic inflation is thoroughly well-validated as the origin of our universe, and has replaced the non-inflationary, singularity-containing Big Bang as our cosmological standard model for where we all came from. Although there are contrarian alternatives out there, none of them have ever succeeded where cosmic inflation does not, while they all fail to reproduce the full suite of inflation’s successes.

Scientists who value glory and attention over accuracy will no doubt continue to make baseless assertions undercutting what’s actually known about the universe, but you mustn’t allow yourself to be fooled by such claims. At the end of the day, we learn what exists in the universe simply by asking it questions about itself, and listening to what it tells us. As soon as we abandon that approach, we have to admit the uncomfortable truth: we simply aren’t doing science anymore.
When I was a teenager, I would have nodded along in awe.

Today it looks more religious than anything.

"Oooh, they question the creation theory!? They are bad people."
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 8th October 2021, 06:21 AM   #49
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What I gather seems to mirror what the wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmol...5%E2%80%931998

* In 1915 Einstein publishes his equations of General Relativity, without a cosmological constant Λ.
* In 1917 Einstein adds the parameter Λ to his equations when he realizes that his theory implies a dynamic universe for which space is function of time. He then gives this constant a very particular value to force his Universe model to remain static and eternal (Einstein static universe), which he will later call "the greatest stupidity of his life".
* In 1922 the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann mathematically shows that Einstein's equations (whatever Λ) remain valid in a dynamic universe.
* In 1927 the Belgian astrophysicist Georges Lemaître shows that the Universe is in expansion by combining General Relativity with some astronomical observations, those of Hubble in particular.
* In 1931 Einstein finally accepts the theory of an expanding universe and proposed, in 1932 with the Dutch physicist and astronomer Willem de Sitter, a model of a continuously expanding Universe with zero cosmological constant (Einstein-de Sitter space-time).
* In 1998 two teams of astrophysicists, one led by Saul Perlmutter, the other led by Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, carried out measurements on distant supernovae and show that the speed of galaxies recession in relation to the Milky Way increases over time. The universe is in accelerated expansion, which requires having a strictly positive Λ. The universe would contain a mysterious dark energy producing a repulsive force that counterbalances the gravitational braking produced by the matter contained in the universe (see standard cosmological model).
Wikipedia has that right, although the word I highlighted would be more accurately phrased as "can be attributed to" or "can be explained by".

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I don't think the Friedmann equations or cosmological constant are necessary for GR to still be a better theory of gravity than Newton.
The Friedmann equations imply
a'' / a = - (4/3) π G (ρ + 3p)
where a'' = d2a/dt2, ρ (rho) is mass-energy density, and p is pressure. That equation has been known for almost a hundred years, and appears in all sorts of standard textbooks. In Peebles (1993), it is equation (5.14).

In the following quotation, I have made a small adjustment to the mathematical notation so it will match notation used above.
Originally Posted by Peebles (1993)
When the density and pressure are written as the sums of the mean values ρb(t) and pb(t) in ordinary material (such as stars, gas and radiation) and the cosmological constant (eq. [4.31]), equation (5.14) becomes
a'' / a = - (4/3) π G (ρb + 3pb) + Λ / 3.
This [equation (5.15)] is the standard relativistic form for the acceleration of the cosmological expansion.
That is why it has long been known that a positive cosmological constant causes accelerated expansion (inflation).

In science, when we have such a definite prediction from some clear hypothesis, we regard that prediction as a test of the hypothesis and look to see whether the prediction is confirmed or negated by observations.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And in the last 25 years, the redshift-distance relation was so far off, we loaded the universe with dark energy to rectify it,
When people engage in pseudo-science, however, they often react to empirical confirmation of a prediction not as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that led to the prediction, but as evidence that scientists "loaded" the theory by inventing some post-hoc fudge factor. That's what Mike Helland is doing in that sentence.

As Mike Helland goes on to point out, the numerical values we infer from plugging observed values into equations such as Peebles's equation (5.15) do not align perfectly with other observations. That means something else is likely to be going on as well. Comparing equations (5.14) and (5.15) above provides some clue as to where we should look next, but Mike Helland doesn't want to do that, perhaps because (as we have seen in other threads) Mike Helland doesn't know enough math and physics to make progress in that direction.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In a poll, half of Americans said they believe in the big bang. I suspect very few of them actually know what the evidence is for it. It's less an issue of the evidence, than a contemporary cultural mythos.
I suspect very few Americans understand what "dt" means in notations such as ∫f(t)dt. We know Mike Helland doesn't know what it means.

Paul LaViolette probably does, but then his (evidently self-written) bio says
Quote:
He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that not only accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces in a unified manner, but also resolves many long-standing problems in physics such as the field singularity problem, the wave-particle dualism, and the field source problem, to mention a few.

Moreover based on the predictions of this theory, he developed an alternative cosmology that effectively replaces the big bang theory. In fact, in 1986, he was the first to cast doubt on the big bang theory by showing that it makes a far poorer fit to existing astronomical data when compared to this new non-expanding universe cosmology.
Sounds like he's overdue for a physics Nobel, doesn't it?

His bio goes on to say
Quote:
Dr. LaViolette is credited with the discovery of the planetary-stellar mass-luminosity relation which demonstrates that the Sun, planets, stars, and supernova explosions are powered by spontaneous energy creation through photon blueshifting.
Gee, I wonder who credits LaViolette with discovering that mass-luminosity relation.

If you guessed LaViolette is the person who credits LaViolette with discovering LaViolette's planetary-stellar mass-luminosity relation, you guessed right.

According to Wikipedia, the basic stellar mass-luminosity relation was first derived by Arthur Eddington in 1924.

Here's a summary of LaViolette's "contribution" to that line of research, quoted from the abstract of LaViolette's 1992 paper on "The Planetary-Stellar Mass-Luminosity Relation: Possible Evidence of Energy Nonconservation?":
Originally Posted by LaViolette
The mass-luminosity coordinates for the Jovian planets are found to lie along the lower main sequence stellar mass-luminosity relation, suggesting that both planets and red dwarf stars are powered by a similar non-nuclear source of energy. These findings support a prediction of subquantum kinetics that celestial bodies produce "genic" energy due to non-Doppler blueshifting of their photons at a rate that depends on the value of their ambient gravity potential. Genic energy also accounts for 40% of the Moon's thermal flux, all the Earth's core heat flux, and over half of the Sun's luminosity, ....
Those radical ideas have somehow failed to have much impact on mainstream science.
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 8th October 2021, 07:09 AM   #50
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
That is why it has long been known that a positive cosmological constant causes accelerated expansion (inflation).
I beg your forgiveness.

How are inflation and the cosmological constant related by observation?
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 8th October 2021, 08:26 AM   #51
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I beg your forgiveness.

How are inflation and the cosmological constant related by observation?
The word "inflation" can refer to the postulated inflationary epoch within the first tiny fraction of a second following the Big Bang, and it can also refer to the ongoing acceleration of the universe's continuing expansion.

You have often conflated those two things, as you did here:
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The idea that light should travel forever, which means the redshifts are caused by the universe expanding, which means it was small 14 billion years ago, which doesn't work without a special nanosecond of hyper expansion or the universe to 70% of dark energy, well, none of that can be tested in controlled experiments, unlike the other applications of GR.
In my previous post, I ignored your allusion to "a special nanosecond of hyper expansion" in order to explain how dark energy, as results from a positive cosmological constant, helps to explain the redshifts we have observed.

Those observed redshifts tell us the universe is not just expanding, but its expansion is accelerating. That acceleration can be explained by a positive cosmological constant via the well-known and long-established equations I stated, such as equation (5.15) in Peebles (1993):
a'' / a = - (4/3) π G (ρb + 3pb) + Λ / 3
Perhaps you are unaware that a positive cosmological constant acts as a source of the "dark energy" you mentioned when you wrote
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And in the last 25 years, the redshift-distance relation was so far off, we loaded the universe with dark energy to rectify it,
In writing that sentence, you were acting as though you thought "dark energy" was some arbitrary fudge factor that had been invented circa 1998 to explain why the observed redshifts diverge from those predicted by assuming the cosmological constant is zero. Not so. For more than a century, the possibility of dark energy has been present within the fully general form 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 8th October 2021, 11:13 AM   #52
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The observations show that light redshifts, and loses energy as it does.

We also detect excess energy from all directions as the CMB.

We also observed the most distant galaxies to be the less evolved than nearby galaxies.

That's the evidence.
Sigh. No, it isn't the evidence. It is part of the evidence, and I've told you what the other parts are. Here we go again;

The observation of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr...gbang.html#isw

Be aware that that page is now somewhat dated, and the evidence from Planck strengthens the significance of the observations. As in;

Planck 2015 results
XXI. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

Planck Collaboration (2016)
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pd...aa25831-15.pdf

"Therefore, the cross-correlation of the Planck CMB maps with different tracers of the LSS confirms the detection of the ISW effect at the expected level for the ΛCDM model."

And we have also the BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) observations;

https://sci.esa.int/web/euclid/-/wha...-oscillations-

Which also show us a universe that is expanding in an accelerated manner;

The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: mapping the distance–redshift relation with baryon acoustic oscillations
Blake, C. et al (2011)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...3/1707/1061950

Now, admittedly, there is a tension in the Hubble constant between low and high z. However, that tension is only about how fast the acceleration is, not whether it is happening or not.

And that is what I mean when I say you need to deal with the observations. Word salad doesn't cut it. Dark energy makes predictions. Just as dark matter does. The ISW effect, and the BAO observations are part of those DE predictions.
__________________
“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 8th October 2021, 08:41 PM   #53
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
In writing that sentence, you were acting as though you thought "dark energy" was some arbitrary fudge factor that had been invented circa 1998 to explain why the observed redshifts diverge from those predicted by assuming the cosmological constant is zero. Not so. For more than a century, the possibility of dark energy has been present within the fully general form of Einstein's field equations.
In 1989, what was the estimated amount of the universe that was dark energy?
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 8th October 2021, 08:46 PM   #54
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And that is what I mean when I say you need to deal with the observations. Word salad doesn't cut it. Dark energy makes predictions. Just as dark matter does. The ISW effect, and the BAO observations are part of those DE predictions.
Correlations between the CMB and the large scale structure would be expected if the CMB is caused by redshifting light, rather than primordial.



I agree it's evidence.

I don't agree it's overwhelming in favor of the primeval fireball.
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 8th October 2021, 09:27 PM   #55
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Correlations between the CMB and the large scale structure would be expected if the CMB is caused by redshifting light, rather than primordial.

https://cdn.sci.esa.int/documents/33...id_BAO_410.jpg

I agree it's evidence.

I don't agree it's overwhelming in favor of the primeval fireball.
And there we go again. Ignoring the observations, and positing more word salad. Stop doing it. Either learn what BAOs and the ISW effect are, or just admit that it is beyond you, and you are not interested because you have faith in.......whatever woo you believe. It is nothing to do with redshift. Get it? We see the ISW effect where there is large scale structure. As predicted. I linked you to an idiot's guide as to what the ISW effect is. And here you are talking about bloody redshift! Learn to read and stop wasting everybody's time.
__________________
“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 8th October 2021, 09:33 PM   #56
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
.

I don't agree it's overwhelming in favor of the primeval fireball.

Oh FFS! We are talking about the evidence for the accelerated expansion of the universe, regardless of how it started! Understand? Obviously not. The CMB itself is evidence enough of the big bang. No other alternative has an explanation for it. And nor did they predict it. Ditto with the light element abundance. Et cetera. There are no scientifically valid alternatives left standing.
__________________
“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 8th October 2021, 09:40 PM   #57
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Either learn what BAOs and the ISW effect are, or just admit that it is beyond you, and you are not interested because you have faith in.......whatever woo you believe.
I don't believe anything in particular.

I don't believe the big bang is right or wrong.

It could be right. It'd be pretty amazing that we live when humans have figured out how the universe began.

But a little caution is perfectly reasonable.

From your source:

"This makes the CMBR look very slightly hotter in the direction of these potentials, which also contain the highest concentrations of galaxies"

Gee. There's no possible way the background radiation of the universe is hotter in the direction of the highest possible concentrations of galaxies without dark energy?

Couldn't those highest concentrations of galaxies be lensing light around it?

I dunno.

I'm just not overwhelmed, given that what's being sold is a rather extravagant description of the beginning of universe (something I would expect from religion, not science).
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 9th October 2021, 08:51 AM   #58
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,001
Every once in a while, I should remind everyone that I am not a physicist. I am grateful to jonesdave116 for citing some of the relevant research.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
How people appear to be motivated is irrelevant, and often mistaken.
Irrelevant to the science, but relevant to the historical development of a science.

Reviewers and editors criticized my early drafts of a historical paper that was published last year because I wasn't paying enough attention to the principal actors' concerns and motivations.

Examination of what Mike Helland has written in this thread reveals considerable preoccupation with the history but little interest in the science.

For example:
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
In writing that sentence, you were acting as though you thought "dark energy" was some arbitrary fudge factor that had been invented circa 1998 to explain why the observed redshifts diverge from those predicted by assuming the cosmological constant is zero. Not so. For more than a century, the possibility of dark energy has been present within the fully general form of Einstein's field equations.
In 1989, what was the estimated amount of the universe that was dark energy?
(I don't know why Mike Helland's question is specific to 1989. He had been showing more interest in the historical state of this research as of 1998, as indicated within the portion of my reply to one of his earlier posts that he has quoted here. At the risk of speculating about Mike Helland's motivations, I wonder whether he has accidentally transposed the last two digits of 1998 to get 1989. I will therefore answer Mike Helland's question by placing both years, 1989 and 1998, within the broader history of this subject running from 1922 (origin of the FLRW models) to the first few years of this 21st century.)

The FLRW models imply the universe would be flat if its total mass-energy density equals a certain critical value. Separating that total mass-energy density into the fractions of the critical density attributable to matter (ΩM), dark energy (ΩΛ), and radiation (ΩR), we get the equation
ΩM + ΩΛ + ΩR + ΩK = 1
where ΩK represents any deviation of the total mass-energy density from the critical value. Astronomical observations tell us the present universe is pretty darn close to flat and the radiation density ΩR is quite small, so today's universe is approximated quite well by the simplified equation
ΩM + ΩΛ = 1
Mike Helland wants to know what was known or believed in 1989 (or, perhaps, 1998) about the value of ΩΛ. This inequality was known in 1989:
0 ≤ ΩΛ < 0.9
The 0.9 on the right-hand side of that inequality was itself an estimate based on estimates that said there might be enough matter in the universe to account for about a tenth of the critical density.

The Einstein-de Sitter model, proposed in 1932, assumes ΩM = 1 and ΩΛ = ΩR = ΩK = 0. By 1989, the Einstein-de Sitter model was in a bit of trouble because no one could find enough matter to make ΩM anywhere close to 1. By the early 1990s, new observations had begun to make the Einstein-de Sitter model look untenable, but it wasn't clear whether its problems should be attributed to a nonzero ΩΛ, a nonzero ΩK, something completely different and therefore surprising, or some combination of those things.

In 1981, Guth first published his concept of rapid inflation in the very early universe. Although the Einstein-de Sitter model remained popular well into the late 1980s, consideration of Guth's idea led to serious consideration of the possibility that ΩΛ is positive even in today's universe.

By the late 1990s, the Supernova Cosmology Project (1999) and the High-z Supernova Search Team (1998) had (with confidence levels of 99% and 99.7% respectively) ruled out the possibility that ΩΛ = 0. As of 1998, the best available estimates were ΩM = 0.28±0.10 and ΩΛ = 0.72±0.10.

Those estimates have held up quite well. Subsequent observations have refined those estimates and subdivided ΩM into separate estimates for ordinary and for dark matter.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 9th October 2021 at 08:53 AM. Reason: minor corrections
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 9th October 2021, 10:44 AM   #59
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
By the late 1990s, the Supernova Cosmology Project (1999) and the High-z Supernova Search Team (1998) had (with confidence levels of 99% and 99.7% respectively) ruled out the possibility that ΩΛ = 0. As of 1998, the best available estimates were ΩM = 0.28±0.10 and ΩΛ = 0.72±0.10.
Right. So, the universe is 72% dark energy, measured in 1998 and awarded the Nobel prize for.

Only a few years prior, it could have been 0%.

This is what I meant by "loaded up with dark energy".
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 9th October 2021, 10:49 AM   #60
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Right. So, the universe is 72% dark energy, measured in 1998 and awarded the Nobel prize for.

Only a few years prior, it could have been 0%.

This is what I meant by "loaded up with dark energy".
Every once in a while, science makes progress.

Some people want us to know they are really upset about that.
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 9th October 2021, 10:56 AM   #61
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Every once in a while, science makes progress.

Some people want us to know they are really upset about that.
That's a non-sequitur combined with an ad hominem.
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 9th October 2021, 03:15 PM   #62
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,574
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In 1989, what was the estimated amount of the universe that was dark energy?
In 1909 it was zero. Wake up, It's the 21st century now. Science moves on. At least try to keep up.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   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 9th October 2021, 03:19 PM   #63
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,574
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Fresh article:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...bang-happened/



When I was a teenager, I would have nodded along in awe.

Today it looks more religious than anything.

"Oooh, they question the creation theory!? They are bad people."
So you are a god botherer believing in a mud man and a rib woman being the origin of mankind.

Good to know. Or is it "god to know"?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   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 9th October 2021, 04:17 PM   #64
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post

Gee. There's no possible way the background radiation of the universe is hotter in the direction of the highest possible concentrations of galaxies without dark energy?

Couldn't those highest concentrations of galaxies be lensing light around it?
Thereby demonstrating my point. You don't understand the science, so why do you comment on it? How is lensing increasing the energy of a photon? That is why the ISW effect is different to, and discernible from, lensing.
However, what you as a layman believe, or don't believe, is neither here nor there to the actual scientists performing the studies. Their work is assessed by peers, not the local kennel club.
__________________
“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 9th October 2021, 05:06 PM   #65
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,271
Mike, why the fringe reset? You've already abandoned two threads devoted to your propositions. Now you're glommimg onto this one to start over. Even though we've know it's going to stall out in the same dead end that you've already been forced to admit more than once.

If you had made any progress, had anything new to say, those threads are ready and waiting for you to advance them. But you don't have anything new. Just the same old and busted ideas you already gave up on.

Up on which you already gave.

Anyway, you already know these ideas of yours go nowhere. And yet here you are, assiduously going nowhere once again. Why?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 9th October 2021, 06:04 PM   #66
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Thereby demonstrating my point. You don't understand the science, so why do you comment on it? How is lensing increasing the energy of a photon? That is why the ISW effect is different to, and discernible from, lensing.

If there's something directly behind a large enough mass, we can see multiple versions of it.



Likewise, if there's nothing behind, then the CMB photons should be doing the same thing.

Also, in the highest concentrations of galaxy, there's probably the most life.

Their radio/TV signals can contribute to the "CMB peaks" seen in their direction.
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 9th October 2021, 06:18 PM   #67
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Mike, why the fringe reset? You've already abandoned two threads devoted to your propositions. Now you're glommimg onto this one to start over. Even though we've know it's going to stall out in the same dead end that you've already been forced to admit more than once.

If you had made any progress, had anything new to say, those threads are ready and waiting for you to advance them. But you don't have anything new. Just the same old and busted ideas you already gave up on.

Up on which you already gave.

Anyway, you already know these ideas of yours go nowhere. And yet here you are, assiduously going nowhere once again. Why?
That thread I made (which was eventually split into two by the mods/admin) was directly referenced in this thread, and I personally made fun of.

So I jumped into say having doubts about what happened in the first second of the universe isn't as silly as believing in all this wholesale.

Your response is to make assumptions about my beliefs, emotions, and motivations, and quibble about them like a school child.

If the big bang turned out to be completely wrong, would you be able to accept it and move on? Or are you emotionally invested at this point? Could you tell your buddies you've come to doubt one of the beliefs that defines your identity?

I doubt it. Simply questioning the big bang has put me in the out group. There are considerable, significant psychological difficulties that come with that. I'm guessing most people that have doubts hide them, because the response from others is so extreme.

None of this is the point at all. You think I'm a troll? Yet you're the one that berates people until they respond like this. So I'm going to block you. Have a nice day.
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 9th October 2021, 06:31 PM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,271
Block me like it's reddit. Like reddit tier arguments are the best you've got
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 10th October 2021, 08:01 AM   #69
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If there's something directly behind a large enough mass, we can see multiple versions of it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tein_cross.jpg

Likewise, if there's nothing behind, then the CMB photons should be doing the same thing.

Also, in the highest concentrations of galaxy, there's probably the most life.

Their radio/TV signals can contribute to the "CMB peaks" seen in their direction.
Let me put this in terms a high school kid could understand. Although I fear that may still be pitching it a little high;

Lensing adds no energy to a photon. Whatever it gains falling into the gravitational well, it loses climbing out. Yes? Think of a skateboarder at the top of a half-pipe. S/He goes down, and then up the other side. Ignoring things such as air resistance and friction, s/he ends up with no energy gained.
The only way for a photon to actually retain some of the energy gained when falling in, is if the gravity well has expanded in the time it takes to get to the other side. It has become less steep. That is precisely what we expect in a universe that has accelerated expansion. And that is precisely what we see in the ISW observations.
Shall we move on to the BAO observations?
__________________
“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

Last edited by jonesdave116; 10th October 2021 at 08:13 AM.
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 10th October 2021, 05:23 PM   #70
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Let me put this in terms a high school kid could understand. Although I fear that may still be pitching it a little high;

Lensing adds no energy to a photon. Whatever it gains falling into the gravitational well, it loses climbing out. Yes? Think of a skateboarder at the top of a half-pipe. S/He goes down, and then up the other side. Ignoring things such as air resistance and friction, s/he ends up with no energy gained.
The only way for a photon to actually retain some of the energy gained when falling in, is if the gravity well has expanded in the time it takes to get to the other side. It has become less steep. That is precisely what we expect in a universe that has accelerated expansion. And that is precisely what we see in the ISW observations.
Shall we move on to the BAO observations?
I'm not suggesting photons gain energy through lensing.

I'm saying lensing gives you more photons.

Sure. Overwhelm me with how the CMB and LSS are correlated by BAOs.
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 10th October 2021, 05:32 PM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,271
Lensing doesn't give you more photons, though.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 11th October 2021, 07:05 AM   #72
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,170
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm not suggesting photons gain energy through lensing.

I'm saying lensing gives you more photons.
It doesn't, as noted.

Quote:
Sure. Overwhelm me with how the CMB and LSS are correlated by BAOs.
Why? So that you can totally misunderstand that, as well?
__________________
“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 11th October 2021, 07:15 AM   #73
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
It doesn't, as noted.
Then why do we see 4 versions of the same image?

The photons we receive were originally headed some place else. They are bent in our direction.

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 11th October 2021, 09:34 AM   #74
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,232
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Then why do we see 4 versions of the same image?

The photons we receive were originally headed some place else. They are bent in our direction.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tein_cross.jpg
So what? ISW changes the temperature of the radiation not its intensity. I am sure the difference has been explained to you before, but you never seem to learn anything.
hecd2 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 11th October 2021, 10:21 AM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,271
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Then why do we see 4 versions of the same image?

The photons we receive were originally headed some place else. They are bent in our direction.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tein_cross.jpg
Bending light in our direction doesn't make it hotter. Your correlation of increased temperature with gravitational lensing is what you're doing wrong.

A cold object, lensed, will still be a cold object. It won't come over as a hotter object because of the lensing.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 11th October 2021, 12:15 PM   #76
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,466
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If there's something directly behind a large enough mass, we can see multiple versions of it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tein_cross.jpg

Likewise, if there's nothing behind, then the CMB photons should be doing the same thing.

Also, in the highest concentrations of galaxy, there's probably the most life.

Their radio/TV signals can contribute to the "CMB peaks" seen in their direction.
More abysmal ignorance from Mike Helland.
We see the Einstein Cross because galaxies are essentially point sources. The light from that galaxy is lensed into 4 images by the foreground galaxy. The CMB is not a galaxy!
Stupidity of the CMB containing alien radio/TV signals. The CMB is microwaves and not related to any galaxies.
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 11th October 2021, 12:33 PM   #77
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
So what?
So we get more photons from the object that way.

At the very least, the sensor that we use to detect it should get warmer having 4 times as many photons hit it.
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 11th October 2021, 01:37 PM   #78
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,232
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So we get more photons from the object that way.
So what?

Quote:
At the very least, the sensor that we use to detect it should get warmer having 4 times as many photons hit it.
So what?

None of this relevant at all to the ISW, which is what we are talking about. Someone who doesn’t know the difference between temperature and intensity expressing an opinion on any aspect of physics is simply absurd.
hecd2 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 11th October 2021, 01:46 PM   #79
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
So what?
So, I was responding to someone who said you don't get more photons from lensing.


Quote:
None of this relevant at all to the ISW, which is what we are talking about. Someone who doesn’t know the difference between temperature and intensity expressing an opinion on any aspect of physics is simply absurd.
Fair enough.

If instead of receiving a single CMB photon, we receive multiple, how does a radio telescope tell?

*edit*

http://physics.wku.edu/~gibson/radio/brightness.html

* (Warning: physicists use the term irradiance to describe this quantity, and intensity to describe what astronomers call flux!)
* Radio astronomers use some terms and units for a couple of the above quantities that may be unfamiliar even to optical astronomers!
* Brightness Temperature is a proxy for specific intensity and is measured in kelvins, which are like degrees Celsius but are counted up from absolute zero. The brightness temperature is the temperature needed for a blackbody (thermal) radiator to produce the same specific intensity as the observed source.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 11th October 2021 at 02:26 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 11th October 2021, 03:12 PM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,271
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So, I was responding to someone who said you don't get more photons from lensing.
You had suggested that gravitational lensing would make the lensed object appear hotter than it actually was. This is wrong.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 12:27 PM.
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.