|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 10/15/2005 : 21:36:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. As for the rest, how does intergalactic hydrogen "know" to be hotter in the direction our galaxy is moving? These people are claiming moleculer hydrogen refraction explains all apparent Doppler shifting of light wavelengths, so their model needs to explain not only the CMBR and the redshift of most galaxies, but also the blueshift in our direction of travel, and also the blueshift of those galaxies that are heading towards us. The hydrogen hypothesis fails unless it's magical hydrogen which knows we're looking at it.
Well lots of quantum theorizing these days does seem to go along with the idea that nature does magically know when we're looking at it. :) (I don't buy it, personally.) Anyways, I don't understand why you are saying that the hydrogen refraction theory doesn't allow for doppler shifting towards the blue in our direction of travel. I'll have to read up more I suppose.
quote:
Anyone who uses the word 'fireball' in an allegedly serious discussion of the CMBR clearly doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Yeah I suppose they could have described it as the condition of the universe at which energy and matter decouple, but that wouldn't be as entertaining.
quote:
And as I read in several places, space with functioning stars in it will never come to thermal equillibrium, so a "limiting" temperature doesn't make sense. Much worse, the temperature should (again) drop off with distance from a galaxy, with "deep" intergalactic space being much less than 2.7 K if the average is going to be 2.7 K. This is not observed.
Well *is* the universe at large scale thermal equilibrium? (Yes) The CMBR is from a 'body' that is or was at thermal equilibrium. So one can undertand that body to be the, ahem, fireball 300,000 years after the alleged bang, or one can understand it to be from a very long lived universe in large scale equilibrium. I'm going to have to investigate precisely just why the latter supposedly isn't acceptable.
Mark
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2005 : 03:01:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well lots of quantum theorizing these days does seem to go along with the idea that nature does magically know when we're looking at it. :) (I don't buy it, personally.)
Good that you don't buy it, because it's a common misunderstanding. In quantum theory, an "observation" of a system is any interaction it has with something else. There is no necessity for a human or other intelligent observer.quote:
Anyways, I don't understand why you are saying that the hydrogen refraction theory doesn't allow for doppler shifting towards the blue in our direction of travel.
The HRT says that light is redshifted because it's gone through billions of lightyears of hydrogen gas. Obviously, in the direction we travel, light has still gone through billions of lightyears of hydrogen gas, so why would it be blueshiftedquote:
Well *is* the universe at large scale thermal equilibrium? (Yes)
No. Empty space is not at thermal equilibrium with surrounding stars. The latter are dumping heat into the former, constantly.quote:
The CMBR is from a 'body' that is or was at thermal equilibrium.
No, that 'body' (the entire universe) was undergoing thermal change, and still is.quote:
So one can undertand that body to be the, ahem, fireball 300,000 years after the alleged bang, or one can understand it to be from a very long lived universe in large scale equilibrium.
Only if you change the meaning of "equilibrium" to be "not in equilibrium." Then, you can go on to define "blue" to be "red," and get rid of the blueshift problem.quote:
I'm going to have to investigate precisely just why the latter supposedly isn't acceptable.
Please do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2005 : 06:50:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, it's a crappy explanation because that hydrogen at 3K should be red- and blue-shifted in a Gaussian manner (it should reveal a bell-curve of apparent temperatures).
Damn, I missed that one...
But you are right of course, each molecule's individual vector would have its own signature superimposed on the all the rest of them, and a bell curve would be apparent.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2005 : 17:13:49 [Permalink]
|
My newly discovered and now favourite website for cosmology is: http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
It's based on plasma cosmology, namely the idea that plasma physics (not gravity) is perhaps *the* major player in the structure and behaviour of the cosmos. There is a link to a film trailer, and also a link to an open letter signed by dozens of astronomers, to the effect that given the problems in big bang theory, promising alternate theories should be given funding for exploration.
Regarding CBR, here's a quote from one of the papers on the site: quote:
Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR.
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%.
Another recent problem I just read about is that the expected differential gravitational lensing effects in the CBR are hardly there, at all. Anyways, I'm tickled that there is more of a alternative cosmology 'movement' out there than I had expected.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2005 : 01:38:45 [Permalink]
|
Peer review my friend...
If his findings are so revolutionary, why isn't it published in Science?
the web-address Bigbangneverhappened.org is too much reminding of evolutionsisabiglie, and so is the collecting of lists of names of people who think this guy is right. Smells just like Discovery Institute. But that is just my personal opinion.
Besides, a friend told me there was a paper published recently that showed that the expansion of the universe is not dependant on dark matter to fit the Big Bang theory. That would put a large dent in Lerner's objection to current theory.
I'll see if I can dig up something about it. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 20:48:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...and also a link to an open letter signed by dozens of astronomers, to the effect that given the problems in big bang theory, promising alternate theories should be given funding for exploration.
The problem with that is that "funding" comes from diverse sources, and there is no overarching regulator of science funding. Without having read this letter, who do the signatories claim should be funding this research?
Still, though, I'm at a loss for how any non-Big Bang cosmology can explain red/blueshifting on galactic scales.
Note that this isn't to say that Big Bang theory doesn't have "issues" which aren't satisfactorially addressed. But we can't just toss it out because there's work yet to be done. It is currently the best explanation for the start of our universe that we've got. Don't make the mistake, markie, of thinking that because I say that, I think it's also error-free.
That's what the malleability of theories is all about, as we discussed a little bit in the Mills thread. The idea that if a theory is shown to be incorrect in some aspect, we need to just throw it away and start from scratch is ridiculous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2005 : 14:07:23 [Permalink]
|
| Well said Dave. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
