|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2006 : 14:09:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, I showed you two examples where the "inferred" method doesn't work right.
And Dave is trying to tell you that you can't apply a method meant to measure something on one type of object on another type of object with very different characteristics. Helioseismology is supposed to be used on stars, not planets.
quote:
It then becomes prudent to "directly measure" something when possible. We inferred from these mathematical models that the larger brown dwarf should be hotter than the smaller one. Evidenly we infered their temperature from these models incorrectly. Therefore the models need to be "modified" in some way.
You're you are applying the method the wrong way.
Anyone with high-school physics should be able to tell you that a brown dwarf the size of the sun must be cooler than a brown dwarf the size of Jupiter. The secret is called "compressed gas". I urge everyone reading this thread to read the article Mozina posted in the Solid Surface thread.
There's more in the article than he lets on, and the conclusion is not what he alludes.
|
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. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 14:10:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Man, I'm really getting lost in all this stuff. What would help me better follow this debate/shouting match a bit would be if Michael could explain in some detail his competing idea for the origin of the universe. Let's say that on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is like a description you might read in a Newsweek article, and 10 might be what's used in a presentation for The Astrophysics Group
at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, then perhaps I'm talking about a level 3-4 range.
I've read enough at school and (since it's been awhile since I took college-level science classes) on my own about the Big Bang, but I know nothing about that you are saying. So some background would help.
It will take some time to get to level 2, let alone 3 or 4, and I don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring you. I'm posting between tech calls at work, so bear with me a bit. I'll start with the basics for you.
Essentially there are two primary differences between a "slam" and a "bang". There is also the possibility of a "bloom" like event by the way, but I really don't want to confuse the issues more than I need to. For the time being, I'll try to explain the "slam" pretty much in terms of how one would explain a galaxy collision, albeit on a much larger scale.
There is a "statement of faith" I should note here. Both the slam and the bang concepts are predicated upon the accuracy of the trajectory data we've pieced together to this point in time, much of which is based on "red shift" concepts that may or may not be accurate. In other words, as Arp suggests, there could be a gravitational component to redshifting processes that are not fully understood yet. We do however seem to have verified however that the universe continues to accelerate even as we speak.
Based upon trajectory data to date, it seems that all matter was "condensed" to a "relatively" small area of space at one point in space time. We'll call these coordinates 0,0,0,0 with the last component representing the notion of time.
The primary difference between a "slam" and a "bang" is the notion of "proximity" to the point 0,0,0,0. As with galaxy collisions, not all matter need have been concentrated exactly at 0,0,0,0. Any or all four components (including time) could have been different for every "energy unit" at the moment of "collision".
The "typical" big bang theory tends to "assume" the existence of what I would call a quasi-static "singularity" that either "inflates" or "explodes" at 0,0,0,0. This is obviously a simplification of course since everthing is relative to movement and there are variations of different BB theories.
The primary difference between a slam and a bang is that a slam does not require a "tight packing" of all the energy to a single point as we plot backwards in time. If we plot trajectories to one area of space, it may still be that the mass of this univerese came from preexisting "super galaxies" that collided and interacted near and around 0,0,0,0. Again however, just like with galaxy collisions, while some mass may have been turned into "quark soup", or sucked into black holes, some mass may have simply "drifted right through" the main event point and continued on it's path relatively unaffected by the event. In other words, iron atoms may have predated the event and survived the event intact. Silicon and neon may also have existed both before and after the event. The primary testable difference between and bang and a slam concept is that a slam would suggest galaxies formed earlier (maybe eons ago), and we would certainly expect to find "mature" galaxies in the early universe. Furthermore we would expect to find the whole assortment of elements at an early stage as we do at later stages. While there may be some "shifting" since that time, there need not necessarily be a significant shift of elements in a big slam from that point until this point.
Are we clear so far? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/26/2006 14:13:22 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 14:15:29 [Permalink]
|
Here's a link you might want to read through at some point in time. It doesn't necessarily get into the details of the "slam" idea, but it will provide you with some background information about how I think the universe is "evolving".
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jofe1.pdf
You'll eventually need to understand my solar theories to understand the "acceleration" aspects of the "slam" concept.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/26/2006 14:17:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 14:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, I showed you two examples where the "inferred" method doesn't work right.
And Dave is trying to tell you that you can't apply a method meant to measure something on one type of object on another type of object with very different characteristics. Helioseismology is supposed to be used on stars, not planets.
Well sort of. Then again heliosiesmology as a field of science is simply an extension of the siesmology concepts we apply here on earth.
I readily acknowledge however that planets and suns are "different" at least in terms of size and mass.
The real question that remains to be answered is what "method" was ever used to compute the density of a plasma layer that is more than million miles away without being able to physically touch it?
quote:
You're you are applying the method the wrong way.
Anyone with high-school physics should be able to tell you that a brown dwarf the size of the sun must be cooler than a brown dwarf the size of Jupiter. The secret is called "compressed gas". I urge everyone reading this thread to read the article Mozina posted in the Solid Surface thread.
There's more in the article than he lets on, and the conclusion is not what he alludes.
Well Dr. Mabuse I'm certainly "paraphrasing" the conversation to some degree, and the article does talk about the total "mass" of both objects. The article also talks about surprised astronomers.
quote:
The astronomers are surprised to discover that the more massive brown dwarf is the cooler of the pair, contrary to all predictions about brown dwarfs of the same age. Either the two are not the same age and may be captured bodies, or the theoretical models are wrong, say researchers.
But will any of them actually accept that perhaps the models are wrong?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/26/2006 14:33:39 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 19:46:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Are we clear so far?
I think so. It sounds like you're saying that matter existed billions-- even 10 or 15 billion years ago-- more or less in a state similar to as it exists now, even to the point that there were heavy elements and even galaxies.
Moreover, as some point perhaps 12-15 billion years ago-- when conventional science says that matter rapidly expanded from a singularity-- you say that various super-galaxies (?) collided and that our current universe is a result of this.
We can test this, as I understand it, by determining how early heavy atoms-- things like iron-- appear, and how early things like galaxies appear.
Do I have this right? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 20:22:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How else should I interpret your insistence that "theories" fail all the time, and only "direct measurement" can be trusted?
Exactly as it sounds. A theory is only viable if we can directly observe what we *predict* with the theory, otherwise it's just a useless theory.
So, since we can't directly observe the surface of the Sun, in terms of measuring the rigidity of its features, your theory is not viable.quote:
I have no problem with "inferences" about the data. I only have problems (actually just different requirements) when folks start trying to miopically claim the data supports only one theory.
That's not at all what you said with regard to the inferences. You brought up examples where infered predictions were incorrect compared to "directly measured" data, in order to cast doubt on the idea that the density of the Sun can be measured via helioseismology.quote:
But what specific evidence is there to exclude a "slam" from a "bang"?
The more detail you provide on your "slam" idea, the easier it gets. See below.quote:
No, I showed you two examples where the "infered" method doesn't work right. It then becomes prudent to "directly measure" something when possible. We infered from these mathematical models that the larger brown dwarf should be hotter than the smaller one. Evidenly we infered their temperature from these models incorrectly. Therefore the models need to be "modified" in some way.
Unfortunately, you're not differentiating the various models, and so the scientists' finding that one is wrong appears to mean to you that they're all wrong.quote:
You keep ingoring the key points of what I say, even when I'm careful about how I phrase things. The BB insists that no atoms existed in the moments (years) following the BB. It insists that hydrogen atoms formed first from the "quark soup". It does not suggest that heavy atoms like iron predated the event and survived the event intact. In other words, it suggests that even if "matter" existed prior to the BB, it was "broken down" into pure energy by the forces of the BB.
This is the "myth" part IMO. The maturity of the earliest galaxies suggests that such concepts need to be reexamined.
Unfortunately for you, if iron had existed whole at the time the CMBR was created, then we would see iron absorbtion and/or emission lines in the CMBR. We do not.quote:
No, the history of science *does* show this tendency of shoehorning the data to fit the model in some way. When the BB was first proposed the theory suggested galaxies wouldn't form for "billions" (plural) of years after the BB. Once they started finding mature galaxies in the early universe, they didn't discard the BB theory, instead they "rolled back the timeframes" of when they claimed that suns and galaxies first formed, *without* even explaining how the first theories were flawed and how they were chagned to fit the data. Everytime Spitzer or Hubble returns a new "early" image, everyone is still always "surprised" at how "mature" the galaxies look at this early age.
And the example you provide is completely backwards from what you're trying to claim. This example is of models being refined and changed due to the discovery of new data. It is not an example of anyone "shoehorning" any data into a theory.quote:
quote:
How is the existence of the CMBR evidence that a "Big Slam" released the CMBR? You're assuming the consequent of your argument.
That's exactly how it's done in BB theory too.
The CMBR was predicted by Big Bang theorists almost 17 years before it was discovered. The existence of the CMBR was one of the most-powerful successful predictions ever made in the history of science. Since radiation left over from the "Big Slam" should contain a record of the particles in existence at the time, and shouldn't be uniformly distributed, the CMBR fails to match "Big Slam" predictions, as far as I can tell.quote:
Not all of it Dave. Not every photon from a galaxy collision is absorbed by the material that is not at the center of a galaxy collision. I have no reason to believe a larger collision would be any different.
Okay, this is streching the analogy waaay too far. Especially since during a galactic collision, the odds are very low that two stars will even collide, much less have part of their mass converted into a "quark soup."quote:
I will grant you that there is "some" evidence to support the BB concept, but there is no data that supports a BB concept to the exclusion of all other possible scenarios including a slam concept.
As I've told you before, no science is exclusionary, because there are an infinite number of possibilities to exclude, thus any such effort is a waste. Theories stand on their own or not. But we already can exclude a "Slam" based on what you've said, since we find no atomic signatures on the CMBR, and it's too uniform the be the result of something which would have left shadows.quote:
The red herring was tossing in these theories as though they somehow lend credibility to BB theory.
Let's recap:
Dave: Here are some examples of physics theories which are entirely mathematical.
Michael: You just tossed those theory names out to lend the BBT credibility.
Dave: No, they had nothing to do with the credibility of any theory.
Michael: You just tossed those theory names out to lend the BBT credibility.
I'll say it again, Mich |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 22:20:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Michael, if you feel that pointing out the quite-obvious lack of understanding you have of the Big Bang theory (or of solar models) is an insult, then you are quite correct that this is all about ego: specifically yours. Should you be upset that your ignorance has been exposed? Absolutely. Should you do something about it? Absolutely. Is the right thing to do to attack the messenger? No, it's to go out and relieve yourself of your ignorance.
Bingo!
Michael, Dave is 100% correct in everything he's just told you. He's been infinitely more patient with you than any normal person could ever have been expected to be. You are simply incapable of seeing yourself for the dunce you actually are. You suffer from some type of egomania, and I can only hope that you seek proper psychological treatment. Hopefully your condition can be rectified through therapy and medication. Until you're able to get past this forgetful/denial phase where you can shift the goalposts of any conversation without realizing you are doing it, any discussion of facts at this point would continue to be fruitless.
And, Michael? Irregardless is not a word.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/26/2006 22:23:24 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2006 : 23:31:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Are we clear so far?
I think so. It sounds like you're saying that matter existed billions-- even 10 or 15 billion years ago-- more or less in a state similar to as it exists now, even to the point that there were heavy elements and even galaxies.
Exactly. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun.
quote:
Moreover, as some point perhaps 12-15 billion years ago-- when conventional science says that matter rapidly expanded from a singularity-- you say that various super-galaxies (?) collided and that our current universe is a result of this.
Yes.
quote:
We can test this, as I understand it, by determining how early heavy atoms-- things like iron-- appear, and how early things like galaxies appear.
Do I have this right?
You have this exactly right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 00:42:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, since we can't directly observe the surface of the Sun,
But we can and we have. We can image photons and Nickel ions reflected from it's surfaces.
quote:
That's not at all what you said with regard to the inferences. You brought up examples where infered predictions were incorrect compared to "directly measured" data, in order to cast doubt on the idea that the density of the Sun can be measured via helioseismology.
I'm going to save that arguement for the other thread and at least *try* to keep this topics separate.
quote:
Unfortunately for you, if iron had existed whole at the time the CMBR was created, then we would see iron absorbtion and/or emission lines in the CMBR. We do not.
Again however you seem to be "assuming" that all photons would necessarily interact with iron.
quote:
And the example you provide is completely backwards from what you're trying to claim. This example is of models being refined and changed due to the discovery of new data.
You didn't seem get graps the point that the *predictions* were useless.
quote:
It is not an example of anyone "shoehorning" any data into a theory.
In this particular case, sure it is. They sort of "absorbed" the data, and band-aided the theory back together, never mind the fact we missed our predictions by billions (plural) of years. Still somehow, quite mysterious, the data somehow "supports" the "refined" BB theory. Go figure.
quote:
The CMBR was predicted by Big Bang theorists almost 17 years before it was discovered.
It doesn't take too great a leap of faith to believe that *any* huge energy release is bound to release residual radiation.
quote:
The existence of the CMBR was one of the most-powerful successful predictions ever made in the history of science.
Because someone predicted a lot of residual radation from a huge energy interaction, this prediction is somehow "the most-powerful sucessful prediction ever made in the whole history of science"? Come on Dave. Virtually any energy release model would leave some residual energy. In fact even a relatively static universe may look like a bunch of "residual energy" from a large enough distance.
quote:
Since radiation left over from the "Big Slam" should contain a record of the particles in existence at the time, and shouldn't be uniformly distributed, the CMBR fails to match "Big Slam" predictions, as far as I can tell.
In a relatively static universe the CMBR could look almost entirely uniformly distributed. In a slam event with a lot of interaction in the middle, the CMBR may "seem" pretty evenly distrubuted as well, with "webs" that extend in sorts of angles and directions. Again, I don't see this a "defintive" one way or the other.
quote:
Okay, this is streching the analogy waaay too far. Especially since during a galactic collision, the odds are very low that two stars will even collide, much less have part of their mass converted into a "quark soup."
And yet here we're amping up material and slamming them together at higher speeds in closer proximity. There will still be complete "misses", but the relative amount of material near the center may have been substancial. We simply don't know.
quote:
As I've told you before, no science is exclusionary, because there are an infinite number of possibilities to exclude, thus any such effort is a waste. Theories stand on their own or not. But we already can exclude a "Slam" based on what you've said, since we find no atomic signatures on the CMBR,
What kind of "atomic structures" would you expect to find in the CMBR and why do you expect to see them?
quote:
and it's too uniform the be the result of something which would have left shadows.
There are all kinds of "threads" and "webs" in the intergalactic medium Dave. Nothing is 100% homogenous.
quote:
I'll say it again, Michael: physics is all about the math.
Ya, to the exclusion of logic and commmon sense sometimes as in Guth's case.
quote:
You obviously don't like that part of the science, but the physical sciences are hard sciences in that they rely on the unforgiving logic of mathematics for their validity.
I don't "dislike" the math part of the science Dave. What I dislike is the notion that science is defined by math. It is not. Some sciences are defined that way. Some are not. Math is very useful in the right circumstances, but it can easily be used to model things that do not exist in reality. Math can be used to form myth just as easily as faith, particularly if the math is based on faith an not on observation.
quote:
That is precisely why the Crackpot Index gives 10 points for "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations."
I'm not that bad at math actually. It's just when I sit down to do math, I want to make sure it has a factual basis, one that is based on direct observation. I'd rather not just simply model things based |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/27/2006 00:50:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 02:06:59 [Permalink]
|
Here are some other relevant links for you Robb:
http://www.haltonarp.com/
http://s8int.com/bigbang.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
You should be aware that BB theory and any sort of "big slam" theory for that matter, are predicated on "redshift" observations and measurements that most astronomers agree show signs of an expanding universe.
Halton Arp however has "questioned" the party line as it relates to redshift observations and how they should be interepreted based on the fact that we find presumably older, more redshifted objects sitting in front of less redshifted galaxies. Furthermore these apparently unrelated objects show signs of interaction with one another. For his work, he was banned from using the 200 inch telescope at Palomar and has since taken up his work in Germany. Even to this day his work is "banned" in the classrooms of astronomy. So much for new ideas and maveric thinkers.
In short there is some evidence to suggest that the whole concept of expansion has only "limited" observational support. It should be noted however that expansion can still be "interpreted" from these images while still preserving some of teh "intrinsic" aspects of redshift that Arp has proposed based on his observations of unique objects in space. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/27/2006 02:14:12 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 07:16:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Even to this day his work is "banned" in the classrooms of astronomy. So much for new ideas and maveric thinkers.
Yes, and math teachers are banned from teaching that 2 + 2 = 8. Go figure....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 11:27:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
We can test this, as I understand it, by determining how early heavy atoms-- things like iron-- appear, and how early things like galaxies appear.
Do I have this right?
You have this exactly right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html
Those links push back the date of iron presence in the universe to 100-200 million years after the big bang.
So what?
A star 30 times the size of our sun has an expected lifetime of 10 million years, 27000 times shorter than the sun. The decrease in life-span of a star is exponentially related to its mass. There are stars that have more than 100 solar masses, and they have radically shorter life spans.
This means that with high enough concentration of hydrogen, there could easily have been 10 generations of stars before the quasar that Hubble picked up. Hence, the presence of Population I stars (Pop I stars are 'second generation' stars that are born from the dust of previous stars just like our sun. They have heavy elements in them, pop II stars are only1 made of hydrogen and helium) in quasars does not falsify the Big Bang concept.
1 "only" does not mean there are no metals, but rather that the metal content is very low compared to population I stars.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 11:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
We can test this, as I understand it, by determining how early heavy atoms-- things like iron-- appear, and how early things like galaxies appear.
Do I have this right?
You have this exactly right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html
Those links push back the date of iron presence in the universe to 100-200 million years after the big bang.
So what?
So what evidence do you have to demonstrate that there was ever a time when iron did not exist? Why don't these observations jive with BB prediction, and why is it that in every single one of these articles astronomers express such surprise to see mature galaxies and such an abundunce of iron and other elements in the early universe? Exactly what evidence favors a BB over a slam at this point?
quote:
A star 30 times the size of our sun has an expected lifetime of 10 million years, 27000 times shorter than the sun. The decrease in life-span of a star is exponentially related to its mass. There are stars that have more than 100 solar masses, and they have radically shorter life spans.
This is essentially special pleading. You are essentially "assuming" a bang occured, and assuming that all solar life cycles began with hydrogen *only* began *after* the bang occured. You first have to demonstrate that there was ever a time when no iron existed.
quote:
This means that with high enough concentration of hydrogen, there could easily have been 10 generations of stars before the quasar that Hubble picked up.
But again, that quasar may have predated the events at 0,0,0,0 as well. Again, this is essentially a form of special pleading. There are still other viable ways to explain this abundance of iron and these quasars in the early universe. Is there any definitive data that demonstrates that there was ever a time when iron and quasars did not exist? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 12:19:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is essentially special pleading.
No it's an argument that shows that iron abundance in a 100 myo universe does not exclude the Big Bang as a possible explanation.
It shows that your argument does not falsify Big Bang.
What do you propose as the underlying cause for the Big Slam? |
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 14:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, since we can't directly observe the surface of the Sun,
But we can and we have. We can image photons and Nickel ions reflected from it's surfaces.
Well, since you seem to think that commas are periods, why don't you tell us how you "directly measure" the rigidity of a feature based upon a few satellite images?quote:
I'm going to save that arguement for the other thread and at least *try* to keep this topics separate.
Go right ahead and address it in the other thread, then.quote:
Again however you seem to be "assuming" that all photons would necessarily interact with iron.
Nope, no such assumption there.quote:
You didn't seem get graps the point that the *predictions* were useless.
You don't seem to grasp the point that no model we have is perfect, and all models require changes when new evidence comes to light.quote:
In this particular case, sure it is. They sort of "absorbed" the data, and band-aided the theory back together, never mind the fact we missed our predictions by billions (plural) of years. Still somehow, quite mysterious, the data somehow "supports" the "refined" BB theory. Go figure.
Quote any cosmologist who claims that younger galaxies support the Big Bang Theory.quote:
quote:
The CMBR was predicted by Big Bang theorists almost 17 years before it was discovered.
It doesn't take too great a leap of faith to believe that *any* huge energy release is bound to release residual radiation.
You are still ignoring the characteristics of the CMBR which differentiate it from other sorts of "residual radiation."quote:
Because someone predicted a lot of residual radation from a huge energy interaction, this prediction is somehow "the most-powerful sucessful prediction ever made in the whole history of science"?
No, the successful prediction of a highly uniform blackbody radiation massively red shifted without the signatures of heavy elements from all directions in the sky is what I was talking about. You're not talking about the CMBR at all.quote:
Come on Dave. Virtually any energy release model would leave some residual energy. In fact even a relatively static universe may look like a bunch of "residual energy" from a large enough distance.
Come on, Michael, you're just making stuff up, now.quote:
In a relatively static universe the CMBR could look almost entirely uniformly distributed. In a slam event with a lot of interaction in the middle, the CMBR may "seem" pretty evenly distrubuted as well, with "webs" that extend in sorts of angles and directions. Again, I don't see this a "defintive" one way or the other.
I don't see how we could see the radiation from a "Slam" with a localized "center" as coming from everywhere we look. On the other hand, since the Big Bang happened to the entire universe, it only makes sense that the "afterglow" would emit from all of space.quote:
quote:
Okay, this is streching the analogy waaay too far. Especially since during a galactic collision, the odds are very low that two stars will even collide, much less have part of their mass converted into a "quark soup."
And yet here we're amping up material and slamming them together at higher speeds in closer proximity. There will still be complete "misses", but the relative amount of material near the center may have been substancial. We simply don't know.
You're just making assumption after assumption here, and denying your own ability to support them.quote:
What kind of "atomic structures" would you expect to find in the CMBR and why do you expect to see them?
I didn't say "atomic structures," I said "atomic signatures," and if there were heavy elements at the release of the CMBR, I would expect to see emission and absorbtion lines in the CMBR, appropriately red shifted along with the rest of the spectrum.quote:
quote:
and it's too uniform the be the result of something which would have left shadows.
There are all kinds of "threads" and "webs" in the intergalactic medium Dave.
Once again, you're changing the subject, this time from the CMBR to the "intergalactic medium." Your objection is therefore scientifically vacuous.quote:
Nothing is 100% homogenous.
Nobody ever said it was.quote:
Ya, to the exclusion of logic and commmon sense sometimes as in Guth's case.
And you still haven't demonstrated that |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
