PDA

View Full Version : Inflation Theory: Not So Much...



seer
06-20-2014, 07:27 AM
It looks like they jumped the gun!

Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong


Washington (AFP) - American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong.

The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.

If proven to be correctly identified, these waves -- predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.

The apparent first direct evidence of such so-called cosmic inflation -- a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye -- was announced in March by experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The detection was made with the help of a telescope called BICEP2, stationed at the South Pole.

After weeks in which they avoided the media, the team published its work Thursday in the US journal Physical Review Letters.

In a summary, the team said their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.

http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-breakthrough-team-allows-may-wrong-114835743.html

Jorge
06-20-2014, 08:00 AM
It looks like they jumped the gun!

Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong



http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-breakthrough-team-allows-may-wrong-114835743.html

OF COURSE they're wrong - Big Bang theories are every bit as wrong as Evolution. Here's the bad part: because observations allow a variety of interpretations, there will always be observations that are interpreted in such a way that they appear to support the theory. This is why every now and then they'll "find" something that "supports" their theories. And when those times occur, they will trumpet it from every street corner. The general population, unable to see through the multiple errors -- and since the words are coming from "prestigious, authoritative sources" -- just swallow it whole.

I wish there was a way to totally avoid that but there isn't.

Jorge

klaus54
06-20-2014, 01:06 PM
OF COURSE they're wrong - Big Bang theories are every bit as wrong as Evolution. Here's the bad part: because observations allow a variety of interpretations, there will always be observations that are interpreted in such a way that they appear to support the theory. This is why every now and then they'll "find" something that "supports" their theories. And when those times occur, they will trumpet it from every street corner. The general population, unable to see through the multiple errors -- and since the words are coming from "prestigious, authoritative sources" -- just swallow it whole.

I wish there was a way to totally avoid that but there isn't.

Jorge

If I were you, I'd keep my yap shut on anything scientific.

"Big Bang" = 1) Expansion of spacetime: FACT, 2) Modulo "Dark Matter" the Universe is 99% hydrogen and helium: FACT, 3) Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation: FACT, 4) Distance of over 100s of million of light-years: FACT.

Those are FACTS. What's YOUR explanation?

K54

tharkun
07-03-2014, 12:17 PM
Problems with the BICEP data:

1) Red Flag #1. The paper had not been through ‘peer review’ when the announcement was made. I thought ‘peer review’ was the only way ‘real’ science was done. Don’t the SM guys lambaste anyone who dares to publish a scientific critique, analysis or opinion without ‘peer review’? Double standard of “If you agree with us, we’ll let you do what you want; but if you don’t, we’ll beat you with our own made-up rules.” Scientific truth based on majority opinion.

2) Red Flag #2. They claim “only” gravity waves during the inflationary period could produce such markers. This assumes absolute knowledge of the universe and is self-refuting. We have been told that 95% of the universe is dark matter/energy of which we know absolutely nothing about, and we’re supposed to believe that based on a max of 5% knowledge that “only gravity waves” can produce the data?

3) Red Flag #3. Polarization is an EM effect, not a gravity effect. How does gravity create polarization effects in the magnetic field? Wouldn’t you look for an E/M cause for an E/M effect? Where is the data showing that they eliminated all other possible E/M causes? Shouldn’t you have to show variation in the gravity field to show gravitational effects? If your going to propose an EM cause for gravitational effects shouldn’t you have a unified field to show how this can happen? Where does gravity influence the EM field in the current equations?

4) Red Flag #4.They admit that dust within our own galaxy can create the observed polarization. How exactly did they filter this cause from the gravity wave cause? In fact, they admit that they don’t have a polarized dust map. They don’t know where the dust is or its density, but we’re supposed to believe that they ‘carefully checked the data’ to rule out dust as a possibility?!?

5) Red Flag #5. The conclusion assumes that the source of the microwaves is the CBR. We know this is false from the PLANCK probe’s CBR from last year that showed obvious fluctuations that showed imprints of our own solar system. This data has since been ignored and buried due the damage it clearly does to the BB model. The BICEP data has been interpreted assuming that the local environment of our solar system and galaxy have had no effect on the incoming microwave radiation. Even assuming that magnetic curls were created by gravity waves, we’re supposed to believe that in all that travel time they weren’t influenced by any other EM fields in that whole trip? How likely is that?

6) Red Flag #6. The data maps show clear parallel slants of data. Why would the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second have such a structure. Is it just a ‘coincidence’ that this alignment matches the alignment of the galaxy from a south polar orbit where BICEP is located? It doesn’t matter that BICEP wasn’t pointed at the galaxy since the local E and M fields are largely influenced by the galaxy regardless of direction.

7) Red Flag #7. The interpretation assumes that the Lambda-CDM model is true. Lambda itself is a fudge factor made to fill the hole in the data and is not assigned to anything mechanically. And we have virtually zero information on dark matter as mentioned before; but we’re supposed to believe that their conclusions based on this baseline are solid?

8) Red Flag #8. The exponential inflationary model that this evidence is supposed to support is itself a physical impossibility. Time and distance can not be in an exponential relationship to each other because time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You can’t measure time without measuring a distance. Do we ever see any direction increase at an exponential rate compared to the other two orthogonal directions? Of course not, the whole idea is a physical and logical non-starter. Space-time as a 4D field does not exist.

9) Red Flag #9. The main piece of data is from the measured magnetic fields, but they parked the instrument over the south pole where the planetary magnetic fields are high and variable and polarized? Whose bright idea was that? Given that position, we would expect to see polarization variations with no other necessary cause. Since polarization applies all the way down to the level of the individual photon, we would only expect a smooth map at either zero or infinite resolution. At any other resolution level, we shouldn’t expect smoothness because the earth isn’t perfectly spherical, the earth is homogeneous, the extraplanetary field isn’t homogeneous, etc., etc., etc. So our first guess should be that the magnetic curls are due to the geomagnetic field lines.

10) Red Flag #10. The published E and B field show a close match in the data; given current theory, that should not be possible. Gravity shouldn’t cause equal effects on both the E and B fields because gravity is direction dependent and E & B are orthogonal. It has been
known since Newton that gravity doesn’t act at the tangent; therefore, the gravity field can’t possibly affect orthogonal fields in the same way.

seer
07-03-2014, 12:30 PM
Problems with the BICEP data:

1) Red Flag #1. The paper had not been through ‘peer review’ when the announcement was made. I thought ‘peer review’ was the only way ‘real’ science was done. Don’t the SM guys lambaste anyone who dares to publish a scientific critique, analysis or opinion without ‘peer review’? Double standard of “If you agree with us, we’ll let you do what you want; but if you don’t, we’ll beat you with our own made-up rules.” Scientific truth based on majority opinion.

2) Red Flag #2. They claim “only” gravity waves during the inflationary period could produce such markers. This assumes absolute knowledge of the universe and is self-refuting. We have been told that 95% of the universe is dark matter/energy of which we know absolutely nothing about, and we’re supposed to believe that based on a max of 5% knowledge that “only gravity waves” can produce the data?

3) Red Flag #3. Polarization is an EM effect, not a gravity effect. How does gravity create polarization effects in the magnetic field? Wouldn’t you look for an E/M cause for an E/M effect? Where is the data showing that they eliminated all other possible E/M causes? Shouldn’t you have to show variation in the gravity field to show gravitational effects? If your going to propose an EM cause for gravitational effects shouldn’t you have a unified field to show how this can happen? Where does gravity influence the EM field in the current equations?

4) Red Flag #4.They admit that dust within our own galaxy can create the observed polarization. How exactly did they filter this cause from the gravity wave cause? In fact, they admit that they don’t have a polarized dust map. They don’t know where the dust is or its density, but we’re supposed to believe that they ‘carefully checked the data’ to rule out dust as a possibility?!?

5) Red Flag #5. The conclusion assumes that the source of the microwaves is the CBR. We know this is false from the PLANCK probe’s CBR from last year that showed obvious fluctuations that showed imprints of our own solar system. This data has since been ignored and buried due the damage it clearly does to the BB model. The BICEP data has been interpreted assuming that the local environment of our solar system and galaxy have had no effect on the incoming microwave radiation. Even assuming that magnetic curls were created by gravity waves, we’re supposed to believe that in all that travel time they weren’t influenced by any other EM fields in that whole trip? How likely is that?

6) Red Flag #6. The data maps show clear parallel slants of data. Why would the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second have such a structure. Is it just a ‘coincidence’ that this alignment matches the alignment of the galaxy from a south polar orbit where BICEP is located? It doesn’t matter that BICEP wasn’t pointed at the galaxy since the local E and M fields are largely influenced by the galaxy regardless of direction.

7) Red Flag #7. The interpretation assumes that the Lambda-CDM model is true. Lambda itself is a fudge factor made to fill the hole in the data and is not assigned to anything mechanically. And we have virtually zero information on dark matter as mentioned before; but we’re supposed to believe that their conclusions based on this baseline are solid?

8) Red Flag #8. The exponential inflationary model that this evidence is supposed to support is itself a physical impossibility. Time and distance can not be in an exponential relationship to each other because time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You can’t measure time without measuring a distance. Do we ever see any direction increase at an exponential rate compared to the other two orthogonal directions? Of course not, the whole idea is a physical and logical non-starter. Space-time as a 4D field does not exist.

9) Red Flag #9. The main piece of data is from the measured magnetic fields, but they parked the instrument over the south pole where the planetary magnetic fields are high and variable and polarized? Whose bright idea was that? Given that position, we would expect to see polarization variations with no other necessary cause. Since polarization applies all the way down to the level of the individual photon, we would only expect a smooth map at either zero or infinite resolution. At any other resolution level, we shouldn’t expect smoothness because the earth isn’t perfectly spherical, the earth is homogeneous, the extraplanetary field isn’t homogeneous, etc., etc., etc. So our first guess should be that the magnetic curls are due to the geomagnetic field lines.

10) Red Flag #10. The published E and B field show a close match in the data; given current theory, that should not be possible. Gravity shouldn’t cause equal effects on both the E and B fields because gravity is direction dependent and E & B are orthogonal. It has been
known since Newton that gravity doesn’t act at the tangent; therefore, the gravity field can’t possibly affect orthogonal fields in the same way.

That was really good - what I understood of it...

tharkun
07-03-2014, 12:43 PM
Thanks, can't take credit though. Just a summary of another's analysis.

klaus54
07-03-2014, 01:12 PM
Tharkun,

So what of Jorge's summary dismissal of the "Bang Bang" in light of the four well-established observations?



If I were you, I'd keep my yap shut on anything scientific.

"Big Bang" = 1) Expansion of spacetime: FACT, 2) Modulo "Dark Matter" the Universe is 99% hydrogen and helium: FACT, 3) Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation: FACT, 4) Distance of over 100s of million of light-years: FACT.

Those are FACTS. What's YOUR explanation?


How do you explain these observations?

K54

P.S. In particular, what's your explanation of 3-5 Kelvins cosmic background?

tharkun
07-03-2014, 01:37 PM
Not sure what Jorge's view has do to with my post; but here goes...

1) How is the expansion of space-time a 'Fact'? It's a conjecture in the popular theory; but it's far from been shown to be a 'fact'. Minkowski's 4D spacetime was a mathematical manipulation in origin in order to make the math easier and was never intended to be representation of the reality of either space or time. 'Time' does not exist in any real sense, at best it is a concept we place on the universe through the observation of change in real entities; therefore, time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You cannot measure time without comparing an unknown distance against a known one. And any such measurement must necessarily take place within the 3D universe. In no way, is time orthogonal to the other dimensions.

2) Not sure I understand the point? 99% of light matter is H and He; ok, but dark matter/energy is proposed to fill the giant hole that a gravity-only cosmology creates in which 95% of the universe appears to be unaccounted for.

3) I agree that the radiation is a fact; the proposed origin of that radiation has not been shown to be fact however. As mentioned above, the Planck probe data strongly indicates that the CMBR is local in origin.

4) I have no problem with the alleged size of the universe as far as we can currently see. How accurate such measurements are is up for debate, however. A few years ago, there was a press release indicating that cosmic estimates were off by at least 15% I believe. I'd have to go back and try and find it.


Additionally, there seems to be an equivocation fallacy in claiming that our factual observation of an event is the same as proof that our theory or interpretation of said event is also a fact.

tharkun

klaus54
07-03-2014, 06:57 PM
Not sure what Jorge's view has do to with my post; but here goes...

1) How is the expansion of space-time a 'Fact'? It's a conjecture in the popular theory; but it's far from been shown to be a 'fact'. Minkowski's 4D spacetime was a mathematical manipulation in origin in order to make the math easier and was never intended to be representation of the reality of either space or time. 'Time' does not exist in any real sense, at best it is a concept we place on the universe through the observation of change in real entities; therefore, time is just a secondary measurement of distance. You cannot measure time without comparing an unknown distance against a known one. And any such measurement must necessarily take place within the 3D universe. In no way, is time orthogonal to the other dimensions.

2) Not sure I understand the point? 99% of light matter is H and He; ok, but dark matter/energy is proposed to fill the giant hole that a gravity-only cosmology creates in which 95% of the universe appears to be unaccounted for.

3) I agree that the radiation is a fact; the proposed origin of that radiation has not been shown to be fact however. As mentioned above, the Planck probe data strongly indicates that the CMBR is local in origin.

4) I have no problem with the alleged size of the universe as far as we can currently see. How accurate such measurements are is up for debate, however. A few years ago, there was a press release indicating that cosmic estimates were off by at least 15% I believe. I'd have to go back and try and find it.


Additionally, there seems to be an equivocation fallacy in claiming that our factual observation of an event is the same as proof that our theory or interpretation of said event is also a fact.

tharkun

1) The motion of most galaxies away from Earth is well-established by redshift.

2) 99% H and He is consistent with a very high temperature early universe where only the lightest elements could form. Dark matter doesn't consist of elements as we though them, thus is irrelevant to lightest elements data.

3) Show me the data that CBR is only local. The WMAP probe shows it to be pervasive in the universe and anisotropic.

4) 15% error isn't going to salvage a YEC interpretation. The sheer number of galaxies alone speaks to millions and billions of light years else Earth would be fried by gamma radiation.

What is your opinion on the origin and size of the universe?

How does any of what you spoke of contradict the general notion of a "Big Bang"?

K54

fm93
07-03-2014, 07:12 PM
I'm not sure why some theists seem so gleeful about possibly losing the best piece of scientific evidence for a creator.

klaus54
07-03-2014, 07:55 PM
I'm not sure why some theists seem so gleeful about possibly losing the best piece of scientific evidence for a creator.

Exactly. I wonder how many YECs realize that "Big Bang" was a pejorative coined by the atheist Sir Fred Hoyle?

"Big Bang", "Evolution", and "Darwin" are the top three cuss words in YEC-dominated social groups. You have to spit just a little when you voice them.

K54

rogue06
07-03-2014, 10:28 PM
Exactly. I wonder how many YECs realize that "Big Bang" was a pejorative coined by the atheist Sir Fred Hoyle?

"Big Bang", "Evolution", and "Darwin" are the top three cuss words in YEC-dominated social groups. You have to spit just a little when you voice them.

K54
And I'll bet many would be surprised to discover that the person who came up with the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaître, was a priest who wrote nine years before publish his theory that it confirmed his belief that the universe had begun in light "as Genesis suggested it."

Further, the pope at that time, Pius XII, interpreted the Big Bang as de facto proof of the Biblical creation account. When he opened a conference at the Vatican in 1951 he declared that this scientific theory of cosmic origins bore witness "to that primordial 'Fiat lux' uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation. ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"

Such statement makes Christian objections to the Big Bang seem kind of strange as do some of the following

George Smoot, astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel laureate, had this to say: "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of a creation. In fact, the Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism, and harmonises with the Bible. This theory takes us back to a time when, at the first moment of creation, the entire universe consisted of a region a trillionth the size of a proton." (which suddenly expanded into a plenum of existence).

Smoot also noted after finding evidence to support the Big Bang (the expected “ripples” in the microwave background radiation), called these fluctuations "the fingerprints from the Maker" and said that "if you're religious, it's like looking at God."

Robert Wilson, the co-discoverer of the Radiation Afterglow, which earned him a Nobel Prize in Physics, observed, "Certainly there was something that set it off. Certainly, if you're religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis."

The late self-proclaimed Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote in his 1978 book "God and the Astronomers":


“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. This is the crux of the new story of Genesis.

He noted how many cosmologists were repulsed by the idea the universe had a beginning. He found it quizzical that they would have such an emotional reaction. They all realized that a beginning out of nothing was implausible without a Creator.

In fact, much of the initial opposition to the Big Bang came from atheists who rejected it precisely because they saw it as being "just a disguised version of the Bible creation, when Jehovah said ‘Fiat Lux’, and the universe was created": Is the Big-Bang a Religious Hoax? (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/huascar.htm)

According to Wikipedia:


In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory, who rejected the implication that the universe had a beginning.


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory#B ackground)


The physicist Paul Marmet often railed against the Big Bang complaining that, “The Big Bang is a creationist theory and differs only from another creationist model (for example, the one that claims that creation took place about 4000 years BC) by the number of years since creation. From the Big Bang model, creation happened about 15 billion years ago.”

As you already mentioned, Fred Hoyle, who had helped to formulate the steady state model of the universe, gave the name "Big Bang" to Lemaître's ideas in a way of mocking them. According to the "Encyclopædic Dictionary of Astrophysics":


While having no argument with Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. An atheist, he found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argue that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see Kalam cosmological argument)

Hoyle stated in his 1983 book "The Intelligent Universe" that "The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation."

Hermannn Bondi, an atheist and cosmologist who with Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold developed the steady-state theory of the universe as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, likened the Big Bang to "continuous creation."

An editorial from August 10, 1989 called "Down With the Big Bang" by John Maddox the self-professed atheist physics editor for "Nature" declared that, "Creationists and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang."

"Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."


Considering its history and the opposition to it for being too much like the Genesis account, how can anyone claim that the Big Bang theory is "Godless"? And merely finding the mechanism doesn't eliminate God.


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/4216445_5864768_mywrite/mountain.jpg

tharkun
07-07-2014, 12:16 PM
1) The motion of most galaxies away from Earth is well-established by redshift.

While the redshift is a fact, the assigning of the cause to galactic velocity is up for debate and becomes less tenable the more data comes in. The latest information seems to point to our own solar system and earth as the prime causes for the CMBR. (See here (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/04/25/pierre-marie-robitaille-the-cosmic-microwave-background-eu2014/) and here (http://milesmathis.com/cbr.pdf).). Never mind that the 3-5K background temp was predicted long before the Big Bang theory was around as the ambient temperature of space; BB just usurped it and spun it into a 'prediction' of their model, when if anything it was a 'post-diction' given that they changed their model to match the data. (See also Eric Lerner for detailed problems with the BB scenario, and Halton Arp for numerous redshift anomalies that cannot be explained in the BB theory.)



2) 99% H and He is consistent with a very high temperature early universe where only the lightest elements could form. Dark matter doesn't consist of elements as we though them, thus is irrelevant to lightest elements data.

I didn't bring up the H & He data, I was merely responding to it. I don't understand the relevance of the H & He as it relates to my critique of inflation theory.



3) Show me the data that CBR is only local. The WMAP probe shows it to be pervasive in the universe and anisotropic.

See the links above.


4) 15% error isn't going to salvage a YEC interpretation. The sheer number of galaxies alone speaks to millions and billions of light years else Earth would be fried by gamma radiation.

Who's trying to salvage the YEC interpretation? The point of the 15% error was to point out how arrogant mainstream science is about how 'factual' their press reports are when, in fact, we know next to nothing about the universe in the grand scheme of things. They admit that 95% of the universe is dark matter/energy that we know almost nothing about; and then we found out that at least some of the 5% of the universe we do know something about is wrong by 15%! My faith in their assurances of 'fact' drops every press release; especially given that the bulk of the press releases always seem to promote how 'this latest finding doesn't fit with anything we know...'! If the latest finding is a complete surprise and doesnt' fit your model - your model is garbage, you should throw it away and start over.


What is your opinion on the origin and size of the universe?

How does any of what you spoke of contradict the general notion of a "Big Bang"?

K54

I don't know how big the universe is, and neither does anyone else. I'm a theist, so I believe a personal God created the universe. My original post was a critique of inflation theory, not of BB as a whole.

klaus54
07-07-2014, 02:41 PM
I'm critiquing your critique of inflation, I was repeating the well-known data for the general theory known by the inaccurate moniker "Big Bang".

I'm curious whether you're a YEC who's trying to dismiss "Big Bang" in favor of a 6Ka cosmos?

What's wrong with redshift by motion? Seems pretty solid to most astrophysicists.

15% error does not indicate "arrogance" in the least bit. Ten billion percent error as per YEC IS arrogant.

K54

Roy
07-07-2014, 03:28 PM
While the redshift is a fact, the assigning of the cause to galactic velocity is up for debate and becomes less tenable the more data comes in. The latest information seems to point to our own solar system and earth as the prime causes for the CMBR. (See here (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/04/25/pierre-marie-robitaille-the-cosmic-microwave-background-eu2014/) and here (http://milesmathis.com/cbr.pdf).).

Miles Mathis? You're citing Miles Mathis???

I know that technically rejecting an argument because of the author's identity is a fallacy, but there are limits. When your cited authority not only claims that all of calculus is wrong, but also thinks methane should be CH2 and states that when calculating orbital parameters pi = 4 (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html),* there really is no point in reading what he thinks of CMBR.

Roy

*"Not only is π not an interesting piece of esoterica, it is an albatross worn by the mathematically ignorant."

klaus54
07-07-2014, 07:08 PM
...The latest information seems to point to our own solar system and earth as the prime causes for the CMBR. (See here and here.).
...


The data from COBE and WMAP sure don't support that.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/cmb/cmb.html

CMBR image here shows concentration along the galactic ecliptic due to the proximity:

1042

And the pervasive CMB with the Milky Way radiation removed (note the very slight anisotropy):

http://static.bbc.co.uk/universe/img/ic/640/sights/cosmic_microwave_background_radiation/cosmic_microwave_background_radiation_large.jpg

klaus54
07-07-2014, 07:10 PM
Miles Mathis? You're citing Miles Mathis???

I know that technically rejecting an argument because of the author's identity is a fallacy, but there are limits. When your cited authority not only claims that all of calculus is wrong, but also thinks methane should be CH2 and states that when calculating orbital parameters pi = 4 (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html),* there really is no point in reading what he thinks of CMBR.

Roy

*"Not only is π not an interesting piece of esoterica, it is an albatross worn by the mathematically ignorant."

Strange Mathis didn't use pi=3 as per I Kings 7.

Hmmm...

K54

TheLurch
07-08-2014, 06:34 AM
Miles Mathis? You're citing Miles Mathis???

I know that technically rejecting an argument because of the author's identity is a fallacy, but there are limits. When your cited authority not only claims that all of calculus is wrong, but also thinks methane should be CH2 and states that when calculating orbital parameters pi = 4 (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html),* there really is no point in reading what he thinks of CMBR.
The other source is the Electric Universe guys. Even Wikipedia, which avoids voicing opinions as if doing so would cause the Sun to go dark, has this to say about the Electric Universe: "As of 2014, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory."

tharkun
07-08-2014, 12:12 PM
What's wrong with redshift by motion? Seems pretty solid to most astrophysicists.

The question is not whether motion can cause redshift; the question is whether the observed CMBR is strictly and wholly explained by motion. The combined work of Arp, Robitaille, Crothers and others strongly indicate the redshift cannot be explained by motion alone.


15% error does not indicate "arrogance" in the least bit. Ten billion percent error as per YEC IS arrogant.

The fact of the error is not arrogant. It is the continued assurance that the standard model explains nearly everything we see with no major problems, while at the same time getting continuous press releases that indicate how bad the standard model is at making predictions. Nearly every new discovery with a press release contains some kind of apology to the effect of “We never would have predicted this..” or “This is going to cause us to re-write the books…”; hardly speaks well of your model when each piece of new data forces you to change it. Why should I have any faith in their ‘explanation’ for the first billionth of second of the universe when basic distance measurements are shown to be off by 15%? And I wouldn’t label the YEC view as ‘arrogant’ when it is a logical interpretation that puts scripture ahead of science.


I know that technically rejecting an argument because of the author's identity is a fallacy, but there are limits. When your cited authority not only claims that all of calculus is wrong, but also thinks methane should be CH2 and states that when calculating orbital parameters pi = 4,* there really is no point in reading what he thinks of CMBR.

Interesting that the discussion has now devolved to ad hominems instead of examining the evidence. Regardless of where someone may be wrong, it doesn’t negate the areas where they may be right. I’m interested in searching out scientific truth regardless of the source.

Miles is quite the lightning rod; but I’ve noticed that most of his critics either mis-quote, mis-represent or flat misunderstand much of his work. For example, he does not claim that “all of calculus is wrong”, rather he argues that the current foundation based on the diminishing interval is incorrect and he goes to great pains showing why it is incorrect and the consequences it leads to (especially as concerns physics), and why we should return to the historic foundation of the fixed differential. Additionally, the question regarding whether Methane should be CH2, is not original to him as his paper on the subject shows; although he does agree with the question given that it conflicts with orbital theory. Finally, pi = 4 is probably the most abused of his theories, and also the most misunderstood and misquoted in my estimation. He presents some pretty compelling physical and logical reasons for making pi = 4 in kinematic situations (pi can remain 3.141… in static situations); and I have yet to find anyone who argues against his logic convincingly.

Regardless, even if he is wrong about any of these three items, it in no way negates his opinion about the CMBR. Whether his explanation is correct or not, his criticisms of the standard model’s explanation are worth examining. (But any discussion about Miles Mathis should probably be relegated to a new thread as we are way off the inflation subject.)


The data from COBE and WMAP sure don't support that.

Pretty pictures aside, the Robataille talk I referenced above I believe goes into quite some detail examining the data and shows where it is faulty and where the post-processing has resulted in the pictures above. Why not give it a listen? The above pictures have been filtered several times to get the result they want. Hardly scientific in my estimation.


The other source is the Electric Universe guys. Even Wikipedia, which avoids voicing opinions as if doing so would cause the Sun to go dark, has this to say about the Electric Universe: "As of 2014, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory."

With all due respect, Wikipedia is hardly neutral in its opinions and the opinion above is patently false. The science pages are well-known to be written and policed by major universities that strictly adhere to the standard model. Try editing a Wikipedia science page sometime by pointing out the holes in their theories. The Electric Universe guys, while not perfect, have made much better progress in explaining astrophysical phenomena that aligns with the known characteristics of E/M and plasma physics that have been studied for decades in labs (and are scalable up to cosmic scales), than have the standard model guys who continually have to dive off into ‘exotic’ matter and forces that have never been seen or studied before because of their adherence to a gravity-only model. Of the four proposed fundamental forces, gravity is the weakest and we’re supposed to believe that E/M forces that can be some 10^39 stronger than gravity have absolutely no part in cosmic phenomena? That’s not reasonable or logical, IMO.

klaus54
07-08-2014, 01:22 PM
So model do you propose in place of the "Big Bang"?

How do explain redshift as a result of motion and the correlation with Cepheid variables?

How do explain CMB that permeates the Cosmos?

What age does this avant garde model give, let's say +/- 15%?

How does one calculate the rest mass of a photon?

Why do think off-the-wall websites with egregious errors adequately replace standard cosmological models that agree on the basics?

K54

klaus54
07-08-2014, 01:23 PM
Who made you the arbiter of what's "reasonable and logical"?

K54

Roy
07-08-2014, 03:46 PM
I’m interested in searching out scientific truth regardless of the source.

Miles is quite the lightning rod; but I’ve noticed that most of his critics either mis-quote, mis-represent or flat misunderstand much of his work. For example, he does not claim that “all of calculus is wrong”,...Yes, he does:
"It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong... the derivative has been defined wrongly from the beginning, and that the derivative is a constant differential over a subinterval, not a diminishing differential as we approach zero. "
Finally, pi = 4 is probably the most abused of his theories, and also the most misunderstood and misquoted in my estimation. He presents some pretty compelling physical and logical reasons for making pi = 4 in kinematic situations (pi can remain 3.141… in static situations); and I have yet to find anyone who argues against his logic convincingly.It is difficult to argue convincingly while suppressing giggles. How is one supposed to argue logically against something like this:
"Pi is a centripetal acceleration and has the dimensions of acceleration."

Regardless, even if he is wrong about any of these three items, it in no way negates his opinion about the CMBR. Whether his explanation is correct or not, his criticisms of the standard model’s explanation are worth examining. (But any discussion about Miles Mathis should probably be relegated to a new thread as we are way off the inflation subject.)They're only worth examining for amusement. For example:


That interests me because I have calculated the ratio of photons to ordinary matter, finding 19.186 to 1.
That is a percentage for ordinary matter of 4.954%. How did I calculate that?
e = 1.602 x 10-19 C
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s
So the proton is recycling that much charge. If we divide that by the mass of the proton, we get 19.186.
The proton is recycling 19 times its own mass in photons every second. That is what the mainstream
doesn't understand, ...The highlighted line refers to the standard definition of an amp:
The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2 × 10−7 newton per metre of length.Mathis has taken the definition of an ampere as the electric current required to produce an amount of force in a specific situation, and equated the ampere with the force. It isn't the case that the mainstream doesn't understand, it's that case that the mainstream does understand and knows that Mathis is hopelessly confused.

Mathis also claims that there is a stream of photons that enters the Earth at the South pole and travels through the core to exit in the Northern hemisphere. Then he gets Randle Patrick McMurphy's name wrong.

He is a kook, and his opinion on CMBR is irrelevant. You'd be better off citing Winnie the Pooh.

Roy

robrecht
07-08-2014, 05:30 PM
... He is a kook, and his opinion on CMBR is irrelevant. You'd be better off citing Winnie the Pooh.

Roy Ooh, I wonder how Winnie the Pooh explains the CMBR?

tharkun
07-09-2014, 02:22 PM
Yes, he does:
"It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong... the derivative has been defined wrongly from the beginning, and that the derivative is a constant differential over a subinterval, not a diminishing differential as we approach zero. "

(Sigh) And as I said, Miles is either mis-quoted, mis-read or misunderstood. Thank you for the evidence backing up my statement. Above, he claims that many have “been doing the calculus wrong…” not that “all the calculus was wrong” as was initially claimed. He is specifically referring to the method of using the diminishing (vanishing) interval rather than the constant differential as the extended quote above shows.


It is difficult to argue convincingly while suppressing giggles. How is one supposed to argue logically against something like this:
"Pi is a centripetal acceleration and has the dimensions of acceleration."

How about first trying to understand his argument for why pi can represent a centripetal acceleration? And why in a circle it is required to have units of acceleration? The reason is that there is no such thing as an orbital ‘velocity’. A ‘velocity’ BY DEFINITION cannot curve and must be straight because a velocity is a simple ratio of a SINGLE displacement in ONE (and only one) direction over a single chosen interval of time. Orbital ‘velocity’ is obviously not straight; therefore to assign it units of velocity is not mathematically logical. Per Newton, the orbital velocity is composed of the orbiter’s ‘innate’ velocity (which would be in length/time) and centripetal acceleration (which is length/time/time). So, logically, the combination of these two motions should result in units of length2/time3 in order to rigorously keep up with all of the physical and temporal intervals.


Mathis has taken the definition of an ampere as the electric current required to produce an amount of force in a specific situation, and equated the ampere with the force. It isn't the case that the mainstream doesn't understand, it's that case that the mainstream does understand and knows that Mathis is hopelessly confused.

Uh…no. Again, we have a failure to read and/or comprehend. He says, “see definition of Ampere” not, “see definition of THE Ampere”. He is not appealing to the unit of current named in honor of the man; he is appealing to the definition of the Coulomb AS GIVEN BY the man Ampere himself in which the Coulomb can be given in units of mass/time. He is showing from classical definitions how charge is equivalent with mass.


Mathis also claims that there is a stream of photons that enters the Earth at the South pole and travels through the core to exit in the Northern hemisphere. Then he gets Randle Patrick McMurphy's name wrong.

And what’s wrong with such a proposal? He has developed his charge field theory over a decade and has shown in multiple places where it fits into classical and modern theory and data. And he got a name wrong?!? Really? Nitpicking are we? Is that the best you can do? Ignore thousands of pages of theoretical developments that match and explain known data in hundreds of ways, and dismiss it all because he got someone’s name wrong? I’d say your opinion is irrelevant if that is the best ammunition you’ve got.

klaus54
07-09-2014, 03:46 PM
Quick question, and please don't be insulted.

Do you know the difference between inflation and expansion?

K54

klaus54
07-09-2014, 04:03 PM
(Sigh) And as I said, Miles is either mis-quoted, mis-read or misunderstood. Thank you for the evidence backing up my statement. Above, he claims that many have “been doing the calculus wrong…” not that “all the calculus was wrong” as was initially claimed. He is specifically referring to the method of using the diminishing (vanishing) interval rather than the constant differential as the extended quote above shows.



What happens to the "constant differential" at the limit? Does it vanish discontinuously? For example in y=2x, (dy/dx)|x=1 is lim x -> 1 of (2x-2)/(x-1). So, dy=2x-2, and dx=x-1 which are not constant but approach 0 at the limit.

How would your source define (dy/dx)|x=1 ?? How does he define dx and dy in this case?




How about first trying to understand his argument for why pi can represent a centripetal acceleration? And why in a circle it is required to have units of acceleration?


I have no idea what you mean. Pi is a dimensionless constant of proportionality between a circle's circumference and its diameter.



The reason is that there is no such thing as an orbital ‘velocity’. A ‘velocity’ BY DEFINITION cannot curve and must be straight because a velocity is a simple ratio of a SINGLE displacement in ONE (and only one) direction over a single chosen interval of time.
Orbital ‘velocity’ is obviously not straight; therefore to assign it units of velocity is not mathematically logical.


Orbital velocity at any instant is the tangential velocity vector. Centripetal acceleration is the result of this vector changing direction (and in the case of non-circular elliptical orbit, magnitude.)




Per Newton, the orbital velocity is composed of the orbiter’s ‘innate’ velocity (which would be in length/time) and centripetal acceleration (which is length/time/time). So, logically, the combination of these two motions should result in units of length2/time3 in order to rigorously keep up with all of the physical and temporal intervals.



Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.





Uh…no. Again, we have a failure to read and/or comprehend. He says, “see definition of Ampere” not, “see definition of THE Ampere”. He is not appealing to the unit of current named in honor of the man; he is appealing to the definition of the Coulomb AS GIVEN BY the man Ampere himself in which the Coulomb can be given in units of mass/time. He is showing from classical definitions how charge is equivalent with mass.



What's the difference between "Ampere" and "The Ampere"?

A Coulomb is an Ampere-Second. How do you get mass out of that???



And what’s wrong with such a proposal? He has developed his charge field theory over a decade and has shown in multiple places where it fits into classical and modern theory and data. And he got a name wrong?!? Really? Nitpicking are we? Is that the best you can do? Ignore thousands of pages of theoretical developments that match and explain known data in hundreds of ways, and dismiss it all because he got someone’s name wrong? I’d say your opinion is irrelevant if that is the best ammunition you’ve got.

Has he run this fascinating theory by any unbiased physicists for a review of, inter alia, the consistency of the maths and physics?

K54

Roy
07-09-2014, 04:44 PM
Emphasis mine:
(Sigh) And as I said, Miles is either mis-quoted, mis-read or misunderstood. Thank you for the evidence backing up my statement. Above, he claims that many have “been doing the calculus wrong…” not that “all the calculus was wrong” as was initially claimed.No, no, no. Mathis does not claim that many have been doing calculus wrong, he claims that everyone (except him) has been doing calculus wrong. Therefore, according to Mathis, all calculus has been done wrong. He also claims that the derivative has been defined wrongly from the beginning. Therefore, again according to Mathis, all derivatives have been done wrongly.

Did you think your misrepresentation would go unnoticed?
He is specifically referring to the method of using the diminishing (vanishing) interval rather than the constant differential as the extended quote above shows.I can find no method of using a constant differential over a subinterval outside of Mathis' text. If there is no such method, then once again the implication is that all calculus not done by Mathis is wrong.

How about first trying to understand his argument for why pi can represent a centripetal acceleration?Oh, I understand it. I also understand why it's wrong. If Mathis' theory is correct, I am the Pope, and you are Mathis.


Uh…no. Again, we have a failure to read and/or comprehend. He says, “see definition of Ampere” not, “see definition of THE Ampere”. He is not appealing to the unit of current named in honor of the man; he is appealing to the definition of the Coulomb AS GIVEN BY the man Ampere himself in which the Coulomb can be given in units of mass/time. He is showing from classical definitions how charge is equivalent with mass.Since the Coulomb was not so named until after Andre Ampere died, he could not have defined it. Furthermore, Mathis specifically states "see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream" - nothing about finding the unit conversion, and anyway Andre Ampere's original work is no longer considered mainstream. You have quote-mined Mathis. Also, I very much doubt that that number is found anywhere in Andre Ampere's work - feel free to attempt to demonstrate otherwise. I think that if anyone is failing to read and/or comprehend here, it is you.


And what’s wrong with such a proposal?Well, the complete lack of any of the evidence that would be expected, for a start. Unless you've got some?
And he got a name wrong?!? Really? Nitpicking are we? Is that the best you can do? Ignore thousands of pages of theoretical developments that match and explain known data in hundreds of ways, and dismiss it all because he got someone’s name wrong? I’d say your opinion is irrelevant if that is the best ammunition you’ve got.That isn't the best ammunition I've got. It's not even the best ammunition I've used so far. Nor have I ignored Mathis "theoretical developments", as you well know since you've just seen me quote from them. It's a mere throw-away aside that demonstrates Mathis' lack of research skills/memory, and that his attempt at erudition backfired.

But I suppose if you can't defend Mathis except by misrepresenting, misreading and miscomprehending his words, latching onto a minor aside and responding as though it were my only criticism is probably the best argument you've got.

Roy