Inflation Theory: Not So Much...

[klaus54]

...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...s/cmb/cmb.html

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

dmr_2.gif

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

[klaus54]

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,* 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]

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,* 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]

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.

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.

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."

[klaus54]

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]

Who made you the arbiter of what's "reasonable and logical"?

K54

[Roy]

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. "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."
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: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]

... 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]

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 not that 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."

²/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.

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.

[klaus54]

Quick question, and please don't be insulted.

Do you know the difference between inflation and expansion?

K54

[klaus54]

(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]

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