I´t s obvious that you are unfamiliar with the mythical language of symbolism, so you are really excused for not understanding what I´m writing about.
Try to read and understand the implications before you post your emotional replies.
I am a bit familiar with the mythical language of symbolism. For one it's mythical. Another is it's symbolism.
According to your logic evolutionary biologists should revise their hominid evolution theory to- there were 2 original white humans named Adam and Eve and ancient snakes talked and gave bad advice.
"superstition doesn't need data"?
This highly selfconfident and besserwissen statement fits very well to the subject of "black holes" where all informations and calculations brakes down and
NO DATA can be found, thus determing "black holes" to be highly superstitious.
Still you call this "science"
That's exactly what science is? All science eventually breaks down at fundamental levels. We continue to search for answers by making theories and testing them.
What breaks down with black holes is a quantum description. General relativity predicted them.
Yesterday we saw the first ever picture of a black hole. Nice timing!
EU isn't even putting forth a theory. Your criticism is actually "science doesn't know everything so it's wrong"? Did you actually just say that?
And yes, superstition doesn't need data. You confirmed that in one of your recent posts:
"I don´t care "how it works" at all." - you don't need data, you just "know" it works. It's "logical".
HA!
Regarding Big Bang problems,
read here. Note the term "adjustable parameters" which is mentioned all through the article. This term is just another expression for "ad hoc assumptions" and lots of them.
Excerpt from the article:
"The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries.
All debunked.
Your example posted here:
(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
"This is incorrect on several fronts. First of all, we get very good
and precise fits from the Big Bang model. Additionally, the “cosmic
deceleration parameter” turns out to be negative. It was true 10
years ago that different lines of reasoning suggested different
values for this parameter, but the truth was that we really hadn’t
been able to make a good measurement of it. Now we have, and
the acceleration of the Universe fits with sundry lines of
reasoning— so much so that now have what is frequently called
“standard model” of cosmology, or a “concordance cosmology”, with the
various parameters (expansion rate, overall density, dark energy
density, age of the Universe, etc.) measured each to within 5%. This
agreement is now nearly a decade
old; here
is a link to a 1999 Science abstract about the concordance,
and here is a link
to a preprint site that has the full text.
This objection also points out something that I will probably devote
an entire post to in the future: a misuse of Occam’s Razor. Too often
people object to a scientific theory on the basis that they have a
“simpler” theory which must be favored because of Occam’s Razor."
Answering Objections to the Big Bang – Galactic Interactions
Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered.
Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory".
So the EU conspiracy people say while they indoctrinate you.
In the real world, Brian Koberlein an astrophysicist read:
Reference: The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot
Reference: The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott
Reference: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (
PDF)
and wrote a review and analysis.
Then he spent almost 5 years going back and forth with EU people to keep the article current.
It's all posted on the same page.
Of course they came at him with all the same "your a shrill, close minded, ad-hom, ad-hom"
He's responded to all their questions, a few here and there were reasonable. Most were just upset at the fact that anyone question EU theory.
Even though science always openly explores areas where it needs work EU is simply always right. Even though there are competing ideas?
And as usual, no theory.
No one posting in favor of EU was able to make any type of case for the idea, it's exactly like this discussion. The EU people just like it better.
Testing the Electric Universe - One Universe at a Time
"Ah, now I see what you’re getting hung up on. You think neutrinos aren’t real, but the physical effects ascribed to neutrinos are. You don’t like the standard model, so you reject it. You replace it with a model you
think describes the physical effects we see, and since you like it better, it must therefore be more “true” than the standard model. Your linked paper reinforces this,
though this the proper public link. The author argues that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is “wrong” because the author doesn’t like it. He then proceeds to argue that the Schwinger model is better, and implies that it was rejected for some scientific bias. It’s actually a decent approach for some cases, and not for others, which is why path integrals are more widely used in QED. Of course nowhere in the paper are there predictions that might distinguish the author’s claim from the others.
So thank you for this. I think you’ve clarified something I have misunderstood about both you and EU fans. I assumed you were at least trying to do science, just badly. You’re not. You’re simply stomping your feet and declaring that you don’t like the scientific models we’ve created. You’re having a collective tantrum against the complexity of modern science without understanding either the history or details of the work. That’s why none of you are interested in actual predictions, and why you keep taking the “you’re obviously wrong, my theory is obviously right” position without being willing to prove it.
That’s why so many of these comments are unproductive. It’s as if I’m arguing that chocolate ice cream contains cacao, and you’re arguing that since you don’t like chocolate ice cream, anything that contains cacao can’t be ice cream. Thanks again for helping me understand you.
Interesting side note. Julian Schwinger and his interpretation of QM is actually quite well known. He’s a Nobel Laureate after all. He’s also known for demonstrating that not only do neutrinos exist, but that there are
three flavors of them.[/QUOTE]