Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

Well you do realize the the Elephant in this story is a metaphor for God, it follows then that the seven blind men are atheists.

Yes, of course. Even more, the alternative version.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you do realize the the Elephant in this story is a metaphor for God, it follows then that the seven blind men are atheists.

Were they? To me it appears that it describes theists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Were they? To me it appears that it describes theists.

I misread the second version, I get it now. The metaphor however could be applicable to other human contemporary belief systems but we won't go there.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Does it ever occurs to you that your comments just describes theories of scientific theories (which isn´t stricktly followed in several cases) and not so much factual matters?

Spoken like anti-science adherents, who like to twist words to suit your own perverted fantasies.

My comment was an attempt to help you being more specific and factual instead af your repeatable bunch of "scientific paragraphs".

Any model required evidence as verification to be science.
A scientific theory is a tested explanation, supported by observations of evidence or test results from experiments...or ideally both.
Logic alone, is theoretical proposed explanation at best, but at worse it is just empty speculation.
You speak of fact, but facts - or factual explanations can only come about if there are evidence.

And then you just keep on rambling on theories again above and below.

The Electric Universe (EU) concept failed not only in the evidence department, it also failed to be logical. It failed to be “falsifiable”, it failed to meet the standards of Scientific Method, and not once was EU ever reviewed by peers.
Failing to be falsifiable, disqualified the Electric Universe the hypothesis status, because it cannot be testable. Failing all requirements, means not only isn’t scientific, there are not evidence, therefore EU is factual.

Who have told you to believe this? The proponents of the about 350 years old ideas of Newton? The inventors of "dark matter", "heavy dark holes" and "dark energy?

Do you also refute the fact that our Sun is working electromagnetically? But maybe the solar shine is made by gravitational "dark light" in your opinion? Maybe all the electromagnetic frequenses which reaches the telescopes from cosmos are made by "black graviton particles"?

Of all the cosmologies you could have picked, Native, you picked a doozy of pseudoscience.

Not unless I by a huge mistake picked some of the speculative nonsense in the standing models.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Your "fantasy" in this case would concern a Theory of Everything, wich you don´t seem to await any time soon - if ever.

Just because some alternative model come out, you don’t accept a model based on personal preference.

What are you talking about here?

All cosmological models are initially based on "personal preferences" which later on, in the best of cases, are believed by more peoples and their personal preferences, whether or not the initial personal preference was correct in the first place. Just think of Mr. Newton and his "law of celestial motions.

You still haven’t come to grip, no matter how many times it has explained to you, that no explanations are accepted “science” by default, until the model (eg hypothesis) is falsifiable (testable), tested (Scientific Method) and all the evidence and data verified the model have been examined/analyzed by peers (Peer Review).

The Theory of Everything (ToE) have the potential to unify General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, because the logic and mathematics of ToE seemed to be feasible, BUT there are no tests yet to verify any maths being true. As a theoretical model, ToE is still in a hypothesis stage, hence ToE isn’t currently “science”.

Despite the name of the model contained the word “theory”, it isn’t a “scientific theory”.

Other models containing “theory” as part of the name of the models, eg String Theory, M-theory, Superstring Theory, etc, are still not “scientific theory”, because they remained untested.

The Big Bang theory has been scientific theory, since 1964, since the discovery of CMBR (discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson).

CMBR was predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, along with the paper on the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN) by Alpher and George Gamow. Gamow was a former student of Alexander Friedmann, who was one of the 3 pioneers of the Expanding Universe Model EUM, which later became known as the Big Bang model).

CMBR is actually the 2nd important evidence of the BB. The first evidence of expansion was dated back to 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered the Redshift, which were independently predicted in 1924-25 by Howard Percy Robertson and in 1927 by Georges Lemaître.

Both the cosmological Redshift and CMBR are still being used today, including onboard satellite observatories, like COBE, WMAP and Planck space probe, to measure Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). They provide more precise and much higher resolution measurements than radio antenna constructed by Penzias and Wilson.

I don´t bother reading more of your rambling "theory of theories". I´m just hoping you begin to understand the numerous unnatural assumptions which is programmed into the theories.

 

[ratiocinator]

All cosmological models are initially based on "personal preferences" which later on, in the best of cases, are believed by more peoples and their personal preferences, whether or not the initial personal preference was correct in the first place. Just think of Mr. Newton and his "law of celestial motions.

And you're still studiously ignoring the fact that scientific theories (including Newton's) are accepted because they work, i.e. because they make predictions that match reality.

 

[Native]

Here´s a very relevant question regarding the OP in this thread.

Subject: The Hubble Space Telescope findings questions the standing Big Bang ideas of formation and time.

According to the standing ideas of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, galaxies were the last objects to be formed but - once again - astronomers are surpriced by new observations of an elliptical galaxy which shouldn´t be there according to the BB Nucleosynthesis.

Quoting from the Hubble Site Website:
“Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope as a "time machine" have obtained the clearest views yet of distant galaxies that existed when the universe was a fraction of its current age.

A series of remarkable pictures, spanning the life history of the cosmos, are providing the first clues to the life history of galaxies. The Hubble results suggest that elliptical galaxies developed remarkably quickly into their present shapes.

However, spiral galaxies that existed in large clusters evolved over a much longer period - the majority being built and then torn apart by dynamic processes in a restless universe.

Astronomers, surprised and enthusiastic about these preliminary findings, anticipate that Hubble's observations will lead to a better understanding of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe.

The Hubble observations challenge those estimates for the age of the universe that do not allow enough time for the galaxies to form and evolve to the maturity seen at an early epoch by Space Telescope”.
--------------
So, we have an elliptical galaxy which was at stage "when the universe was a fraction of its current age" whereas "normal" spiral galaxies takes much more time to evolve according to the BB Nucleosynthesis ideas.

Quote:
"Astronomers, surprised and enthusiastic about these preliminary findings, anticipate that Hubble's observations will lead to a better understanding of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe". (My bolded underlining)

As either the cosmological "timing and age of the Univers" or the assumed "formational process of the Universe" is wrong (and maybe both), it will be very interesting how astronomers and theoretical physicisist reacts on this.

What can a better understanding of the origin and evotution be when the assumed BB Nucleosynthesis don´t follow the BB time scales and vise versa?

Will the scientists act accordingly to the scientific rules and methods and revise or entirely discard the contradicted BB ideas?

Or do they just add further assumptions and make exceptions of more strange "dark matters" as usual?

 

[Native]

And you're still studiously ignoring the fact that scientific theories (including Newton's) are accepted because they work, i.e. because they make predictions that match reality.

Inconsistent nonsense. The Newtonian theory didn´t even predict the assumed "dark matter" in galaxies. And as it don´t work in our galaxy, it also don´t work in the Solar System which is included in the Milky Way galaxy.

Which was why Einstein discarded the Newtonian ideas and once even said that "gravity" wasn´t a force at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Newtonian theory didn´t even predict the assumed "dark matter" in galaxies.

What!? Is this even a serious comment or are you trying to make some sort of joke? Why would you expect dark matter to have been predicted by Newton? What planet are you on?

Regardless, my point stands - Newton (and other scientific theories) are accepted entirely because they work.

And as it don´t work in our galaxy, it also don´t work in the Solar System which is included in the Milky Way galaxy.

It pretty much works throughout the solar system. It's still used to navigate spacecraft because it's more than adequate for that

Which was why Einstein discarded the Newtonian ideas and once said that "gravity" wasn´t even a force.

Of course that's not why - and gravity isn't, strictly speaking, a force in general relativity. It's an inertial, pseudo, or fictitious force.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
The Newtonian theory didn´t even predict the assumed "dark matter" in galaxies.

What!? Is this even a serious comment or are you trying to make some sort of joke? Why would you expect dark matter to have been predicted by Newton? What planet are you on?

I´m on the planet in the Solar System which is participating in the Newtonian ideas of celestial motion and this Solar System is a part of the galactic formation and motion where scientists assumes "dark matter" to hold all stars inside the galaxy..

This wasn´t predicted in the Newtonian theory and therefore it doesn´t work. So I´m afraid this cosmological joke is all on you.

Regardless, my point stands - Newton (and other scientific theories) are accepted entirely because they work.

You confuse genuine astromical calculations with assumptions. With your own words and definitions:

. . . and gravity isn't, strictly speaking, a force in general relativity. It's an inertial, pseudo, or fictitious force.

There you said it yourself: Newtonian gravity ideas are nothing to count on in the real world.

 

[ratiocinator]

I´m on the planet in the Solar System which is participating in the Newtonian ideas of celestial motion and this Solar System is a part of the galactic formation and motion where scientists assumes "dark matter" to hold all stars inside the galaxy..

This wasn´t predicted in the Newtonian theory and therefore it doesn´t work. So I´m afraid this cosmological joke is all on you.

I'm on the point of just giving up. You don't appear to have the first clue what you're talking about. Newton's theory works just fine for pretty much every calculation you can do for the solar system. There is zero reason to expect that such a theory might predict dark matter. In fact, no theory of gravity could be expected to predict dark matter - why on earth would you even think they might? You're literally making no sense at all.

You confuse genuine astromical calculations with assumptions.

Nonsense. The theory tells us what calculations to make, those calculations work, and that is why the theory was accepted. This really isn't complicated, why are you struggling so much to understand it?

With your own words and definitions:
...
There you said it yourself: Newtonian gravity ideas are nothing to count on in the real world.

I said nothing of the sort. You can approximate the effects of GR (curved space-time) by assuming a force.

 

[Polymath257]

Inconsistent nonsense. The Newtonian theory didn´t even predict the assumed "dark matter" in galaxies. And as it don´t work in our galaxy, it also don´t work in the Solar System which is included in the Milky Way galaxy.

Actually, it is precisely Newton's theory that predicts the existence of dark matter based on our observations. it is Newton's laws that predict there is a type of matter there that does not interact strongly with light.

Which was why Einstein discarded the Newtonian ideas and once even said that "gravity" wasn´t a force at all.

Actually, Einstein was well aware that Newton's laws work incredibly well. That is why, when he set out his own theory, he made sure it agreed with Newton's as an approximation. The differences between Newton's predictions and Einstein's were *very* small.

The biggest difference was in the orbit of Mercury. It amounted to a 43 second of arc difference in its orbit accumulated over a century. That's 1/84 of a degree difference over a century.

I challenge you to give an E&M description that comes even close to that.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
The Newtonian theory didn´t even predict the assumed "dark matter" in galaxies.

I´m on the planet in the Solar System which is participating in the Newtonian ideas of celestial motion and this Solar System is a part of the galactic formation and motion where scientists assumes "dark matter" to hold all stars inside the galaxy..

This wasn´t predicted in the Newtonian theory and therefore it doesn´t work. So I´m afraid this cosmological joke is all on you.

This is wrong. Newton's laws (and Einstein's for that matter), take the density of matter as an input into their equations. They then give predictions for expected motion from that.

Second way it is wrong: dark matter doesn't hold the stars. It exerts gravity, just like all other matter. And that extra gravity affects the motions of ALL the matter. But the actual density of dark matter required is pretty low since the density of ordinary matter in our galaxy is pretty low.

That low density of dark matter is not enough, on the scale of our solar system, to affect the motion of the planets in a detectable way. This is actually one of the checks on the theory of dark matter. If the density required to explain the motion of the stars was too large, it *would* produce a detectable difference in our solar system.

Part of the point is that the solar system is *small* on the scale of the galaxy. The galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. The entire solar system is about a light day across. So, if the galaxy were as wide as a football field, the solar system would be 1/10000 of an inch across.

In other words, the overall rotation of the galaxy, even if it were organized how you envision it, would have NO effect on the rotation of the solar system. The solar system is just too small. Even if you had a huge E&M rotation for the galaxy, it would NOT induce a rotation on something as small as the solar system.

Finally, the rotation of the solar system is NOT aligned with the rotation of the galaxy as a whole. Why would it be? But, to verify this, all you need to do is look at the difference in orientation of the Milky Way in the sky and the ecliptic. The two are nowhere close to the same direction.

In other words, your understanding of the situation fails at every step: the size of the solar system, the rotation of the galaxy in relation to our solar system, the density of dark matter required at the galactic scale and its effect on the solar system, the way that Newton's and Einstein's laws are applied and how they are used, what it means to make a scientific prediction, why dark matter is actually predicted, the meaning of that prediction on the known laws of physics, the effects of E&M on the galaxy as a whole, etc.

I could go on, but that is quite enough. You need to get specific. Instead of glittering generalities, give an actual description, based on your understanding, that makes predictions that can be observed.

Until that happens, you have nothing.

 

[Native]

I'm on the point of just giving up. You don't appear to have the first clue what you're talking about. Newton's theory works just fine for pretty much every calculation you can do for the solar system. There is zero reason to expect that such a theory might predict dark matter. In fact, no theory of gravity could be expected to predict dark matter - why on earth would you even think they might? You're literally making no sense at all.

Why are you having so much troubles with including the "Newtonian Solar System" ideas in it´s relevant galactic formation and motion?

I´ve newer said the Solar System calculations were/are wrong. I just claim the calculations to be made from the wrong assumtion that "gravity" is a fundamental force - with references to your own excellent GR definitions above.

Nonsense. The theory tells us what calculations to make, those calculations work, and that is why the theory was accepted.

Newton observed and made up his "apple pie gravity force". Secondary, he made his equations based on already empirical known motions of planets in the Solar System and connected these equations with his assumed "apple force".

Native said: ↑
With your own words and (GR) definitions:
There you said it yourself: Newtonian gravity ideas are nothing to count on in the real world.

I said nothing of the sort. You can approximate the effects of GR (curved space-time) by assuming a force.

This is hilarious funny indeed

. . . gravity isn't, strictly speaking, a force in general relativity. It's an inertial, pseudo, or fictitious force.

I just conclude that you and your fellow proponents consciously and stubbornly counts on an force which is defined to be pseudo and fictious.

 

[Native]

This is wrong. Newton's laws (and Einstein's for that matter), take the density of matter as an input into their equations. They then give predictions for expected motion from that.

So you think "density of matter" provides motions? For my part both Newton and Einstein are wrong in this matter (sic)

Second way it is wrong: dark matter doesn't hold the stars. It exerts gravity, just like all other matter.

You confuse "assumptions" with real matters and furthermore you confuse "circumstantial observations" as real evidences of your "dark matter"

That low density of dark matter is not enough, on the scale of our solar system, to affect the motion of the planets in a detectable way. This is actually one of the checks on the theory of dark matter. If the density required to explain the motion of the stars was too large, it *would* produce a detectable difference in our solar system.

I know of this kind of "cosmological explanations": When "dark matter" is assumed to be needed in a cosmological area, "dark matter" works with a great effect and where it´s not needed, it almost has no effects at all - despite we´re talking of the same "closed system".

Finally, the rotation of the solar system is NOT aligned with the rotation of the galaxy as a whole. Why would it be? But, to verify this, all you need to do is look at the difference in orientation of the Milky Way in the sky and the ecliptic. The two are nowhere close to the same direction.

If you´re talking of the galactic and Solar System planetary orbital plane, you´re correct. Otherwise you´re obviously wrong as the Solar System is orbiting the galactic center once every about 220 mill. years.

In other words, your understanding of the situation fails at every step: the size of the solar system, the rotation of the galaxy in relation to our solar system, the density of dark matter required at the galactic scale and its effect on the solar system, the way that Newton's and Einstein's laws are applied and how they are used, what it means to make a scientific prediction, why dark matter is actually predicted, the meaning of that prediction on the known laws of physics,

Oh, I understand all this very well. And I also understand why most modern cosmologists can´t find head and tail in their own human made speculations.

I could go on, but that is quite enough. You need to get specific. Instead of glittering generalities, give an actual description, based on your understanding, that makes predictions that can be observed.

Until that happens, you have nothing.

You mean in contrary to the united cosmological society who cannot agree to agree in a basic and common understanding of everything?

Do you know of the danish poet, Hans Christian Andersen, and his tale of The Emperors New Clothes?

 

[Polymath257]

So you think "density of matter" provides motions? For my part both Newton and Einstein are wrong in this matter (sic)

Density of mass gives mass. The mass produces the gravitational effect. The gravitational effect produces acceleration (not motion, but change in motion). This is precisely what Newton said.

You confuse "assumptions" with real matters and furthermore you confuse "circumstantial observations" as real evidences of your "dark matter"

No, the observed motions are real. The question is what produces the observed accelerations. One prediction from Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity is that, with those observed motions, there would be extra matter.

'Assumptions' are nothing different than 'hypotheses' to be tested. And, in the case of dark matter, the hypothesis that there is extra matter has payed off in *other* predictions and confirming observations.

Now, you claim those to be 'circumstantial'. OK, provide a different hypothesis that allows for calculations and testing that also predicts the observed motion in detail.

I know of this kind of "cosmological explanations": When "dark matter" is needed in a cosmological area, "dark matter" works with a great effect and where it´s not needed, it almost have no effects at all - despite we´re talking of the same "closed system".

Once again, you misunderstand. The density of dark matter is low. But the galaxy is big and the density of matter in the galaxy is also low. So the combined effect of ordinary matter and dark matter is what explains the observed motion.

The effect of this low density of dark matter on the solar system is below what we can currently measure. Again, that is an easy calculation based on the galactic numbers.

If you´re talking of the galactic and Solar System planetary orbital plane, you´re correct. Otherwise you´re obviously wrong as the Solar System is orbiting the galactic center once every about 220 mill. years.

Yes, that is precisely what I was talking about: the orbits of the planets around the sun.

Oh, I understand all this very well. And I also understand why most modern cosmologists can´t find head and tail in their own human made speculations.

You mean in contrary to the united cosmological society who cannot agree to agree in a basic and common understanding of everything?

Do you know of the danish poet, Hans Christian Andersen, and his tale of The Emperors New Clothes?

That you don't understand the process of science isn't evidence against that process. There *is* a consensus about the basics of cosmology. There are some questions that still arise and people discuss and propose solutions to those issues. But the basic theory has an overwhelming consensus.

 

[Polymath257]

Why are you having so much troubles with including the "Newtonian Solar System" ideas in it´s relevant galactic formation and motion?

I´ve newer said the Solar System calculations were/are wrong. I just claim the calculations to be made from the wrong assumtion that "gravity" is a fundamental force - with references to your own excellent GR definitions above.

But the calculations are based on the gravitational force law of Newton as modified by Einstein. You can't get away from that assumption if you want to do those calculations.

In those calculations, it is NOT assumed that gravity is a 'fundamental force'. It is only assumed that gravity works as an inverse square force (if Newtonian) or via Einstein's equations (relativistically).

As long as that force exists, the equations lead to those calculations. AND VICE VERSA. The calculations lead to the inverse square law of gravity.

The E&M hypothesis simply doesn't lead to those calculations at all. Which means they simply don't predict the motions that are actually observed.

Newton observed and made up his "apple pie gravity force". Secondary, he made his equations based on already empirical known motions of planets in the Solar System and connected these equations with his assumed "apple force".

What Newton did is show that the same force that draws the apple to the ground also keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth and the planets in orbit around the Sun.

He *checked* the calculations using the known motions. But the motions were a check, not the original input into the calculations.

Native said: ↑
With your own words and (GR) definitions:
There you said it yourself: Newtonian gravity ideas are nothing to count on in the real world.

This is hilarious funny indeed

I just conclude that you and your fellow proponents conciously and stubbornly counts on an force which is defined to be pseudo and fictious.

Once again, this only shows you don't understand either Newton's ideas OR Einstein's.

 

[Native]

Density of mass gives mass. The mass produces the gravitational effect. The gravitational effect produces acceleration (not motion, but change in motion). This is precisely what Newton said.

Newton could of course say nothing precisely on his invented gravity force and noone have ever has said anything precisely about this illusive "mental" force.

Mr. Newton´s title in his own days was "Natural Philosopher" but there is not much genuine natural philosophy applied in concluding a force of gravity by watching an apple fall down to the ground WITHOUT pondering over how the apple grow on the tree branch in the first place.

An apple is made by the electric influence of the Sun which powers the magnetic field on the Earth. Apples in large are made by electric influences which induces magnetic fields etc, etc. - which creates lots of apples in a tree by drawing sap up in the tree brances. A motion quite opposite to Newton´s "gravity".

When an mature apple fall to the ground, it´s because its stem no more can hold the apple because of the pressure from the weight of the atmosphere.

Conclusion: E&M governs the apple production and the weight of the atmosphere makes apples to fall down. There is no Newtonian gravity at all.

I said:
You confuse "assumptions" with real matters and furthermore you confuse "circumstantial observations" as real evidences of your "dark matter".

The question is what produces the observed accelerations. One prediction from Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity is that, with those observed motions, there would be extra matter.

If counting on the weak gravity only, of course science has to conclude that there is "extra matters". Besides this, Newtonian or Einsteinian ideas cannot make any genuine predictions when counting on a force which is pure guessworks.

'Assumptions' are nothing different than 'hypotheses' to be tested. And, in the case of dark matter, the hypothesis that there is extra matter has payed off in *other* predictions and confirming observations.

Once again: Of course "extra matter" is needed when just counting on one physical matter of attraction.

Now, you claim those to be 'circumstantial'. OK, provide a different hypothesis that allows for calculations and testing that also predicts the observed motion in detail.

It´s NOT a question of calculations in the first place, but of your philosophical skills to understand nature. The circumstances of "dark matter" is really the circumstantial lack of understanding and including the very principles of E&M adn it motions.

"Black holes" are circumstantially guessed up by the observaton of the motion around a galactic center. "Heavy black holes" are guessed up by taking the Newtonian ide of the Solar System where the Sun is thought to hold planets in their orbits, hence "there must also be a strong source in the galactic center to hold the stars".

When the galactic rotation curve was discovered, cosmological scientist got into a black panic and then they inserted "dark matter" to resque their contradicted laws.

I said:
I know of this kind of "cosmological explanations": When "dark matter" is needed in a cosmological area, "dark matter" works with a great effect and where it´s not needed, it almost have no effects at all - despite we´re talking of the same "closed system".

Once again, you misunderstand. The density of dark matter is low. But the galaxy is big and the density of matter in the galaxy is also low. So the combined effect of ordinary matter and dark matter is what explains the observed motion.

I agree that a density of "dark matter" is low - as the weight of an idea cannot be measured by physical instruments.

Polymath257,
As you can see, we´re getting nowhere with "gravitational discussions" as I take gravity to be pure nonsens made up by a bad working natural philosopher for about 350 years ago.

For the respect of @ben d´s OP, I hold my gravitational horses for the time being. So I´ll just skipp your next #857 and await the return of ben d. to comment on my #847 to wich you too are welcome with a reply.

 

[Native]

Just this:

The E&M hypothesis simply doesn't lead to those calculations at all. Which means they simply don't predict the motions that are actually observed.

You can not make any cosmologcal E&M conclusions and calculations on cosmological motions without including the concept of Plasma Cosmology. Likewise you cannot judge E&M matters and Plasma Cosmology by comparing these to what is thought in "gravity cosmology". You simply have to think philosophically different.

 

[ratiocinator]

When an mature apple fall to the ground, it´s because its stem no more can hold the apple because of the pressure from the weight of the atmosphere.

Conclusion: E&M governs the apple production and the weight of the atmosphere makes apples to fall down. There is no Newtonian gravity at all.

You do realise that weight is the force gravity exerts on a given mass, don't you? No gravity, no weight.