Big Bang Blasted

[modest]

Cosmological redshift z according to the standard model is an effect that begins outside the Local Group (or beyond the local supercluster): meaning that expansion is not operational inside that area. And so radiation emitted from objects inside the local group is not redshifted. Some galaxies actually show a blueshift, as you may know.

 

The blackbody spectrum observed by COBE and WMAP is locaed inside the local group. The question is, how did it get there, how was it produced?

 

If, as Hoyle and Burbidge calculated (note this is not my theory), the thermal blackbody radiation was produced by stellar means, then there is no reason why it would be redshifted, since it did not come from a hot dense epoch over 13-14 Gyr ago.

 

Check!

CC

 

I see, you are saying that the dust and stars emitting background radiation are local. Well, I don’t know how local you mean, but there is an easy way to disprove locality. In the WMAP’s maps :P , sorry, in the maps that WMAP show us the CMBR is covered by local galaxy clusters. That is to say - local galaxy clusters are in-front-of or closer-than the CMBR. This is an indisputable way of showing that CMBR is generated further away than local galaxy clusters. There are other (more technical ways) of reaching this conclusion. In any case, No, CMBR is not local.

[coldcreation]

I see, you are saying that the dust and stars emitting background radiation are local. Well, I don’t know how local you mean, but there is an easy way to disprove locality. In the WMAP’s maps :P , sorry, in the maps that WMAP show us the CMBR is covered by local galaxy clusters. That is to say - local galaxy clusters are in-front-of or closer-than the CMBR. This is an indisputable way of showing that CMBR is generated further away than local galaxy clusters. There are other (more technical ways) of reaching this conclusion. In any case, No, CMBR is not local.

 

The supposition that the cosmic microwave background radiation (Holy Smoke) is a relic of a hot dense state has been problematic since the 1960's.

 

The question then is: with what alternative theory can the standard model be replaced? With a viable interpretation of the redshift, the expansion foundation collapses under its own missing mass (and dark energy). Without expansion, the colossal initial explosion is rapidly extinguished along with its intrinsic singularity. Most quintessentially of all and next in line, the primordial nucleosynthesis and the resultant CMB as relic radiation suffer a direct and mortal hit.

 

In fact, for the three pillars of modern cosmology (redshift z, light element abundance, and the CMB: all problematic for the standard model. Hint: that is why DE, DM and a false vacuum had to be invented) there are viable alternatives that are not problematic (i.e., that do not require new physics, or worse, something that is not physics at all, to fix it).

 

Yes the CMB is in all directions. It is local and most likely global. The question is where did it come from and what is responsible for thermalization? And for the answer there are several theories, not just one, that agree with observations.

 

So to say that the CMB is proof, or evidence, soley in favor of the big bang theory is whishfull thinking. Nothing less.

 

 

 

Mate!

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

alright coldcreation, - my cosmological nemesis :)

 

Let’s sum up the first half of what you just said in one sentence: “Because we don’t know why the universe is expanding, then it’s not.” Well, I won’t point out the illogical, circular, all-around wacky reasoning behind that. But, I will polish up some other stuff.

 

In fact, for the three pillars of modern cosmology (redshift z, light element abundance, and the CMB: all problematic for the standard model.

 

How, in god's-great-expanding-universe, can these three “pillars of modern cosmology” be problematic for standard cosmology when standard cosmology predicted all three before they were ever observed!?!

 

Yes the CMB is in all directions. It is local and most likely global. The question is where did it come from and what is responsible for thermalization?

 

CMBR can’t be local (for reasons I went into above). Also, I did some math and found that if CMBR was local since it’s homogeneous to .000 018 Kelvin (or roughly 1 part in 100,000) then its source could not be moving faster than 3 km/s toward or away from us because the redshift would be too large thus it wouldn’t be homogeneous. So, can we please get past the local CMBR. And by the same reasoning CMBR can’t be global - it’s temperature would not have isotropy. This is why CMBR can’t be caused by dust - unless the dust forms a perfect spherical shell around the earth and moves in orbit with us (NO, not the case, don’t get any ideas!)

 

And for the answer there are several theories, not just one, that agree with observations.

So to say that the CMB is proof, or evidence, soley in favor of the big bang theory is whishfull thinking. Nothing less.

 

On the contrary, the “Big Bang Theory” (Oh, how I hate that name) is the only theory that predicted these things. Other theories rejected their eventual discovery. Any new theory of cosmology is going to have to fit inside the framework of BBT or at least expand on BBT - the way Einstein’s theories did with Newton’s.

 

Speaking of Einstein - let me make this point, because I think people get the wrong idea:

A mathematician - Willem de Sitter - first postulated an expanding universe in conjunction with Einstein shortly after General Relativity was first written down. Now, this was way back when - before people thought the universe was bigger than the Milky Way. No one though de Sitter’s universe was our universe - until Hubble found redshift to distance proportionality. Then people still weren’t convinced, until the next prediction CMBR was eventually discovered. And new predictions gave way to new discoveries - and it fits like a glove. People tend to think that all discoveries are forced into the BBT box, when it’s just the opposite. The BBT box describes all these things we keep discovering.

 

Sorry bout the long post, but you are a worth adversary and I wanted to put pen to paper before I had to leave town.

 

- modest

[Erasmus00]

In fact, for the three pillars of modern cosmology (redshift z, light element abundance, and the CMB: all problematic for the standard model. Hint: that is why DE, DM and a false vacuum had to be invented) there are viable alternatives that are not problematic (i.e., that do not require new physics, or worse, something that is not physics at all, to fix it).

 

In what way do you consider redshift, light element abundance and the CMB problems for the standard model? I think natural extensions to the standard model allow very viable models of things like dark matter (both supersymmetry and non-standard model higgs sectors were introduced to solve various fine tuning problems but are natural dark matter candidates).

 

The cosmological constant was introduced because (mathematically speaking) there is no reason not to have a constant term in the Einstein equations (also, Einstein wanted a closed universe). The fact that the universe might have a small cosmological constants isn't a bad thing (especially given that many theorists tried and failed for years to show why it had to be exactly 0). The fact that its so small might lead to some fine tuning problems, but thats more an aesthetic issue,etc.

 

I think its a huge stretch to say that cosmology is a problem for the standard model.

-Will

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

You said

 

Alright,

I guess instead of trying to point out the observations congruent with BBT, I’ll point out observations incongruent with other theories.

 

After reading some old posts, I’ve got an idea of where some people are coming from. There has been a lot of arguing over the fine points - but I’ll just stick to some of the overall themes. Here they are followed by easy ways to disprove them:

 

1 - The universe is old (I mean really old). Let’s say older than a trillion years. Why not? Well, I’ll tell you why not:

 

First off: We don’t see ultra-bright objects (like quasars or supernova) far enough away. There is a limit to the extent of our observations. Furthermore, near this information “black out” we see young and immature galaxies. This is in direct conflict with #1.

 

2 - Redshift is caused by anything and everything except expansion:

 

Everyone seems to agree that redshift is something that happens to light. So, as light bounces around the universe for trillions of years and ends up on earth - “Steady State” tells us there is no upper limit on redshift. Observation squashes this and thus squashes #2

 

3 - CMBR is caused by anything and everything except plasma:

 

Easy to find out - CMBR would have any absorption spectrum of whatever is everywhere in the universe. Dust - Stars - whatever. If it has no such absorption spectrum (it does not) then theory must be reevaluated.

 

4 - The universe has a fixed amount of matter / energy (combine this with #1)

 

Fusion (in stars) + Radioactive Decay (outside stars) = a universe of mostly iron. If untrue theory must be quite reevaluated.

 

5 - BBT feels icky.

 

I can’t help you there.

 

 

I would suggest that you do more reading.

 

Fine the answer to No1. There is an explanation that allows the universe to be endless in time, space and matter.

 

Point No 2.,,,,,,,,,,do more reading

 

Point 3,,,,,,,,,,,by definition all is plasma in varies states. Try to understand what is plasma.

 

Point 4 the universe is infinite, try building a wall at the end.

Mate all I can say is ,,,,,,read more. Try to understand.

 

Point 5 Whats icky?

 

 

I totally disagree with what you say. I think you do not understand, regardless its good to air you thoughts.

[coldcreation]

 

In fact, the three pillars of modern cosmology, redshift z, light element abundance, and the CMB, are all problematic for the standard model. Hint: that is why DE, DM and a false vacuum had to be invented. There are viable alternatives that are not problematic (i.e., that do not require new physics, or worse, something that is not physics at all, to fix it).

 

 

In what way do you consider redshift, light element abundance and the CMB problems for the standard model? I think natural extensions to the standard model allow very viable models of things like dark matter (both supersymmetry and non-standard model higgs sectors were introduced to solve various fine tuning problems but are natural dark matter candidates).

 

1. Redshift z was supposed to accord with the Hubble law. The SNe Ia data refuted that hypothesis (it is not a law), with a 25% deviation from linearity. Problem. Profuse quantities of DE and DM had to be introduced into the new standard model: Something everyone regrets, but had no other choice. It was either that or abandon the BBT for good (the latter would be my recomendation).

 

2. Light element abundance had to be adjusted ad hoc by primordial nucleosynthesis in order to agree with observations. The key word is ad hoc.

 

3. The CMB has always been problematic. Without inflation (and its false vacuum concept: which is has nothing to do with physics) there is no agreement with observations. Too, now, without DE and DM there is no agreement with observations.

 

So thanks to a set of artificial (nonphysical) parameters and an ad hoc injunction, the bb theory has been modified to fit (albeit not very well) with what is observed in nature.

 

 

 

The cosmological constant was introduced because (mathematically speaking) there is no reason not to have a constant term in the Einstein equations (also, Einstein wanted a closed universe). The fact that the universe might have a small cosmological constants isn't a bad thing (especially given that many theorists tried and failed for years to show why it had to be exactly 0). The fact that its so small might lead to some fine tuning problems, but thats more an aesthetic issue,etc.

 

Here I will refer you to a thread entitled Cosmological Constant: A New Law. Lambda must equal zero at all times t. It is no parameter. Without the knowledge of the physical mechanism responsible for its action (and without the knowledge of the physical mechanism responsible for gravitation) all speculation regarding its value is futile.

 

 

I think its a huge stretch to say that cosmology is a problem for the standard model.

-Will

 

The problems listed above are really only the tip of the iceberg. The real problem begins at the begining, t = 0: a concept that since the inception of the big bang has been removed from the theory that holds its name: for if anything can be said about IT, it forever remains in the dominion of science fiction (something that is not, either, science at all).

[modest]

Point 3,,,,,,,,,,,by definition all is plasma in varies states. Try to understand what is plasma.

 

What? Huh? "All is plasma"... Huh?

Hold on, let me get a dictionary....

No...

Maybe it's a pink floyd song... "All is plasma"

No...

Could you be talking about blood? Maybe some kind of new age thing?

Plasma is blood?

Could this be a Star Wars reference? The blood contains midi-chlorians that are the will of the force that encompasses everything?

No… Humm…

“by definition all is plasma in varies states”

A wave of confusion has overtaken me…

Everything is plasma… Everything is plasma in various states…

Hummm…..

Even Tacos?

Plasma Tacos? Who ever heard of plasma tacos? That doesn’t even make sense. How could you eat a plasma taco? Even in a soft shell - are you trying to tell me I could eat a plasma taco in a soft shell? Maybe in a hard shell…

Let me check my recipes…. “Hard shell plasma tacos”

No… Betty Crocker has never heard of it

 

Well, I’m left with only one conclusion - The Betty Crocker-Modest model of physics leaves no room for different states of plasma that encompass everything in existence (including tacos)

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Let’s sum up the first half of what you just said in one sentence: “Because we don’t know why the universe is expanding, then it’s not.” Well, I won’t point out the illogical, circular, all-around wacky reasoning behind that...

 

I never wrote that.

 

 

 

 

How, in god's-great-expanding-universe, can these three “pillars of modern cosmology” be problematic for standard cosmology when standard cosmology predicted all three before they were ever observed!?!

 

God's-great-expanding-universe? You gotta be kidding!

 

 

 

CMBR can’t be local...And by the same reasoning CMBR can’t be global ...

I think we all agree that the MBR is ubiquitous, i.e., local and global, as in everywhere present. The question remains as to its origin or source.

 

 

 

 

On the contrary, the “Big Bang Theory” (Oh, how I hate that name) is the only theory that predicted these things. Other theories rejected their eventual discovery. Any new theory of cosmology is going to have to fit inside the framework of BBT or at least expand on BBT - the way Einstein’s theories did with Newton’s.

 

The BBT will eventually have to be replaced with something else entirely. There is nothing that can be salvaged from it regarding the three pillars. The second clincher (the first was the SNe Ia data) will come with the JWST.

 

Prediction: there will be observed galaxies (there are already with the HUDF) old, massive, well-formed - spirals and so forth - galaxies with high metallicity going back as far as we can detect in the visible universe. i.e., the galaxies located in the era supposed to be the dark age (in the standard model), where galaxies are predicted to be young, metal-poor and in the process of formation.

 

For some reason, I have a feeling it will take several more clinchers before the diehards are ready to give up the ghost.

 

 

..Willem de Sitter - first postulated an expanding universe in conjunction with Einstein shortly after General Relativity was first written down. Now, this was way back when - before people thought the universe was bigger than the Milky Way.

 

De Sitters models were both static, not expanding. Your claim is false. Later interpretations gave one of de Sitter's models, the empty one as I recall, the propensity to expand. The well known de Sitter effect was only an apparent acceleration, not a real one, of a test particle introduced into the manifold.

 

In other words, the early de Sitter model of 1917, had a time-like interval dependent on distance; meaning that clocks would appear to run slower with increasing distance. This would manifest itself (in a static universe) as a redshift that increases with distance (the de Sitter effect). That is the short version (and so incomplete, sorry). For the full historical account see this thread entitled:

 

Redshift z.

 

For a discussion of the de Sitter effect (metric, redshift, model) in the thread Redshift z see posts 4, 8, 11, 14, 24, 51, 64, 67, 69, 77, 99-109, 112, 115, 120, 122, 139, 153, 160, 161-165, 182, etc

 

 

 

No one though de Sitter’s universe was our universe - until Hubble found redshift to distance proportionality. Then people still weren’t convinced, until the next prediction CMBR was eventually discovered.

 

Again, historically far-from-correct.

 

 

And new predictions gave way to new discoveries - and it fits like a glove.

 

Almost like O.J's glove fit?

 

LOL.

 

 

People tend to think that all discoveries are forced into the BBT box, when it’s just the opposite. The BBT box describes all these things we keep discovering.

 

I'm sure it will describe the 10 Gyr old galaxies at the visible horizon with the same excessive zeal and fervor.

 

 

Stay tuned...

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

Profuse quantities of DE and DM had to be introduced into the new standard model: Something everyone regrets, but had no other choice. It was either that or abandon the BBT for good (the latter would be my recomendation).

 

The thing is, not everyone regrets introducing dark matter. There are problems with the standard model that are fixed nicely by (say) supersymmetry or a non-standard higgs sector. However, both of these introduce new particles we haven't seen that interact weakly (except through gravity). These turn out to be excellent dark matter candidates!

 

Dark energy is just another word for a cosmological constant, which you wish to discuss elsewhere.

 

2. Light element abundance had to be adjusted ad hoc by primordial nucleosynthesis in order to agree with observations. The key word is ad hoc.

 

So you are saying the big bang model has free parameters that had to be adjusted to match observation? Thats true of literally every theory.

 

3. The CMB has always been problematic. Without inflation (and its false vacuum concept: which is has nothing to do with physics) there is no agreement with observations.

 

The original idea for inflation involved a false vacuum. May I ask why a false vacuum has nothing to do with physics? You can understand the concept and implications entirely from quantum field theory (which was physics, last I checked).

 

Modern inflation does not necessarily need a false vacuum. Modern (so called "slow roll" inflation does NOT have any tunneling away from a false vacuum.

 

The problems listed above are really only the tip of the iceberg. The real problem begins at the begining, t = 0: a concept that since the inception of the big bang has been removed from the theory that holds its name: for if anything can be said about IT, it forever remains in the dominion of science fiction (something that is not, either, science at all).

 

Right, science has very little concrete to say about anything both small and heavy- be it black holes or the early universe. I don't think this is necessarily a problem with the big bang but simply an open area of research.

-Will

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

Sounds like you are a poet.

[Mike C]

First post.

Thank you for expanding on what I was saying. I agree with this completely. “Steady state” gives no such upper limit on redshift.

 

Thats right.

The reason is because in the SSU, the redshift is caused by an 'intrinsic force' within the photons to cause the RS. So they expand to an infinite RS and oblivion.

However, 'new' photons are created in the new formed stars to maintain an energy balance.

 

I’ve seen you go over this before, or maybe it was somebody else. In any case, the mistake you make is plotting this linearly. That is to say, you assume the universe is now and always has expanded at the same rate. I don’t know what lead you to this conclusion (maybe convenience) But, if you redo your calculations using a higher expansion rate (let’s say the speed of light) for our young universe, and current expansion rates measured today, I think the results will speak for themselves.

 

The 'inflationary period expanded the initial BB from a 'subatomic' size to the size of a 'pea'(?).

So what period after that and how long did it last from the pea size to the

3000K temperature size? Is that your light expansion size?

 

There is NO math that can give you the answer to the current size of the BB. Show me the math.

How do you incorporate the current Hubble expansion per megaparsec in this calculation over an age of 14 billion years?

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

The thing is, not everyone regrets introducing dark matter.

 

 

We'll see if the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produces any evidence of dark matter (WIMPs or superWIMPs). Even if no evidence emerges at the LHC I doubt that dark matter proponents will throw in the towel. Too much relies upon it: 80 years of big bang cosmology would have to be axe-canned, regrets or not.

 

 

There are problems with the standard model that are fixed nicely by (say) supersymmetry or a non-standard higgs sector. However, both of these introduce new particles we haven't seen that interact weakly (except through gravity). These turn out to be excellent dark matter candidates!

 

 

Again, all I can say is good luck finding them. My prediction is they do not exist.

 

 

Dark energy is just another word for a cosmological constant, which you wish to discuss elsewhere.

 

 

I disagree with you. Lambda and DE are not synonymous.

 

As I've said, without knowledge of the operational mechanism behind the gravitational interaction, and therefore of the mechanism behind lambda, it is impossible to determine whether lambda is a parameter or not, and hence what is its value other than zero, if any.

 

It can be shown that lambda is not a parameter, it is not negative pressure or dark energy (since these do not exist), and that the cosmological constant value is precisely zero for all times t.

 

 

 

 

 

2. Light element abundance had to be adjusted ad hoc by primordial nucleosynthesis in order to agree with observations. The key word is ad hoc.

 

 

So you are saying the big bang model has free parameters that had to be adjusted to match observation? Thats true of literally every theory.

 

 

Unfortunately the free parameters are required for all the so-called pillars. In other words, take out DE and DM the BBT doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

 

The original idea for inflation involved a false vacuum. May I ask why a false vacuum has nothing to do with physics? You can understand the concept and implications entirely from quantum field theory (which was physics, last I checked).

 

 

Lamentably the necessary slow-rollover transition too requires the fine-tuning of parameters. Calculations yield reasonable predictions only if the parameters are assigned values in a very narrow range. Most theorists (including Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt) regard such fine tuning as implausible.

 

 

Modern inflation does not necessarily need a false vacuum. Modern (so called "slow roll" inflation does NOT have any tunneling away from a false vacuum.

 

 

Science fiction: nothing more, nothing less. Where is the evidence? Perhaps inflation can best be explained by the anthropic principle (or even an intelligent designer: just kidding). In any event, inflation (with or without false vacua) is highly controversial, since it is untestable, even in principle, and therefore not within the domain of physics.

 

 

 

Right, science has very little concrete to say about anything both small and heavy- be it black holes or the early universe. I don't think this is necessarily a problem with the big bang but simply an open area of research. -Will

 

 

t = 0

 

The ice had melted. Summer had arrived. All restrictions disappeared. The laws of nature were gone for good. Even the press would embrace inflation. The big bang had become so goddamned bleak, so abstract…”matter and antimatter annihilate in an asymmetrical blast leaving an excess of matter behind that would eventually form people.” The general public had heard about the big bang, but no one new what it was. Inflation brought life into the picture. It was bigger than life. It was fun. It was a free lunch. It was otherworldly. It was outrageous and contagious simultaneously.

 

Modernism, Reaganomics, Cable TV, cocaine, Comodor computers, condoms, even the 1980s graffiti artists, with their pressurized aerosol spray-paint, all, directly or not, buzzed amidst inflation. The place where it had come from, unquestionably, was MIT.

 

A new spirit was loose and spreading like wildfire.

 

 

To be continued...

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

Again, all I can say is good luck finding them. My prediction is they do not exist.

 

If we find neither dark matter nor a non-standard higgs many of the fine tuning problems of the standard model will not be resolved, and the higgs mass will be a problem for the theory.

 

I disagree with you. Lambda and DE are not synonymous.

As I've said, without knowledge of the operational mechanism behind the gravitational interaction, and therefore of the mechanism behind lambda, it is impossible to determine whether lambda is a parameter or not, and hence what is its value other than zero, if any.

 

The equations of general relativity were written to fulfill the requirements that they conserve energy, and that they reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak field limit. Given these requirements, there is no reason you can't add a constant into the equation. As far as I know, no one has managed to develop GR from some different principle that disallows the constant.

 

It can be shown that lambda is not a parameter, it is not negative pressure or dark energy (since these do not exist), and that the cosmological constant value is precisely zero for all times t.

 

There are lots of ways the cosmological constant could be non-zero. Most quantum field theories (including the standard model) predict that free space should have a huge energy density! If you can show that the constant should be exactly 0, you have succeeded where many, many have failed.

 

Lamentably the necessary slow-rollover transition too requires the fine-tuning of parameters. Calculations yield reasonable predictions only if the parameters are assigned values in a very narrow range. Most theorists (including two of its creators, Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt) regard such fine tuning as implausible.

 

I agree fine-tuning isn't very satisfying. However, the standard model is full of fine tuning problems as well and no one advocates throwing it out- because its explanatory power is greater then its weaknesses.

-Will

[modest]

I disagree with you. Lambda and DE are not synonymous.

 

As I've said, without knowledge of the operational mechanism behind the gravitational interaction, and therefore of the mechanism behind lambda, it is impossible to determine whether lambda is a parameter or not, and hence what is its value other than zero, if any.

 

It can be shown that lambda is not a parameter, it is not negative pressure or dark energy (since these do not exist), and that the cosmological constant value is precisely zero for all times t.

 

 

It’s ok to measure something you’re studying - even if you don’t understand what’s causing it. We know the universe is only 4% matter and DE and DM influence the universe in ways that can be measured. To suggest we throw out a working theory with good predictions because we don’t understand the forces behind it is dogmatic.

 

What if Newton had rejected his work on gravity because he had no concept of what was causing it? Where would we be now?

 

What if Bohr and others never developed models of the atom because they couldn’t understand the atomic forces? Should we reject all of quantum mechanics now because it doesn’t jive with gravity?

 

A good model based on good math and good science is supposed to lead to discoveries of new forces and new things. BBT has done just that with DE and DM. Why is this a problem? This is the very definition of good science and the exact opposite of dogma.

[coldcreation]

It’s ok to measure something you’re studying - even if you don’t understand what’s causing it. We know the universe is only 4% matter and DE and DM influence the universe in ways that can be measured.

 

 

One of the objectives for my participation in debates involving modern cosmology is to open an objective discussion of the evidence, or lack of evidence, that supports or undermines the standard model, our interpretations, and our uncertainties; not based on a dogmatic proclamation of unconditional truth, but to open locked doors that will lead to fresh insight, or at least indicate the most hopeful direction and method of exploration; and which hold the most promising potential for reaching a solid conclusion in the future.

 

The problem with dark energy and nonbaryonic dark matter is that nothing is being measured. There is really nothing there (palpable or not) that can be physically called anything at all. What is being measured is redshift z and light curves (at least regarding the SNe Ia data: most detrimental to BBT than any other observation to date).

 

There are physical explanations for what is observed that absolutely do not require the introduction (ad hoc) of some artificial substance (e.g., aether on methamphetamines, or lambda on anabolic steroids) that does not exist anywhere except in the BBT.

 

 

 

To suggest we throw out a working theory with good predictions because we don’t understand the forces behind it is dogmatic.

 

 

The BBT should be discarded, not because we don’t understand the dark forces required for it to concord with observation, but because has not passed the good old fasion test of the scientific method: The pre-1998 standard model predicted three possible solutions (commonly known as the Friedmann models). The search for the preferred solution, the flat critical model fell flat on its face (and so to did the backup models).

 

Instead of abandoning the FLRW models after they systematically failed to predict the deceleration parameter (even the Hubble law was of no use), a grotesque patchup job had to be undertaken.

 

 

 

What if Newton had rejected his work on gravity because he had no concept of what was causing it? Where would we be now?

 

Newton had at his disposition a 'force' that could be empirically tested. The important point to make is that the BBT has no force that can be test. It had redshift and light curves at its disposition (yes that could be tested against the standard model) and it failed, just like your Newton analogy.

 

 

What if Bohr and others never developed models of the atom because they couldn’t understand the atomic forces? Should we reject all of quantum mechanics now because it doesn’t jive with gravity?

 

Another analogy that fails.

 

 

A good model based on good math and good science is supposed to lead to discoveries of new forces and new things. BBT has done just that with DE and DM. Why is this a problem? ...

 

Whenever theorists invent new forces (along with otherworldly forms of matter) inorder to satisfy their contentions, that is a good sign that something has gone wrong, that something more than science is at stake. The injection of DE and DM into the BBT served only to protect eight decade of BB dogma.

 

 

 

...This is the very definition of good science and the exact opposite of dogma.

 

 

Hmm, I would have worded that differently: This is the very definition of poor science, the exact synonym of dogma.

 

 

What can be extorted from the investigation so far, in rudimentary generalized form, is that all contest with academicism is healthy and hearty; that most academicism is absurd and terminal, and that the discredit will be total when those bodies of theorists authorized by their dogma (that is to say, "new physics" worse than misinterpreted) face-up to the facts. The works held as eternal models, while founded only on disputable assumptions, are just an instant in the brief and unavoidable evolution of human imagination and creativity:

 

That is to say, pure art.

 

 

CC

[modest]

Another analogy that fails.

 

My analogy is spot on. I will analogize my analogy again (using your post)

 

Whenever theorists invent new forces

 

Like Newton’s Gravity or Yakawa’s Nuclear Force or Maxwell’s electromagnetism - yeah..

 

(along with otherworldly forms of matter)

 

sure, Leptons and Quarks (otherworldly - charmed and strange - from top to bottom) I follow…

 

inorder to satisfy their contentions,

 

or theory, right….

 

that is a good sign that something has gone wrong, that something more than science is at stake.

 

Oh, I thought that was how breakthroughs were made.

 

And, something more than science is always at stake. Our quest to understand our universe is not to serve science. Always fear a universe you don’t understand and never think it understood.

 

The injection of DE and DM into the BBT served only to protect eight decade of BB dogma.

 

Or to understand eight decades of observations?

 

There are physical explanations for what is observed that absolutely do not require the introduction (ad hoc) of some artificial substance (e.g., aether on methamphetamines, or lambda on anabolic steroids) that does not exist anywhere except in the BBT.

 

Lambda doesn’t exist anywhere except in BBT? I wonder if Einstein knew that when he put it in GR.

 

Then again, I guess according to you Einstein never should have been creating “otherworldly” stress-energies and space-times just to "satisfy his contentions". Like you say: that's a "good sign that something has gone wrong".

 

- modest

 

PS - If you contend that there are [other] physical explanations for what is observed (like you just did) then please tell me what EXACTLY is emitting CMBR. If you contend that it is local or global (like you tend to do) then tell me how it is so homogeneous. Tell me what temperature the substrate is. Tell me the substrate’s relative velocity and distance to earth. Tell me anything local and global that makes the sky look the way it does. If you can do this then you will succeed where all your steady-state predecessors have failed. If you fail then perhaps you should consider the theory that predicted its existence and nature in the first place.

 

"Always fear a universe you don’t understand and never think it understood."

[coldcreation]

My analogy is spot on.

 

Your analogy fails, again, because what is being measured is redshift z and light curves, not the quantities of DE and DM.

 

 

 

Like Newton’s Gravity or Yakawa’s Nuclear Force or Maxwell’s electromagnetism - yeah..

 

Not at all. The three so-called forces you mention can be studied and measured directly from observations and experiments that can be performed both practically and in principle. Gravity, BTW, is not a force, it is a curved spacetime phenomenon. The latter was confirmed by over eight decades of observational evidence.

 

 

 

sure, Leptons and Quarks (otherworldly - charmed and strange - from top to bottom) I follow…

 

By 'otherworldly' was meant not forming part of the physical world (nothing to do with physics). Do you see the difference?

 

 

 

or theory, right….

 

...yes, the contentions of a theory. The introduction post-1998 of DE (and DM) served only to satisfy the contentions of the BBT, since the SNe Ia data refuted the pre-1998 predictions (which were based on the three Friedmann models).

 

 

 

Oh, I thought that was how breakthroughs were made.

 

That is how monumental blunders are exposed. Breakthroughs in science are made empirically (by making predictions and confirming them observationally and/or experimentally).

 

 

And, something more than science is always at stake. Our quest to understand our universe is not to serve science. . .

 

Is that why you sign each of your posts with "My God, It's full of stars."?

 

Nothing other than that which falls into the domain of science should ever be at stake. The understanding our universe science (physics, thermodynamics, physical laws) must come solely from the correct interpretations of observations. It follows that the erroneous interpretations need to be weeded out of science. That is why predictions are made. And when those predictions do not confirm, but refute of render untenable, the theory should be replaced with one that does not intrinsically breakdown.

 

 

 

 

 

The injection of DE and DM into the BBT served only to protect eight decade of BB dogma.

 

Or to understand eight decades of observations?

 

So far there is nothing understood about nonbaryonic dark matter, or dark energy, since there is nothing that can be observed or tested to determine the properties or states of such. (Thus DE and DM are have nothing to do with physics).

 

Can this made-made bunk be parametrized and injected into the equations in order satisfy theorists belief? Yes it can, but that, by no means, gives it creedence on physical or empirical fronts. It only serves to gratify a hypothesis that, without it, fails miserably.

 

 

 

Lambda doesn’t exist anywhere except in BBT? I wonder if Einstein knew that when he put it in GR.

 

 

??????

???????

???????

 

 

 

Then again, I guess according to you Einstein never should have been creating “otherworldly” stress-energies and space-times just to "satisfy his contentions". Like you say: that's a "good sign that something has gone wrong".

 

Only when placed with the context of BBT (and QM) is there a problem with Einstein's cosmological constant. Note: the mechanism behind lambda still needs to be elucidated, i.e., lambda still needs to be described in physical terms, just as gravity.

 

 

 

PS - If you contend that there are [other] physical explanations for what is observed (like you just did) then please tell me what EXACTLY is emitting CMBR. If you contend that it is local or global (like you tend to do) then tell me how it is so homogeneous. Tell me what temperature the substrate is. Tell me the substrate’s relative velocity and distance to earth. Tell me anything local and global that makes the sky look the way it does. If you can do this then you will succeed where all your steady-state predecessors have failed. If you fail then perhaps you should consider the theory that predicted its existence and nature in the first place.

 

The microwave background radiation (MBR) interpretation within the QSSC model was hindered by the ad hoc introduction of so-called 'iron whiskers.' Iron whiskers are not necessary for the radiation thermalization (to blackbody spectral form) of stellar origin.

 

 

"Always fear a universe you don’t understand and never think it understood."

 

That makes no sense. Why should anyone fear the universe? We have all of the 'ingredients' we need in order to understand the universe.

 

 

 

CC