T
Thing
Guest
Poor thing never gets *any *thanks… imagine a thread with out any-thing in it… sheesh.
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
I capitalized Scientific Knowledge because some people here (not you) equate it with God, which we capitalize.
Some scientific areas are probably converging toward an coherent explanation of Truth. But in some disciplines man has fooled himself into believing what he wants to believe instead of the truth.
I’m not trying to yank your chain here, but ironically the one example you put forth as converging (the cosmos) is one that I believe is way off base. Scientific (mathematical) models of stars, galaxies, and StA’s favorite, planetary accretion, insist that gravity is the primary force behind everything. But the gravity model needs to continually add more “epicycles” (band-aids) just like the geocentric model of the solar system, in order to “work” properly. A much simpler model is available, which makes successful predictions and scale working models of observed phenomena (which the gravity model does not do). See this web site (one of many, but a good place to start).
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Uh-oh – a theory being modified! Ricmat and buffalo are going to have a problem with that…
R
ricmat
Guest
When you change it enough, isn’t it a bit ridiculous to keep calling it the same theory? Give it a new name, and say that the old theory is obsolete and INCORRECT. Don’t insist that it was always correct, and will always be correct.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course!
I
itinerant1
Guest
Many sciences have acquired an immensely better understanding of their subject matter. Today, I finished reading “The Double Helix” by James Watson. Watson and Crick’s resolution of the structure of the DNA molecule was a great achievement, one that answered many questions in biology as well as opened the door to many new discoveries.
Love of one’s own opinion rather than love of the truth is always a problem with humans, but your vague (unspecified) rant has no value because you have not tied it to any examples in regard to the topic of this thread.
I think you are yanking everyone’s chain.
First, do Thornhill & Talbot have scientific research, the results of which challenge certain current understandings of the universe, and have they had their research published scientific journals? If so, which journals?
Second, have you read “Thunderbolt of the Gods” and want to present the main ideas as an alternative to Big Bang theory?
Third, you should be talking specific theories and specific criticisms of cosmological theories rather than making useless, unspecified and denigrating comments about science. Play your hand; put your cards on the table, and let us see what you are holding.
I
itinerant1
Guest
A universe that is approximately 15 billions years old (actually it appears to be closer to 13.66 billion years) is difficult to conceive. On the other hand, Aristotle believed the universe had existed from all eternity. What is a universe formed 13- 15 bya compared to Aristotle’s eternally existing universe?
Compared to eternal existence, a 13-15 billion year old, and thus “finite” universe, is not so much as a drop in the ocean.
Consider the following observations:
The cluster known as JKCS041, which is located about 10.2 billion light-years from Earth and is observed as it was when the universe was only about a quarter of its present age. It beats the previous record holder, XMMXCS J2215.9-1738, by about a billion light-years.
Hawaii’s powerful Subaru telescope found a distant galaxy, located 12.88 billion light-years away – this is only 780 million years after the Big Bang. That is, galaxies existed only 780 million years after the universe came into existence about 13.66 billion years ago as a hot soup of elementary particles.
Hubble (2008) found the strongest evidence so far for a galaxy with a redshift significantly above 7 (redshift ~7.6). It is likely to be one of the youngest and brightest galaxies (dubbed A1689-zD1) ever seen right after the cosmic cold “dark ages”, just 700 million years after the beginning of our Universe.
We are not seeing the galaxies mentioned above as they exist today, we are seeing them as they were billions of years ago. Because of the great distances involved and the speed of light, we are looking back in time, when the universe was relatively young.
Does that boggle the mind, or what?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
From what I am able to discern, the Big Bang Theories have three hypothetical beings or entities.
The First one has been addressed, the Second and Third have not been addressed recently. They may have been addressed but this thread has moved really fast and I have not been able to keep up with it.
First, the dark energy field
Second, non-baryonic (dark matter)
Third, the inflation field
Also, from what I am able to discern, no evidence of these hypothetical beings have been observed.
Are some of these statements correct or incorrect? Or, are these still open to further investigatin?
Thanks!
The First one has been addressed, the Second and Third have not been addressed recently. They may have been addressed but this thread has moved really fast and I have not been able to keep up with it.
First, the dark energy field
Second, non-baryonic (dark matter)
Third, the inflation field
Also, from what I am able to discern, no evidence of these hypothetical beings have been observed.
Are some of these statements correct or incorrect? Or, are these still open to further investigatin?
Thanks!
C
ChadS
Guest
Jim, You are correct about dark matter. Any attempts by physicists and astronomers to measure it, either directly or indirectly, have not met with any success. From what I understand dark matter is theoretical in that it helps to explain where all the missing matter in the universe is, it accounts for what is perceived as a lack of matter that should be there, but isn’t. There are physicists that, however, do doubt that dark matter really exists and are working up models that count for the size of the universe without having to make use of dark matter.
ChadS
S
stenlis
Guest
In my previous post I tried to address all three of your points. I was talking both about dark energy (point 1) and dark matter (point 2)
I didn’t mention the third one though. The reason is, that as far as I can tell the term ‘inflation field’ is either used as a synonym to ‘dark energy’ or as a particular aspect of dark energy.
S
stenlis
Guest
Don’t want to sound arrogant, but nothing could be farther from truth. Dark matter has been observed indirectly since 1933. People seem to think that somebody was trying to come up with some theory and because hi equations did not match, he threw in some theoretical ‘dark matter’ mathematical mumbo-jumbo to make up for it. This is not the case.
It’s actually the other way around. People have been observing gravitational effects without any apparent source for them. It’s not that there was something black that could not be recognized against a black background - it’s ‘see through’.
There is something both inside galaxies and in intergalactic space that does not give out any kind of energy (light, radio…), nor does it absorb energy - the only thing it does is exerting a gravitational field. We don’t know what it is, but we call it ‘dark matter’.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter for information about observational evidence.
See home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm for some recent development in the study of dark matter.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
stenlis and ChadS
I want to thank both of you.
I am reading and studying many different schools of thought.
This is most interesting.
Again, thanks to both of you.
The complexities of these issues ar too much for me as of now.
Thanks!
I want to thank both of you.
I am reading and studying many different schools of thought.
This is most interesting.
Again, thanks to both of you.
The complexities of these issues ar too much for me as of now.
Thanks!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
At a conference I was corrected by a cosmologist: I said 13.7 billion years; he said “Actually it’s 13.715 years.”
R
ricmat
Guest
Here’s an article which also talks about dark matter (and redshift as well…a bonus).
The effect you talk about above is not necessarily due to gravity. How do you know that it’s a gravitational effect? What you are observing is the current position of stars and galaxies.
Dark matter and dark energy have indeed been invented as concepts, with very unique and “as yet never seen before” properties to explain those observations. And no one, ever, has ever had a direct interaction with a particle of dark matter.
Look at the pictures of the cosmos we get from the Hubble, and other telescopes. There are bottle shaped nebula that we are told is being caused by an “explosion” of a star. Meanwhile, in the lab, a smaller version of the same shape can be constructed by passing electricity through a plasma. Explosions don’t cause order. But electrical currents can. But…most cosmologists insist that gravity explains everything and refuse to look at the obvious solution which CAN (unlike dark stuff) be duplicated in the lab.
R
ricmat
Guest
The correct answer is “13.715 billion years, until we find out that it’s not the right answer either.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Our knowledge is asymptotic.
R
ricmat
Guest
Your faith is strong.
C
ChadS
Guest
I just glanced over the Wikipedia article and in the first paragraph it says it is a “conjectured” form of matter that is “undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation” and whose existence can only be “inferred.” The “indirect” observation is a way to explain variations in the movements and gravitational fields of galaxies and galaxy clusters. I realize that dark matter isn’t some physicists mumbo-jumbo that was made up to plug in gaps, yet other attempts to describe it have had to rely on hypothetical entities like axions and isn’t made up of atoms.
Yes there are other explanations out there to explain the gravitational anomalies that are seen, but they aren’t as popular as dark matter. Yet, all we’re left with so far is indirect observations and failed attempts at direct observations.
I will still let physicists do what they do and hope that the dark matter issue can be sorted out once and for all.
ChadS
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, both are true.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Neutrinos are undetectable by electromagnetic radiation. Are neutrinos and dark matter in the same category of certainty as regards their existence?
- Status