You then claimed that the proposition that the surface of last scattering is a sphere (a thing that is not *observed, *but is a conclusion that arises as a logical consequence of a) that the CMB is detected in all directions and b) that decoupling occurred simultaneously throughout the universe) could be evidence for a smaller universe with earth at its centre.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. You are grasping at straws. There is absolutely no reason to think that we are seeing the ‘edge’ of a smaller universe. Why on earth would the ‘edge’ of the universe glow with a perfect black body spectrum at 2.7 degrees Kelvin? Why would it display the anisotropy measured by WMAP, BOOMERANG and MAXIMA? Did you know that the structure of the anisotropy was predicted before it was measured based on the inflation theory of the early universe: quantum fluctuations driving acoustic osillations in the photon-baryon plasma of the early universe resulting in density fluctuations at decoupling which in turn led to temperature fluctuations in the CMB (as a result of that pesky Sachs-Wolfe effect). Calculations predicted the first peak in the spectrum at multipole l=220 and a characteristic angular scale of 0.6 degrees which is precisely what was measured. Now remind me again how your smaller universe idea explains the CMB and the anisotropy of the CMB ? Did you know that there are other considerations that constrain the universe to a minimum of 11- 12 billion years?
No, but there are repeatable experiemts that can be done to detect, manipulate, etc. electrons. Of course electrons exist.
I agree there are multiple observations for which dark matter offers an explanation. I see dark matter as one of many manifestations of bringing the “aether” back. Nothing wrong with that. Geocentric theory tends to be based on an aether universe.
a) dark matter is an aether. In the 19th century and before, aether was thought to be distributed everywhere. Aether was than jettisoned. Now it is being brought back in a number of forms.
You are catching on! It isn’t that compicated is it.
Again, I was using the quote as an illustration for the difference between an observation and theory.
Of course it’s not the only *possible *hypothesis, but it’s the only hypothesis that we have which fits what we see. It is in fact, at the moment, the only credible game in town.
Robert has never done an iota of research in his life. His knowledge of science is sadly lacking (he doesn’t even understand the definition of a local inertial frame, which disqualifies him from making any credible comment on the physics of gravitation and inertia). You follow his lead exactly in all respects, even down to talking about the ‘Einstein co-equivalence principle’, a phrase that no-one else on earth uses, and the absurd idea that the ‘rotating universe’ stabilises the earth at its centre. It’s not advisable to learn your ‘physics’ from Robert.
I’ll hold you to that in a moment.
Really? Here’s your chance to demonstrate that you back up what you say with references to credible science.hecd2:
I have seen estimates that 2.7 Deg. K is the Black Body temperature of Planck particles (i.e., a candidate aether component).
Really? Why’s that? I thought it all hinged on GR gravitomagnetics.
Really!!! - the best scientists don’t know for certain what dark matter is but you do. Hmmm. It’s a funny aether that has mass, gravitationally attracts ordinary matter and that clumps. Perhaps you meant dark energy. Or the Higgs field.
I see where you are going with this. The Planck Temperature is 1.4 X 10^32 K. I cannot find the source for this statement, though I know I saw something related to aether and (possibly) retransmitted radiation at this temperature. I found this document with alternate explanations of the 2.7 K, but it did not mention aether theories.
Once again, what I said at the beginning fo this thread (and thus we could interpret as the subject thereof) is:
When I say it is an aether, I mean philosophically. Aether (Ether) has been hypothesized for centuries, and though some experiments may be interpreted as having detected it, it is pretty much elusive. It is something needed to fulfill our theories and understanding of physics, i.e., it is something which we hypothesize must exist, yet unlike say, electrons, it is something we do not have a strong understanding of.
It is difficult to measure something we cannot detect. That is why it [Planck particles] is theoretical. We can discern features near the size of an electron because we can manipulate electrons. We have yet to figure out how to manipulate Planck particles.
Aether is something *you *hypothesise must exist. Please do not use the ‘we’ word here. So you think dark matter is an aether, philosophically speaking. I thought we were engaged in a scientific not a philosophical discussion. And dark matter is nothing like any aether that’s ever been hypothesised: the hypothetical aether doesn’t attract ordinary matter gravitationally, have mass, or clump together non-uniformly in the cosmos. And we don’t think dark matter is there to ‘fulfill our theories and understanding of physics’, but to explain the plain evidence of our eyes.
Since you are setting yourself up in opposition to serious science, you should really know that the existence of dark matter does *not *depend on the Big Bang, since it is required by our observations of the current universe not the past universe (remember those four pieces of evidence I gave you for the existence of dark matter - not one of them is a consequence of or required by the Big Bang).
What on earth are you talking about? We don’t know how big the universe is, so how can we know its mass to one part in 10^55? Its mass lies between 10^55 kg and infinity.
We have yet to observe Planck particles directly or indirectly. They are entirely hypothetical entities.
I won’t hold my breath. This comes as no surprise. How did I know that you weren’t going to be able to find that credible reference? Aren’t you just a little ashamed to make a claim like this which turns out, inevitably, to be your own fantastical idea?
You are right what I was talking about is not the estimated temperature of a Planck particle (which is >>>> than 2.7 K). I have recently reviewed, “AETHEREAL MECHANICS”, Karim A. Khaidarov,Dec. 2004 (and other papers located here) (bourabai.narod.ru/mechanics-e.htm), where he states:
.
He actually has done an extensive amount of research on this topic. This should be clear when his book, “Galileo Was Wrong” comes out this year.