A few miscellaneous thoughts about the imminent demise of Big Bang Theory:

Started by Rift Zone, March 19, 2018, 09:20:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

At least Albert backed up most of his ideas with maths, the others were based on sound principles of physocs until proven, by others who took them seriously, by subjective observation. He dud not publish his thoughts until he had suffucient evidence. Evidence ribust enough that others could inspect it and come to valid conclusions on.

So far, RZ,  from you we have seen only words and outrageous claims with nothing to back them up up. I admit that could not handle the maths but would still like to see supporting evidence.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Rift Zone

That's the thing about Einstein, he payed attention to things in the universe no one cared to pay much attenttion to, developed some understanding of how those notions fit together, and then committed his understanding to math and published.   I'm not trying to "publish" here, I'm just sharing some of my notes, sharing the premises i found, as well where it all leads.   The truth is he's a hero and I'm a dick only because he has notoriety.    After he published the special theory of relativity, Einstein dealt with the same crap you now give me, for 4 years straight!   -A couple of serious inquiries into the theory maybe, but mostly fools who thought they know something.  4 YEARS later, the only person bright enough to know any better comes across it: Max Planck.    At that point Einstein was a hero, not before.   Don't worry yall!    I know how you humans work, you don't want thoughtful people pointing out how it takes only one observation to discount any theory, indeed every theory.   You don't want to hear sound arguments that definitively disclude what you think you know.  No, you want someone with notoriety telling you what is...    I'll get back to you on that real soon.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.

You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.

If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.

I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Dave

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.

You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.

If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.

Very well said, Silver.

I think I will steal that spand place it in my file of Good Stuff! (Due accreditation will be given if used elsewhere.)
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PM
private definitions?

Very much so.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMCome now Recusant, show a little respect for my scientific rigor...

Certainly. The moment you begin to display some.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMIt does, after all, demonstrate adherence to physical reality better than anything else you ever seen.

Are you referring to your personal version of the discredited "plasma universe" hypothesis?  You have yet to demonstrate its validity in any coherent manner. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMBlindly lashing out on things you don't understand may not serve you well.

Your puerile chest-thumping is becoming tedious, and certainly doesn't serve you well. Perhaps some who disagree with you do so out of a lack of understanding, but that doesn't exhaust the possible options. 

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:06:08 PMminute 32 has the answers you seek.

Thank you for citing the time-stamp. That's more than people who cite YouTube as a source usually do.

That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.

At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Rift Zone

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.

You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.

If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?   

My apologies.   I feel as though I have made it very clear that I welcome scientific discourse and would love to share notes with you all.   However, I call upon admin to kindly review Davin's approach to this discourse.    It does not serve a community founded upon justified knowledge of physical reality to have a science section that is being terrorized by an entity who is clearly not interested in the science presented.    If such a thing is found here, I ask admin make efforts to create an environment more conducive to critical thought.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dave on March 21, 2018, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.

You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.

If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.

Very well said, Silver.

I think I will steal that spand place it in my file of Good Stuff! (Due accreditation will be given if used elsewhere.)

:blush: I'm glad my post made it into your file of Good Stuff, Dave! :grin:

:P
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Rift Zone

Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 10:20:29 PM

That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.

At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
I know what it will take to challenge current paradigm, don't you worry about that none.   You wanted to see other predictions for background, you got a whole pile of them... the integrity of the vid is irrelevant.  You have your list of predictions and you may verify them independently if you wish.   Um, what?   why would it be dismissed?   of course there will be such backgound in a big bang type of universe.   But the value is 3k, not the 50k BBT predicted.    (they have since adjusted the theory to match observation).    and talking down on a theory you're not qualified to evaluate does not alter its validity or when it will take over mainstream  ;)
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.

You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.

If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?   

My apologies.   I feel as though I have made it very clear that I welcome scientific discourse and would love to share notes with you all.   However, I call upon admin to kindly review Davin's approach to this discourse.    It does not serve a community founded upon justified knowledge of physical reality to have a science section that is being terrorized by an entity who is clearly not interested in the science presented.    If such a thing is found here, I ask admin make efforts to create an environment more conducive to critical thought.

Very well, I've brought this thread to the attention of the staff. 

In the meantime, just keep your cool. It's not a warning, just a suggestion. Even if you can't control another's response to your ideas you can try to better control your own.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Rift Zone

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

I suggest you do not post while you're angry. It does not add anything to this discussion.

You may believe that you are in a sea of 'mediocre minds', but that is not the case. We skeptics are naturally a tough bunch to convince, even if probably none among us fully understand QM, plasma physics and the like, but you can still take value from input you find here, even if you don't want to accept it.

If you're planning in the future to convince physicists who specialise in the field, that's what peer review is for. If the idea is to convince the layperson, then you really should learn how to write for that audience. Insulting and lashing out against your critics will get you no where, in fact, it'll only cause people to lose even more respect for your ideas.
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?   

My apologies.   I feel as though I have made it very clear that I welcome scientific discourse and would love to share notes with you all.   However, I call upon admin to kindly review Davin's approach to this discourse.    It does not serve a community founded upon justified knowledge of physical reality to have a science section that is being terrorized by an entity who is clearly not interested in the science presented.    If such a thing is found here, I ask admin make efforts to create an environment more conducive to critical thought.

Very well, I've brought this thread to the attention of the staff. 

In the meantime, just keep your cool. It's not a warning, just a suggestion. Even if you can't control another's response to your ideas you can try to better control your own.
Yes, ma'am.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Recusant

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 10:20:29 PM

That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.

At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
I know what it will take to challenge current paradigm, don't you worry about that none.   You wanted to see other predictions for background, you got a whole pile of them... the integrity of the vid is irrelevant.  You have your list of predictions and you may verify them independently if you wish.   Um, what?   why would it be dismissed?   of course there will be such backgound in a big bang type of universe.   But the value is 3k, not the 50k BBT predicted.    (they have since adjusted the theory to match observation).    and talking down on a theory you're not qualified to evaluate does not alter its validity or when it will take over mainstream  ;)

In fact Alpher, Herman, and Gamow initially estimated that the CMB would be about 5 Kelvin, not "50k."

My apologies for misspelling Alpher's name in my previous posts. That didn't help matters.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Rift Zone

Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:34:31 PM
Quote from: Recusant on March 21, 2018, 10:20:29 PM

That video is not a source I would be willing to rely on, and its assertions regarding previous hypotheses are of questionable value. If you want to challenge current cosmology and the significance of Apher's work, you will have to show that any of these hypotheses (or your own) are a superior explanation of the observations.

At any rate, the video does not appear to have demonstrated that Apher's hypothesis regarding residual radiation from an earlier period of the universe's existence should be dismissed. Certainly you have not done so here. Perhaps the "Big Bang" theory will eventually be successfully challenged but if you intend to do that I'll just note that citing YouTube videos will not achieve your aim.
I know what it will take to challenge current paradigm, don't you worry about that none.   You wanted to see other predictions for background, you got a whole pile of them... the integrity of the vid is irrelevant.  You have your list of predictions and you may verify them independently if you wish.   Um, what?   why would it be dismissed?   of course there will be such backgound in a big bang type of universe.   But the value is 3k, not the 50k BBT predicted.    (they have since adjusted the theory to match observation).    and talking down on a theory you're not qualified to evaluate does not alter its validity or when it will take over mainstream  ;)

In fact Alpher, Herman, and Gamow initially estimated that the CMB would be about 5 Kelvin, not "50k."

My apologies for misspelling Alpher's name in my previous posts. That didn't help matters.
oh, yes, of course.   the original is at 5 k.   of course that iteration of the the theory was like, the original, potentially before inflation, dark matter and allllllll sorts of stuff. at any rate, a lot has changed within the theory since then. It remains that the value BBT held when the first findings were released was 50k.      no worries, i'm a terrible speller, never bothers me when it see it in other text.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Magdalena

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:36:49 PM
I suppose everyone needs a pet...   just wish it were better house trained.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
...all up in my mix, humping my leg, clearly has no life otherwise, follows me around every moment...    that's a good boy.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
I know he's a friend of all you guys but seriously, can you put a muzzle on him on already?   

Ugly.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Recusant

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:18:22 PMoh, yes, of course.   the original is at 5 k.   of course that iteration of the the theory was like, the original, potentially before inflation, dark matter and allllllll sorts of stuff. at any rate, a lot has changed within the theory since then.

Revisions to scientific ideas do not invalidate those ideas. All challenges to the essential theory so far have failed.

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 21, 2018, 11:18:22 PMIt remains that the value BBT held when the first findings were released was 50k.

Perhaps you could cite sources when you make statements like that. I can find nothing supporting your claim. What I have found is that 50 Kelvin was the upper limit of estimates.

QuoteAlpher and Herman's prediction of a 5 Kelvin background contained no suggestion of its detectability with available technology and had little impact. Over the next decade, George Gamow and collaborators, including Alpher and Herman, made a variety of estimates of the background temperature which fluctuated between 3 and 50 Kelvin (e.g. Gamow 1956).

[source]
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Rift Zone

Quote from: Magdalena on March 21, 2018, 11:39:32 PM
Ugly.
=(   Sigh....    guilty as charged.

Ya know if I'm wrong, great, we all know RZ is indeed seriously batshit crazy and you can celebrate your victory.    If i'm right, then it don't mean shit till i publish the math and it takes it's place as a respected theory in a respected manner.   but for now, it's just something that shows promise, not exactly ready for you to fully endorse, so chill, i'm not selling nothing.   And we're never gonna know anything about anything if we constantly bicker among ourselves.   Let's harass mother nature...  She's the one who really knows what's up. 
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan