JEROME - Life and Linear Time

JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim that BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature. As we can plainly see the estimates were varied, inconsistent, and inexact.
Click to expand...
I an not a science historian but as far as I can see from the history of the papers published the sequence was that BBT predicted a CMB. Then various people produced estimates of the temperature of the background radiation of the universe.

The estimates were of course "varied, inconsistent, and inexact" beacuse they were estimates based on "varied, inconsistent, and inexact" data.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
How were the estimates of the age of the universe derived?
Click to expand...
I don't know and it does not matter.

PS. This topic was introduced by a posting with the statement "They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have." This is only partially correct. A better statement would be:
"They've discovered the CBR as predicted by BBT. Its temperature and power spectrum are exactly matched by BBT models"
 
Last edited:
Do you stand by what you said in this post, Jerome? Or do you admit you were wrong?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.


As such observed anisotropies contridicts this.

Here you have failed.


You have confused fission with fusion.

Here you have failed.


You are in dispute with science. T=0 according to the Big Bang violates physics and math.

Here you have failed.


Really? The BBT started with the observation that distant galaxies are moving away from us. How many galaxies were we aware of in 1929?

Here you have failed.


You may try again if you like.:)
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
I don't know and it does not matter.
Click to expand...

Speaking very roughly: you look at lots of galaxies, observe that their recession velocity is linear in their distance from us, and determine the constant of proportionality (so v = H d, where v is velocity and d is distance). Then the age of the universe is approximately 1/H.

There are many reasons why that's not exact, but it tells you at least the order of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
That would make sense, except no one (outside your own head, maybe) made that claim.
Click to expand...
Actually, I did, although it wasn't what I meant to say. I meant to say that it was exactly "where" it was predicted to be, i.e. a blackbody spectrum a few degrees above absolute zero. I apologise, the claim, as I typed it, is completely wrong.
 
sol invictus said:
Do you stand by what you said in this post, Jerome? Or do you admit you were wrong?
Click to expand...

Fundamentally? I very much doubt it. Jerome's claims have less to do with actual evidence and knowledge than with creating a self-identity as the maverick who is more clever than others. He sees himself as "the one who isn't fooled" and he wishes to demonstrate this to everyone. It's a personality trait that is really quite common in the CT sub-forum.
 
wollery said:
Actually, I did, although it wasn't what I meant to say. I meant to say that it was exactly "where" it was predicted to be, i.e. a blackbody spectrum a few degrees above absolute zero. I apologise, the claim, as I typed it, is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

As wrong as confusing fission and fusion?
 
How about this?

JEROME, in order to have a meaningful conversation (or discussion), the participants need to have a certain minimal mutual agreement on the meaning of key words and phrases used in that discussion.

One that is central to this thread (perhaps not the only one) is "evidence".

If what you mean by "evidence" is different, perhaps radically different, from what everyone else means by the word, then we will be talking past each other, won't we?

Another example might be "fusion".

JEROME, would you please take the time to define what you mean by "evidence"?

Would you please take a specific, concrete example from astronomy (or cosmology), and walk us through how it is "evidence", per your understanding of the word? This must be a positive example (this is evidence, in astronomy, for that) not a negative one (this is not evidence, in astronomy).

Thank you.
 
Molinaro said:
Jerome, I've seen you make this point in other threads and I answered it. And you keep on going ignoring the answer!


The wrong estimates were wrong because they had the age of the universe wrong. Plug the correct value of the age of the universe into those older predictions of the CMB temp and you get the right temp. The estimated age of the universe has varied as new evidence and observations rolled in. As the predicted age varied (up and down), so did the predicted CMB temp.
Click to expand...

Hence the BBT did not make a correct prediction and as such claiming that this correct prediction is evidence of its validity is false.


Feeling :boxedin:?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
PS. This topic was introduced by a posting with the statement "They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have." This is only partially correct. A better statement would be:
"They've discovered the CBR as predicted by BBT. Its temperature and power spectrum are exactly matched by BBT models"
Click to expand...


Did not other theories also predict CBR with a more accurate description of the temperature?


How is it that BBT claims as evidence of its prediction powers something which was more accuratly predicted by other theories?
 
At T0, time is undefined. So as we look back in time, we can never see the T0 point. This is asymptotic, not the same as being "infinite." Only the rate of change approaches infinity. (or 1/infinity). The interval approaches 0, but never gets there. T0 is a limit and is therefore not defined.

This puts me in mind of similar issues reganding "eternal life." If a process has a finite starting point, it cannot be "eternal." (Assuming "eternal" means existing at all times.)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.
Click to expand...
You, once again, are dodging the issue.


PS Are you going to "man up" and admit that you made a mistake and confused fission and fusion?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are presenting once again that you have little knowledge of your strongly held beliefs.
Click to expand...

Then educate me. What are the other "theories" for the source of cosmic background radiation?

Given that you can't tell the difference between fission and fusion, this should be good for a laugh.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom