The Big Bang - Woo or not?

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz: There is a Wikipedia article on the Tolman Surface Brightness Test if you don't want to read through the papers. In a static universe the exponent for (1+z) is zero and in a simple expanding universe the exponent is 4. Experimentally the exponent is 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band. This is evidence for a complex expanding universe.
Thus Lerner is lying or ignorant. There is no date on his web page other than that his book was published in 1991.

You trust Wikipedia for your information? That page is probably just as biased and under as tight a moderation as the amazingly inaccurate and disparaging plasma cosmology page there. Lets just say that the scientific admins at wiki dont look kindly on any theory that challenges their personal preference.

Lerner is neither lying or ignorant. He has used all the available data and compared it with what the Big Bang predicts. The paper should be available soon, he only just presented it a few days ago at the CCC2 conference.

http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-1.htm

We perform the Tolman surface-brightness test for the expansion of the universe using a large UV dataset of disk galaxies in a wide range of redshifts (from 0.03 to 5.7). We compared the data to the predictions of the concordance-cosmology, expanding-universe model and to those of a simple, Euclidean non-expanding model where the distance is given by d=cz/H0. The data is completely inconsistent at a 12 sigmalevel with the LCDM expanding universe model, using the widely-accepted predicted evolution of galaxy size (R= r0/ H (z)). . By contrast, the data are consistent at a 7 % level with the prediction of the non-expanding model.

Did anyone attend this conference over the last few days? It looks like they covered some really interesteing topics http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/schedule.htm Though, the timings kinda ironic with the LHC and everything.

 

[Fredrik]

Scientists never said something came from nothing. That is a stupid uneducated assumption on the part of the creationist.

I agree with the last part, and I would have assumed the first to be true as well, until I saw the beginning of a really bad BBC documentary the other day. It was called "The big bang machine". The narrator was an experimental physicist who's working on the LHC. This is what he said:

"In the beginning, there was nothing. (The picture is black here). No space, no time. Just endless...nothing. (Now they're showing sparks). Then, 13.7 billion years ago, from nothing (now they're showing an explosion with a huge fireball), came everything. The universe exploded into existence."

I found it pretty annoying that he started by making claims about something before the big bang (a concept that it may not even be possible to make sense of).

I couldn't stand watching the whole documentary. It was so bad I had to turn it off.

 

[bigred]

this just about sums up what wrong with the Big Bang. No matter what new evidence is found, the theory is never falsified, it merely 'changes and grows' and gets tweaked to explain away any falsifying observations.

With this approach the Big Bang theory can never be falsified. Observations are just fitted in with ad hoc explanations no matter what. The theory just gets more and more complex, more and more epicycles are added to explain conflicting observations; the same approach that lead to the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the universe. This develops myth, not science. The Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in this regard.

To slightly reword your statement:

A theory that changes and grows as new evidence accumulates that contradicts the original theory:

Definately woo.

I dont think the big bang is woo.

 

[Reality Check]

You trust Wikipedia for your information? That page is probably just as biased and under as tight a moderation as the amazingly inaccurate and disparaging plasma cosmology page there. Lets just say that the scientific admins at wiki dont look kindly on any theory that challenges their personal preference.

I am saying that if you are too lazy to read the papers then you can read the Wikipedia article which summerizes and has references to the papers.

Lerner is neither lying or ignorant. He has used all the available data and compared it with what the Big Bang predicts. The paper should be available soon, he only just presented it a few days ago at the CCC2 conference.

http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-1.htm

Did anyone attend this conference over the last few days? It looks like they covered some really interesteing topics http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/schedule.htm Though, the timings kinda ironic with the LHC and everything.

Lerner's "We perform the Tolman surface-brightness test for the expansion of the universe using a large UV dataset of disk galaxies in a wide range of redshifts" presentation at a conference is interesting. I assume that this is based on his Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF presentation at the first CCC conference. However conference presentations are not as trustworthy as peer-reviewed papers. It is a little disturbing that he has not had it published in a journal in the last 3 years.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

What a post! How many logical fallaices here I wonder? I wish I was a psychologist, theres probably a good reason for this type of reaction, but i'm completely baffled.

Could you name the logical fallacies I have committed?

Alex grey is a bloody amazing artist. He may be a total hippy and as you say be 'way out there', but his art is beyond reproach. Most artists are mad. Especially the good ones.

Come back and critisise him when you can draw art by hand like this:

Except I wasn't criticizing his artistic abilities which I agree are mind blowing.

If I had one of van goughs pictures as my avatar I suppose we could dismiss everything I say as this obviously means that I'm a van gough lover, and van gough was a complete nutter, who was severely mentally ill and cut his own ear lobe off. What sort of warped reasoning is this? Jeez.

It would have been fallacious reasoning had I said "you like Alex Grey, therefore you're a woo." However, the fact that you made a thread about the Big Bang Theory being woo and your avatar is an Alex Grey drawing, one would have to make the underlying connection behind you making such a thread, which is exactly what I did. So it is not fallacious of me to question your underlying foundation.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm not equating the big bang with the rest of modern physics. Other people often do that for me. People frquently say "the nuclear cycle and age of stars proves the Big Bang, blah, blah", and I merely point out that there are alternatives for our interpretation of stellar age, and also that stars fuel source doesn't have to be finite when other considerations I have discussed at great length here are taken into account.

Erm. I just looked at the first two articles. They in no way suggest the Sun could have a non-finite lifetime!

There are a few aspects that of course dont make sense if the Big Bang turns out wrong and would have to be changed or replaced, like primordial nucleosynthesis, baryogenesis, etc. The only aspect of the standard model that would really need to be changed are BBN and the orgins of the elements and the respective abundances we see of each. And alternative models for element production without a big bang do exist, just not many people pay any attention to them.

Zeuzzz, a few weeks ago you tried to fob us off with a few terrible websites when it was pointed out to you that neutrinos disprove electric sun theories. One of these websites denied the existence of anti-matter! If this website were to be proved true (hint: it won't) that would be the end of the Standard model. So... does this website still have the Zeuzzz seal of approval?

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, lets go there.

What about this then. The dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics (conservation of energy). This is surely something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Is this another area where the Big Bang is different to every other scientific theory?

How does it violate the laws of conservation, it might exist (note the might I will drop that words for ease of clarity), the theory does not say that it appears ex nihilio, it does not say that it comes into existance and out of existance without other energy being changed. It is hypothesized to come in a number of forms, all of which have itr either there are the start or a transformation of some other energy.

So what do you think you are talking about, the BBE is not ex nihilio, it is ex ingoratum... or ex occultum, it comes from 'something' as of yet that something we are ignorant of or it is 'hidden'/occluded.

 

[sol invictus]

The dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics (conservation of energy).

No it doesn't. Where did you get that wrong idea - from another crank site?

Is this another area where the Big Bang is different to every other scientific theory?

Nope.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Could you name the logical fallacies I have committed?

Guilt by assosiation with a picture.

How does it violate the laws of conservation, it might exist (note the might I will drop that words for ease of clarity), the theory does not say that it appears ex nihilio, it does not say that it comes into existance and out of existance without other energy being changed. It is hypothesized to come in a number of forms, all of which have itr either there are the start or a transformation of some other energy.

So what do you think you are talking about, the BBE is not ex nihilio, it is ex ingoratum... or ex occultum, it comes from 'something' as of yet that something we are ignorant of or it is 'hidden'/occluded.

I was talking about the dark energy field, the so called 'acceleration of the expansion', which is still creating energy out of nothingness at a vast rate to this day and supposedly makes up 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. Acceleration requires energy input, doesn't matter if you sidestep the issue by putting in a field theory explanation. And I think i'm correct in saying that the Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in respect to violating this law on an ongoing basis.

Erm. I just looked at the first two articles. They in no way suggest the Sun could have a non-finite lifetime!

This is like groundhog day.

Well, for those capable of putting two and two together its quite obvious what they all imply. Its obviously not likely going to be an infinite lifetime, as such, but taking these considerations into account could be much, much, longer than our current theories predict. Here, i'll give you a hand:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/11/21/solar.gas/index.html

In defiance of expectations, clouds of solar gas have been observed falling back into the sun. The puzzling behavior could shed light on the mysterious magnetism of the sun, which helps protect planet Earth from lethal cosmic rays.

SOLAR CURRENT FEEDBACK M.A. Vukcevic MSc

The Sun is the generator of the heliospheric current made of charged particles, sometimes referred as the Alfvén's current, which extends to the limits of the heliosphere and forms a closed circuit.

Part of the heliospheric current circuit adjacent to the Sun is shown below. Horizontal thick lines show the closure of the radial component of the heliospheric electric current. The strength of the current is estimated to be in order of some 10⁹ Amperes. It flows in three-dimensional plane (known as the heliospheric current sheet) originating from polar regions through to the outer reaches of the heliosphere and its return leg is through the Sun’s equatorial plane closes the circuit.

MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet

The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is 3 x 10⁹ A. The only way to fulfil the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of field- aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as 4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is 5 x 10^-6 T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. [....]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l915153937884503/

We present new observational data on the phenomena of extremely high activity on the Sun and in the heliosphere that took place in October–November 2003. [..] As a result of our consideration, it is beyond question that the physical causes of solar and heliospheric phenomena in October–November 2003 are not exclusively local and do not belong only to the active regions and solar atmosphere above them. The energy reservoirs and driving forces of these processes have a more global nature. In general, they are hidden from an observer, since ultimately their sources lie in the subphotospheric layers of the Sun, where changes that are fast and difficult to predict can sometimes take place (and indeed they do). [...]

The other links seem to be down (they are on the same server) but they are all about the current travelling into the sun aswell.

Zeuzzz, a few weeks ago you tried to fob us off with a few terrible websites when it was pointed out to you that neutrinos disprove electric sun theories.

How? I dont expect what you think the electric sun theory is is actually it at all (hint: no, its nothing to do with high net charge on the sun, or high mass bodies being moved by E-fields)

One of these websites denied the existence of anti-matter!

Was this at all relevent to the ES idea?

If this website were to be proved true (hint: it won't) that would be the end of the Standard model. So... does this website still have the Zeuzzz seal of approval?

Not every website I link to has the Zeuzzz seal of approval. There may be a specific point made I agree with which is why i link to it, but I dont have to agree with everything.

And anyway, to gain the Zeuzzz seal of approval on your website you have to send me £5 by paypal, so I doubt this site was genuinly approved by me.

 

[sol invictus]

I was talking about the dark energy field, the so called 'acceleration of the expansion', which is still creating energy out of nothingness at a vast rate to this day and supposedly makes up 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. Acceleration requires energy input. And I think i'm correct in saying that the Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in respect to violating this law on an ongoing basis.

No, you're completely wrong, as always.

I put a ball on an incline, and it spontaneously starts to roll. Without me doing anything! Spontaneous violation of conservation of energy!! Physics is all wrong!!!

If you understand what's wrong with that (which I doubt, even though it's obvious) you'll understand what's wrong with your claim about dark energy.

 

[Dancing David]

Guilt by assosiation with a picture.






I was talking about the dark energy field, the so called 'acceleration of the expansion', which is still creating energy out of nothingness at a vast rate to this day and supposedly makes up 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. Acceleration requires energy input, doesn't matter if you sidestep the issue by putting in a field theory explanation. And I think i'm correct in saying that the Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in respect to violating this law on an ongoing basis.





.

Uh huh, so when two particles repel each other due to EM that violates the laws of physics.

Right Zeuzz?

Or attraction due to a gravitational filed?

Right Zeuzzz?

Please explain where you get these ideas and how this applies to dark energy?

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, you're completely wrong, as always.

I put a ball on an incline, and it spontaneously starts to roll. Without me doing anything! Spontaneous violation of conservation of energy!! Physics is all wrong!!!

If you understand what's wrong with that (which I doubt, even though it's obvious) you'll understand what's wrong with your claim about dark energy.

See my edit above. Which I did a while ago, before you commented. Actually exactly the same time.

 

[sol invictus]

See my edit above. Which I did a while ago, before you commented. Actually exactly the same time.

Your edited comment is just as wrong as the original version. Field theory has nothing to do with this.

You are aware, are you not, that if the universe had no dark energy component it would nevertheless be accelerating? Do you think that would also violate conservation of energy?

 

[Tubbythin]

This is like groundhog day.

Indeed it is. Why? Because you keep repeating the same debunked theories. If its like groundhog day you have nobody to blame but yourself.

How? I dont expect what you think the electric sun theory is is actually it at all (hint: no, its nothing to do with high net charge on the sun, or high mass bodies being moved by E-fields)

Neutrinos cannot be explained by electric sun theories. Ergo, electric Sun theories are false.

Was this at all relevent to the ES idea?

Any scientific theory that dismisses the existence of antimatter is woo. Do you have any idea how much evidence there is for it? Thus, any website promotes such theories is woo. So you were using a woo site to defend your electric sun theory. And you want to be taken seriously?

Not every website I link to has the Zeuzzz seal of approval. There may be a specific point made I agree with which is why i link to it, but I dont have to agree with everything.

So you're quite happy to link to woo sites if they support you're claim?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Indeed it is. Why? Because you keep repeating the same debunked theories. If its like groundhog day you have nobody to blame but yourself.

You haven't debunked anything! A few flippant comments here and there, falsely presuming that everything that I post is somehow an accepted part of the electric star theory, and thats about it.

Lets start then with the main aspect of the various ES models then, the heliospheric current circuit, which I posted loads of links to above, in which the current of billions of amps flows into the sun from the surrounding heliosphere and ISM, which is a direct consequence of the properties of the (somewhat better known) heliospheric current sheet. To quote from the main wiki page (as much as i hate doing that): The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the circuit being closed by outward currents aligned with the Sun's magnetic field in the solar polar regions. The total current in the circuit is on the order of 3×10⁹ amperes.[4] As a comparison with other astrophysical electric currents, the Birkeland currents that supply the Earth's aurora are about a thousand times weaker at a million amperes. The maximum current density in the sheet is on the order of 10^-10 A/m² (10^-4 A/km²). How have you addressed or debunked that?



You have a tendency of doing this a lot. What, specifically, has been debunked? And dont just say "The electric sun theory", thats not specific! Supposition without without supporting evidence is still supposition.

Neutrinos cannot be explained by electric sun theories. Ergo, electric Sun theories are false.

And why not? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of particle physics interactions knows neutrino's aren't exactly the hardest things to create. Infact its extremely rare for particle interaction (pair productions, annihilation, etc) not to create neutrinos or the associated anti neutrino's of some type/flavour to conserve lepton number, or some other group. All types of nuclear fusion create neutrino's, it doesn't have to be gravitationally confined fusion at the core to produce neutrino's.

We're not in the 1950's, many, many completely different methods for fusion have now been established, it doesn't have to be the usual straight nuclear fusion hypothesised in the sun and stars. Z-pinch fusion, Magnetic confinement fusion, IEC fusion, Focus fusion, Dense plasma focus fusion, Perodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere fusion (POPS), Polywell concept fusion, all of which produce neutrinos, and plenty of them. I dont have a clue what electric sun model your thinking of (maybe the electric star model using ohmic dissipation to power them propsed for binary systems?), but there are many and you have to be much more specific.

Any scientific theory that dismisses the existence of antimatter is woo.

I totally agree.

Do you have any idea how much evidence there is for it?

Pretty much every piece of experimental evidence that has ever been performed with particles. Annihilation is a very basic and well documented element of particle physics, and without antiparticles wouldn't make much sense at all.

Thus, any website promotes such theories is woo.

No. The statement that there is no such things as an antiparticle is woo. The rest of website could be fine (as long as its not based on this erroneous idea). I cant even remember what website this was or why I linked to it, I certainly would not agree with that aspect.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Assuming that Z has decided to view posts by DRD ...

Z, your stuff about the Sun and electric currents is, no doubt, interesting.

However, what it has to do with any electric currents 'powering' the Sun is not at all obvious, from what you have posted.

Here's why: none of the material you posted even hints at claiming that the currents are responsible for more than a trivial fraction of the observed, constant (a.k.a. baseline) energy output of the Sun (caveat: the crackpot website that one of your links takes you to aside).

Further, it's pretty hard to see how any could be such a cause, if only because they all are quite clear that the currents vary substantially over quite short timescales ... yet the Sun's energy output does not (again, with the caveat of the crackpot website source).

So, would you mind putting two and two together, for the benefit of the ignorant, slow dolts who read this thread?

Specifically, give a simple, back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that the observed currents (per the published papers) can produce energy outputs that match the observed power of the Sun?

Oh, and if you can't give such a simple calculation, would you be honest enough to say so?

 

[Tubbythin]

You haven't debunked anything! A few flippant comments here and there, falsely presuming that everything that I post is somehow an accepted part of the electric star theory, and thats about it.

Lets start then with the main aspect of the various ES models then, the heliospheric current circuit, which I posted loads of links to above, in which the current of billions of amps flows into the sun from the surrounding heliosphere and ISM, which is a direct consequence of the properties of the (somewhat better known) heliospheric current sheet. To quote from the main wiki page (as much as i hate doing that): The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the circuit being closed by outward currents aligned with the Sun's magnetic field in the solar polar regions. The total current in the circuit is on the order of 3×10⁹ amperes.[4] As a comparison with other astrophysical electric currents, the Birkeland currents that supply the Earth's aurora are about a thousand times weaker at a million amperes. The maximum current density in the sheet is on the order of 10^-10 A/m² (10^-4 A/km²). How have you addressed or debunked that?

And this powers the Sun how?

You have a tendency of doing this a lot. What, specifically, has been debunked? And dont just say "The electric sun theory", thats not specific! Supposition without without supporting evidence is still supposition.

Last time you tried to present ES stuff you were asked about neutrinos. The only way you could neutrinos into the model was to add surface fusion. Surface fusion is trivially false. Wanna have another go?

And why not? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of particle physics interactions knows neutrino's aren't exactly the hardest things to create. Infact its extremely rare for particle interaction (pair productions, annihilation, etc) not to create neutrinos or the associated anti neutrino's of some type/flavour to conserve lepton number, or some other group.

No it isn't.

All types of nuclear fusion create neutrino's, it doesn't have to be gravitationally confined fusion at the core to produce neutrino's.

But it has to be something in the core for other reasons.

We're not in the 1950's, many, many completely different methods for fusion have now been established, it doesn't have to be the usual straight nuclear fusion hypothesised in the sun and stars. Z-pinch fusion, Magnetic confinement fusion, IEC fusion, Focus fusion, Dense plasma focus fusion, Perodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere fusion (POPS), Polywell concept fusion, all of which produce neutrinos, and plenty of them.

And they're all synthetic. And no, they don't.

I dont have a clue what electric sun model your thinking of (maybe the electric star model using ohmic dissipation to power them propsed for binary systems?), but there are many and you have to be much more specific.

The ones you've linked to before.

No. The statement that there is no such things as an antiparticle is woo. The rest of website could be fine (as long as its not based on this erroneous idea). I cant even remember what website this was or why I linked to it, I certainly would not agree with that aspect.

It could be. It is, however, highly unlikely. I wouldn't, for example, get my particle physics knowledge from a website saying the LHC is going to destroy the Earth.

 

[Tubbythin]

Assuming that Z has decided to view posts by DRD ...

Z, your stuff about the Sun and electric currents is, no doubt, interesting.

However, what it has to do with any electric currents 'powering' the Sun is not at all obvious, from what you have posted.

Here's why: none of the material you posted even hints at claiming that the currents are responsible for more than a trivial fraction of the observed, constant (a.k.a. baseline) energy output of the Sun (caveat: the crackpot website that one of your links takes you to aside).

Further, it's pretty hard to see how any could be such a cause, if only because they all are quite clear that the currents vary substantially over quite short timescales ... yet the Sun's energy output does not (again, with the caveat of the crackpot website source).

So, would you mind putting two and two together, for the benefit of the ignorant, slow dolts who read this thread?

Specifically, give a simple, back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that the observed currents (per the published papers) can produce energy outputs that match the observed power of the Sun?

Oh, and if you can't give such a simple calculation, would you be honest enough to say so?

A very polite way of phrasing things DRD.

 

[Tubbythin]

By-the-by, I'm still interested to know what all this BBT based nuclear fusion power is all about.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Z: I just asked the question in the vain hope that other people that continually call viable alternatives like plasma cosmology woo would try to get the message that simply labelling a scientific theory as woo is not the way to do things. Its more a response to the similarily title thread about PC.

Readers who have been following along in the "PC - woo or not" thread will recognise this as yet another example of Z's blatant dishonesty.

In that thread, sol invictus wrote a really neat post summarising Z's behaviour, to the effect that when cornered Z runs away (rather than try to dig his way out); note that Z has run away from that thread too.

Now in that other thread, the conclusion that "Plasma Cosmology is the very definition of woo" came from material Z himself posted, more than once, and explicitly endorsed!

What is that magic material?

Why none other than a crystal clear declaration that, in PC, General Relativity (GR) is utterly verboten ... by fiat.

Yep, you read that right; not that GR can be ruled out by experiment or observation, but that a core assumption in PC is that it cannot be used to explain astronomical observations, ever!

So, dear reader, take good note of Z's disingenuousness ... "plasma cosmology" cannot be "a viable alternative", because it is, by its own definition, non-science.