Holes in Big Bang

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael. It does not work. You're stuck with a Newtonian concept of space and gravity, but it is incompatible with general relativity.

Baloney. Demonstrate it. I get the feeling that sol might be able to do that, but I seriously doubt you ever could, particularly since you can't even see the distinction between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and current metaphysical brands of "blunder" theory.

Then you think general relativity is wrong. Fine, but at least be honest about it.

There's nothing wrong with GR, but dark energy isn't GR. Get over it.

Yeah, um... no. That paper is crap.

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have a collider that creates bouncing universes? Wow.

It's all relative.

Your opinion about what general relativity predicts won't be changed by a mathematical demonstration and proof of what it predicts.

OK, Michael.

That depends on what you try to stuff into GR theory sol. If you can demonstrate your point without evoking a variation of blunder theory, I'll listen to reason.

 

[sol invictus]

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

That paper was discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4453645

Regardless, that discussion is not relevant. It doesn't matter what words you use to describe cosmological solutions to GR. The relevant point here is that no "bouncing" solutions of the type Alfven wanted are possible.

That depends on what you try to stuff into GR theory sol. If you can demonstrate your point without evoking a variation of blunder theory, I'll listen to reason.

I have no idea what that is. The proofs in question were done long ago, mainly by Hawking and Ellis:

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Space-Time-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical/dp/0521099064

Chapter 9 (or maybe 10, I forget).

 

[Ziggurat]

Baloney. Demonstrate it. I get the feeling that sol might be able to do that, but I seriously doubt you ever could, particularly since you can't even see the distinction between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and current metaphysical brands of "blunder" theory.

Let me get this straight. YOU are demanding a mathematical proof from me... after all the whining you've done about not "barking math on command" when I've asked you to do even trivial calculations? The irony, and the hypocrisy, are not lost on me.

There's nothing wrong with GR, but dark energy isn't GR. Get over it.

Dark energy has nothing to do with this.

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

I've already pointed out the error they made.

 

[ben m]

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

If you click on "cited by" in the arxiv, you will find that your paper has been cited by other authors specifically to explain the mistakes made by people who use "expanding space" as a vague mental model without doing the math.

 

[Singularitarian]

First off: That's not what I wrote.




Secondly:


Meaning - They're basically right but hardly rigorous science (but probably easy to google up!)


And the Stundie nom with some context:


The "spin 1/2 -> 720^o rotation" concept is Intro to QM 101 and is one of the traditional ways to demonstrate to students how the classical models fail; I've even set up the "back of the envelope" homework for you.

And in any case you've even managed to mangle the entire argument so badly that I can't even deconstruct and correct it without devoting an entire post to it.

So the failure so far is entirely yours.




And if you have any humility, good for you - start using it.

Oh, so you are a hypocrite as well then.

Where was your humility linking my page to nominate me for something not very respectful? Mmm?

 

[Singularitarian]

Excuse me, why don't you cite a source. Michael does not demonstrate your point, show where the BBE theory says that hole is too large.


Hmmm?

I know its too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. He assured me big bang did not predict a void of that magnitude.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here's a "Bang" proposal by Alfven that I find more personally interesting.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...s Alfven.pdf

What is striking about this paper is how completely incompatible it is with general relativity, and yet there is no attempt to reconcile or justify this incompatibility. In fact, there is no mention of general relativity at all. Also missing is any mention of the CMB, which this alternative cannot explain. So why is it interesting, Michael, when it fails to account for observations and is incompatible with our best-tested theory of gravity?

There are some very interesting aspects of this Alfvén paper; for example:

* of the few citations it has, most are by Peratt, and none address the apparent omission of GR

* other than Peratt, no one seems to have developed these ideas to the point of producing testable hypotheses (for astronomers)

* Peratt's hypotheses - as presented in the subsequent papers - are all inconsistent with multiple sets of independent observations; in particular, Peratt's quantification of Alfvén's vague ideas on plasma filaments and electric currents in space all fail subsequent observational tests

* in 1976, Steigman wrote a paper on the observational evidence against the kind of symmetric universe Alfvén (and Klein) proposed; this paper has been cited >100 times, ~half of which were before Alfvén's 1990 paper ... I find it curious indeed that Alfvén chose not to mention any of these papers (here is a particularly interesting one, just the year prior)

* while I have been unable to get copies of the two Klein papers Alfvén cites, it seems Klein was fully aware of GR and its application to the observable universe ... however, he seems to have a somewhat contrarian (shall we say) understanding of it.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Excuse me, why don't you cite a source. Michael does not demonstrate your point, show where the BBE theory says that hole is too large.


Hmmm?

I know its too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. He assured me big bang did not predict a void of that magnitude.

And this is a convincing argument because ...?

Let's see now ... I know its NOT too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. She assured me a void of that magnitude is easily accommodated within standard LCDM+inflation models.

I'm sure you'll be among the first to agree that this is somewhat less than convincing, and quite antithetical to critical thinking.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Baloney. Demonstrate it. I get the feeling that sol might be able to do that, but I seriously doubt you ever could, particularly since you can't even see the distinction between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and current metaphysical brands of "blunder" theory.

Let me get this straight. YOU are demanding a mathematical proof from me... after all the whining you've done about not "barking math on command" when I've asked you to do even trivial calculations? The irony, and the hypocrisy, are not lost on me.

There's nothing wrong with GR, but dark energy isn't GR. Get over it.

Dark energy has nothing to do with this.

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

I've already pointed out the error they made.

(this post is as good as any to quote)

Quite a few pages of exchanges of comments between MM and other JREF Forum members, across several threads, are equally obviously not discussions. I have opined before, several times, that discussions with MM on topics like these are impossible, unless and until the deep, fundamental difference in concepts of science are addressed (and mutual agreement reached on a foundation on which to build to start having a meaningful discussion)*. I have tried to encourage MM to acknowledge this need, but so far to no avail.

* in a nutshell: the role of the 'quantitative revolution' in physics, at least from the time of Newton; a particularly clear example of MM having not accepted this is in the various comments on the Casimir effect and negative pressure ...

 

[Singularitarian]

And this is a convincing argument because ...?

Let's see now ... I know its NOT too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. She assured me a void of that magnitude is easily accommodated within standard LCDM+inflation models.

I'm sure you'll be among the first to agree that this is somewhat less than convincing, and quite antithetical to critical thinking.

I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I dare say MM's position would prevent him from "believing" in the top quark.

Not at all. They actually show up in a controlled experiment.

You can't hold one in your hand.

I can't hold an electron in my hand either. That has no bearing on any of my beliefs.

The only "control" we've ever exerted over a top quark is ... well, the Tevatron has been turned on and also turned off.

Birkeland's control mechanisms were simple too. A simple on/off switch is fine.

The key difference is that unlike inflation, quarks actually do show up in lab experiments and we know where they come from. I don't see how that analogy is particularly helpful or useful to your case or applicable to inflation. Where can I see inflation in action here on Earth in a controlled experiment? Where does inflation come from?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

Classic win!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me get this straight. YOU are demanding a mathematical proof from me... after all the whining you've done about not "barking math on command" when I've asked you to do even trivial calculations? The irony, and the hypocrisy, are not lost on me.

Your personal "math assignments" had nothing to do with any published papers, and I wasn't claiming anything was "crap". You weren't even actually interested in the answer as evidenced by your reaction when sol answered it for you.

You however called the paper 'crap'. The least you could do is show us the error in his work.

Dark energy has nothing to do with this.

Dark energy doesn't exist. It's a figment of your collective imagination and I've already shown you evidence that it can be replaced with an ordinary EM field.

I've already pointed out the error they made.

No you didn't. You did a handwavy thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

The key difference is that unlike inflation, quarks actually do show up in lab experiments

No they don't. We've never observed a quark. You have been informed of this before.

 

[Singularitarian]

Not really the answer that I was looking, because in a still homogeneous universe, where would there be concentrations of antimatter?

Isn't more likely that after Planck time that random interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) butterflied the current differences?

True that we could allow enough time. But if we did, there would be no space for the correct time for which inflationary phase became active. In fact, most universes that begin from a hot dense period should by theory undergo an inflation phase. Question now, is whether there was any hot dense past. I am starting to beleive that there could not have been, if these observations truely are going against everything we are to accept and believe about the initial conditions of the universe. Who knows? Space could be literally eternal in distance, and our splog of mass we can observe to a 14 billion mile distance is but a small smear of fluctuations in a much larger void of space, one where other supergalaxies have formed in the mass thousands of thousands, but far too long for their light to have reached us. Interestingly, with this speculative thought, recently cosmological evidence suggested there was a ''mysterious force'' pulling the observable universe towards it. I remember people jokingly saying, ''its the big bounce.''

Could it be another supergalaxy cluster falling towards us?

 

[sol invictus]

The key difference is that unlike inflation, quarks actually do show up in lab experiments and we know where they come from.

You missed ben's point. Top quarks "show up" in an incredibly indirect way. If the theory is correct they exist only for a miniscule fraction of a second, and have an effect so subtle it can only be uncovered by a very sophisticated statistical analysis of massive quantities of data. It's all strongly theory based - that data would be utterly useless and totally incomprehensible without a well-developed mathematical theory with only a few free parameters.

The effects of inflation are MUCH easier to see (just look up at night). The biggest difference is that the data is both less plentiful and less precise, and the theory is much more uncertain.

Dark energy doesn't exist. It's a figment of your collective imagination and I've already shown you evidence that it can be replaced with an ordinary EM field.

You know, Michael, you and I discussed that paper (on EM fields as DE) a few months back. I told you it was wrong, you asked for specifics, I gave them (I pointed out a specific equation which is wrong and explained how and why), and you stopped talking about it. Now, you bring it up again as if that never happened.

That's a perfect example of why it's not worth discussing things with you. You're either deliberately hiding that, or (more likely in my opinion) you've actually forgotten about it because you're incapable of ever changing your mind or learning anything that disagrees with your entrenched views.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your personal "math assignments" had nothing to do with any published papers,

And everything to do with the ideas you are advocating. Which means that I cannot look up any references which contain the math that I asked for from you, but you can for the math you asked for from me. This isn't a point in your favor, Michael.

You however called the paper 'crap'. The least you could do is show us the error in his work.

I already did. The basic "problem" that the paper tries to address isn't a problem at all, and the system that they use to try to address it is irrelevant to the real universe.

Dark energy doesn't exist.

Sure it does. Casimir effect. Just like neutrinos prove that dark matter exists. Whether or not there is as much as is usually believed by cosmologists is a separate question, but the existence of both is an experimentally verified fact.

And again, this is still irrelevant to the problems with Alfven's model, problems that you have yet to come to terms with.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest what you are full of, Sing, and it sure ain't knowledge or wisdom. "Trust me, I assure you" is no kind of answer, especially on this forum. What are you thinking? Even to people who are casually following this, with casual understanding of the subjects, you seem flailing, lost in the desert.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

And I, in turn, was kinda hoping my word would be taken for truth; I wouldn't lie about something like this.

Next?