Holes in Big Bang

[Singularitarian]

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.

I'm certainly down in the weather mind you. Suffering from a bad fever.

But, this post was to pose questions. It's turned into one where people like to highlight their dislike for me. As i once said, the very reason i love physics is the same magneminity of why i am here. This thread is obviously not to be contrusted as an intentional way to confuse things.

I am questioning the structure of particles. I could very well be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me, because i did say this was a conceptual thing from my behalf. But i have real problems with the language of physics sometimes, when it speaks for a mass of a particle, but one which has no structure... to me, it sounds ridiculous.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm certainly down in the weather mind you. Suffering from a bad fever.

The phrase is "under the weather".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm certainly down in the weather mind you. Suffering from a bad fever.

But, this post was to pose questions. It's turned into one where people like to highlight their dislike for me. As i once said, the very reason i love physics is the same magneminity of why i am here. This thread is obviously not to be contrusted as an intentional way to confuse things.

I am questioning the structure of particles. I could very well be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me, because i did say this was a conceptual thing from my behalf. But i have real problems with the language of physics sometimes, when it speaks for a mass of a particle, but one which has no structure... to me, it sounds ridiculous.

(bold added)

Then you sure have a strange way of doing that!

Here is the conclusion of the OP (written by you; I added some bold): "If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe."

As is pretty much standard in a forum like this, bald assertions attract curiosity (and set off various kinds of alarms) ... and that's fine, 'cause you may have had a very strong case to present, to back up your bald assertions. Oddly, so it turns out, you could not back those bald assertions up, which raises the question of why you chose to write them in the first place (would you care to answer)?

 

[elbe]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory? If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions, then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

A lot of this sounds like standard creationist claims, dogma, faith, etc.; but they don't have science on their side so all they can do is claim anti-religious bias on the side of science, but if these alt hypotheses have the science than why wouldn't they be accepted?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You missed ben's point. Top quarks "show up" in an incredibly indirect way.

That's true of many things from many types of experiments. The key difference is that they *DO* show up in a repeatable fashion, and we know where they come from. Where does inflation come from and which experiment, complete with "control mechanism" (on/off switch is fine) demonstrates that inflation is real?

The effects of inflation are MUCH easier to see (just look up at night).

You never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between inflation and any event in the sky. All I see in the sky are stars and galaxies and things that are composed of normal baryonic matter and standard leptons. I don't see "dark matter". I don't see "dark energy" and I don't see "inflation".

The biggest difference is that the data is both less plentiful and less precise, and the theory is much more uncertain.

It's a lot worse than that sol. Whereas you can tell me where quarks come from and demonstrate your point in a lab, you can't tell me where DE or inflation even come from, let alone demonstrate any sort of cause/effect relationships in controlled experiments.

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.

If I stopped talking about it, it's probably because it's not all that important to me in the first place sol. It requires inflation and therefore it's not all the interesting to me. It was simply a device I used to make a point with Zig. I wasn't trying to claim it to be "the truth" (TM).

Now, you bring it up again as if that never happened.

Did I say it never happened or are you just assuming this in some way?

That's a perfect example of why it's not worth discussing things with you. You're either deliberately hiding that,

I'm not hiding anything sol.

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.

I've talked to a lot of people about a lot of topics in past few years sol. I'm sure I've forgotten the specifics of a lot of conversations. If I was incapable of changing my mind, I would still agree with you on BB theory and solar theory. My views on both of these topics have changed a great deal in the last 10 years or so in the case of BB theory (once DE was stuffed in there I lost all interest in mainstream theory) and my views on solar theory have changed quite radically in the past 5 years or so. I'm certainly capable of changing my opinions on various topics but you will have to give me a legitimate reason to do so.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory? If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions, then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

Because they want to crush the brave, lone genius that dares challenge their evil dominance.

Because they want to protect those inflated performance bonuses they get each year.

Because it's really really easy to become a scientist, so it attracts lots of intellectually lazy and unmotivated losers.

Hmmm....

Speaking seriously for a moment, not only would disproving an accepted theory allow them to further the noble cause of "expand[ing] human knowledge", it would also advance their status and career considerably. The deck is really strongly stacked against wrong theories...

 

[sol invictus]

If I stopped talking about it, it's probably because it's not all that important to me in the first place sol. It requires inflation and therefore it's not all the interesting to me. It was simply a device I used to make a point with Zig. I wasn't trying to claim it to be "the truth" (TM).

Michael, it's WRONG. It's wrong from beginning to end. It doesn't work. It's not true. You can't use it to make a point with Zig, because it shows the opposite of what you claimed.

Now, will you answer one question? Did you or did you not remember that we discussed this before, and I showed you how and why it's wrong?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's true of many things from many types of experiments. The key difference is that they *DO* show up in a repeatable fashion, and we know where they come from.

Quarks don't show up in any experiments, Michael. Results which are interpreted as evidence for quarks by our models appear, but not quarks. Never quarks.

Where does inflation come from and which experiment, complete with "control mechanism" (on/off switch is fine) demonstrates that inflation is real?

And we return, once again, to your conception of science, which is at odds not only with practitioners of science, but with its history as well. Where's the control mechanism for tests of general relativity? Einstein never had one.

I don't see "dark matter". I don't see "dark energy"

Well, duh. There's a reason it's call "dark". And while you can't see either, both have been observed directly in experiments. I already told you how.

 

[Singularitarian]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory? If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions, then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

A lot of this sounds like standard creationist claims, dogma, faith, etc.; but they don't have science on their side so all they can do is claim anti-religious bias on the side of science, but if these alt hypotheses have the science than why wouldn't they be accepted?

Because sometimes, to make a step forward, we sometimes need to take a step backwards.

 

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

Then you sure have a strange way of doing that!

Here is the conclusion of the OP (written by you; I added some bold): "If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe."

As is pretty much standard in a forum like this, bald assertions attract curiosity (and set off various kinds of alarms) ... and that's fine, 'cause you may have had a very strong case to present, to back up your bald assertions. Oddly, so it turns out, you could not back those bald assertions up, which raises the question of why you chose to write them in the first place (would you care to answer)?

Sorry. Wrong post in wrong topic lol

 

[Singularitarian]

(I meant to post that in the dimensions of particles thread.)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sorry. Wrong post in wrong topic lol

May I ask, then, just what post (and topic) your post (the one I quoted) refers to?

 

[Singularitarian]

Look above

 

[elbe]

Because sometimes, to make a step forward, we sometimes need to take a step backwards.

That's a nice non-answer.

So you are, somehow, more open to the idea that the current models are significantly flawed than the vast majority of scientists? Is that just ego speaking?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory?

I don't understand it either elbe, but those dark flows and holes simply don't jive with inflation theory.

If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions,

As far as I know, there have been no successful predictions of inflation that were correct from the very start. All the 'predictions' of inflation theory have actually been 'postdictions' based on manipulating the math to make it fit a specific observation.

then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

Some people are anxious to do exactly that. There are other EU advocates here on this website in fact. Some of the EU antagonists here are in fact asking honest and fair questions with every desire to do exactly that. Unfortunately that isn't true of everyone, but it's probably true of most folks. Major changes in astronomy typically take time. Even GR theory wasn't accepted in a day or a week or a month.

A lot of this sounds like standard creationist claims,

EU theory isn't even a creationist theory, nor is it related to religion in any way.

dogma, faith, etc.;

Well, put it this way. If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can verify it's effect on me in any number of ways. I need not have 'faith' in the existence of gravity, I experience it on a daily basis. Electricity is also something I do not need to have "faith' in. I can see it has a tangible effect on nature. Inflation doesn't even exist in nature anymore according to mainstream theory, so there is no way to verify it has any 'cause/effect' relationships to anything in nature. I must in fact 'take it on faith" that there *WAS* such a cause/effect relationship between inflation and physical things in the universe in the very distant past. It's not like gravity theory or electrical theory in that respect.

but they don't have science on their side

That may be true, but in this specific case, science (and IMO time) is on my side. Electricity shows up in a lab and it has a real effect on things inside this solar system.

so all they can do is claim anti-religious bias on the side of science,

I'm not making any such claim. I don't know any EU theorist that does make that claim. In fact I'd venture to guess that few if any EU theorists are overtly religious or believe that religion has anything to do with it.

but if these alt hypotheses have the science than why wouldn't they be accepted?

Well, suppose I spent my entire career working on inflation theory. How easily could I just "give it up" and let it go? Could I do it in a day or a week or a month? What would the ramifications be to my career?

Human beings don't easily give up their old beliefs even when there is good reason to do so. Not everything is "black or white" for that matter. Sure, electrical currents could play a role in solar system activity, but does that actually "disprove' inflation? Dark energy?

It was relatively easy for me to let go of my beliefs related to astronomy. I'm not employed in the industry and my livelihood doesn't have anything to do with astronomy. I haven't based my career on dark energy or inflation theory or dark matter theories. I don't have a boss looking over my shoulder who may or may not agree with me. My career and financial well being is not dependent upon me 'being right' in the past, or even being right in the future for that matter. I'm in a very unique position to simply "let go" of my old opinions about astronomy and move toward anything that happens to appeal to me. I doubt that most people's lives are quite that simple or that everyone has that luxury.

I've discovered that with most people, change takes time. I didn't even change my own opinions on these topics overnight, so why would I expect others to do that?

 

[Singularitarian]

That's a nice non-answer.

So you are, somehow, more open to the idea that the current models are significantly flawed than the vast majority of scientists? Is that just ego speaking?

I think we need to keep an open mind, especially with something as controversial as the BB theory.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, suppose I spent my entire career working on inflation theory. How easily could I just "give it up" and let it go? Could I do it in a day or a week or a month? What would the ramifications be to my career?

It's emotionally hard to do, but career-wise, it's actually easy. In fact, if you DON'T give up on a dead-end theory, you're going to lose out to the folks who do. And there are always newcomers to the field who have not spent their entire careers on that dead-end theory, but are in fact just starting out and trying to make a name for themselves. And there's no better way to make a name for yourself than to put your name on a new and better theory.

 

[sol invictus]

I don't understand it either elbe, but those dark flows and holes simply don't jive with inflation theory.

You keep repeating that, no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not true.

As far as I know, there have been no successful predictions of inflation that were correct from the very start. All the 'predictions' of inflation theory have actually been 'postdictions' based on manipulating the math to make it fit a specific observation.

That's because you know nothing about it, as you've just admitted several times. Somehow that doesn't stop you from making confident pronouncements on it.

Here's a decent popular article that refutes your assertion:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3311206.html

Most cosmologists have embraced inflation since it was proposed in 1980, because the model beautifully explains profound mysteries about our universe, such as why it has so few magnetic monopoles (hypothetical particles with only a north or south pole) and why different regions of the universe look pretty much the same despite the fact they have been out of physical contact. But most of the evidence for inflation could be described as successful "postdictions" rather than "predictions." In other words, inflation has been a convenient theory because it explained things that were already known. The essence of a really good scientific theory, however, is one that makes predictions that later turn out to be true.

WMAP has changed the game by confirming some of inflation's boldest predictions about the afterglow of the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It's turned into one where people like to highlight their dislike for me.

If you say so, O persecuted one.

I think your statement would be more true if you mentioned that you're frequently wrong about what you insist is correct, and that's the reason for the dislike.

I assure you.

Trust me.

 

[Singularitarian]

I trust very few people. One of them is someone, the other is not you.