Holes in Big Bang

[DeiRenDopa]

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

I think you missed my point. Several of the arguments I've seen in this (and at least one other) thread against the existing model sound like claims made by the ID proponents, and that's not a good sign. Their "scientific" claims aren't religious, but just anti-evolution (because of religion, but they don't always like to say that). It almost seems like being anti-big bang is more important than providing a useful, and sound, replacement.

This is a point Tom Bridgman has made; MM's responses to this can be found in this JREF Forum thread (starting on page 4, post#151).

And earlier in this very thread the only alternatives (i.e. potential replacements) introduced were "EU theory" (no references to any papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, given), and "PC theory" (ditto, except for a reference to Alfvén-Klein cosmology)^. A strong undercurrent - which has not, AFAIK, actually been stated explicitly is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy ("EU theory MUST be right, because BBT is WRONG!", to state it baldly); IOW, there is no need to present a useful, sound replacement (much less discuss and defend it), all that is necessary is to show that the BBT MUST BE WRONG!!!!!!!

^ a very important caveat: many exchanges of comments in this thread are almost entirely the JREF Forum members talking past each other; for example, there is a rather dramatic difference between MM's concept of 'cosmology' and that of everyone else actively participating (e.g. to MM, the physics of the Sun is 'cosmology', to everyone else it is not). The Alfvén-Klein theory was discussed, and shown to be scientifically illegitimate (it does not include GR) and inconsistent with observations.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Show me one inflation theory that actually "predicted" (no postdictions please) "dark flows" of that magnitude sol.

Goalpost shift. From "dark flows falsify inflation" to "inflation didn't predict that particular observation". It didn't predict what I had for breakfast, either.

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did! I don't need an explanation as to what something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. This is like claiming that the reason there are no unicorns on Earth today is because the invisible elves killed them off. What a stupid peace of irrational logic.

MM: Inflation makes no predictions!!!
si: Here's an article describing some CMB predictions inflation made long before they were spectacularly confirmed.
MM: Monopoles!

This is really boring.

(bold added)

And straight from the creationists' playbook (source as in my last post):

When confronted with problems in their own models or other implications that they have no rote answer memorized, they like to change topics, claiming the NEW topic is the really important issue. Alternatively, they will try to produce a huge 'laundry list' of topics or problems to which no one could respond without an extensive amount of time & effort. For an example of this, take a look at the comments in posts of March 2009. In creationists circles, this type of overloading is commonly known as the Gish Gallop.

EU advocates & creationists like to complain about being ignored by the scientific community. Then they complain when we pay attention and poke holes in their claims, crying they are being attacked! (Reference: just read some of the comments in the March 2009 posts.) I wish they could make up their minds! But I suspect their real concern is the possible negative impact widely distributed refutations of their claims might have on their book sales or speaking honoraria.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Goalpost shift. From "dark flows falsify inflation" to "inflation didn't predict that particular observation". It didn't predict what I had for breakfast, either.

That's so weak a response it's actually beneath you sol. Those dark flows are *NOT* supposed to be there sol. It's supposed to be a homogeneous layout at the largest scales, but there is direct evidence it's not.

MM: Inflation makes no predictions!!!

It doesn't. Someone "postdicted' a fit based on their "belief' it was homogeneous. You're intending to "postdict' a new fit now that we know it's *NOT* homogeneous.

MM: Monopoles!

What monopoles? You made them up! They don't exist in nature and I don't need an "explanation' for why something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. Gee, my invisible elf theory accurately predicts why invisible unicorns *DO NOT* exist in nature, therefore my invisible elf theory must be true. Sheesh, what a bizarre way to "support" your faith.

 

[Raze]

It doesn't. Someone "postdicted' a fit based on their "belief' it was homogeneous. You're intending to "postdict' a new fit now that we know it's *NOT* homogeneous.

[...]
This is great news for inflation," says University of Chicago cosmologist Sean Carroll, who is not a member of the WMAP team. "You're looking for a number that is close to one, but it still not equal to one in a statistically significant way."[...]


"This is big news, indeed. Most alternatives to inflation do not predict a scalar spectral index less than one,"

This is not a prediction confirmed by observation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is not a prediction confirmed by observation?

Are you claiming this bit of information was *NOT ALREADY KNOWN* at the time inflation was being "postdicted" to make it fit observation?

 

[sol invictus]

That's so weak a response it's actually beneath you sol. Those dark flows are *NOT* supposed to be there sol.

Wrong. Although as we discussed some time ago (do you remember?), they probably aren't there at any level beyond what one expects from standard cosmology with inflation. The analysis in those papers was badly flawed.

It's supposed to be a homogeneous layout at the largest scales, but there is direct evidence it's not.

100% wrong. Inflation made the universe approximately homogeneous up to some scale, but not beyond. It did not (and could not) have made it homogeneous on the largest scales. It's true that IF inflation lasted a long time - longer than necessary to solve the problems it solves - dark flows shouldn't be there. But if it lasted around enough time to solve the problems it solves, and not longer, one expects such features.

I already explained this, Michael. How many times will we go around in circles?

It doesn't. Someone "postdicted' a fit based on their "belief' it was homogeneous.

So that article was a lie, and all the scientists quoted in it were lying. Quite a conspiracy!

 

[sol invictus]

Are you claiming this bit of information was *NOT ALREADY KNOWN* at the time inflation was being "postdicted" to make it fit observation?

It most certainly was not.

Doesn't it bother you, just a little, to discuss subjects you're completely ignorant about with such incredible arrogance?

 

[Raze]

Are you claiming this bit of information was *NOT ALREADY KNOWN* at the time inflation was being "postdicted" to make it fit observation?

According to the article it was not. You did read the article, didn't you?

 

[sol invictus]

As for these dark flows:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3111

We predict the acceleration of the Local Group generated by the 2MASS Redshift Survey within the framework of LambdaCDM and the halo model of galaxies. We show that as the galaxy fluctuations derived from the halo model have more power on small scales compared with the mass fluctuations, the misalignment angle between the CMB velocity vector and the 2MRS dipole is in reasonable agreement with the observed 21 degrees. This statistical analysis suggests that it is not necessary to invoke a hypothetical nearby galaxy or a distant cluster to explain this misalignment.

and
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14946.x

See the first paragraph of the intro.

 

[Michael Mozina]

According to the article it was not. You did read the article, didn't you?

The article also notes that inflation was invented in the early 80's and "dark energy' was added in there in 1998. You don't see a problem there with "prediction"? Suddenly in 1998 the whole known physical universe was relegated to mere "bit player" that makes up less than 5% of the physical universe and 75% of the universe is suddenly made of something nobody had ever heard of before? Come now.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That's so weak a response it's actually beneath you sol. Those dark flows are *NOT* supposed to be there sol.

Wrong. Although as we discussed some time ago (do you remember?), they probably aren't there. The analysis in those papers is badly flawed.

[...]

It's worth reminding readers what MM is on about.

This is the first Kashlinski et al. paper on "dark flows", published in ApJ in October 2008 ("A Measurement of Large-Scale Peculiar Velocities of Clusters of Galaxies: Results and Cosmological Implications"; link is to the ArXiV preprint abstract).

According to ADS, this paper has been cited 28 times to date; while not all 28 are concerned with the observations or analyses, some are (I'll leave it to readers to make up their own minds as to the extent that the original Kashlinski et al. conclusion has been independently verified, or not).

Two of the most recent - certainly more recent than the last post on a previous discussion on this, here in the JREF Forum - are "The contribution of the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect from the Warm Hot Intergalactic Medium to the Five-Year WMAP Data" and "The velocity-shape alignment of clusters and the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect" (again, links are to the ArXiV preprint abstracts). I think it's accurate to say that a) MM has not read either of these, and b) if he has, he clearly did not understand them.

If any reader is interested in discussing the physics (and astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology) in these two - or any other papers on the topic published since the previous JREF Forum discussion - just say so; I'll be happy to engage in such a discussion.

ETA: I see si has posted links to two other, very recent, papers; FWIW both also cite the original Kashlinski et al paper (and are also worth a read, especially in light of the extraordinary assertions MM has been making).

 

[sol invictus]

The article also notes that inflation was invented in the early 80's and "dark energy' was added in there in 1998. You don't see a problem there with "prediction"? Suddenly in 1998 the whole known physical universe was relegated to mere "bit player" that makes up less than 5% of the physical universe and 75% of the universe is suddenly made of something nobody had ever heard of before? Come now.

Another non-answer, as the goal posts fly off into the distance... dark energy has no significant effect on the predictions of inflation for the acoustic peaks in the power spectrum. It's no more relevant to this than monopoles. If you knew what any of these things are, you might know that.

Why do you keep shifting your ground, Michael?

Do you or do you not admit you were wrong when you said inflation had made no predictions?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's emotionally hard to do, but career-wise, it's actually easy.

Ya, tell that to Arp.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So that article was a lie, and all the scientists quoted in it were lying. Quite a conspiracy!

Where does the article state this sol?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you or do you not admit you were wrong when you said inflation had made no predictions?

Let's be 100% clear on this point before we go any further. Which specific (be very specific) "prediction" are you claiming was actually "predicted", not postdicted?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Two of the most recent - certainly more recent than the last post on a previous discussion on this, here in the JREF Forum - are "The contribution of the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect from the Warm Hot Intergalactic Medium to the Five-Year WMAP Data"

And they key quote from that papers seems to be right in the abstract:

Our model requires a single extra parameter to describe this new component.

Fudging the numbers - 101: When things don't fit right, add more variables.

 

[sol invictus]

Let's be 100% clear on this point before we go any further. Which specific (be very specific) "prediction" are you claiming was actually "predicted", not postdicted?

Among other things: the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, specifically the fact that the tilt of the primordial spectrum of perturbations was very slightly less than 1, and the pattern of the acoustic peaks, including their locations, and relative magnitudes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Among other things:

Which other things (specifically)? Even the article you cited notes that most "predictions" were actually postdictions.

the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, specifically the fact that the tilt of the primordial spectrum of perturbations was very slightly less than 1, and the pattern of the acoustic peaks, including their locations, and relative magnitudes.

So this "power spectrum" is unrelated to any influence from 'dark energy'?

 

[sol invictus]

Which other things (specifically)? Even the article you cited notes that most "predictions" were actually postdictions.

I'm not going to play your "let's shift ground every time I get in trouble" game anymore.

So this "power spectrum" is unrelated to any influence from 'dark energy'?

The power spectrum of primordial perturbations, yes - completely unaffected.

Do you or do you not admit you were wrong when you said inflation had made no predictions?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Let's be 100% clear on this point before we go any further. Which specific (be very specific) "prediction" are you claiming was actually "predicted", not postdicted?

Among other things: the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, specifically the fact that the tilt of the primordial spectrum of perturbations was very slightly less than 1, and the pattern of the acoustic peaks, including their locations, and relative magnitudes.

For those interested in a simplified explanation, of inflation and its predictions, this part of Ned Wright's popular cosmology tutorial provides a good intro.