Holes in Big Bang

[Ziggurat]

Ya, tell that to Arp.

Arp's problem was not that he went against standard models, his problem was that he was publishing crap, and taking up telescope time with unproductive studies. I know that it's hard for you to distinguish between a conspiracy and recognition of inferior work, but it's real. Physicists LOVE game-changers. But there are damned few of those, and most claims are mistakes or delusions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

That is exactly why I'm trying to pin you down on specifics and make sure I understand your argument.

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?

I'm not sure at the moment. I need to do some further research now that I know exactly what you're suggesting. I will concede for the time being that I have further research to do. Assuming it pans out as you suggest, I will be happy to admit I was wrong about *ONE* (and only one) actual "prediction' that may or may not have panned out. As even your article notes however *MOST* of what are called 'predictions' were actually 'postdictions" in drag.

 

[sol invictus]

Assuming it pans out as you suggest, I will be happy to admit I was wrong about *ONE* (and only one) actual "prediction' that may or may not have panned out.

By what bizarre arithmetic do you get "ONE" out of an entire spectrum with many specific features?

 

[Ziggurat]

By what bizarre arithmetic do you get "ONE" out of an entire spectrum with many specific features?

Go easy on him. Remember, math isn't his strong suit.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ya, tell that to Arp.

Arp's problem was not that he went against standard models, his problem was that he was publishing crap, and taking up telescope time with unproductive studies. I know that it's hard for you to distinguish between a conspiracy and recognition of inferior work, but it's real. Physicists LOVE game-changers. But there are damned few of those, and most claims are mistakes or delusions.

I think it's important to note that some of Arp's published work is first class, especially his early papers.

And his early papers on quasars (QSOs, etc) are quite interesting ... at the time, very little was known of these fascinating objects, and ideas on their nature many and varied.

However, it quickly became apparent that Arp's analyses were weak, especially the statistical components (he seemed, and still seems, extraordinarily sensitive to finding patterns 'by eye', but almost blind to testing his findings in an objective, independently verifiable way), and by the mid 1970s there was little scientific merit to much of what he continued to publish.

Regarding his career: AFAIK, he moved to Germany, and has (or had, I suspect he's retired by now) a quite cushy position with the Max Planck Institute (for those who don't know: this is one of the 'to die for' employers, if you are keen on astrophysics), so why so many conspiracy nuts and cranks think he's some kind of martyr is really odd ...

Oh, and the 'telescope time' thing is interesting too: no one denies that the proposals for time on the leading astronomy facilities (both ground- and space-based) exceeds the time available (usually by a factor of several), so there has to be a process for allocating time. It follows that a professional astronomer can reasonably expect to have a significant proportion of his proposals turned down (Jim Gunn and John Bahcall may be exceptions); why should Arp be different? One thing I find fascinating is when you ask ardent Arp fans, or even proponents of crank science (such as "EU theory"), what they'd do if they had unlimited access to the world's best facilities, you get either silence or gibberish ("I'd give it to Arp" is perhaps the worst cop-out)!

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not sure at the moment. I need to do some further research now that I know exactly what you're suggesting.

Translation: you won't hear from me again on that. But in a few months (or less) I'll go back to saying exactly the same things that started this little debate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

What's the oldest paper you can cite the includes these "predictions"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Translation: you won't hear from me again on that. But in a few months (or less) I'll go back to saying exactly the same things that started this little debate.

And that's what I get for trying to be in integrity eh?

 

[sol invictus]

What's the oldest paper you can cite the includes these "predictions"?

These early papers 1982 had most of it right:

http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhRvL..49.1110G
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhLB..115..295H

The details were worked out over the following decade. By 1996 just about the whole picture was there:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9510117

WMAP released its first data in 2003.

 

[sol invictus]

And that's what I get for trying to be in integrity eh?

Sorry Michael, but you've done it several times now. You did it with dark flows, with expanding space, with dark energy, with that paper on EM fields as dark energy, with your iron sun model. After a while, a pattern emerges. For how long do you expect me to give you the benefit of a doubt?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry Michael, but you've done it several times now. You did it with dark flows,

Are you trying to claim that I am *OBLIGATED* to agree with you when you throw a paragraph at me from somewhere? Just because you *CAN* add variables to your theory doesn't mean you *SHOULD* do so, or that I am obligated to accept your "explanation" that you *CAN* manipulate things to make it fit. I never doubted that part in the first place.

with expanding space,

What about it? Again, you seem to insist I *MUST* agree with your personal 'interpretation" because you say so.

with dark energy, with that paper on EM fields as dark energy,

Gee, that may actually be a valid complaint.

with your iron sun model.

Sure. Like every solar model was instantly put forth, and every OTHER solar model has resolved and explained every solar phenomenon, right? Hell, you folks won't even *TOUCH* those images on my website, deal with solar wind, or anything that actually put holes in your theory. It's fine for you to ignore the weaknesses of your own solar model, but I'm *PERSONALLY* obligated to answer every question under the sun on your personal timeline.

After a while, a pattern emerges. For how long do you expect me to give you the benefit of a doubt?

The "pattern" that emerges on your side is your total unwillingness to deal with *ANY* of the images on my website, and your side's insistence at arguing every point from a place of pure ignorance. White light images? What white light images? Flying stuff? What flying stuff. Please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

These early papers 1982 had most of it right:

Thanks for the links. So what did they get wrong? How many points do I have to award them if *SOME* things were correct and *SOME* were "off' by a bit?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What have i done now?

You posted some comments; fine.

Others responded, with explanations, questions, requests for clarifications, etc, etc, etc.

You posted some more comments, answered some questions, provided some clarifications, etc, etc, etc.

And so on, over several pages.

THEN you reverted to making the same bald assertions as you had made back on page one (and even in the OP) ... as if the many, many posts in between did not exist.

Such behaviour is characteristic of a troll.

However, you also noted that you are under the weather today, so perhaps it's just that your memory isn't good today, and that you forgot to check the posts earlier in the thread before repeating yourself?

Questions?

 

[Singularitarian]

Yes, well, i can't wait for those days ...


..stares somewhere

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks for the links. So what did they get wrong? How many points do I have to award them if *SOME* things were correct and *SOME* were "off' by a bit?

Dunno - you decide. There's a very large literature, but the essential physics is in those 1982 papers, and just about every detail relevant here is in that 1995/6 paper (published 8 years before WMAP's first data release).

 

[Michael Mozina]

By the way sol, would you mind citing the specific line from the dark energy/EM field paper you didn't agree with again? I recall you (actually I didn't remember it was you to be honest) did in fact cite a specific line number, but I don't recall which one.

 

[sol invictus]

By the way sol, would you mind citing the specific line from the dark energy/EM field paper you didn't agree with again? I recall you (actually I didn't remember it was you to be honest) did in fact cite a specific line number, but I don't recall which one.

Eq. 15 (although many of the rest are wrong too).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Eq. 15 (although many of the rest are wrong too).

Thank you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, if I may ask, why do you post here, in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF Forum?

For avoidance of doubt, I'm not asking about why you write posts which contain questions (about Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology); I'm asking why you post bald assertions (about Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology) with no apparent intention of engaging in discussion of them.

Translation: If you dare to question them, be prepared to be grilled mercilessly till you can't answer a specific question, and then expect to be skewered publicly for your crime.

 

[Singularitarian]

So, if I may ask, why do you post here, in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF Forum?

For avoidance of doubt, I'm not asking about why you write posts which contain questions (about Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology); I'm asking why you post bald assertions (about Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology) with no apparent intention of engaging in discussion of them.

I will give you the same answer i gave someone a couple of weeks back.

I am simply here to inspire this place for all that it was intended. You want skepticism, you can have skepticism. I am simply trying to entice some intelligent conversations.