I don't think space is expanding.

[Reality Check]

Mike Helland lies that cosmologists are lying to get funds

So cosmologists are lying about the issues in the field for funding.

10 March 2021: Mike Helland lies that cosmologists are lying to get funds.
There may be cosmologists who use the term "crisis". This is the hyperbole (not a lie) that is common in any field.

 

[Reality Check]

Mike Helland is ignorant about a PBS The Crisis in Cosmology video

No one is talking about throwing away GR. ...

Which is why it is not really a crisis !
10 March 2021: Mike Helland is ignorant about a PBS The Crisis in Cosmology video.
"They are talking about alternatives to lambda-cdm" is ignorant because alternatives are not in the video. Near the end of the video, the narrator lists 3 refinements to Lambda-CDM that would change the CMB value to match the supernova value.

1. A new fast-moving particle.
2. Dark matter behaves differently.
3. Dark energy is not constant.

Dark energy (Lambda) and matter (CDM) are still in the model.

He must have missed the narrator labelling the CMB methods as simpler than the supernovae method !

 

[Mike Helland]

Which is why it is not really a crisis !
10 March 2021: Mike Helland is ignorant about a PBS The Crisis in Cosmology video.
"They are talking about alternatives to lambda-cdm" is ignorant because alternatives are not in the video. Near the end of the video, the narrator lists 3 refinements to Lambda-CDM that would change the CMB value to match the supernova value.

1. A new fast-moving particle.
2. Dark matter behaves differently.
3. Dark energy is not constant.

Dark energy (Lambda) and matter (CDM) are still in the model.

He must have missed the narrator labelling the CMB methods as simpler than the supernovae method !

 

[hecd2]

10 March 2021: Mike Helland lies about the units of H₀ which are inverse time

10 March 2021: Mike Helland lies that cosmologists are lying to get funds.

You know, RC has given great service to investigating physics claims on this forum for years and all, but I must say that I don't like his frequent accusations of lying. Lying is to knowingly promote a falsehood with the intention to deceive, and that is not what Mike is doing here. I, for one, would be insulted to be accused of lying. Mike might be wrong, deluded, and ignorant of physics, but he is not trying to deceive. His claims are wrong for all the reasons we have rehearsed, and he was ill-advised to call the constant in his new invention H₀, because it led people to think that his expression was unbalanced dimensionally. In fact the H₀ in that expression is a constant with units of inverse distance as he has pointed out (the expression cannot represent reality because it represents a change in the speed of light as a function of distance which we know is wrong) - it's not Hubble's constant so he should have called it something other than H₀. His thinking is wrong, muddled and badly informed, but he has not been lying.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah...

So cosmologists are lying about the issues in the field for funding.

This has taken an interesting turn.

Lying? No, not lying. But “crisis” is subjective, and they have an incentive not shared by us to use a lower threshold for the use of the word. There is no good reason WE should use the word “crisis” to describe the current situation.

Cosmology is in flux and there are uncertainties about where it will go. Welcome to science, that happens. But the way things will change won’t be how you expect them to. Quantum mechanics and relativity were revolutions in physics, but they didn’t do away with Newtonian physics. Whatever cosmology revolution is to come, it is similarly unlikely to do away with the Big Bang. And we know for certain it won’t resemble your theory, since that’s already been falsified on multiple fronts. As I said before, it takes monumental arrogance to believe that you can figure out what thousands of people who spend their professional lives working on the topic couldn’t, when you have spent zero time actually studying the subject. You are deeply ignorant of physics, and incapable of even evaluating your own ideas. There is no chance in hell you figured out anything of worth.

 

[Roboramma]

10 March 2021: Mike Helland lies that cosmologists are lying to get funds.
There may be cosmologists who use the term "crisis". This is the hyperbole (not a lie) that is common in any field.

This seems over the top.

Mike says "there's a crisis in cosmology".

Zig replies that while some cosmologists talk about a crisis, there really isn't, they are exaggerating for the sake of fundraising.

Mike replies that if there's no crisis and they knowingly claim that there is, then they're lying. The question mark is to ask Zig, "are you claiming that they're lying".

I'm not seeing where Mike lied about anything in the above exchange. If you want to distinguish between lies and hyperbole, that's fine, but calling him a liar based on that ungrounded.

ETA: ninja's by hecd2

 

[Mike Helland]

Cosmology is in flux and there are uncertainties about where it will go. Welcome to science, that happens.

Are you saying that every field has the observational discrepancies that cosmology has?

Because I'm pretty confident that's not true.

No field is perfect and settled. Only cosmology is this far off. And only cosmology allows the invention of so many things to save a theory.

Quantum mechanics and relativity were revolutions in physics, but they didn’t do away with Newtonian physics.

Right. Where quantum and relativistic effects don't happen, Newton works just fine.

And in my hypthesis, where redshifts don't happen, Newton's first law works just fine.

Whatever cosmology revolution is to come, it is similarly unlikely to do away with the Big Bang.

I wouldn't compare hundreds of years of Newton's success to the golden age of the big bang (1964-1974, after the CMB discovery, before the problems that led to inflation).

But that's me.

And we know for certain it won’t resemble your theory, since that’s already been falsified on multiple fronts.

Ok. What about the this version of Hubble's law, where space is still expanding?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying that every field has the observational discrepancies that cosmology has?

At some time or another, yes. If not, then the field cannot progress.

No field is perfect and settled. Only cosmology is this far off.

That's not really true. For example, there are bigger problems with string theory. You wouldn't know because, well, you're ignorant of physics, but string theory has a far more fundamental problem than cosmology has. It struggles to even come up with testable predictions that don't simply match what we already know from other theories.

And only cosmology allows the invention of so many things to save a theory.

That's really not true either.

Did you know that no one has ever seen a quark?

Right. Where quantum and relativistic effects don't happen, Newton works just fine.

It's more fundamental than that. Newtonian physics captures some pretty essential fundamentals.

So does the Big Bang theory. We likely have to adjust it, especially in the very early cosmos where mass and energy density far exceeded anything we can test directly. But the universe expanding from a formerly hot dense state is a pretty unavoidable conclusion. There's really no getting around that basic conclusion. Every attempt to do so fails spectacularly, your efforts included.

And in my hypthesis, where redshifts don't happen, Newton's first law works just fine.

No, it doesn't, since your theory doesn't conserve momentum. You even admitted as much earlier in the thread. Your memory is as bad as your understanding of physics.

Ok. What about the this version of Hubble's law, where space is still expanding?

What about it? It's meaningless. You drew a curve that roughly matches some data you found, but that doesn't magically make the curve have meaning. Your curve doesn't mean anything. You pulled it out of your ass, with no real justification. It might as well be one of these.

 

[Steve]

What about it? It's meaningless. You drew a curve that roughly matches some data you found, but that doesn't magically make the curve have meaning. Your curve doesn't mean anything. You pulled it out of your ass, with no real justification. It might as well be one of these.

Hilarious! Thanks for posting that link.

 

[theprestige]

It might as well be one of these.

Huh. I wonder whether margarine has been losing popularity all along, or if the 2000-2009 numbers are just a dip in the long-term trend.

ETA: Apparently margarine consumption fell off a cliff in the late 90s. I bet the actual correlation is with butter shortages in the 1940s and the ending of the boomer generation.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=79081

 

[Mike Helland]

At some time or another, yes. If not, then the field cannot progress.

At some time or another?

We're talking abotu right now.

That's not really true. For example, there are bigger problems with string theory. You wouldn't know because, well, you're ignorant of physics, but string theory has a far more fundamental problem than cosmology has. It struggles to even come up with testable predictions that don't simply match what we already know from other theories.

My understanding is many string theories match all the observations (because that was the idea), but there is no test of them to differentiate between each other or other TOE endeavors.

That said... putting the big bang theory in the same class as string theory is not a good look.

Did you know that no one has ever seen a quark?

No one has seen a photon either.

No, it doesn't, since your theory doesn't conserve momentum.

It does where redshifts aren't observed, which was the context.

What about it? It's meaningless. You drew a curve that roughly matches some data you found, but that doesn't magically make the curve have meaning. Your curve doesn't mean anything. You pulled it out of your ass, with no real justification. It might as well be one of these.

Ha. Ok.

 

[Ziggurat]

At some time or another?

We're talking abotu right now.

Yes. And right now, cosmology is going through some big changes. So what?

My understanding is many string theories match all the observations (because that was the idea), but there is no test of them to differentiate between each other or other TOE endeavors.

Yes. And that's a huge problem, because it means that you can't really test the theory, and you can't really refine it.

Cosmology is better positioned, because we can test and refine it.

That said... putting the big bang theory in the same class as string theory is not a good look.

It's not. That's rather the point.

No one has seen a photon either.

Not so. Photons are, technically speaking, the only things we ever see. But that's not really the point. We can detect individual photons. We cannot detect individual quarks.

 

[Mike Helland]

Not so. Photons are, technically speaking, the only things we ever see.

So the only thing you have ever seen is photons?

I'm not sure how many people would be on board with that.

I'm not.

 

[Ziggurat]

So the only thing you have ever seen is photons?

In a sense, yes. Photons are what the nerves in your eyes sense. That's why things which produce photons through selective emission or reflection can look like other things. That's why TV's and photographs and even paintings work: because they produce a pattern of photons which resembles the pattern of photons from real things, and which your brain can interpret as being those other things. But it's always the photons which your eyes detect, not the thing itself.

I'm not sure how many people would be on board with that.

I'm not.

That is of no consequence.

 

[Steve]

So the only thing you have ever seen is photons?

I'm not sure how many people would be on board with that.

I'm not.

What do you think you have ever seen that involved something other than photons entering your eyes?

 

[Mike Helland]

In a sense, yes. Photons are what the nerves in your eyes sense. That's why things which produce photons through selective emission or reflection can look like other things. That's why TV's and photographs and even paintings work: because they produce a pattern of photons which resembles the pattern of photons from real things, and which your brain can interpret as being those other things. But it's always the photons which your eyes detect, not the thing itself.

And in that sense, people never have talked to each other.

It's the air in between that moves, and we exist in some kind of pre-established harmony around it.

Very Liebnizian of you. I'm impressed.

 

[hecd2]

And in that sense, people never have talked to each other.

It's the air in between that moves, and we exist in some kind of pre-established harmony around it.

Very Liebnizian of you. I'm impressed.

The philosophy forum is that way.

 

[Mike Helland]

What about it? It's meaningless. You drew a curve that roughly matches some data you found, but that doesn't magically make the curve have meaning. Your curve doesn't mean anything. You pulled it out of your ass, with no real justification.

If the speed of a galaxy is c-c/(1+HD)², then it will never be greater than c.

And if it mellows out as it approaches c, as the inverse square law does, it would look like slower expansion in the past.

Tada.

 

[Ziggurat]

And in that sense, people never have talked to each other.

You aren't smart enough to play this game.

No. In this sense, what we hear is vibrations in the air. But the act of talking to each other is the act of making the air vibrate in specific ways, and we absolutely and unequivocally do that.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the speed of a galaxy is c-c/(1+HD)², then it will never be greater than c.

And if it mellows out as it approaches c, as the inverse square law does, it would look like slower expansion in the past.

Tada.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped. So what?

Your theory fails very fundamental tests. Getting it to pass some other test doesn't matter when it can't handle the fundamentals.