Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

There may be fundamental flaws with our understanding of the universe ...

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#26 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,620
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 31 July 2019 - 06:36 PM

Yeah, several of my closest friends assumed room temperature from lung cancer.  One was a doctor, a gas-passer and respiratory specialist, who smoked like a coal fire power plant.  After I stopped smoking  40 years ago I bugged him to stop right up to ten minutes before he expired.  He was one of the few real geniuses that mixed medicine, music, humor, astronomy and telescope making, and was a pioneer in imaging. I guess my arguments against smoking were not convincing enough.  Now they are all gone, but me.  Why?  

 

I never argue about religion and such, but interested in what people believe.  I can justify hating back holes because no one will ever observe what makes them work, at least from inside one.  That doesn't mean black hole science is wrong or will stop anyone from doing it.   I like steady state because some of it fits what we observe.  I love to study clouds on Mars, but will never go there to see them up close.  Just assume those who taught me about them were not crazy.

I don't normally argue with those (the generic those) people on a day-to-day basis, but sometimes circumstances force my hand.  As a geologist, I've been accused on a number of occasions of various irreligious and blasphemous beliefs, by those who believe that accepting evolution is evil, and teaching it to children should be criminal.  I would have thought people like that were genuinely rare, but in my experience there are more than I would have expected.

 

Teaching falsehoods as fact, for whatever reason, however comforting those falsehoods may be, is with few exceptions ultimately dangerous and destructive to all of us.  I say this as someone who enjoys mythology from many cultures, and finds it often poetic and beautiful.  It can even be useful from the standpoint of finding perspectives and descriptive metaphors for solving problems.  It often encompasses many deep truths.  But it is not, itself, truth.  It's art, and should be accepted as such.  It's not analysis, and it's not fact.

 

We're facing tremendous challenges and dangers in this life, and mythology will not overcome them.  Maybe it can help us be better people.  More than likely not.  But when taken as fact, it leads to denialism of actual facts, the neglect of potential solutions, and tribalism, prejudice, and bigotry instead of the ability to work together to resolve the issues that we all are faced with.

 

And yes, I'm thinking of several current examples of denialism of important facts and the neglect of existential threats, based on nothing more than mythological and tribal virtue-signalling.


  • mountain monk, MikeMiller and Joe1950 like this

#27 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 31 July 2019 - 07:31 PM

"No one is suggesting we do understand it all.  If we did, there would be nothing to research, and wouldn't that be boring."

 

Yes. Yes it would, its the mathematical "fix" of dark matter/energy that has no place in particle accelerator artifacts or observational reality that makes it suspect.

 

Robert

But the point is that they are not 'just' 'mathematical fixes' with 'no connection to observational reality'.  Both dark matter and dark energy are specifically motivated by observations that do not fit it with previously accepted theories.

 

Now that being the case, unless you are just going to give up, you have to propose something.  Whatever you propose is going to be mathematical in character, because that is how all physical theories are structured.  Then you go and try to observe further things that your hypothesis implies.

 

At this point, the jury is still out on what dark matter and dark energy actually are, with dark energy much less nailed down than dark matter.  Maybe you don't like any of the current proposals - that's legitimate.  Maybe the current proposals will all turn out to be wrong - that's a real possibility.  But it simply isn't the case that either has no connection with observation.


  • Diana N and Joe1950 like this

#28 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,638
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between eigenstates

Posted 31 July 2019 - 07:53 PM

One was a doctor, a gas-passer and respiratory specialist, who smoked like a coal fire power plant.  After I stopped smoking  40 years ago I bugged him to stop right up to ten minutes before he expired.  He was one of the few real geniuses that mixed medicine, music, humor, astronomy and telescope making, and was a pioneer in imaging.

 

Donald Parker?



#29 greenstars3

greenstars3

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2017
  • Loc: Wind River valley

Posted 01 August 2019 - 11:16 AM

Dave C while your point of view has validity, the issue with "dark matter/energy" is based on the fact that large mass bends light so this "nonbaryonic" stuff that is to encompass more of the universe than the baryonic should make the Hubble deep field fuzzy instead of sharp, if light can pass through something that can move entire galactic clusters in inexplicable ways then something with Planck mass will also be effected by this much missing gravity. It may be that Einstein was wrong about eather and dark matter/energy is actually spacetime itself?

 

Robert  



#30 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 01 August 2019 - 12:08 PM

See, lots of questions about current theory.



#31 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 03 August 2019 - 08:43 AM

Flat Steady State.?



#32 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,733
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 07 August 2019 - 10:53 AM

See, lots of questions about current theory.

Which shows we have much to yet learn

Flat Steady State.?

AS above having questions about the model that most fits the observed, does not mean the model is incorrect. Steady state theory has shown to be incorrect against the observable, does this mean the "big bang" is the correct theory, no, it just means we have more to learn. However questions over the "big bang" should not lead one to surmise the "steady state" as the answer.


Edited by Jim_V, 07 August 2019 - 10:54 AM.

  • llanitedave likes this

#33 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 07 August 2019 - 12:38 PM

Well Jim V., Sometimes discussing conventional science thinking gives me a headache so I like to enter abstract thought, such as “steady state” or the like to see if anyone has a realistic counter argument.  Usually, as it is herein, immature posts fill the thread before any sober discussion ensues.  Before the “big bang,” back when I first started learning science, was mainstream thinking.  I just wonder if anyone else even gives it a second thought or even remembers what it is.  Then again, I read posts herein that represent misunderstanding of modern theory.  Oh well, there is more to it than what is popular belief.



#34 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,638
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between eigenstates

Posted 07 August 2019 - 07:03 PM

Well Jim V., Sometimes discussing conventional science thinking gives me a headache so I like to enter abstract thought, such as “steady state” or the like to see if anyone has a realistic counter argument.

 

 

Well, in addition to the CMB which I mentioned on page 1, steady state would have a very hard time 

explaining the high-z (redshift) distribution of quasars. One of the underlying assumptions of steady state

is that the universe looks pretty much the same at all places and at all times.

 

Quasars are mostly found with redshifts z > 0.5, with a peak near z = 1.6

All the quasars are far away and long ago. We don't see them nearby, for instance in the local

supercluster. So the universe has appeared to change with time, which violates steady state

but is not only consistent with, but predicted by big bang cosmology.

 

The alternative, that quasars are collapsed stars with an extremely high gravitational redshift, would

put them close enough in our galaxy that they would have detectable proper motions or exhibit parallax.

 

Besides, Hubble images have shown most quasars are embedded in galaxies, they are ultra-active

galactic nuclei. Also the Lyman-alpha forest seen in the spectra of many quasars is strong evidence

they are at cosmological distances.

 

 

Distribution of quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:

 

count

 

Redshift-distribution-of-the-quasars-A-s

 

                                                                    z (redshift)

 

 

 


Edited by EJN, 07 August 2019 - 10:44 PM.

  • llanitedave likes this

#35 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,733
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 07 August 2019 - 07:42 PM

Well, in addition to the CMB which I mentioned on page 1, steady state would have a very hard time 

explaining the high-z (redshift) distribution of quasars. One of the underlying assumptions of steady state

is that the universe looks pretty much the same at all places and at all times.

 

Quasars are mostly found with redshifts z > 0.5, with a peak near z = 2. All the quasars are far away and

long ago. We don't see them nearby, for instance in the local supercluster. So the universe has appeared

to change with time, which violates steady state but is not only consistent with, but predicted by

big bang cosmology

Why bother?

 

I am sure you are familiar with the old story, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink.



#36 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 08 August 2019 - 05:31 AM

Many years ago whilst sitting in the Coude room under the UH88, I was thinking similar thoughts as you describe. Then someone woke me up and gave me a green walk-around bottle of oxygen so I would not babble so much to myself.  You see, up high on a mountain the lack of oxygen makes one think weird abstract thoughts.



#37 CygnuS

CygnuS

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,733
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2011
  • Loc: The Great Rift

Posted 08 August 2019 - 07:27 PM

  You see, up high on a mountain the lack of oxygen makes one think weird abstract thoughts.

I don't need a mountain for that. I don't even need alcohol or other mind altering drugs. It just comes naturally for me. I guess I was just lucky to be born that way. 



#38 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 09 August 2019 - 05:10 AM

I don't need a mountain for that. I don't even need alcohol or other mind altering drugs. It just comes naturally for me. I guess I was just lucky to be born that way. 

Hey, when must younger my brain thought abstractly enough.  At nearly 79 I'm lucky to just think.



#39 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 09 August 2019 - 05:41 AM

Yikes!  lol.gif

 

https://www.express....nomy-space-2019


Edited by Jeff B1, 09 August 2019 - 05:41 AM.


#40 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 20 August 2019 - 05:44 AM

laugh.gif

 

37846548_944502949066549_2781509739597529088_n.png


  • llanitedave and brave_ulysses like this

#41 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 15,247
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 23 October 2019 - 09:52 AM

Donald Parker?

That's who everyone who ever attended the Winter Star Party while he was still alive would guess Jeff was referring to. 

 

Being brilliantly talented and knowledgeable about certain subjects doesn't necessarily confer immunity from being wilfully oblivious or misinformed about others, even to the point of being a bit of a crank on certain some matters.  You may be forgiven for prematurely jumping to the conclusion that the preceding sentence refers to Dr. Parker, but the particular examples I actually had in mind were Nobel-winning scientist Linus Pauling's excessive claims about vitamin C, and the physicist / inventor Nikola Tesla (who harbored many eccentric beliefs and habits).


  • Diana N likes this

#42 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 October 2019 - 03:36 PM

That's who everyone who ever attended the Winter Star Party while he was still alive would guess Jeff was referring to.

Being brilliantly talented and knowledgeable about certain subjects doesn't necessarily confer immunity from being wilfully oblivious or misinformed about others, even to the point of being a bit of a crank on certain some matters. You may be forgiven for prematurely jumping to the conclusion that the preceding sentence refers to Dr. Parker, but the particular examples I actually had in mind were Nobel-winning scientist Linus Pauling's excessive claims about vitamin C, and the physicist / inventor Nikola Tesla (who harbored many eccentric beliefs and habits).


Fred Hoyle. Brilliant physicist who first fully pieced together how fusion proceeded in the sun. Utter crackpot otherwise. Insisted evolution was nonsense. It's generally agreed that's why he didn't get a Nobel.

Brian Josephson. Won the Nobel for a brilliant piece of QM done before his PhD. Now acts as a roving ambassador for cold fusion, homeopathy, water memory, telepathy etc.
  • Diana N, MikeMiller and Jim_V like this

#43 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20,002
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 24 October 2019 - 08:33 PM

Fred Hoyle. Brilliant physicist who first fully pieced together how fusion proceeded in the sun. Utter crackpot otherwise. Insisted evolution was nonsense. It's generally agreed that's why he didn't get a Nobel.

 

Hmmm.  I would not agree with that characterization.  Not a "crackpot" at all, just not a follower of the herd in some cases.  As some sites refer to him: "He is considered one of the most creative and provocative astrophysicists of the second half of the 20th Century."

 

Sir Fred Hoyle did a lot more than contribute to nucleosynthesis.  He also theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by supernovas, he correctly predicted that there must be an undiscovered resonance in the carbon-12 nucleus which facilitates its synthesis within stars, he coined the phrase "Big Bang" for the creation of the universe even though he was not a proponent of the theory and providing the only serious alternative to the Big Bang which agreed with key observations of the day, he founded the renowned Institute of Theoretical Astronomy at Cambridge and was its director 1966 -1972, he was the 1970 Bruce Medalist, then in the 1980s he developed and promoted, along with Chandra Wickramasinghe, the theory of “panspermia” as he felt natural selection alone could not explain evolution (current day scientists as well hold the concept of panspermia and that natural selection is insufficient to explain evolution, particularly the Cambrian explosion; evolutionary theory has changed since Hoyle's day, e.g., the addition of Symbiogenesis).  And minor planet #8077 is named after him!  Entirely not a crackpot flowerred.gif

 

Now Brian Josephson is quite a different character that is for sure.  He continues to be very active at 79, and still quite defiant!  But bravo for him standing his ground and exploring realm he wants to explore which are yes far afield of the herd. shocked.gif  No call for ridicule though IMO.  A colorful fellow that is for sure!


Edited by BillP, 24 October 2019 - 08:52 PM.

  • jpcampbell likes this

#44 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:51 AM

For most of human history people believed the Earth was flat.  Christopher Columbus probably rejected this idea, but took a chance during his trek to India in 1492 that he would not sail off the edge.  After all, it was nearly 120 years later that Galileo began to believe Earth was not flat, and was almost roasted for his efforts.  I suspect Christopher Columbus probably rejected this idea, but took a chance anyway. So, until Galileo’s theory was finally considered as closer to the truth higher learned people thought Earth was flat.  How long was it that ordinary uneducated folk got the memo?  Must have been a while.  There still exists a small number of people that still haven't read the memo.


Edited by Jeff B1, 03 November 2019 - 06:54 AM.


#45 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,733
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 03 November 2019 - 01:38 PM

 

 

 

Sir Fred Hoyle did a lot more than contribute to nucleosynthesis.  He also theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by supernovas, he correctly predicted that there must be an undiscovered resonance in the carbon-12 nucleus which facilitates its synthesis within stars, he coined the phrase "Big Bang" for the creation of the universe even though he was not a proponent of the theory and providing the only serious alternative to the Big Bang which agreed with key observations of the day, he founded the renowned Institute of Theoretical Astronomy at Cambridge and was its director 1966 -1972, he was the 1970 Bruce Medalist, then in the 1980s he developed and promoted, along with Chandra Wickramasinghe, the theory of “panspermia” as he felt natural selection alone could not explain evolution (current day scientists as well hold the concept of panspermia and that natural selection is insufficient to explain evolution, particularly the Cambrian explosion; evolutionary theory has changed since Hoyle's day, e.g., the addition of Symbiogenesis).  And minor planet #8077 is named after him!  Entirely not a crackpot

 

 Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in a pejorative sense, to make fun of the idea of an exploding Universe. Best to keep that in mind.

 

Hoyle's correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power. Take that 1918 Flu epidemic. 

 

 

The theory of abiogenic petroleum, held by Hoyle and by Thomas Gold, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilized organic material.

This theory is dismissed by the mainstream petroleum geochemistry community.

 

The fossil Archaeopteryx was a man-made fake. This assertion was definitively refuted by, among other strong indications, the presence of microcracks extending through the fossil into the surrounding rock.

 

While crack pot may not be the best term to describe Hoyle, ( one term I think fits, is not allowed by the TOS) he does show, that  you can be brilliant in one area, and completely off the mark (wall?) in others.



#46 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,733
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 03 November 2019 - 01:53 PM

For most of human history people believed the Earth was flat.  ( see below) Christopher Columbus probably rejected this idea, but took a chance during his trek to India in 1492 that he would not sail off the edge.  After all, it was nearly 120 years later that( Umm by that time, the workd had been cirumnavigated, again see below)  Galileo began to believe Earth was not flat, and was almost roasted for his efforts.  I suspect Christopher Columbus probably rejected this idea, but took a chance anyway. So, until Galileo’s theory was finally considered as closer to the truth higher learned people thought Earth was flat.  How long was it that ordinary uneducated folk got the memo? ( if you had a boat, lived on the by the ocean, and fished for a living, you knew the earth was round ,educated or not right back to 2500 BC)  Must have been a wh

 

The earliest documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it was mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers. ( well before CC's time, btw!!) {   D.R. (1970). Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 72–198. ISBN 978-0-8014-0561-7. If you care to"educate yourself"}

 

It remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. {It was first calculated by Eratosthenes ( oldest  written anyhow), which he did by comparing altitudes of the mid-day sun at two places a known north–south distance apart.} 

 

The concept of a spherical Earth (Eratosthenes) displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth: In early Mesopotamian mythology, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean with a hemispherical sky-dome above, ( which seems to be revived today, 5000-3000 years later for reason of which I can't understand)

 

The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation (1519–1522).


  • llanitedave, MikeMiller and DaveC2042 like this

#47 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20,002
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 29 November 2019 - 07:13 PM

 While crack pot may not be the best term to describe Hoyle, ( one term I think fits, is not allowed by the TOS) he does show, that  you can be brilliant in one area, and completely off the mark (wall?) in others.

 

I have found that true for everyone.  Once they venture out of their credentialed or experienced field of study, might as well be talking to a first grader lol.gif



#48 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,733
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 12 December 2019 - 02:38 PM

I have found that true for everyone.  Once they venture out of their credentialed or experienced field of study, might as well be talking to a first grader lol.gif

I resemble that remark...lol.gif



#49 sg6

sg6

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,989
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 12 December 2019 - 03:44 PM

For most of human history people believed the Earth was flat.  Christopher Columbus probably rejected this idea, but took a chance during his trek to India in 1492 that he would not sail off the edge.  After all, it was nearly 120 years later that Galileo began to believe Earth was not flat, and was almost roasted for his efforts.  I suspect Christopher Columbus probably rejected this idea, but took a chance anyway. So, until Galileo’s theory was finally considered as closer to the truth higher learned people thought Earth was flat.  How long was it that ordinary uneducated folk got the memo?  Must have been a while.  There still exists a small number of people that still haven't read the memo.

I don't think anyone has actually believed the world was flat. People may not have circumnavigated it as such. But a spherical earth is old, easily as old as 4000 years and more. Probably 4000BC.

 

So many areas of this bit of the world were taken over by people sailing out of sight and around the world to conquer new countries. Literally it has been going on for thousands of years. And the Chinese had maps of their knowledge of the world all based on it being round. And the various civilisations before them.

 

One thing I recall reading was that it was the Victorians here that came up with the idea that older civilisation thought the world was flat so they could feel superior. For some some stupid reason it stuck. Victorians had quite a few ideas to feel superior, generally all wrong.

 

Sir Fred was a bit odd. But he is the only person to have a statue at the Cambridge Institute of Astronomy, and I cannot recall seeing statue's of people around the university in general but expect some somewhere. Although I would not expect "modern" people.

 

If his statue is life size, he was fairly small.

 

He was fair (maybe), he had a very low opinion of the exclusion of Jocelyn Bell Burnell from the Pulsar paper and vented his opinion rather bluntly.



#50 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 13 January 2020 - 12:47 PM

    What the heck, it's my maiden voyage, here goes.

How about revisiting non doppler redshift?

CMB is blackbody radiation, caused by thermalization of starlight, interacting with dust.

 

Gulp,

Barry


Edited by bcgilbert, 13 January 2020 - 01:21 PM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics