the big bang is wrong

[Tangointhenight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Something is not right, so they add.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

Then there is something wrong with dark matter, so they add.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

 

Then with out any observational data they create.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity:doh:

[DrP]

If you look at our model for the atom over the years it has changed/evolved as we have better and better understanding of it. Starting with J.J. Thompson and his 'plumb pudding' Theory of positive specks in a negative sea of particles, through Bohr and the atomic orbital models and on to more modern electron density models etc.. each is an addition/improvement on the last and deals with errors and or gaps in the theory.

 

Does this mean J.J. Thompson was an idiot or a fraudster because he got his model wrong? No - of course not. it best explained the atom according to what we knew at the time and was in fact a brilliant insight into the structure of matter and atoms. It can be argued that he was wrong, but it can also be argued that he was on the right track and his speculations and models lead to the advancement in our understanding of the stucture of the atom which others then continued to improve develop over the next few hundered years.

 

Therefore, to take a scientific theory and say that it is wrong because scientists keep having to update it shows a lack of understanding of how our knowledge base works and how theories are developed and matured over time.

 

Anyway - they are ALL wrong - you are just a figment of MY imagination anyway - so there!.

[Tangointhenight]

If you look at our model for the atom over the years it has changed/evolved as we have better and better understanding of it. Starting with J.J. Thompson and his 'plumb pudding' Theory of positive specks in a negative sea of particles, through Bohr and the atomic orbital models and on to more modern electron density models etc.. each is an addition/improvement on the last and deals with errors and or gaps in the theory.

 

Does this mean J.J. Thompson was an idiot or a fraudster because he got his model wrong? No - of course not. it best explained the atom according to what we knew at the time and was in fact a brilliant insight into the structure of matter and atoms. It can be argued that he was wrong, but it can also be argued that he was on the right track and his speculations and models lead to the advancement in our understanding of the stucture of the atom which others then continued to improve develop over the next few hundered years.

 

Therefore, to take a scientific theory and say that it is wrong because scientists keep having to update it shows a lack of understanding of how our knowledge base works and how theories are developed and matured over time.

 

Anyway - they are ALL wrong - you are just a figment of MY imagination anyway - so there!.

 

You probably dont understand the scientific method.

 

Here read about it,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method if you test your prediction and the test contridics the prediction then you have to abandoned it.

[Mokele]

Clearly you don't understand how science works: what happens if your theory is only wrong on *some* things, but right on others?

 

Correct answer: you modify the theory so it accords with experimental results.

 

After all, there's not some sort of rule that you have to get everything right on the first try. Shit, look at genetics - we've come a long way from Mendel, but everything is just additions, modifications, and special cases.

[Tangointhenight]

Clearly you don't understand how science works: what happens if your theory is only wrong on *some* things, but right on others?

 

Correct answer: you modify the theory so it accords with experimental results.

 

After all, there's not some sort of rule that you have to get everything right on the first try. Shit, look at genetics - we've come a long way from Mendel, but everything is just additions, modifications, and special cases.

 

They created a theory looked into space, and saw that there are certian things that go agianst there theory.

"

The Milky Way as a whole rotates about its

axis, with the outlying regions held from

flying off into space by the gravitational tug

of the rest. All would be well, were it not

for the fact that something's missing.

Observations of the motion of stars both

within our own galaxy and further afield

reveal a discrepancy [see figures 1 & 2].

The gravitational pull they feel is calculated

as up to ten times what could possibly be

exerted by observable matter. The galaxy

must therefore be much more massive than

the sum of its visible stars.

It has been proposed that this exposes a flaw

in the theory of gravity - that its effect must

thin more slowly with distance than

predicted. This is not a welcome suggestion,

as it would require a whole new theory of

gravitation to be developed. The popular

alternative is that the matter we can observe

is only the tip of the iceberg. Theorists

propose an invisible halo of ‘dark’ matter

inhabiting the universe all around us....."

 

But when they added dark matter to there equations, thay found that Dark Matter would slow the expansion of the universe. Now to over come this they introduced dark energy.

 

If you dont see the flaw in this, then im sorry to have posted this in the first place.

[Sayonara]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Something is not right, so they add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Then there is something wrong with dark matter, so they add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Then with out any observational data they create.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity:doh:

 

Do you have any academic objection to the merits of these, or do they just not appeal to you? Because personal opinion is not a valid counterargument.

 

In other words, the golden rule of the meritocracy applies: put up or shut up.

[Tangointhenight]

Do you have any academic objection to the merits of these, or do they just not appeal to you? Because personal opinion is not a valid counterargument.

 

In other words, the golden rule of the meritocracy applies: put up or shut up.

 

How can you say a naked singulartie exist with no observational data?

[Sisyphus]

How can you say a naked singulartie exist with no observational data?

 

You don't. You predict they exist, based on extrapolation from existing theories. And then you look for them. It's called a testable prediction. If they show up where they're predicted to, that's strong evidence for the theory. If they don't, that's evidence against, and you need to come up with a hypothesis that accounts for this new observational data in addition to all the data already collected. (That's how science works.)

[Mokele]

As much as it pains me to say it, Tango *does* have a point - dark matter has never been directly observed, and the evidence for it is circumstantial, leaving open the possibility of some alternative explanation. Maybe it's the biologist in me, but I don't trust something we haven't directly detected (otherwise, I'd believe in Bigfoot).

[Sayonara]

How can you say a naked singulartie exist with no observational data?

I didn't say it exists.

 

YOU are conflating the non-existence of such an entity with your own personal opinion. If you are to convince anyone that you are correct, and these entities do not exist, then the onus will be on you to back up your objections with the required reasoning. If you simply find them objectionable because they are not intuitive to you, we really won't care.

 

Either show specifically and precisely how the predictions are incorrect, or be quiet.

 

 

Mokele - nobody is saying that Tango is incorrect to be sceptical of something which has not been directly observed. What I am refuting in this thread is his attitude of "the big bang theory is wrong and these things don't exist, because I am not convinced". He is going to have to do much better than that.

[Mr Skeptic]

As much as it pains me to say it, Tango *does* have a point - dark matter has never been directly observed, and the evidence for it is circumstantial, leaving open the possibility of some alternative explanation. Maybe it's the biologist in me, but I don't trust something we haven't directly detected (otherwise, I'd believe in Bigfoot).

 

I likewise feel uneasy about dark matter and dark energy. I think the best way to think of them is as not necessarily real, but a format with which to take data while keeping our current theories. What I mean is, even if it turns out that dark matter is not real, the data about where dark matter is is real data with a wrong interpretation. If ever we find a model that does not need dark matter and dark energy, the measurements we are taking and calling dark matter and dark energy are the ones that will lead to the discovery of such a theory.

 

On the other hand, if it turns out dark matter and dark energy are real, then the data is also useful and we will likely get some advances in particle physics rather than in gravity/cosmology.

 

Either way, the data is useful, so you won't hear me complaining about taking it.

[swansont]

As much as it pains me to say it, Tango *does* have a point - dark matter has never been directly observed, and the evidence for it is circumstantial, leaving open the possibility of some alternative explanation. Maybe it's the biologist in me, but I don't trust something we haven't directly detected (otherwise, I'd believe in Bigfoot).

 

Nobody has ever seen a neutrino. And yet, without neutrinos, a whole bunch of physics fails — that's how they were predicted in the first place. In a beta decay, an electron or positron is emitted. But in a two-particle system, such as alpha decay, there is a definite relationship between the energy of the daughter and the emitted particle, since they have to share the energy and momentum is conserved — you get a definite energy of the emitted particle. However, the energy of an emitted beta gives a continuous spectrum. Rather than trash conservation of energy, which has a very firm basis in theory and experiment, the neutrino was hypothesized, because a three-body interaction allows for a continuous spectrum. From other physics principles, other properties of the neutrino were deduced: it had to be neutral, spin 1/2, a lepton. An antineutrino should combine with a proton to form a neutron and a positron, and the positron would eventually combine with an electron and annihilate, giving off a characteristic pair of 511 keV photons which would be detected back-to-back and in coincidence. A reactor was used as a source of antineutrinos, since it could be started up and shut down to allow for the search of this signal against any background signal that might be present. The targets were protons in water, so that the neutron could also be detected after it was absorbed in Cd that was dissolved in the water, and which also emitted characteristic gammas, but with a slight delay after the neutron was created (and thus after the annihilation gamma coincidences), because it had to travel to a Cd nucleus before it could be absorbed. The rate of detection had to scale properly, too, when parameters were changed

 

And still, nobody has ever seen a neutrino. Or quarks, or any of the other subnuclear particles in the standard model.

 

The evidence for things not seen, but accepted in physics, is not trivial. And yet the OP trivializes the many confirmations of the physics that lead us to conclude that dark matter and dark energy exist. Not understanding the subtlety is one thing, but to jump to the conclusion that's it's incorrect is quite another.

[mooeypoo]

Swansont, isn't there a neutrino detector up in Canada ( http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/ )? I believe I've read somewhere that it proved neutrinos exist quite unequivocally, after the Super Kamiokande detector worked for the same purpose too ( http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/ ) ?

 

Or.. did I get this wrong?

[Bignose]

As much as it pains me to say it, Tango *does* have a point - dark matter has never been directly observed, and the evidence for it is circumstantial, leaving open the possibility of some alternative explanation. Maybe it's the biologist in me, but I don't trust something we haven't directly detected (otherwise, I'd believe in Bigfoot).

 

There is a dark matter map that has been presented in Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7125/abs/nature05497.html

 

I don't know if it is going to qualify as "direct observance", but they used gravitational lensing to generate a map of it.

 

If you don't have access to Nature, there are articles that present some of the images: e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070108-dark-matter.html

 

To Tango, are you prepared to scientifically bust that article in Nature? Because you have a pretty huge hill to climb, if that is the case, so let's start to see some good evidence. Because right now the good evidence is on the side of dark matter, at the very least.

[Klaynos]

Swansont, isn't there a neutrino detector up in Canada ( http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/ )? I believe I've read somewhere that it proved neutrinos exist quite unequivocally, after the Super Kamiokande detector worked for the same purpose too ( http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/ ) ?

 

Or.. did I get this wrong?

 

They're not direct observation observatories though.... We just see the results of what we predict would happen if there was a neutrino flux...

[swansont]

Swansont, isn't there a neutrino detector up in Canada ( http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/ )? I believe I've read somewhere that it proved neutrinos exist quite unequivocally, after the Super Kamiokande detector worked for the same purpose too ( http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/ ) ?

 

Or.. did I get this wrong?

 

Yes there are, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a physicist who questions these experiments and doubts the existence of neutrinos. But, as Klaynos points out, these are not direct observations. We infer their existence because of the result of these experiments, because they have been carefully constructed to give a result only if a specific set of interactions has occurred. Thus a signal is only there if the neutrinos exist, and not due to some other interaction.

 

The point is that there is a lot more that goes into the discussion than the implied ad-hoc-ery in the OP (and to a lesser extent, the "I don't believe it if I can't directly detect it" in Mokele's post). The argument is so simplistic that it is wrong, and demonstrates a massive ignorance of the topic.

[Stephen Mooney]

Someone commenting on my dispersion explanation for the cosmic redsift said the following in another forum.

 

“If that were true, the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra. The observed placement of the bands on the spectra would not display any shift at all.

 

Since this is obviously not the case (red shift is the measure of the spectra relative to the placement of the absorption bands) his theory is DOA.”

 

I responded with the following.

 

“If the redshift was a Doppler Effect, than it would also increase the wavelength of light with which physics detects the absorption bands: “the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra”. As this is obviously not the case, the Doppler Effect theory is DOA.

 

The fact that they don’t shift in phase, is due to them representing different levels of emission. For the dispersion theory to be correct, would require that one would shift to a greater extent than the other. This is observed.”

 

The big bang theory dead.

 

Stephen

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I should have added, "hoist with you own petard".

 

Stephen

[mooeypoo]

Yes there are, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a physicist who questions these experiments and doubts the existence of neutrinos. But, as Klaynos points out, these are not direct observations. We infer their existence because of the result of these experiments, because they have been carefully constructed to give a result only if a specific set of interactions has occurred. Thus a signal is only there if the neutrinos exist, and not due to some other interaction.

 

The point is that there is a lot more that goes into the discussion than the implied ad-hoc-ery in the OP (and to a lesser extent, the "I don't believe it if I can't directly detect it" in Mokele's post). The argument is so simplistic that it is wrong, and demonstrates a massive ignorance of the topic.

 

I see what you're saying, but isn't that a bit of nitpicking? We don't directly see gravity either. We don't directly see electromagnetic waves, either... There are more things we *don't* directly see than things we do..

 

If an experiment predicts the results correctly and continously, isn't that as close as there is, in physics, to "proven true", considering that otherwise (and as we all know, in the back of our minds, or at least as we should) nothing really is absolutely true. I see what you're saying, but I think that in this context, we are doing this theory injustice.

The existence of Neutrinos is pretty much proven.

 

Seeing as the counter claims in this thread are stating that the Neutrino doesn't exist (and base the assumption on that notion), I think we should all remember that for all intended purposes the Neutrino is as proven as gravity. Which means that for all intended purposes, it exists, unless someone can explain what these experiments and detectors detected (and how come it fit all the theories and predictions).

Same as what would happen if someone rejects gravity, the Big Bang theory or evolution.

 

Or am I wrong here?

[swansont]

I see what you're saying, but isn't that a bit of nitpicking? We don't directly see gravity either. We don't directly see electromagnetic waves, either... There are more things we *don't* directly see than things we do..

 

If an experiment predicts the results correctly and continously, isn't that as close as there is, in physics, to "proven true", considering that otherwise (and as we all know, in the back of our minds, or at least as we should) nothing really is absolutely true. I see what you're saying, but I think that in this context, we are doing this theory injustice.

The existence of Neutrinos is pretty much proven.

 

Seeing as the counter claims in this thread are stating that the Neutrino doesn't exist (and base the assumption on that notion), I think we should all remember that for all intended purposes the Neutrino is as proven as gravity. Which means that for all intended purposes, it exists, unless someone can explain what these experiments and detectors detected (and how come it fit all the theories and predictions).

Same as what would happen if someone rejects gravity, the Big Bang theory or evolution.

 

Or am I wrong here?

 

Whether it's nitpicking or not depends, I guess, on whether you apply the same standards of evidence to the different areas of physics. Gravity and electromagnetic waves can be directly detected without having to worry too much about coincidence detection and accumulating lots of statistics to discern a signal from background — I can drop an object and see the effect of gravity with my eyes. I can see a light turn on and off.

 

The objection seems to be that if you have to go to the next level or perhaps a level beyond that, that the experiment is somehow no longer reliable. I can't see a proton or electron with my eye, but I can see the flash when they hit a phosphor, or a track they leave in a bubble chamber. Is that acceptable? OK, now what of it's a neutral particle, and I have to deduce its existence by the decay products — a track in the bubble chamber, followed by a gap, and then more tracks from the decay products, but the information from conservation of energy and momentum allows me to tie them together and deduce the properties of that particle.

 

The objection that dark matter has not been directly observed is, to me, similar to the search for the neutrino. We have deduced what kinds of properties dark matter has to have, which allows us to search for it. We've begun to accumulate observations that are consistent with it, but the data collection is still ongoing. Contrast that with the appeal to ridicule of the OP, which has a complete lack of any scientifically-based objection.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Someone commenting on my dispersion explanation for the cosmic redsift said the following in another forum.

 

“If that were true, the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra. The observed placement of the bands on the spectra would not display any shift at all.

 

Since this is obviously not the case (red shift is the measure of the spectra relative to the placement of the absorption bands) his theory is DOA.”

 

I responded with the following.

 

“If the redshift was a Doppler Effect, than it would also increase the wavelength of light with which physics detects the absorption bands: “the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra”. As this is obviously not the case, the Doppler Effect theory is DOA.

 

The fact that they don’t shift in phase, is due to them representing different levels of emission. For the dispersion theory to be correct, would require that one would shift to a greater extent than the other. This is observed.”

 

The big bang theory dead.

 

Stephen

 

I don't think there's much interest to what was discussed in another forum. What is of interest is addressing objections raised in this forum, and in the appropriate thread — this one was started by Tangointhenight. You have your own thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38685

 

I've reopened it, under the assumption that you will respond to questions put to you. If you don't it will be closed.

 

Edited February 24, 2009 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged.

[Peron]

Whether it's nitpicking or not depends, I guess, on whether you apply the same standards of evidence to the different areas of physics. Gravity and electromagnetic waves can be directly detected without having to worry too much about coincidence detection and accumulating lots of statistics to discern a signal from background — I can drop an object and see the effect of gravity with my eyes. I can see a light turn on and off.

 

The objection seems to be that if you have to go to the next level or perhaps a level beyond that, that the experiment is somehow no longer reliable. I can't see a proton or electron with my eye, but I can see the flash when they hit a phosphor, or a track they leave in a bubble chamber. Is that acceptable? OK, now what of it's a neutral particle, and I have to deduce its existence by the decay products — a track in the bubble chamber, followed by a gap, and then more tracks from the decay products, but the information from conservation of energy and momentum allows me to tie them together and deduce the properties of that particle.

 

The objection that dark matter has not been directly observed is, to me, similar to the search for the neutrino. We have deduced what kinds of properties dark matter has to have, which allows us to search for it. We've begun to accumulate observations that are consistent with it, but the data collection is still ongoing. Contrast that with the appeal to ridicule of the OP, which has a complete lack of any scientifically-based objection.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I don't think there's much interest to what was discussed in another forum. What is of interest is addressing objections raised in this forum, and in the appropriate thread — this one was started by Tangointhenight. You have your own thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38685

 

I've reopened it, under the assumption that you will respond to questions put to you. If you don't it will be closed.

 

 

Gravity waves have never been detected.

Gravity is not a seprate entity, mass is directly tied to gravity.

 

Everyone on this forum when threatend respond the same, "go read a science book"

This is of course a bunch of bull, because if you see two galaxies colliding then that goes agianst the big bang.

When someone tells you to go read, and you pick up a science journal all you get is a bunch of math.

[mooeypoo]

It's not about being threatened, it's about you not having a shred of evidence to what you're claiming. We are not a fantasy forum, we are a science forum, and we're following the scientific method.

 

You're the one making the claims, you are the one who hold the burden of proof. So far you're not fairing very well.

[swansont]

Gravity waves have never been detected.

Gravity is not a seprate entity, mass is directly tied to gravity.

 

No, but pulsar PSR 1913+16 has demonstrated orbital decay consistent with GR

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

 

(and to rebut the first statement — radio waves were undetected prior to the 20th century, but that does not mean they didn't exist)

 

Everyone on this forum when threatend respond the same, "go read a science book"

This is of course a bunch of bull, because if you see two galaxies colliding then that goes agianst the big bang.

When someone tells you to go read, and you pick up a science journal all you get is a bunch of math.

 

How does the collision of two galaxies go against the big bang?

 

(Why would you think that a theory could survive if something as trivially observed as this somehow contradicted it? Are you that ill-versed in the Big Bang, or the methods of scientific inquiry?)

[HardonColluder]

It's not about being threatened, it's about you not having a shred of evidence to what you're claiming. We are not a fantasy forum, we are a science forum, and we're following the scientific method.

 

You're the one making the claims, you are the one who hold the burden of proof. So far you're not fairing very well.

 

There's nothing wrong with considering an idea for which you have no evidence as long as you drop that idea when it conflicts with experiment . It's always healthy to wonder . After all , it's not like dark energy is so evident . Be it for or against dark energy , we're all searching for the truth . It shouldn't matter which route we take to get to it . Intuition should not be totally discarded because of the quantum revolution . I for one feel , intuitively , that dark matter is probably BS because of how ugly theorys become when more and more unfounded guesses are appended to them . But regardless of intuition , we'd all be better off if we considered the possibility of both outcomes , not just the outcome we openly endorse .

I think alot of people who enjoy science are too afraid to speak out against the general consensus . It's just as important to have people spending time trying to unbalance equations as it is trying to balance them ..... To post or not to post .... Flips a coin .... so be it .

[swansont]

If dark matter were an unfounded guess, that would be one thing. But it's not.

[HardonColluder]

I didn't mean it was arbitary nonsense . But when the big bang disagreed with experiment , by way of insufficient force of gravity , why wasn't the big bang theory scrapped ? As Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment , it's wrong" . Wouldn't it be a more dynamic approach to consider a new theory from scratch , taking into account the problems the big bang model presented , than inventing invisble forces just to balance the equations . Dark matter has to have a certain amount of truth to it , as it's based on observation . The theory that the sun goes round the earth (sans relativity) was not 'unfounded' , but it was extremely short sighted for the time . I shouldn't of used the word 'probably' - That was my intuition speaking . I always want to bet on the consensus , but I feel troubled putting faith in a 'dark' science . For me , the question of 'What should I spend my time thinking about ?' is probably the hardest question of all . There's just too much information and too little time .

I can't help but worry that I might be wasting time .

 

I apologise if I'm talking complete nonsense . I have a thing called TLE that means sometimes I'm both awake and asleep at the same time . Sleep-wake duality .

Edited May 27, 2010 by HardonColluder