Light as speed limit?

[swansont]

Here is what Michael Critchton said about consensus science back in 2003

 

Chrichton was a writer of fiction with an MD. He's wrong. It is fallacious to extrapolate that because some examples of consensus were not scientific that they all are. Consensus can be scientific, or not. It depends on the method used to reach that conclusion.

 

 

 

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

 

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

 

But it is a consensus, even if nobody uses the word. Not everybody agrees with relativity, for example, or evolution. But the majority of scientists agree that these theories are correct, because they are supported by the evidence. What is that, if not a consensus?

[Spyman]

Anyone searching the web will find numerous theories of the universe and arguments including numerous admitted problems and difficulties of the model you prefer. Some are interesting, some are absurd, but more than one are in play. You make yourself sound ignorant when you claim there is only one valid model. Alternate Cosmology or More Models

First of all I would like to make it clear that this is NOT my model or in anyway somehow preferred personally by me. It is the deemed current victorious model amongst all others, by the scientific consensus, because it is the only one which is able to explain and predict observed phenomenas.

 

 

Yes, there are difficulties and not everything can be explained, more work needs to be done. This does not falsificate a model, it is deemed wrong when the predictions are opposed by observations.

 

 

I never said that there was only ONE model either, I said that the only accepted models are based on space expanding through a change in metric. There are more than one model that are built on the Big Bang and General Relativity.

 

Did you even bother to read the first link found in the first search you posted? Let me qoute a small part from it:

 

"Today, it is more common to find in the scientific literature proposals for "non-standard cosmologies" that actually accept the basic tenets of the big bang cosmology, while modifying parts of the concordance model. Such theories include alternative models of dark energy, such as quintessence, phantom energy and some ideas in brane cosmology; alternative models of dark matter, such as modified Newtonian dynamics; alternatives or extensions to inflation such as chaotic inflation and the ekpyrotic model; and proposals to supplement the universe with a first cause, such as the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition, the cyclic model, and the string landscape. There is no consensus about these ideas amongst cosmologists, but they are nonetheless active fields of academic inquiry.

 

Today, heterodox non-standard cosmologies are generally considered unworthy of consideration by cosmologists while many of the historically significant nonstandard cosmologies are considered to have been falsified. The essentials of the big bang theory have been confirmed by a wide range of complementary and detailed observations, and no non-standard cosmologies have reproduced the range of successes of the big bang model. Speculations about alternatives are not normally part of research or pedagogical discussions except as object lessons or for their historical importance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

 

Yes, there are more than one scientific accepted model, but they all depend on basics of the Big Bang theory.

 

 

Anyone can post crap on the internet so of course there are a lot of NOT accepted models that is unable to fulfill scientific demands and accurate explain observed phenomenas. I make claims based on the scientific consensus with valid references and evidence thereof and you make claims based on a search with google on the internet, that likely include a lot of crackpot ideas, who do you really think looks "ignorant"?

 

 

That's right assumptions remain assumptions even if the model mimics observation. Models can reproduce empirical data for a time even if assumptions are wrong. Garbage in garbage out.

As time pass and the model continues to accurate predict observations the reliability of the model increases. It is not deemed false until it is contradicted.

 

Yes, the assumptions might be wrong and the models could be false, but right now "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric".

 

These models continues to match observations and thereby continues to validate the underlying assumptions too. So far the reliability of the model have increased with every observation we have made.

 

You are of course free to belive that the current models accepted by the scientific consensus is wrong and subscribe to any model you feel fit to your faith, but there are no doubts that this is the conclusion made by the scientific community.

 

I have showed you that it is established knowledge by the scientific consensus that alternate models that doesn't include metric expansion can't explain all observed phenomenas. It is also established by the scientific community that we don't know the total size or shape of the Universe, that the Universe don't have any gravitational center, that the Big Bang was not a traditional explosion with a blast front moving through space or that the Earth is not placed in a central specially favored position.

 

I have supported evidence that this are the mainstream view according to the scientific community and that everything else are "non-standard" alternatives. The factually correct scientific explanation has been given to you.

 

You have once again FAILED to provide any evidence supported with reputable references.

 

I suggest you stop your long winded whining and crying of the endless possibilities for the slight possibly of the scientific consensus to be wrong in their cosmological conclusions, because so far the current explanation and models stands. You can come back when you have any whit of evidence to the contrary.

 

 

This does not accurately represent my view. I do note that consensus in science is nearly meaningless.

Your actually confirm that I was right on spot, you are disputing the scientific consensus and tries to miscredit its conclusions.

 

 

Here is what Michael Critchton said...

I don't give a hoot about Michael Critchton's opinion, questioning the scientific consensus is outside the scope of this thread and best fit in its own thread, in some other subforum.

 

I repeat: This thread is in the subforum "Sciences" and "Physics" where scientific fact and mainstream physics rule.

 

 

----------

 

 

I disagree. I have made no claim that contradicts either theory unless you include the expansion mode in the Big Bang theory. Perhaps you are misinterpreting my words.

Anyone can go back read what you said, but lets repeat it again for clarity:

 

cypress said: "General relativity theory precludes the possibility of particles traveling faster than C, thus expansion in every direction from a constant reference frame is disallowed."

 

and:

 

cypress said: "The mass of the universe is of course traveling outward much slower than the radiation wave front and this expansion of mass is generally taken to be the referred to as the expansion of the universe.

 

This are NOT what the General Relativity or the Big Bang theory states, you are clearly contradicting the mainstream view of both theories. Either you have serious problems expressing yourself or your knowledge level of said theories are severely lacking, in both cases what you said are wrong.

 

 

As I indicated before, scientific consensus is often wrong and may well be wrong about the nature of the big bang expansion.

Your indications of the validity of scientific consensus is not relevant to this argument and neither is the Big Bang theory.

 

This is what you said:

 

cypress said: "So it is not incorrect to describe an alternate reference frame whereby matter near the boundary is moving outward relative to the universes center of gravity."

 

The true fact is that there does NOT exist any shred of evidence at all for an universal gravitational center in space.

 

 

And again you misinterpret my words. I do not believe we know with any precision the size or shape of the universe. I note again your over reliance on the consensus also.

This is NOT an argument on precision, what I note again is your over reliance on your ability to express yourself or your illusory knowledge level.

 

This is what you said:

 

cypress said: "The Universe is known to be finite, therefore it would seem that it must have one center of gravity."

 

The true fact is that there does NOT exist any shred of evidence at all for the Universe to be finite in size.

Which reminds me of your words: "Garbage in garbage out" that can be applied to your logic here.

 

 

The Copernican principle as applied to cosmology is an assumption and may well be false.

Well, you said this:

 

cypress said: "The observations you summarized are also consistent with uniform expansion of a classical 3 dimensional space of generally uniform density from a observation point near the center."

 

and this:

 

cypress said:" A traditional three dimensional outward expansion of space/time includes a blast front which is the remnants of the initial explosion of energy and matter and the source of background radiation."

 

And I acknowledge that the assumption of Copernican principle were we are not privileged observers might be wrong, but for the moment the model accurately fits observation in contrary to your proposed uniform expansion which is not able to explain all phenomenas.

 

 

----------

 

 

And yet through it all, it remains a true statement that we do not know if any distance between two objects in this universe is growing faster than twice the speed of light. This is the claim you think should not be trusted and yet you have no hope of showing that I am wrong. The balance of my claims you have managed to mangle and misstate. Yet my statement requires no evidence because the claim that distances are growing faster relies on assumptions that cannot currently be validated. The best you have to imply I am wrong is scientific consensus but I have shown why we might want to be suspicious of consensus in science.

You are still twisting the words and trying to change the argument, I repeat: I have NEVER claimed that any assumptions or scientific models are 100 percent foolproof. As opposed to your lies of what I have claimed, I have several times acknowledged that assumtions and models not only might be wrong but also are likely to need corrections. Anyone can go back and read what I said in my old posts.

 

The claims you have made that I consider should not be trusted are the following: That space are unable to expand faster than light according to General Relativity, that Big Bang theory is about matter moving outward from an traditional explosion, that the Universe have a gravitational center inside space, that the size of the Universe is finite, that there exists accepted alternate models which are able to explain all observed phenomenas without invoking metric expansion, that scientific conclusions are based on popular opinions and finally that because assumtions can't be validated, scientific models relying on them are mere guesswork without any supporting evidence at all.

 

Everything we know and all our scientific models relies on assumptions and there always exists the possibility that any of them are wrong. We have no other alternative than to observe the reality to the best of our ability and from measurement try to distinguish which assumtions and models that resembles the world around us.

 

We do not know everything and some parts of the models might turn out wrong but that does not mean that we are totally uncertain, that we are in pitch black darkness without knowing anything. We have actually managed to collect some evidence and some knowledge since the dawn of humankind. When we lay the cosmological puzzle and put the pieces we have found together we start to see a picture, and we have models which are able to explain how the Universe could have been able to develop, to turn out like the picture. These models are able to very accurately predict observations we make both on distant objects in outerspace and on small particles in physics labs.

 

The current status of our gathered knowledge and evidence is that the only models we have that qualifies and are able to explain all the observations depend on metric expansion. This models are not only the best models that we have available, they are also currently the only ones because every other model so far has been ruled out, everything else has been proved false. Newtonian mechanics is superseded by General Relativity.

 

I am going to repeat a small part of the quotes from my first post in this thread:

 

Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation.

 

Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric.

 

Additionally, scientists are confident that the theories which rely on the metric expansion of space are correct because they have passed the rigorous standards of the scientific method. In particular, when physics calculations are performed based upon the current theories (including metric expansion), they appear to give results and predictions which, in general, agree extremely closely with both astrophysical and particle physics observations.

 

This evidence is taken very seriously because the level of detail and the sheer quantity of measurements which the theories predict can be shown to precisely and accurately match visible reality. The level of precision is difficult to quantify, but is on the order of the precision seen in the physical constants that govern the physics of the universe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Observational_evidence

 

 

I'm done here. Blah blah uncertain and blah blah incorrect. Blah blah blaaah consensus. Good bye Spyman.

Farewell cypress, I hope you manage to improve your medieval model to a more modern one some day.