Is the Big Bang Running Out of Steam?

[big-egg]

I carefully studied these links and came to the conclusion that the big bang is running out of steam.

http://www.CosmologyStatement.org
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305a.htm

How many years do you give to the big bang theory?

I bet it will be debunked into about 3 years.

 

[marcus]

...

How many years do you give to the big bang theory?

I bet it will be debunked into about 3 years.

Egg, there is a stupendous vagueness about what people mean by
the "Big Bang"

what do you mean by it, exactly?

what model of cosmology, or models, do you imagine will be
discarded by cosmologists within 3 years?

to make a good bet you need precise specs
you have to say what you mean and give some criterion.

the people who lay real money bets on things like the Demise of String Theory
have some definite criteria

I wish I knew what you meant by Big Bang.

My apprehension is that it has meaning only in the mass media and in popular imagination.

All cosmologists know that if you push Einstein's 1915 model back it
developes difficulties (infinities, glitches) at a certain time and fails to compute. So the model fails at that mark in time.
this is considered as a fault and a sign that a quantized version of
the model is needed.

the place at which one cannot say anything because the model fails is
affectionately called the "BB singularity"
but its existence is just a temporary human intellectual shortcoming

an improved Gen Rel theory will get rid of this "BB singularity"

just because our current model fails does not mean that something exists in nature

Zen saying: When the archer misses the target, he looks for the fault in himself.

 

[Eh]

I carefully studied these links and came to the conclusion that the big bang is running out of steam.

Before saying anything further, why don't you take the time to learn about the scientific method? Seriously. The big bang theory will be finished when something better comes alone to replace it. That is, a model that can explain the available data the standard model cannot and make successful predictions. So far nothing does so.

The sites mentioned have little to do with science (the third site is run by apologetics who believe santa claus created the universe a short while back) and there is much better material to read before being able to make an educated guess as to how long to big bang theory will around.

 

[setAI]

I was recently entranced by the whole big bang buster movement because of dissatisfaction with a straw-man that I wrongly thought was the mainstream view: that is that the Big Bang was a causless creation-ex-nihlio and that all Existence was finite- which I feel is absurdity- but I have since updated my knowledge of the most popular theories and with all the ideas like multiverse models/ Landscapes/ infinite inflation/ ekpyrotic brane collisions/ multiple big-bang scenarios/ etc it is clear that there is no one out there really claiming a singular vision of what/where/when/how the big bang is- and no one is really claiming that it was purely causeless- just that in the distant past there was an event which seems to have caused our observable region of the universe to change in some way- generally an expansion/cooling- but beyond that there is no consensus- so there really is no need to quixotically battle with the Big Bang-

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[Nereid]

To elaborate just a little on what others have already said in reply to big-egg ... the observational data put forward to support the BBT is pretty solid; is big-egg expecting that within three years new observations will be solidly established, sufficient to require all flavours of the BB to be rejected? If so, I'm certainly curious as to what he (she?) thinks those observations might be.

From another perspective, the observations to hand to date can take us back to the surface of last scattering (from the WMAP data on the CMBR), and to an earlier time of nucleosynthesis (with more uncertainty). How much further back than that you wish to go is somewhat a matter of taste; my own view is that the observational data doesn't (yet) provide all that much to constrain the models and theories at any earlier times (for the avoidance of doubt; some constrains yes).

 

[big-egg]

I think that there are enough observations already to look for something that makes a better sense than the big bang. For example, the similarity between the near and the most distant galaxies and the discovery of heavy elements in the most distant quasars suggest that the big bang universe enters one of its recurrent age crises.
For alternative view, which is consistent with the mentioned puzzles you may look at

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm

 

[Nereid]

I think that there are enough observations already to look for something that makes a better sense than the big bang. For example, the similarity between the near and the most distant galaxies and the discovery of heavy elements in the most distant quasars suggest that the big bang universe enters one of its recurrent age crises.
For alternative view, which is consistent with the mentioned puzzles you may look at

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm

I didn't understand what "... suggest that the big bang universe enters one of its recurrent age crises" meant until I clicked on the link. big-egg, and Savov (per the link), seem to have misunderstood the Big Bang theory (BBT), or the recent galaxy and 'elements in quasars' observations (or both). For a start, the 'similarity between the near and the most distant galaxies' isn't what Savov makes of it, and is more a challenge to how we understand galaxies to have formed in the early universe (~300k to ~100M years) than to the BBT. Further, the 'similarity' isn't that early (or distant) galaxies look like the Milky Way (they don't). Much the same about 'heavy elements in the most distant quasars'; the data on the primordial abundance of nuclides - one of the three pillars of the BBT - is solid, and heavy elements in quasars would seem to have little direct relationship with the primordial abundances.

As to whether Savov's ideas are 'consistent with the mentioned puzzles', well, the link only gives some nice words and hand-waving. To be taken seriously as an alternative, let's see some concrete, specific, quantitative predictions; the first three listed in the link are too vague to test (almost any observation could be claimed to match), and the last seems to me to be a meaning-free statement. For example, let's see a Savov prediction on the history of initial stellar mass function (roughly, the proportion of stars in each mass class, as they form in galaxies; how has this varied over the past ~13 billion years? Numbers, not words and hand-waving please).

 

[Olias]

I carefully studied these links and came to the conclusion that the big bang is running out of steam.

http://www.CosmologyStatement.org
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305a.htm

How many years do you give to the big bang theory?

I bet it will be debunked into about 3 years.

Sorry, at the moment I have only just picked at my TOES (Theory Of Entropic States), and I can seriously state that I am at least a decade away from re-configuring the Big-Bang model, and even at this early stage, I still only see my model as a New 'INTEPRETATION', an Extension so to speak!

 

[quartodeciman]

The sites mentioned have little to do with science

Not so with the (joint) Cosmology Statement - Open Letter to the Scientific Community. I recognize some of these names as belonging to real scientists. Yes, these people are in a minority position reacting against BB, but their complaints deserve consideration (as to whether they represent the actual situation).

?

Is there a BB-dominated science ruling class that thwarts attempts to disprove or work independently of the BB presumption?

Are research funds and use of facilities withheld from known opponents of BB?

Is there need for regular consideration of opinions contrary to BB to keep scientists honest in their work? The claim is that observers are required to interpret everything in BB terms, when they should be reporting data cleanly.

Is BB theory slippery, like those geocentric epicycle theories in the past that accommodated any possible planetary observations by merely changing the size and numbers of epicycles? The claim is that BB accommodates new data by ad hoc changes of parameters. Parameters like baryon-density/boson-density ratio and absolute-temperature-of-cosmic-background-radiation are just set to make things come out right for the current observations, rather than theoretically justified-- so goes the complaint.

?

 

[Eh]

Not so with the (joint) Cosmology Statement - Open Letter to the Scientific Community. I recognize some of these names as belonging to real scientists. Yes, these people are in a minority position reacting against BB, but their complaints deserve consideration (as to whether they represent the actual situation).

Even that site has little science involved. A minority crying about the big bang theory on an internet website, unable to provide a better working model is nothing worthwhile.

Is there a BB-dominated science ruling class that thwarts attempts to disprove or work independently of the BB presumption?

Yeah, and maybe they work together with the scientists and government officials who cover up UFO's? Spare us the silly conspiracy theories, please.

Are research funds and use of facilities withheld from known opponents of BB?

I don't know, you'd have to check with the giant conspiracy of scientists mentioned above. From what I've read, it would seem that there is a lot of competition among scientists for funding, telescope time, etc. so it would make sense that such is reserved for promising fields of science.

Is there need for regular consideration of opinions contrary to BB to keep scientists honest in their work? The claim is that observers are required to interpret everything in BB terms, when they should be reporting data cleanly.

Anyone who would make the claim above demonstrates a profound ignorance of the scientific method.

In spite of all the conspiracy theory nonsense, there is a very simple reason why the big bang has become the mainstream model. The big bang is not merely a hypothesis, it is a theory. That is, a model that can explain the available data and has made several successful predictions about cosmogical phenomena. It is a model that has been very successful and scientists have no reason to discard it until something better comes along. And to clarify on that point, any replacement must be able to either account for some existing data the current model cannot, and must make testible predictions about the observable universe.

That doesn't mean a model that "feels right" or is philosophically pleasing. It means a model that can actually be tested. If it can't, scientists won't waste time on it for the simple reason that it isn't science at all. Do cranks ever once consider that maybe, no such model has come along? Regardless, how many physicists do you suppose actually think the standard model (cosmological) is complete? Their continuous search for a more complete model should immediately reveal the conspiracy theories to be the bull**** they are.

Is BB theory slippery, like those geocentric epicycle theories in the past that accommodated any possible planetary observations by merely changing the size and numbers of epicycles? The claim is that BB accommodates new data by ad hoc changes of parameters.

There are free parametres to begin with. So what? The big bang did not become mainstream from being a vauge model that can encorporate any data. It become the preferred model by making testible predictions that have been confirmed by experiment time and again. A better model may come along, but it will have to pass the test of time like the big bang theory has to become mainstream.

 

[setAI]

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here becasue I recently went through a "crisis in faith" concerning the BB- but arguments for it like your post Eh fail to actually provide a solid stance- instead it comes off as arrogant and it doesn't answer the question- posts like this that sound overlly "religious" in the conviction actually make you MORE doubtfull of the BB- not less-

I came back to beliving in the basic ideas of the BB through my own search- the continual condecension and failure to argue against the opposing view-point does NOT help steer people to the right track again- you should consider this!

here are some examples:

Even that site has little science involved. A minority crying about the big bang theory on an internet website, unable to provide a better working model is nothing worthwhile.

this is incorrect- in EVERY case where the Big Bang is rejected- an alternative theory is always presented- most of the scientists who signed the letter are Plasma physicists and have been working on incredibly detailed/thorough/ mathematically rigourous Plasma Cosmology theories which they believe more elegantly/intuitively/accurately descibe the universe without the need for ad hoc devices like MACHOS/ Wimps/ Dark matter/energy and large extra dimensions- IS Plasma Cosmology a better model? I say NO- but I never see physicist and posters here actually explaining WHY- instead they ignore the theory and say "they don't offer an alternative to the BB" but they DO- some of these theories are too mathematically complicated for a non-mathemetician to really evaluate - it would be nice to see a SOLID MATHEMATICAL DE-BUNKING instead of simply ignoring these ideas!

Spare us the silly conspiracy theories, please.

I don't know, you'd have to check with the giant conspiracy of scientists mentioned above. From what I've read, it would seem that there is a lot of competition among scientists for funding, telescope time, etc. so it would make sense that such is reserved for promising fields of science.

Anyone who would make the claim above demonstrates a profound ignorance of the scientific method.

conspiracies ARE silly- but the idea that scinece is being done with ethical perfection is even more silly- scientists and boards ar humans- and humans are impoissibly hypocritical and biased- you try to be pure- but ultimately a maverick/crank is likely to get little funding REGARDLESS if her theory is solid or not- this is just a reality of being flawed humans-

there is a very simple reason why the big bang has become the mainstream model. The big bang is not merely a hypothesis, it is a theory... The big bang did not become mainstream from being a vauge model that can encorporate any data. It become the preferred model by making testible predictions that have been confirmed by experiment time and again.

unfortuanetly this is not the case in reality- there have been a number of occaisons when data differed from prediction- especially with Inflation- and the theory was adjusted after the fact to fit the results of experiments- this does NOT invalidate these theories- it just demonstrates that the whole picture is not there- however I have to admit that even considering adjustments and "epicycles" the BBT still has a gigantic and unignorable amount of physical/logical support- even if the details aren't quite as solid- but if you try to cover up these kinds of weaknesses by ignoring them- it certainly makes the BB LOOK like it's wrong- it just doesn't help- you have to level with people so they can see the REAL stength of the BB and not the lie of perfection!

If it wasn't for these attitudes I would have come back to the fold much sooner! no one wants to try and see the position of someone who is ignoring yours- even if they ARE more right! this is basic sociology here! but we all know how skillfull many scientists are with social/emotional sensibilities: i.e. NOT!

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[Nereid]

this is incorrect- in EVERY case where the Big Bang is rejected- an alternative theory is always presented- most of the scientists who signed the letter are Plasma physicists and have been working on incredibly detailed/thorough/ mathematically rigourous Plasma Cosmology theories which they believe more elegantly/intuitively/accurately descibe the universe without the need for ad hoc devices like MACHOS/ Wimps/ Dark matter/energy and large extra dimensions- IS Plasma Cosmology a better model? I say NO- but I never see physicist and posters here actually explaining WHY- instead they ignore the theory and say "they don't offer an alternative to the BB" but they DO- some of these theories are too mathematically complicated for a non-mathemetician to really evaluate - it would be nice to see a SOLID MATHEMATICAL DE-BUNKING instead of simply ignoring these ideas!

Someone here in PF recently posted a link to what I think is one such paper, it was 67 pages long, yet barely (IMHO) started to address the astronomical data! :surprise:

From my POV, an equally difficult task confronting all those who propose alternatives to the BBT is to 're-explain' just about all the observational results from extra-galactic (= outside the Milky Way) astronomy.

Take a non-cosmological redshift, for example. First, what are those fuzzy patches of light (and X-rays, and IR, and radio, ...) which we otherwise called 'distant galaxies'? If they are galaxies, how distant are they? In these alternative views, what are the properties of these galaxies (mass, size, stellar mass function, rotation rate, gas content, ...)? You can see how tough these questions become by considering just size (as determined by some objective measure) - assuming a cosmological redshift, a 0.3, 1, 3 billion light-year distant cD elliptical galaxy is pretty much the same physical size as M87; under the alternatives they'd be much smaller (or larger). Another example: equilibrium IGM (as determined by X-ray observations of clusters).

The CMBR is another example; whatever explanation a BBT alternative proposes, it needs to work through the implications of this alternative, and show consistency with the relevant astronomical observations! This is not for the faint hearted, and also isn't so much tough math as painstaking detail in tracking down the data (which exists by the TB) to test against these implications.

Finally, just a word on the 'give us our daily funding and Keck time': these critics would, IMHO, make a stronger case if they could show that the vast amount of high-quality data already available FREE, in the public domain, has been extensively mined for support for their alternatives. After all, all they need is a high-speed internet connection and good data mining software.

 

[Eh]

A theory is not something you pull out of your ear

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here becasue I recently went through a "crisis in faith" concerning the BB- but arguments for it like your post Eh fail to actually provide a solid stance- instead it comes off as arrogant and it doesn't answer the question- posts like this that sound overlly "religious" in the conviction actually make you MORE doubtfull of the BB- not less-

I think the position has been quite well explained. The big bang is accepted because it's been such a successful theory. It has also been explained what it would take to replace such a model. And that's really all it comes down. Yet this is not enough because 99% of the critics (at least on this forum) are so because they can't tell the difference between science and general philosophy. They can argue against the big bang all they want, but they can't present a better model.

Does it sound condescending? Perhaps it is. But if an individual can't be bothered to learn anything about science to start with, facts aren't necessarily going to steer them in the right direction. In that case they should just head over to the philosophy forum instead.

this is incorrect- in EVERY case where the Big Bang is rejected- an alternative theory is always presented

No they don't. They post models that cannot be classified as theories because they have not had any experimental verification. In many cases, they post models that don't even make any testible predictions at all, which leaves us with philosophy, not science. Of course I am being generous, ignoring the "models" that aren't even consistent with the available data. See sci.physics for examples.

IS Plasma Cosmology a better model?

I've seen scientists take the time to explain this numerous times, though the alternative model is not often specifically plasma cosmology. So why do physicists opt for the big bang model over plasma cosmology to be worthwhile? Probably because the big bang theory has made several successful testible predictions, while you can't say the same for plasma cosmology. In the absence of experimental success, plasma cosmology has not achieved the status of theory and cannot explain any data the big bang cannot.

While proponents of plasma cosmology (and other alternatives to the BBT) will claim their model is at least simpler and requires less ad-hoc explanations, this claim is subjective, and many physicists would likely argue the opposite.

From the Ask and Astronomer site:

The bottom line is that there is no body of evidence that plasma cosmology is trying to explain, that ordinary gravitational cosmology cannot explain in a much simpler way.

What then, does plasma cosmology offer as a replacement to the standard model?

conspiracies ARE silly- but the idea that scinece is being done with ethical perfection is even more silly- scientists and boards ar humans- and humans are impoissibly hypocritical and biased- you try to be pure- but ultimately a maverick/crank is likely to get little funding REGARDLESS if her theory is solid or not- this is just a reality of being flawed humans-

This has nothing to do with "ethical perfection". Science is a method that was developed to minimize human bias in the search for knowledge about the natural world. This method works fairly well because you can't argue with experimental success, no matter what philosophical bias you may have.

The last statement in the quoted text is nonsense. A true crank won't get funding because he/she isn't doing science, and it's usually obvious fairly quickly. Do you honestly think an idea for perpetual motion would be rejected because of human bias?

unfortuanetly this is not the case in reality- there have been a number of occaisons when data differed from prediction- especially with Inflation

Oh? I thought this was a discussion about the big bang model, not inflation or anything beyond the standard model. One would be on shakey ground to call inflation an established theory, and there is competition from more exotic models to account for the early evolution of the universe. Without much experimental verification, these models are far from such the status of theory, but I think most scientists in the field would recongnize that fact.

and the theory was adjusted after the fact to fit the results of experiments- this does NOT invalidate these theories- it just demonstrates that the whole picture is not there

That is how science works. When a hypothesis is found to be incompatible with the evidence, it must be revised or replaced.

but if you try to cover up these kinds of weaknesses by ignoring them- it certainly makes the BB LOOK like it's wrong- it just doesn't help- you have to level with people so they can see the REAL stength of the BB and not the lie of perfection!

Who is ignoring them? Certainly not physicists, who are always trying to find better and more complete models. No one is claiming the current models are complete, so to claim that anyone is covering up the shortcomings of the mainstream theories is ridiculous. However, when someone comes along complaining about a massive scientific conspiracy, they must be reminded that science is not about philosophical ideas that feel right. If an individual cannot be bothered to even learn about science before posting, hostile and even rude responses are expect and IMO, justified.

 

[big-egg]

Food For Thought

Quote:
"just because our current model fails does not mean that something exists in nature"

Something exists if its behavior self-consistently accounts for observation.

Quote:
"The big bang theory will be finished when something better comes alone to replace it. That is, a model that can explain the available data the standard model cannot and make successful predictions. So far nothing does so."

This is not obvious in the context of the presented links.

Quote:
"As to whether Savov's ideas are 'consistent with the mentioned puzzles', well, the link only gives some nice words and hand-waving. To be taken seriously as an alternative, let's see some concrete, specific, quantitative predictions; the first three listed in the link are too vague to test (almost any observation could be claimed to match), and the last seems to me to be a meaning-free statement. For example, let's see a Savov prediction on the history of initial stellar mass function (roughly, the proportion of stars in each mass class, as they form in galaxies; how has this varied over the past ~13 billion years? Numbers, not words and hand-waving please)."

The understanding of the universe should not depend on numbers but on qualitative reasoning [1]. That is what Savov does in his book. He tries to change our qualitative understanding first. Afterwards he offers some numbers, e.g. successfully calculates the ratio between the masses of the Earth and the sun in the terms of his theory of interaction. His “firework universe” effectively removes the singularity in the universe beginning and generates finite bodies whose interaction accounts for everything including life and mind. What the BBT tells about the appearance of the observer? It tells nothing. The properties of the proposed 3D-spiral code of nature generate the properties of consciousness [2].

The three pillars of the BBT – redshift, cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the abundance of light elements find a much simpler explanation in Savov’s theory of interaction. The light ages on it way from the distant galaxies and its structure expands to create the observed cosmic redshift [2]. The cooling of the just born firework universe made of multiscale bright stars created the CMB and its structure. The light elements H and He were more easily ejected from their sources (seen as stars) to create their predominant abundance in the cosmic space. The latter conjecture is confirmed in the content of H and He in the solar wind (about 99%).

1. Maddox, J., Big bang not yet dead but in decline, Nature, vol. 377, 1995, p. 99.
2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002.

 

[Nereid]

Quote {Nereid}:
"As to whether Savov's ideas are 'consistent with the mentioned puzzles', well, the link only gives some nice words and hand-waving. To be taken seriously as an alternative, let's see some concrete, specific, quantitative predictions; the first three listed in the link are too vague to test (almost any observation could be claimed to match), and the last seems to me to be a meaning-free statement. For example, let's see a Savov prediction on the history of initial stellar mass function (roughly, the proportion of stars in each mass class, as they form in galaxies; how has this varied over the past ~13 billion years? Numbers, not words and hand-waving please)."

The understanding of the universe should not depend on numbers but on qualitative reasoning [1]. That is what Savov does in his book. He tries to change our qualitative understanding first. Afterwards he offers some numbers, e.g. successfully calculates the ratio between the masses of the Earth and the sun in the terms of his theory of interaction. His “firework universe” effectively removes the singularity in the universe beginning and generates finite bodies whose interaction accounts for everything including life and mind. What the BBT tells about the appearance of the observer? It tells nothing. The properties of the proposed 3D-spiral code of nature generate the properties of consciousness [2].

The three pillars of the BBT – redshift, cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the abundance of light elements find a much simpler explanation in Savov’s theory of interaction. The light ages on it way from the distant galaxies and its structure expands to create the observed cosmic redshift [2]. The cooling of the just born firework universe made of multiscale bright stars created the CMB and its structure. The light elements H and He were more easily ejected from their sources (seen as stars) to create their predominant abundance in the cosmic space. The latter conjecture is confirmed in the content of H and He in the solar wind (about 99%).

1. Maddox, J., Big bang not yet dead but in decline, Nature, vol. 377, 1995, p. 99.
2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002.

Hmm, so, according to Savov, an entirely appropriate way to proceed with science would be something like this (yes, it's a strawman, but the point is to illustrate a pretty radical difference between what Savov says (per big-egg) and science as is currently done): I've got a far better understanding of gravity than either Newton or Einstein provided; it's really {qualitative words about the marvelous new idea}. No, I've not written down any equations to characterise my new idea, and so I can't give you a method for calculating the trajectory of the Cassini spaceprobe, the orbit of the Moon, or even the fall of an apple on an airless world. I can assure you that my new idea works really well because I have successfully calculated the ratio of the time of the Permian and Cretaceous mass extinctions; my idea also explains the colour of the sands of the beaches of the island of Mindanao. Oh, and no, I can't share with you my calculations; nor have I submitted any papers to peer-reviewed journals.

PF has two excellent boards on which we could discuss this - Theory Development, suitable for new ideas; and Philosophy of Science, where we could talk about how radically new approaches to doing science may become mainstream.

If Savov's idea can be used to successfully estimate the ratio of the mass of the Earth to the Sun (to how many significant digits? what data sources did he use for the current observational values? what errors? etc), he surely could calculate the ratio of the mass of Phoebe to Saturn (or any of the moons of Saturn)! If so, he lost an extraordinary opportunity to make a splash - Cassini has just flown past Phoebe, and so a dramatically improved estimate of the mass of Phoebe will shortly be announced. If Savov would care to make predictions of the ratios of the masses of the remaining moons which Cassini will fly closely by in the next few years, a set of very specific tests of his idea would be possible.

Alternatively, perhaps Savov could give us precise predictions of the angular power spectrum of the CMBR? The second year's results from WMAP will be out before too long, and a prediction which matches the soon-to-be-announced results would be a real coup for Savov.

 

[Chronos]

Quote:

The three pillars of the BBT – redshift, cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the abundance of light elements find a much simpler explanation in Savov’s theory of interaction. The light ages on it way from the distant galaxies and its structure expands to create the observed cosmic redshift [2]. The cooling of the just born firework universe made of multiscale bright stars created the CMB and its structure. The light elements H and He were more easily ejected from their sources (seen as stars) to create their predominant abundance in the cosmic space. The latter conjecture is confirmed in the content of H and He in the solar wind (about 99%).

1. Maddox, J., Big bang not yet dead but in decline, Nature, vol. 377, 1995, p. 99.
2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002.

light ages? with respect to what? light does not have a time dimension. photons wink in and out of existence simulataneously from the photon's reference frame. savov needs a refresher course in GR 101.

 

[russ_watters]

The understanding of the universe should not depend on numbers but on qualitative reasoning [1]. That is what Savov does in his book.

In that case, any disagreement reduces to "I like my ideas better than yours" and ends there. I think you'll find the philosophy section of the board more to your liking: science deals with numbers.

 

[Phobos]

An immediate problem I see with the suggested "qualitative" approach (if I understand it correctly) is that it builds the explanatory model first and then finds the data that supports it (ignoring the data against it). In short, a scientist practicing this method would not look for data that can falsify the theory, which is an important part of the scientific method.

 

[turbo]

An immediate problem I see with the suggested "qualitative" approach (if I understand it correctly) is that it builds the explanatory model first and then finds the data that supports it (ignoring the data against it). In short, a scientist practicing this method would not look for data that can falsify the theory, which is an important part of the scientific method.

As I understand it, Burbidge, Arp, et al, are objecting to just this kind of behavior in regard to the Hubble redshift/distance concept. Not only the fault of not looking for insupportive data, but even worse, the ignoring of existing evidence to the contrary. From a basic web page on the scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html):

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If observation (for example the observation of apparently causually connected objects with widely disparate redshifts in the case of Burbidge and Arp) disagrees fundamentally with accepted laws, the Scientific Method demands that the observations be examined, disproved, or proved, THEN back to step 2, when the hypotheses are re-examined, if necessary. Unfortunately, the astronomical community has not comported itself well in this regard, and refuses to examine the apparently disparate redshifts critically. There are a number of very compelling examples of apparently physically-associated items with discordant redshifts, but there is precious little attention given to these quandries. It may be that there are other mechanisms beside cosmological expansion that can cause redshift, and the astronomical establishment does itself a disservice to dismiss examples of discordant redshifts so high-handledly without exploring the alternatives.

It may be that the Big Bang is safe and sound, once apparently non-cosmological redshifts are examined and explained. Alternatively, the Big Bang might be threatened if the Hubble constant is re-examined critically. Either way, if the folks that feel that the Hubble constant is flawed should get a fair hearing.

In a June, 1988 letter to me, Halton Arp wrote "While attending the 'Cosmology in Retrospect' symposium in Bologna a few weeks ago I had occasion to reread some of Hubble's old papers. It surprised even me. Hubble always said - 'if the redshift means velocity.' Even in a paper published after his death in 1953 he said that cxz=velocity is not formally correct."

Halton "Chip" Arp is not a crackpot, or even a fringe observational astronomer. He is one of the 20th century's premier observational astronomers, and he has worked closely with some giants of the field. His survey of "interesting" (in the Chinese sense) galaxies is pivotal. When an astonomer of his magnitude makes some very basic repeatable observations and suggests that we need to re-examine some widely-accepted beliefs, we should pay some attention.

 

[Chronos]

quantum physics [and Godel, for that matter] predict a certain amount of 'unpredictability' in observations. the best fit theory is as good as it gets. scientists are not dogmatic fools... some of them even have children to support. grant money is not free. they are very careful about what they publish because a single mistake could put an end to their credibility and careers.. or force them to write blame-game occult books about their failed theories to make a living.

 

[turbo]

Quantum physics predicts?

Quantum physics deals with the properties and behavior (or lack thereof...) of fundamental particles. It cannot be used to explain variability in macro-world measurements. Variations in measurements of redshift (observations) are not a factor in any case.

There is no dispute that the high-redshift objects cited by Burbidge and Arp are redshifted. The dispute arises out of the insistence of conventional astronomers that redshift is an absolute measure of recessional velocity and thus of distance. Strict interpretation of redshift=distance places quasars very far away, and requires them to be far more luminous than can be accounted for. To complicate this, jets associated with some quasars exhibit apparent superliminal movement which can only be rationalized by asserting some very coincidental alignments. Also, some quasars exhibit brightness changes over short periods of time, suggesting that they are very compact objects. These problems disappear IF quasars are relatively nearby objects and not the most distant observable bodies.

There may be a reasonable explanation for the excess redshift. For instance, quasars might be tremendously massive and compact, and the light from them is redshifted due to climbing out of a steep gravity well. There may be another explanation, but this particular one is so simple and fundamental that it is probably correct - flying in the face of Einstein, who said "elegance is for tailors". :-)

 

[big-egg]

Elegance is for everybody

"Einstein, who said "elegance is for tailors""

I am very surprised that Einstein could have said such a nonsense. It is clear that he was not aware of the fundamental principle of parsimony, like most of the current researches. You may find these links interesting.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/26mar_einstein.htm
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

His greatest discovery is E=mc2, not the theory of relativity, although by chance the energy and mass equivalence appears in this theory.

Can anybody comment the accuracy of E=mc2? It is essentially qualitative relation showing that you can obtain more of what you see as energy from far less from what you see as mass /dense matter/.

The energy and mass equivalence is derived in the terms of Savov’s theory of interaction, which also claims that the cosmic redshift results from expansion of the inner structure of the light. The quasars are distant because they are baby galaxies, much later born than the galaxies around us and so found at very far away from us. The recent findings of small galaxies associated with quasars [1] is another amazing confirmation of Savov's theory.

1. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0405/25quasars/

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Big Bang model has a way of always reinventing itself or altering it self, like the idea that it was started by higher dimensional membranes colliding...

It should be here longer than 3 years, I currently don't see an end to it.

 

[Eh]

Save the pseudo-science for the theory development forum, please. The difference between philosophy and science has already been pointed out numerous time here, yet you still seem to think Savov's ideas have anything intelligent or relevant to contribute here. They don't.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Also... on a little less serious note, even if for whatever reason it was put down the school systems are so poor right now it would take them like 15 years to change the books anyway, and the model would still be taught.

 

[meteor]

"...the discovery of heavy elements in the most distant quasars ..."

Can you give a reference?

PS: Don't worry I found it. It refers to quasar J1148+5251, with redshift 6.4. This is the explanation


http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/bertoldi/j1148/

"Ten years ago no one would have thought that huge masses of dust and heavy elements already existed so soon after the Big Bang," recalls Dr. Bertoldi. " Since the original, pristine cosmic matter did not contain any of those elements, the very first stars forming in the Universe must have bred them and then ejected them into the interstellar medium with surprising efficiency, through their strong winds, or during the supernova explosions marking the end of massive stars. Apparently this lead to enrichments of heavy elements in the surrounding gas rather similar to what we find today, some 13 billion years later, in the interstellar medium of neighbouring galaxies."


So, mistery solved

 

[Nereid]

Can anybody comment the accuracy of E=mc2? It is essentially qualitative relation showing that you can obtain more of what you see as energy from far less from what you see as mass /dense matter/.

It is essentially a quantitative relationship, which can be tested to whatever degree of accuracy and precision your experimental or observational setup allows. AFAIK there are no experiments or observations which are inconsistent with it. How accurately? If you consider QED (essentially putting SR into quantum mechanics) as a test of E=mc², then it's the most accurately tested physical theory, period.

Einstein 10¹⁵, Savov 0.

The energy and mass equivalence is derived in the terms of Savov’s theory of interaction, which also claims that the cosmic redshift results from expansion of the inner structure of the light. The quasars are distant because they are baby galaxies, much later born than the galaxies around us and so found at very far away from us. The recent findings of small galaxies associated with quasars [1] is another amazing confirmation of Savov's theory.

1. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0405/25quasars/

If Savov is re-writing the fundamentals of physics so drastically ("the cosmic redshift results from expansion of the inner structure of the light") it is surely incumbent upon him to show that 'quasars', 'galaxies', even 'distance' have anything but a coincidental relationship to these things in real physics.

Let's be generous for a moment and assume that Savov will produce such a detailed account, and that the terms do have a close correspondence. How does his idea account for all the other observational details of quasars and distant galaxies? Here's a short list, just for tonight's homework:
- the pure-luminosity evolution of quasars
- the Lyman forest, of all kinds
- the era of re-ionization
- large-scale structure (galaxies+globulars, groups, clusters, super-clusters; walls, voids, sheets, ...)
- the IGM.

No qualitative hand-waving please, just hard results (i.e. numbers and equations).

Note to PF Mentors: could we please strip out the posts relating to Savov and move them to Theory Development?

PS re posts with questions about Burbidge and Arp (etc): some material here well worth a good discussion; later (when I have more time).

 

[Phobos]

Unfortunately, the astronomical community has not comported itself well in this regard, and refuses to examine the apparently disparate redshifts critically. There are a number of very compelling examples of apparently physically-associated items with discordant redshifts, but there is precious little attention given to these quandries.

Do you have some examples we can review?

It may be that there are other mechanisms beside cosmological expansion that can cause redshift, and the astronomical establishment does itself a disservice to dismiss examples of discordant redshifts so high-handledly without exploring the alternatives.

Astronomers recognize cosmological, gravitational, and velocity (doppler) sources of redshift.

In a June, 1988 letter to me, Halton Arp wrote "While attending the 'Cosmology in Retrospect' symposium in Bologna a few weeks ago I had occasion to reread some of Hubble's old papers. It surprised even me. Hubble always said - 'if the redshift means velocity.' Even in a paper published after his death in 1953 he said that cxz=velocity is not formally correct."

I have not reviewed Hubble's original papers but even so, a lot of work has been done since that time which is not based on an assumption from his work.

Halton "Chip" Arp is not a crackpot, or even a fringe observational astronomer. He is one of the 20th century's premier observational astronomers, and he has worked closely with some giants of the field.

I think its fair to say that he's outside of the mainstream scientific community. (Not that it automatically discounts his work of course, but peer review is important.)

an astonomer of his magnitude

good pun

 

[setAI]

Do you have some examples we can review?

he is talking about the Arp objects: http://members.aol.com/arpgalaxy/

there are 388 catalogued http://members.aol.com/arpgalaxy/arpord.html

they are all galaxies/quasars that are clearly close enough to touch/interact- but a doppler redshift would indicate that they are very far away from one another-

I think there is probably some weird gravity effects going on here to cause the discrepancy without the need to attack the doppler-from-expansion or the BB- but unfortunatley mainstream cosmologists and even some astronomers ignore this data because it is often used to discredit the Big Bang- so we are all still waiting for a hypothesis from mainstream science- and waiting- and waiting-


___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[turbo]

A few responses...

Dear Phobos:

Rather than quote, re-quote, etc (kind of messy) I’ll address your quotes one by one.

#1 For some examples, let’s pick just two examples, to keep things manageable:

Here is a link to some information about NGC7603 with two high-redshift knots embedded in the arm connecting the galaxy to its apparently-ejected neighbor. Accidental alignments like this should boggle the mind. If anyone would like to calculate the chances of this alignment, please chime in.

http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

Here is a Hubble image of NGC4319 and Markarian 205. Click on the photo and then download the high-resolution version. Open it in Photoshop and manipulate the contrast and brightness settings. The bridge between the two will jump out at you. The Hubble Space Telescope took this picture – there is no sleight-of-hand here. The official version of the image is pretty mundane. Even minor enhancement brings out the bridge, though.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/23/

#2 Yes, of course astronomers acknowledge that there are various means by which light can be redshifted. The problem is that the astronomical community has determined that the observed high redshifts of quasars are primarily (read “entirely”) cosmological. If there is even ONE convincing example of a physical relationship between a high-redshift object and a low-redshift object, this rule-of-thumb is automatically void and needs to be re-validated.

#3 I have no access to Hubble’s original papers either. Halton Arp has been privileged to work with some of the finest observational astronomers, however; well before their work was entombed by the assumptions of others. His first position after attaining his doctorate was as Edwin Hubble’s assistant, and I expect that he has a deeper appreciation for Hubble’s thought-processes than most contemporary astronomers. The quote is from a fairly long letter Dr. Arp wrote to me in response to another letter I had written to an astronomy magazine in regard to the apparent bridge between Q2203 +292 and a nearby spiral in a recently published photo. He wanted to convey to me that even Edwin Hubble was uncomfortable with the current fad of using redshifts to establish the distance to every observable object. There is an old saying - “to a man with a hammer in his hand, every problem looks like a nail”. It might now be appropriate to ask if the Hubble Constant has been plastered onto quasars and other high-redshift objects even before the natures of such “quasi-stellar” objects have been adequately explored.

#4 Being outside the mainstream does not invalidate Arp’s work. Copernicus and Galileo were outside the mainstream. Einstein was outside the mainstream. People who make paradigm-altering observations are always outside the mainstream until their observations are accepted. That does not make them wrong, nor should it lay them open to ridicule. I wonder how Galileo would have survived under “peer review” if he had not already used his telescopes to demonstrate to other inquisitive individuals that he was onto something. He probably would have died very early in the inquiry, like the other heretics.

#5 Not a pun (although I love them). Halton Arp is a real gentleman. 50 years from now, the people who have done their very best to bury him in these past few decades will be discredited and many will be reviled for their efforts to discredit him. He is a decent man, and he comports himself with dignity.

 

[Chronos]

nereid, appreciate your frustration. science without math is vodoo. ideas without math are.. just ideas. that does not mean they are wrong, just unsubstantiated. i kinda wish this forum had more math than conjecture. i would have more difficulty following those arguments, but, they would make more sense. savov makes no sense whatsoever. it is easy to poke fun at those who do not have to make a living on grant money and being forced to submit to peer scrutiny.

 

[Nereid]

nereid, appreciate your frustration. science without math is vodoo. ideas without math are.. just ideas. that does not mean they are wrong, just unsubstantiated. i kinda wish this forum had more math than conjecture. i would have more difficulty following those arguments, but, they would make more sense. savov makes no sense whatsoever. it is easy to poke fun at those who do not have to make a living on grant money and being forced to submit to peer scrutiny.

I love ideas just as much as anyone else, and I suspect that just about everything new in science begins as some kind of vague (or not so vague!) idea. However what comes next really does matter; could be 'OK, so how can we get at least an OOM handle on this puppy?', or 'how does that stack up against what we already know about {X}?' The peer-reviewed journals are absolutely chock-a-block full of ideas that have gone through this stage - look at the cottage industry on inflation, or primordial black holes, to pick just two examples.

Then too there are folk who take some left field idea and really run with it; think of Hoyle and his spinning iron whiskers (giving rise to the CMBR), or panspermia (a rich and complex subject; just one aspect: Hoyle - at one time - attributed flu epidemics on Earth to cosmic bacteria/viruses), or some of the 'plasma cosmologists'. (I will come back to Arp, turbo1, et al I really will; it's just that I have so little time right now).

Too, there's nothing wrong in principle with super-grand ideas (like Savov's), but IMHO the proponents lose credibility if they still haven't addressed even OOM quantitative aspects after several *years*, when it seems to me that only a few *hours* are enough to do a handful of key OOM reality checks.

Finally, as HPS students learn, the real-world nature of science can be messy, with false starts and wrong turns that may consume hundreds of researchers and decades of time. I mean, who remembers "N-rays"? or "nematode memory molecules"? On the other side, recall continental drift/plate tectonics, or snowball Earth.

 

[Thallium]

A digression:

The Bible actually says that the Universe is expanding. Any religious discussion belongs in the reilgion forum, yes, yes, yes, but there is a lot of science in the Bible too!

Peace

 

[shrumeo]

nereid, appreciate your frustration. science without math is vodoo. ideas without math are.. just ideas. that does not mean they are wrong, just unsubstantiated. i kinda wish this forum had more math than conjecture. i would have more difficulty following those arguments, but, they would make more sense. savov makes no sense whatsoever. it is easy to poke fun at those who do not have to make a living on grant money and being forced to submit to peer scrutiny.

yes, we need math to quantify our ideas, but that's all math in science is, a quantification of ideas. if the ideas are flawed but the math that represents them doesn't seem to be (it's "elegant") then that will lead us off track in terms of our understanding of nature.

if i have an equation to calculate the number of times the whole universe blinks out of existence and back again, it seems to have a somewhat regular pattern, i can label that rate B, for the rate that the universe goes in and out of existence, and then base further equations on that value. but what i failed to understand is that it's just my eyelids cutting out the light. Maybe this is a bad example, the best i could come up with just sitting here. But I think I'm trying to say that the math doesn't MEAN anything without a qualitative understanding of phenomena.

So, it seems ideas in science without math to back them up are meaningless and math without ideas behind it is equally meaningless.

(Note: I am not agreeing with Eugene Savov. But, I do appreciate Halton Arp's efforts to keep everyone sane.)

Edit to add the note.

 

[russ_watters]

yes, we need math to quantify our ideas, but that's all math in science is, a quantification of ideas. if the ideas are flawed but the math that represents them doesn't seem to be (it's "elegant") then that will lead us off track in terms of our understanding of nature.

The math needs to come first and if it is accurate, how can it lead us off track? A great example is the Lorentz transformations. The concept is now considered flawed, but the math fits observations and is useable in the theory that replaced it.

I really think objections like this come from a simple lack of acceptance of reality at face value. People don't want to believe what the math says.

 

[Phobos]

(I will come back to Arp, turbo1, et al I really will; it's just that I have so little time right now).

ditto...hang on, Turbo1

 

[shrumeo]

The math needs to come first and if it is accurate, how can it lead us off track? A great example is the Lorentz transformations. The concept is now considered flawed, but the math fits observations and is useable in the theory that replaced it.

I really think objections like this come from a simple lack of acceptance of reality at face value. People don't want to believe what the math says.

Math coming first? I don't understand. All the theoretical equations that I have ever seen have a bunch of variables and constants in them. These did not come first, to us they represent something in the real world. We had to have those real world things and ideas in place first before we could relate them in an equation.

All I'm saying is that if we think "A" represents so-and-so, but all the while we didn't realize that "A" really represents who-and-who, a slightly different interpretation of so-and-so, then the math isn't flawed but our understanding is. Hmm, not doing a good job of explaining.

Then, in the red-shift example. I am under the impression that as a rule of thumb astronomers calculate the distance to distant objects by their redshift. This is based on the assumption that the redshift is due entirely to the Doppler effect, or space expanding, or whatever. The math is right. The formulas all give checkable answers. Did that just prove that we understand the nature of the redshift?



Edit:
Wait, I just read your reply more carefully and you exactly expressed what I was trying to say. Math can be right all along, but we can't rely on it entirely to build our concepts.

 

[russ_watters]

ditto...hang on, Turbo1

Oy - fasten your seat-belt, turbo1. You don't know what you just got yourself into...

Math coming first? I don't understand. All the theoretical equations that I have ever seen have a bunch of variables and constants in them. These did not come first, to us they represent something in the real world. We had to have those real world things and ideas in place first before we could relate them in an equation.

I'm talking about in the creation of a theory. A theory that describes a real-world phenomena consists of a mathematical model and a qualitative explanation. The qualitative explanation comes from the mathematical model.

Science itself arose for exactly this reason: before Galileo, people had it backwards. Starting with Galileo, scientists started making observations, recording data, and fitting the data to mathematical models, then evaluating what those models said about reality. Thats how we got rid of non-theories like the "chrystal spheres," geocentrism, and the unscientific ideas of Aristotle.

 

[Chronos]

well put russ. i too dislike the idea that our understanding of the universe leaves us basically stranded in our solar system. sailing off into the great void is much more attractive, but, not realistic. given the current economic climate [consuming the energy equivalent of our entire solar system to travel across the galaxy will probably not reach a vote in a senate subcommitee] attacking the 'guards' seems to be the only way we can escape this prison. we may not be alone in the universe, just forbidden to contaminate it.

 

[big-egg]

“yes, we need math to quantify our ideas, but that's all math in science is, a quantification of ideas. if the ideas are flawed but the math that represents them doesn't seem to be (it's "elegant") then that will lead us off track in terms of our understanding of nature.”

I fully agree with you Shrumeo. It seems that some members of the forum have never considered the qualitative nature of the foundations of the math models and the scope of their application.

 

[chroot]

While this thread seems to contain some interesting discussion, the original poster, as well as other members, seem intent on focusing it on crackpot nonsense. Off to TD it goes... let me know if you have an objection.

- Warren

 

[shrumeo]

I'm talking about in the creation of a theory. A theory that describes a real-world phenomena consists of a mathematical model and a qualitative explanation. The qualitative explanation comes from the mathematical model.

Science itself arose for exactly this reason: before Galileo, people had it backwards. Starting with Galileo, scientists started making observations, recording data, and fitting the data to mathematical models, then evaluating what those models said about reality. Thats how we got rid of non-theories like the "chrystal spheres," geocentrism, and the unscientific ideas of Aristotle.

I'm also talking about in the creation of a theory.

Doesn't what you said about what folks did before Galileo apply to inflationary BB theorists now? They took some observations and interpretations made by Hubble, et al, fit the data to a mathematical model and came up with a non-theory called "Inflationary BB theory".

I remember watching NOVA one time talking about how some guy noticed how a 200-year old equation of Eulers's also applied to the strong force and described it mathematically. Which came first here? The math or the concept of the strong force? Of course, chronologically the math did, but in the course of matching theory to observation it would be no different if the guy derived the equations himself instead of finding them in a book. The realization that the math fit the observations came after the concept of a strong force.

Also, these same equations, apparently (from the same NOVA show ) led folks to string theory and its progeny. Now, here is definite case of the math coming first. It would be very nice to see what is pretty much pure math predicting the structure of "everything." If it were supported experimentally that would be astounding. I'm sure this sort of thing happens all the time in particle physics though.

So, I agree with you that a lot of the time, especially for you physicists, that the math will come first, but also a lot of the time, the observations will come first.

 

[Nereid]

While this thread seems to contain some interesting discussion, the original poster, as well as other members, seem intent on focusing it on crackpot nonsense. Off to TD it goes... let me know if you have an objection.

- Warren

I'm sorry to see this thread in TD. Not because a discussion Savov's ideas doesn't belong in TD; rather because a) the discussion on maths vs observations, chickens and eggs, etc in science is a good one to have (though better in HPS than Astronomy!), but mainly because b) we *really, really* should have a solid discussion of objections to redshift=expansion, quasars, etc a la Arp & Burbidge (et al). IMHO, such a discussion belongs firmly in General Astronomy.

So, in a very few words, not doing justice at all to the topic:
- in the early days, the redshift-distance data were not that good; for the longest time, many quasar datasets could be interpreted many ways
- pre-Hubble (and VLT/Keck/Gemini/etc), many of Arp's collection of nice piccies (and Zwicky's before him) did look like smoking guns - Stephan's Quintet is a wonderful example; post-Hubble (etc) things haven't been so clear for the Arp hypothesis
- appeals to 'the probability of that happening by chance are just too tiny to have any credibility' (yes, this is a strawman; turbo-1, and Arp no doubt, wouldn't state it so poorly) don't stack up when properly analysed. For example, what is the average density (per arcsec^2, for example) of <25 (Bmag) galaxies? How does this vary between the core of a large, dense Abell-type cluster and a (nearby) void?
- we now have two extraordinarily rich, unbiased* surveys of galaxies and quasars - the 2dF and SDSS; shortly powerful data mining tools such as ASTROVERTEL (sp?) will be available to the public - these provide the ability to test many versions of Arp's hypothesis, in an unbiased* fashion, to (guess) many times the depth of Arp's original work
- re quasars - PLE (pure luminosity evolution) had essentially no observational support in the 1980s; it leaps out of the 2dF result.

When I have more time, I'll write better, and include lots of links; to repeat, this discussion is a good one to have in General Astronomy & Cosmology.

*in the statistical sense, not in any way in the usual meaning of this word in everyday English

 

[shrumeo]

i am now seeing that folks are working on the problem:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31815

and they attribute what Arp and others see as close associations of quasars and glaxies to gravitational lensing effects

i think this means, and points my puny opinion in the direction, that we are only at the beginning in trying to understand things, get a grasp of what's going on out there.

and to keep on about the math and observation thingie:
I think old Galileo himself worked out a lot of his mathmatical theories by observation of pendulums and balls rolling down inclined planes, etc. counting, marking, and deriving the math from that:

copied from: http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/gal_accn96.htm

Galileo's Acceleration Experiment

We are now ready to consider Galileo's experiment in which he tested his hypothesis about the way falling bodies gain speed. We quote the account from Two New Sciences, page 178:

A piece of wooden moulding or scantling, about 12 cubits long, half a cubit wide, and three finger-breadths thick, was taken; on its edge was cut a channel a little more than one finger in breadth; having made this groove very straight, smooth, and polished, and having lined it with parchment, also as smooth and polished as possible, we rolled along it a hard, smooth, and very round bronze ball. Having placed this board in a sloping position, by raising one end some one or two cubits above the other, we rolled the ball, as I was just saying, along the channel, noting, in a manner presently to be described, the time required to make the descent. We repeated this experiment more than once in order to measure the time with an accuracy such that the deviation between two observations never exceeded one-tenth of a pulse-beat. Having performed this operation and having assured ourselves of its reliability, we now rolled the ball only one-quarter the length of the channel; and having measured the time of its descent, we found it precisely one-half of the former. Next we tried other distances, compared the time for the whole length with that for the half, or with that for two-thirds, or three-fourths, or indeed for any fraction; in such experiments, repeated a full hundred times, we always found that the spaces traversed were to each other as the squares of the times, and this was true for all inclinations of the plane, i.e., of the channel, along which we rolled the ball. We also observed that the times of descent, for various inclinations of the plane, bore to one another precisely that ratio which, as we shall see later, the Author had predicted and demonstrated for them.

For the measurement of time, we employed a large vessel of water placed in an elevated position; to the bottom of this vessel was soldered a pipe of small diameter giving a thin jet of water which we collected in a small glass during the time of each descent, whether for the whole length of the channel or for part of its length; the water thus collected was weighed, after each descent, on a very accurate balance; the differences and ratios of these weights gave us the differences and ratios of the times, and this with such accuracy that although the operation was repeated many, many times, there was no appreciable discrepancy in the results.

Apologies for the length.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm also talking about in the creation of a theory.

Doesn't what you said about what folks did before Galileo apply to inflationary BB theorists now? They took some observations and interpretations made by Hubble, et al, fit the data to a mathematical model and came up with a non-theory called "Inflationary BB theory".

Why is it a "non-theory"? Because you don't like it?

 

[shrumeo]

in case you didn't notice, I was mimicking the way you dimissed past "non-theories" as you called them (not agreeing with any of them here)
i don't know if it's called sarcasm anymore

i oversimplified the creation of theory, the way you did, to illustrate the fact that there is little difference (in the way you put it) between what they did and how inflationary BB theory came about (or how a lot of theories come about)



edit:
anyway, i now have stupid questions about those papers that were linked to. the ones that explain the wacky, apparently-connected-to-a-galaxy quasars by way of gravitational lensing.

If I were an optics expert would I expect some distortion, or a lot of distortion, in the image and be able to calculate the way the image distorts? Are any of Arp's wacky quasar images distorted?

 

[Nereid]

No more distorted than other images taken with the same telescope/camera configuration!

The main source of distortion in good quality astonomical images is the atmosphere - called 'seeing'. The Hubble ST has a mirror which was ground to a shape different from that in the specs - and early images from the cameras then installed had to processed to yield useful images. Later, on a servicing mission, corrective optics were added; later still, those were removed, because by then all cameras (and other instruments) had built-in image correction.

Leading Earth-bound telescopes have active optics; the seeing is sampled, and the mirrors distorted to reduce the seeing-induced distortion (and a few other distortions too).

Why not contribute to the 'Arp' thread directly?

 

[shrumeo]

which one is the Arp thread again? :)

this one ? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31815

hmm, i'll just ask the same question again there, i guess
anyway...

 

[Nereid]

Yes, that thread; see you there!

 

[russ_watters]

in case you didn't notice, I was mimicking the way you dimissed past "non-theories" as you called them (not agreeing with any of them here)

Since the scientific method was basically invented by Galileo, it is perfectly acceptable to consider the ideas that came before his "non-theories." Before him, ther was no such thing as a scientific theory because there was no such thing as science.

edit: I see this coming: 'How can you say there was no such thing as science before Galileo?! Stars have existed for billions of years!'

Science is not the laws that govern the natural world, science is a process by which we find the laws that govern the natural world. That process has only been around for about 500 years.