Order of Kilopi
Originally Posted by Don J
"...there is a difference between an open mind and an open sink. The open mind allows for the critical examination of ideas, and it is receptive to new ones; the open sink is willing to accept anything and everything as worthy of examination without any responsible filtering process." -- Paul Kurtz
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Suspended
Is that an insurmountable problem? Suppose the energy just sinks into the vacuum rather like Dark Energy emerges from the vacuum, but with the opposite sign.
Established Member
Why would that happen and why do we not see it in a lab? Why would we not see evidence of it spectroscopically? If it were a vacuum property then we would be into tired light territory and I don't think we need to go over the problems with that hypothesis again.
Yes it is an insurmountable problem.
Established Member
That is why I was prudent and used the word -apparently- which means that I use a responsible filtering process.
Established Member
Quite frankly i was to lazy to fully read it before I linked it....but i was sure that i will know about the validity of the author claims one way or another.
I was rather tempted by giving my own take on the Olber's paradox which goes like this:
In the 19th century when Olber make his paradox astronomers did not know about Galaxies that is why his interpretation was that the night Sky needed to be patched full of stars in an eternal universe.
Last edited by Don J; 2012-Jun-08 at 07:40 PM. Reason: Typos
Established Member
Why would that make a difference? In an infinite, eternal, static universe sooner or later every line of sight would hit a galaxy.In the 19th century when Olber make his paradox astronomers did not know about Galaxies that is why his interpretation was that the night Sky needed to be patched full of stars in an eternal universe.
Please, before you use something to support one of your arguments, read it. It is a waste of our time and yours to have to point out the really, really obvious flaws in someone's unpublished thoughts on a topic.
Established Member
But that is exactly what the different Sky surveys have pointed out... right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Digital_Sky_Survey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2dF_Galaxy_Redshift_Survey
Sorry for a moment of laziness. I know that it is unforgivable in science.
Remember that the topic was originally in the questions and answers thread so everything which followed was to clear some questions even if there was not always a (?) at the end.
Administrator
No. There may be numerous galaxies in every square arc-minute, but even looking at the Milky Way, you do not see the brightness of the Sun's surface on every square arc-minute. You see dim light. And distant galaxies are even dimmer and not filling all of space. ... and once again, I have to assume you knew this, and were only posting this argument out of some form of self-amusement.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
That is with the Olber's paradox that I have a problem with.
Based on recent conversations it seem that the Olber's paradox is based on the assumption that an eternal universe:
1-must be infinite.
2-must have enough matter to produce an infinity of galaxies in that -expected- infinite universe which must be packed so close together that the night sky must be luminous.
If so that does not make sense at all.
Order of Kilopi
It's no wonder it makes no sense to you. The conditions you present as required for Olber's paradox, are not the conditions. Any simple query on google would have given you the proper conditions.
Established Member
This page has a summary. Suggest you read it before arguing that the idea doesn't make sense.
Suspended
Well, if you are willing to be even handed toward conjectures (which is all this is), why don't we see DM in the lab? We can never see inflation in a lab (which is assumed new physics). It's unlikely that we can see Dark Energy (also new physics) in the lab.
We do, the disappearing energy causes the redshift.Why would we not see evidence of it spectroscopically?
Do you mean Dr. Wright's problems? Dr. Wright has stated that any type of tired light theory has these "errors":If it were a vacuum property then we would be into tired light territory and I don't think we need to go over the problems with that hypothesis again.
1) It's impossible, because no mechanism has been found.
There isn't a proven mechanism for inflation, DM is still undetected and Dark Energy is new to physics. Should we consider all of those impossible and dismiss them?
2) SN 1a data proves that there is time dilation.
Well, I think I'll wait and see on this one. No dilation has been found in quasar variations which have even larger redshifts.
3) It is not possible to produce a blackbody spectrum that way.
Here he seems to assume that there is no possible mechanism that can extract energy from starlight and produce from it a backbody spectrum.
This is similar to 1. Could there not be some mechanism? Is space absolutely perfectly transparent over 10s of millions or billions of light years so that there is no possible interaction with light?
Space contains a thin plasma in which particles have rather uniformly random motions over enough distance. Could not some interaction occur to produce a thermal spectrum from starlight?
Or perhaps the IGM or ICM contain solid particles which behave like black bodies. The starlight warms these particles to 2.7 K. This would explain the close approximation of Eddiington's "temperature of space" to the temperature of the CMB (which Dr. Wright asserts is just a coincidence).
4) Lubin & Sandage (2001) show that tired light fails this test [Tolman surface brightness] by 10 standard deviations.
This paper was disappointing given that it boldly sets out to show that expansion is the only possibility. In order to prove their conclusion, they introduced galactic evolution as an assumption which a priori requires a theory in which the galactic population of the universe changes over time. Here is the key to the 10 sigma argument:
With all due respect to Dr. Wright, he should not make such an unqualified assertion about tired light when it is said to fail because it contradicts the authors' evolution theory.The crucial question is whether it [surface brightness depression for tired light] is so much smaller as to conform to a depression of only 2.5 log (1 + z) mag [as in some tired light models] when the correction for luminosity evolution is also applied.
Surely no more so than the currently favored new physics.Yes it is an insurmountable problem.
Of course I will admit that expansion theory has had many successes, but there are a lot of issues that it still needs to address.
Established Member
The hypothesis was that ATOMS were acting as sinks. They were using the Beer-Lambert law for attenuation so it has to be at an atomic scale. So it should show up in a lab. DM is not a new process, but a material. The dynamics of it are well explained by gravity... Which we do see in a lab. As for expansion - different scale, weak effect.Well, if you are willing to be even handed toward conjectures (which is all this is), why don't we see DM in the lab? We can never see inflation in a lab (which is assumed new physics). It's unlikely that we can see Dark Energy (also new physics) in the lab.
No mechanism for that exists that would reproduce the redshift and the observations we make.We do, the disappearing energy causes the redshift.
I note you ignored the two points at the start of the page which are real killers of the tired light idea. Time dilation (tired light cannot do this) and Blurring (tired light must do this or you are breaking QM). So now you are saying that his counterpoints are poor because they ignored the fact that if you propose a range of utterly new processes that flatly contradict our most successful theories (QED especially) and require us to be in a special place in the universe, or space to have some wild properties, he is wrong?With all due respect to Dr. Wright, he should not make such an unqualified assertion about tired light when it is said to fail because it contradicts the authors' evolution theory.
And proven mechanisms for expansion? There are several proposed. The problem is that to prove them we need to put the universe into a false vacuum state. That is a bit hard to do.
Yes, it is far more problematic to try to shoehorn our observations and theories into a tired light box. Truth is it just does not work. No tired light model of the universe has come close to working. No tired light or eternal static model has had even a quarter of the predictive power of the current model. You may not like this, you may try to rebel against it and poke holes in it but you cannot win this argument without a good alternative. There is none. There have been none. Lot of people have tried and failed. What does this tell you?Surely no more so than the currently favored new physics.
Order of Kilopi
Why do you say they are just Dr. Wright's problems? Are you trying to mislead people - and yourself - into thinking that it's only Dr. Wright who has problems with the failed tired light conjecture? Actually, Dr. Wright has simply summarized the position of the entire scientific community (minus a few misguided diehards).
Like so many of the statements you have offered up on these boards, this is just wrong and misleading.
Those are distinguishable from tired light. This "argument" is also a bit like "But he hit me first."
Wait for what? The data is available. What are you waiting for? Why do you think anyone would be interested in your thoughts on topics that you obviously know nothing about?
Quasar variations are extremely poor phenomena from which to try to detect time dilation. And you probably have no idea why. Why do you think anyone would be interested in your thoughts on topics that you obviously know nothing about?
With all due respect? You are giving Dr. Wright none of the respect he is due. Perhaps you would provide us with your qualifications and academic accomplishments and compare those with Dr. Wright's? Perhaps you could compare the number of years you have studied physics, astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, and compare that with the number of years Dr. Wright has worked in those fields?
May I suggest that your approach to learning has a rather serious defect? It appears that you question the efficacy of strongly supported findings before you know anything about them or understand why they are strongly supported. This is why people tend to respond to your statements none too kindly. A better approach, and the way most people do it, is to study first and find out something about your topic of interest, THEN ask questions if you have any doubts about methodologies or whatever. Typically, when people have done some studying and research and they know something about these topics, they understand what the observational support is and why the mainstream have settled on a particular position. And btw, mainstream scientists understand that NO position is set in stone. However, if an idea is well-supported and observationally repeated and confirmed, it takes a lot more to modify a position than, for example, the irrational skepticism of an upstart high school junior whose entire background on the subject amounts to a two-week section from his general science class.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Moderator
TooMany, take this to ATM if you want to fight mainstream theory. Apparently you think we cannot test this "atomic sink" idea of some guy on the internet, so in ATM you will have your chance to defend this stance.
Similarly your ideas about how the black body spectrum of the CMBR is created seems well outside the mainstream ideas, so take it to ATM if you want to discuss this.
Nor does your apparent approval of some kind of tired light theory fit anywhere else as in ATM.
Any other place discussing this will lead to an infraction.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Suspended
I said a "vacuum sink", an analogy to the "vacuum source" of DE. You are not really paying attention here; you are only detecting a threat.
I'm not so much fighting mainstream theory but rather trying to generate discussion of alternative possibilities. I now realized (duh, I'm sure slow to catch on) that this is really not an option on this forum. It's not at all what this forum is about.
This forum is not about discussing science, it is nothing more than a platform for some self-anointed priests to disseminate a dogma and protect it from the heretics. ATM is where, with your missionary zeal, you stone the heretics until they submit to the dogma. That's rather disappointing.
Actually I didn't know anything about this forum and how the moderators were selected. I finally just found some info in the wiki. Who is Fraser Cain? Does he personally elect all the moderators?
Interesting: "Live Casting: Bringing Astronomy to the Masses in Real Time" rather like "spreading the word".
Oh well, it is what it is and you are the proprietors, so best of luck with your mission.
Established Member
I'm curious what those who insist that all astronomical observations must be verified in the lab think about our observations of 21cm emission in other galaxies and the 500.7nm narrow emission line in some nebula and galaxies. Neither of these lines has ever been produced in a lab setting, nor do we have any feasible mechanism to create them in any currently imagined lab. Does that mean that they are not produced by the spin-flip transition of atomic Hydrogen and the 1D2->3P transition of doubly-ionized Oxygen, respectively?
Also, TooMany, if you think that this forum has any real bearing on astronomical results, I've got a bridge to sell you. People come here to talk about things that interest them, and I think maybe one peer-reviewed paper was written via a collaboration created on this forum. But there's a very good reason that the ATM section is what it is: nearly all proponents of ATM theories have neither the math nor the physics background to understand most objections to their ideas, let alone to fully flesh their own ideas out. Words don't get you far in astrophysics: quantitative predictions do.
Moderator
There can well be discussion of physics, there are numerous threads here on this board, however, you always push the ATM points of view, even though you apparently do not have the knowledge nor the skills to actually support your claims. This does not keep you from claiming that these ATM views are solid, never mind whether they published on a personal website or in an actual reviewed journal.
Also, there is no "vacuum sink" there was talk about absorption by ATOMS in the paper, and there most certainly is no "vacuum source" of DM, whatever that may be.
If you want to know how moderators are created, then I can tell you. I was asked, after many years of membership and discussions, by an administrator, when they wanted to increase the number of moderators again after several stepped down because of various reasons. I assume that they looked at my discussions, at my scientific qualifications (PhD in plasma astrophysics, (co)author on ~130 peer reviewed papers, etc.). And you may think my main job is to "control mainstream" here on BAUT, however, most of the time goes into banning spammers trying to sell handbags etc.
And no, we do not stone heretics in ATM, we give people the possibility to present their case and defend it against the scrutiny of (knowledgable) BAUT members. However, while you neither have the skills nor the knowledge necessary to defend anything concerning something that contradicts mainstream physics, you might quickly feel overwhelmed by the comments that people make who know what the are actually talking about.
However, nobody is forcing you to stay here, there are many other boards where you may discuss this kind of stuff, but I must say that BAUT is one of the nicer ones, but take a look around at e.g. JREF or tommac's board.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Established Member
If ten new galaxies were in early stages of formation within one million light years of Earth, how could we tell, as it takes a million plus years for a medium size galaxy to form. Perhaps a galaxy soon to have 1000 stars, could gain a star per century which might be noticeable comparing 130 year old high magnification photo graphic plates with recent images. I don't think anyone would consider 1000 stars a galaxy; about a billion stars is minimum, but perhaps esentially the same thing is happening much smaller scale = 1000 stars. Neil
Order of Kilopi
Ha ha. I haven't had time to hang out in ATM lately. These are virtual stonings, I presume. Sounds like we have a disgruntled gladiator. Give this man his money back.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Suspended
I'm not an expert and you are; that is true. I was a physics major turned math major many, many years ago. My gripe is not that you want to keep truly cuckoo ideas out of regular discussions and isolate them to an ATM section. My gripe is that any deviation from the current interpretation of observations by the "mainstream" is treated as cuckoo. Alternate ideas are thoroughly condemned in a hostile, defensive style. Sorry, but the impression it gives is rather like in faiths where the believers will condemn any information not consistent with their beliefs as incorrect or impossible. At least that's what I sense generally from the regulars here.
Here you have given me an example. If you actually bothered to read what I was suggesting, it goes something like this. If DE (Dark Energy) (not DM - Dark Matter) can emerge from the vacuum (new physics). I'm suggesting (using the same license) that alternatively it might be possible for some of the energy of light to sink into the vacuum (also new physics). Either idea is about equally unusual in terms of known physics. Such a sink could account for the redshift and avoid the problem of ATOMS re-emitting in the paper under discussion. This idea would also solve Oblers' paradox. Yada yada. It was just an alternate suggestion. So you see, in your rush to condemn my idea, you didn't even bother to get it right by reading what I actually said.
I have no proof of this theory; I just made up, but my point is that when you try to explain observations there may be many possibilities. The astronomical community has latched onto one particular explanation and excluded others of any sort. Hubble himself was never satisfied with the expansion explanation, but others were and that explanation is now assumed to be true almost like gospel for fifty years.
There are problems with LCDM, but whenever I attempt to discuss one in this forum, what happens is a bunch of members swoop down to stamp out the problem. In fact this is what many mainstream papers do today. They defend LCDM by trying to come up with explanations that make non-conforming observations go away. If a member can find such a paper (and whatever the issue is you can find one), that paper must be correct and therefore the issue raised by the observation is resolved. This is an interesting pattern. It is used to close off the discussion of non-conforming observations or to force the discussion into the ATM where members can blame you for not having a complete alternate theory of cosmology to replace the existing one. Isn't that a rather steep requirement in order to be allowed to discuss non-conforming observations?
Astronomy has gotten very exciting in the last decade or two, because instruments are getting close to being able to actually see details at high z. Many things seen have been very surprising and are not what was predicted by CDM theory (but it somehow quickly adapts). Also, in the local universe several problems have been encountered with DM (other than no direct detection). Contrary observations are often noted as "tension" in mainstream papers. The mainstream writes papers that make arguments to relieve some of this "tension". If they can get the tension down to about 1 sigma with various assumptions, they can pretty much call the problem solved and members here are quite satisfied.
In this forum, members and administrators create a pretense that everything is settled; the theory is correct, period. Quite confidently we know the universe is 13.7 billions years old, 73% DE, 13% DM and that a mere 4% is the only type of matter that we actually know exists.
Above I was told that all tired light theories are proven false. I've done quite a lot of reading and I'm well aware of Dr. Wrights renown and his backing of LCDM. I've read his very nice explanations of the theory for novices. I wanted to address his claims of tired light models "proven false" because I found them a bit shoddy. But every counter argument I made regarding Dr. Wright's web page on this subject must be wrong. There is absolutely not the slightest bit of doubt about this. I claim however that most of his arguments a very weak and I pointed out why. The only one that is truly based on observation is the claim that SN 1a curves show time dilation. Not everyone in the field is convinced of this. Many think we simply don't yet have enough knowledge about these events or what the true magnitudes are in order to conclude this (selection effects, extinction etc.) On the other hand, there has been an analysis of the fluctuations of quasars that statistically demonstrate that no time dilation is observed (even the author observes that since time dilation must exist, the fluctuations must be caused by micro lensing by unknown foreground objects). Yet I'm told by a member that this paper does not hold water. The SN evidence is much stronger, event though quasars have redshifts 5 times that of the SN studied.
What I'm saying is that your members and administrators do not treat contrary information fairly, they just react defensively. As soon as I make any argument at all that cast any doubt on the mainstream theory I must go to the ATM forum with most of the kooks.
Thanks for that. You do such a good job with the spamming that I've never seen any!
I've read some of these threads. I agree that most in fact are nonsense, not even really worth bothering to entertain. Nevertheless the usual crowd will show up to participate in a good stoning. In these "stonings" at least some of the members who participate truly do not know what they are talking about, and cannot correctly demonstrate why something is wrong. They merely parrot the mainstream and insist that the poster is wrong. That puts these members somewhat in the same category as the electric sun poster in terms of knowledge of physics.
I respect the knowledge and education that some members like yourself reveal! I like to ask questions, but I often get evasive answers or answers so indirect as to be frustrating. Read my thread "How can we see the CMB". I made some incorrect assumptions used some math and came up with something incorrect. I asked someone to explain what was wrong with my reasoning, but it was like pulling teeth. Finally a kindly expert came along and just flat out told me what the problem was and I agreed. Then I asked about another part of my assumptions and why it was wrong also, but no one is interested in telling me. It's as if members are very interested in telling absolute novices, people with little understanding of physics and astronomy about the Universe according to the mainstream, but when the questioning gets more detailed, they become evasive in answers, tell you to go read lots of papers or just abandon the thread. Not nearly as generous as they are to the completely uneducated.
That's absolutely true. I going to be inactive now, because it's not much fun when no one wants discuss possibilities but only insist on the finality of the status quo.
tusenfem, I've got to give you some points here for not blowing your top and just banning me.
I've been foaming at the mouth too long here. Sorry if I've offended many members, but you've offended me too.
One thing I think we can agree on is that astronomy today is exciting.
Cheers!
Established Member
Just had to reply to this: no we don't We frequently and honestly admit that there are limits to our theories, that they are just theories and that they may well be superseded. I say it all the time, others do to. What we do say is that these other ideas have less evidence for them, that they fit the wider picture less well. And in some cases they are simply not consistent with observations. FYI, and I have said this before, I personally really do not like dark energy or some other aspects of cosmology. It grates against my sensibilities. My brain says no. But on reviewing the evidence and the models - I can think of or find nothing that fits better. So I go with it. That is what science is about and what the mainstream is based on. You clearly do not like the mainstream and so find any reason, any at all, to infer that it is wildly wrong. Without really doing the background reading required to assess what the evidence you quote is saying or how consistent it is.In this forum, members and administrators create a pretense that everything is settled; the theory is correct, period.
Derail over. Just wanted to get that off my chest!
Administrator
This is a violation of our no religion policy, which you've previously violated (second violation).
The fact that you are posting in this thread at all after being forbidden to from previous moderation is a violation.
The fact that this post is not at all about the creation of new galaxies is also an issue.
You're likely to get a few points here, which means some time off in your case.
I'm informing you publicly, because we've received many alerts about your recent posts, and people are interested in knowing what we're doing here.
Forming opinions as we speak
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote