Forrest Noble ATM ideas

[Nereid]

PipeDream,

I hope you won't mind a little pun here. I believe the idea of a referee being able to give a valid unbiased opinion concerning the progress of a thread is really not plausible no matter who the referee is, in some ATM proposals.

The feasibility of this idea is just a pipedream .

The reason why I think this is not desirable is not because the moderators are not smart enough to be a referee, because they are, but any summation necessarily carries a bias of some kind. Take the argument, at the time, between Niels Bohr and Einstein as an example (granted an extreme example concerning the ATM section). Although such summations in a historical context after the fact are maybe OK, at that time any summation asserting an advantage to one side or the other would have been purely speculative. A summation of the ideas presented as "he said and she said" would not be appealing to moderators/ referees in general and would require too much time. To me, your idea implies that one side is right and the other wrong or has less merit.

This may be true in most cases but in others, I believe that this summation idea is unrealistic concerning ATM ideas/ hypothesis, since I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other. Sometimes, in my opinion, the mathematics of a theory can be good for predictive purposes, but the understanding, explanations, and logic of what's involved can be wrong.

(bold added)

It seems you have a rather exulted view of at least a significant minority of ATM ideas presented, as actually presented fn.

If it were really as you assert (an ATM idea itself, if ever there was one!), then there should have been a handful of Nobel Prizes for physics handed out already ... the readers (BAUT members or not) who have the knowledge of, and facility in, the relevant math, and the knowledge of the relevant experimental and observational results would have had little difficulty developing the paradigm-shattering ideas into publishable papers long ago ...

[forrest noble]

Hi Nereid, think both of your threads are a good idea.

It seems you have a rather exulted view of at least a significant minority of ATM ideas presented, as actually presented fn.

If it were really as you assert (an ATM idea itself, if ever there was one!), then there should have been a handful of Nobel Prizes for physics handed out already ... the readers (BAUT members or not) who have the knowledge of, and facility in, the relevant math, and the knowledge of the relevant experimental and observational results would have had little difficulty developing the paradigm-shattering ideas into publishable papers long ago ...

My quote:

I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other.

Although ATM proposals would almost never be as well developed as any standard model (because of the number of people refining the standard model) many of them may be closer to the truth. For instance those proposals that suggest an aether would be closer to the truth than the standard model if a particle aether were confirmed someday. If the microwave background is proved to be caused by re-radiated starlight then those threads that propose this idea would be right and the standard model would be wrong in this respect. If a hypotheses proposes mathematics that are someday realized to be closer to the truth than the standard model then the ATM proposal would be more correct in that way than the standard model at that time. There are many possibilities like this. No Nobel prizes will ever be given for ideas. Only when a type of proof is provided concerning a discovery could a Nobel prize follow.

I know you're a big defender of standard models but history is full of standard models being overturned. Most everybody thinks their own time frame is special and very close to having the final answers.

If the above assertion in bold is correct then lots of ATM proposals (maybe 2-3%) would at least be on par with incorrect standard models in those cases.

regards, forrest

[Nereid]

Hi Nereid, think both of your threads are a good idea.



My quote:

I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other.

And I assert that this idea is ridiculous, as it is based on some extremely profound misunderstandings of the nature of science (or at least physics and astrophysics), as well as a variation on the logical fallacy commonly called false dichotomy.

Further, I assert that your assertion is ATM, and request that a mod remove the relevant posts (of yours and mine) to form a new thread in the ATM section.

Although ATM proposals would almost never be as well developed as any standard model (because of the number of people refining the standard model) many of them may be closer to the truth.

They might be ... but how could you - or anyone - ever tell?

More fundamentally, what is "the truth"?

For instance those proposals that suggest an aether would be closer to the truth than the standard model if a particle aether were confirmed someday.

If you use words with vague, general meanings, it is almost inevitable that you can twist some future discovery to fit a contemporary ATM word salad. However, in doing so you are engaging in revisionism, at best (you can see why, can't you?).

If the microwave background is proved to be caused by re-radiated starlight then those threads that propose this idea would be right and the standard model would be wrong in this respect.

Really?

OK, I can play this game too ... if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

If a hypotheses proposes mathematics that are someday realized to be closer to the truth than the standard model then the ATM proposal would be more correct in that way than the standard model at that time. There are many possibilities like this.

It's a bit like monkeys randomly typing, producing the complete works of Shakespeare, isn't it?

Fortunately, this ATM idea can be tested; for example, we can look over the history of physics and see if we can find ideas that were 'ahead of their time'. No doubt you will find some (and the more permissive you with your criteria, the more you'll find). But put them back in their historical context and ask "What could X have done to develop this idea to the point of testing it? What could anyone have done, then?"

No Nobel prizes will ever be given for ideas. Only when a type of proof is provided concerning a discovery could a Nobel prize follow.

I know you're a big defender of standard models but history is full of standard models being overturned. Most everybody thinks their own time frame is special and very close to having the final answers.

They do?

I think there's good evidence to show that may have been the truth around the turn of the 19th century, but it certainly isn't today (at least, not among working scientists).

If the above assertion in bold is correct then lots of ATM proposals (maybe 2-3%) would at least be on par with incorrect standard models in those cases.

regards, forrest

Only by use of a very odd definition of "on par with", a definition with no practical utility and certainly no help whatsoever to those who actually do astronomy.

[captain swoop]

Forest Noble ATM posts split from 'How to make discussions of ATM ideas less frustrating'

[stutefish]

I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong

Direct request:

forrest noble, please present one "standard-model" theory (of the "most" that you assert), and demonstrate how in one part (of the "most" that you assert) it is specifically wrong (of the "generally" that you assert).

Or else retract the assertion.

Thanks,

stutefish

[macaw]

Direct request:

forrest noble, please present one "standard-model" theory (of the "most" that you assert), and demonstrate how in one part (of the "most" that you assert) it is specifically wrong (of the "generally" that you assert).

Or else retract the assertion.

Thanks,

stutefish

Nice request, now let's watch the black plume and the tailspin :-)

[Bob Angstrom]

The poet Edgar A. Poe wrote a non-mathematical but easily recognized formulation of the Big Bang theory “Eureka” in the late 1840's. He described the universe as closed and subject to Newtonian gravity where it can only expand or contract but never remain static. His paper lacks literary merit and it is hard to read because it is so painfully hesitant and apologetic for fear that someone suggesting that the universe might be expanding from a single point could be considered to be as mad as some of this fictional characters. Poe made no claim to be the originator of this idea and said it was an idea circulating among writers and intellectuals in both America and Europe at the time. His writing on the matter survived because everything Poe wrote was carefully preserved but I suspect there may have been many and even better accounts of expansionist theory long before it became mainstream.

When Einstein was working on his GR he was struggling to invent a four dimensional geometry to describe his view of gravity when one of his colleges told him that Riemann had already done the math. Riemann's writings had been buried in the literature and ignored by mathematicians but they were well known among fuzzy thinkers of the time- artists, writers, theologians, fortune tellers, and charlatans. Artists had hoped that Riemann's discovery of 4D space could start a renaissance in art the way the discovery of 3D perspective had started the first and we can see the 4D influence in later artists such as Salvador Dali, Picasso, and Escher. Theologians were interested in Riemann geometry because they thought it could explain the fourth dimension as the place where God and the angles lived.
Jules Vern, Edwin Abbott- “Flatland”, and Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) were among the 19th century writers to use Riemann space in their writings. Riemann geometry was popularized in England when an American con-artist (I forget his name) went to London and claimed to be able to manipulate 4D space to his financial advantage but lacked investors. He proceeded to separate much of the top of London society, and reportedly some of the royal family, from their fortunes. He was eventually caught but was so convincing that he had two prominent mathematicians testify in his favor by explaining the plausibility of his schemes to the jury based on Riemann geometry. All of this was recorded in the scandal sheets along with daily lessons in higher dimensional space. Riemann geometry was common knowledge among the fringe before Einstein discovered its importance.

History is revisionist but progress comes from the frontier and migrates to the mainstream. Considering the number of monkeys with keyboards, the important ideas for the next century are likely to already be in print- either by chance or design.

[Nereid]

The poet Edgar A. Poe wrote a non-mathematical but easily recognized formulation of the Big Bang theory “Eureka” in the late 1840's. He described the universe as closed and subject to Newtonian gravity where it can only expand or contract but never remain static. His paper lacks literary merit and it is hard to read because it is so painfully hesitant and apologetic for fear that someone suggesting that the universe might be expanding from a single point could be considered to be as mad as some of this fictional characters. Poe made no claim to be the originator of this idea and said it was an idea circulating among writers and intellectuals in both America and Europe at the time. His writing on the matter survived because everything Poe wrote was carefully preserved but I suspect there may have been many and even better accounts of expansionist theory long before it became mainstream.

When Einstein was working on his GR he was struggling to invent a four dimensional geometry to describe his view of gravity when one of his colleges told him that Riemann had already done the math. Riemann's writings had been buried in the literature and ignored by mathematicians but they were well known among fuzzy thinkers of the time- artists, writers, theologians, fortune tellers, and charlatans. Artists had hoped that Riemann's discovery of 4D space could start a renaissance in art the way the discovery of 3D perspective had started the first and we can see the 4D influence in later artists such as Salvador Dali, Picasso, and Escher. Theologians were interested in Riemann geometry because they thought it could explain the fourth dimension as the place where God and the angles lived.
Jules Vern, Edwin Abbott- “Flatland”, and Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) were among the 19th century writers to use Riemann space in their writings. Riemann geometry was popularized in England when an American con-artist (I forget his name) went to London and claimed to be able to manipulate 4D space to his financial advantage but lacked investors. He proceeded to separate much of the top of London society, and reportedly some of the royal family, from their fortunes. He was eventually caught but was so convincing that he had two prominent mathematicians testify in his favor by explaining the plausibility of his schemes to the jury based on Riemann geometry. All of this was recorded in the scandal sheets along with daily lessons in higher dimensional space. Riemann geometry was common knowledge among the fringe before Einstein discovered its importance.

History is revisionist but progress comes from the frontier and migrates to the mainstream. Considering the number of monkeys with keyboards, the important ideas for the next century are likely to already be in print- either by chance or design.

Interesting snippets Bob Angstrom.

May I ask what, if anything, they have to do with the ATM idea(s) presented by forrest noble, in this thread?

[Bob Angstrom]

Need an example of wrong?
The Big Bang theory is in violation of the Galilean principle of relativity where all motion is relative to some arbitrary point of reference. Expansion and contraction are motions in three dimensions and, if the universe is expanding, relative to WHAT is it expanding? What is not expanding and why? We can not say the universe is expanding unless we can identify some absolute that is not expanding. The length of a meter is a poor absolute because, if space is expanding, our units of length should also be expanding. Or, looking at the problem from the other direction, relative to the universe- everything within is contracting. Expansion and contraction are relative as are all other motions but universally speaking where is our reference point? And how do we know that our reference is not expanding or contracting?
The need for inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, and whatever other dark epicycles we may need to invent to keep the theory afloat is telling us that something is wrong.

[Bob Angstrom]

Interesting snippets Bob Angstrom.

May I ask what, if anything, they have to do with the ATM idea(s) presented by forrest noble, in this thread?

Forrest Noble asserts that most standard models are generally wrong. The standard model represents “truth” as a moving target. Here today and gone tomorrow. My examples were of two standard models- a “static universe” and Euclidean space- that were overthrown against the inertia of the mainstream. This is the normal course of events.

[Nereid]

Forrest Noble asserts that most standard models are generally wrong. The standard model represents “truth” as a moving target. Here today and gone tomorrow. My examples were of two standard models- a “static universe” and Euclidean space- that were overthrown against the inertia of the mainstream. This is the normal course of events.

(bold added)

There is, I'm sure you'll agree, a rather large difference between writing the history of some ideas (theories, models, etc) in physics and asserting that the textbook physics of today is on an equal footing with ATM ideas presented in this section of BAUT! ("I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other" in fn's own words, quantified later as "lots of ATM proposals (maybe 2-3%) would at least be on par with incorrect standard models in those cases").

So, again, may I ask what your post (the first one in this thread) has to do with the ATM ideas fn presented, as presented?

[Nereid]

Need an example of wrong?
The Big Bang theory is in violation of the Galilean principle of relativity where all motion is relative to some arbitrary point of reference. Expansion and contraction are motions in three dimensions and, if the universe is expanding, relative to WHAT is it expanding? What is not expanding and why? We can not say the universe is expanding unless we can identify some absolute that is not expanding. The length of a meter is a poor absolute because, if space is expanding, our units of length should also be expanding. Or, looking at the problem from the other direction, relative to the universe- everything within is contracting. Expansion and contraction are relative as are all other motions but universally speaking where is our reference point? And how do we know that our reference is not expanding or contracting?
The need for inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, and whatever other dark epicycles we may need to invent to keep the theory afloat is telling us that something is wrong.

fn has not answered any questions yet, concerning what (parts of) "standard-model theories" he thinks are wrong, nor how any such can be determined to be wrong, today.

How did you conclude, Bob Angstrom, that these are examples which fn considers to be within the scope of the ATM idea he has presented (as presented)?

[Bob Angstrom]

There is, I'm sure you'll agree, a rather large difference between writing the history of some ideas (theories, models, etc) in physics and asserting that the textbook physics of today is on an equal footing with ATM ideas presented in this section of BAUT! ("I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other" in fn's own words, quantified later as "lots of ATM proposals (maybe 2-3%) would at least be on par with incorrect standard models in those cases").

I missed the origin of this thread so I don't know what was previously discussed but there appears to be a BIG difference your statement and FN's. FN is referring to the broad world ATM where every now and then a blind squirrel finds a nut or a nut rights a wrong. This is not to be confused with this section of BAUT where most threads could be prefaced with the note, “While sitting on the john yesterday I happened to think that maybe....”

So, again, may I ask what your post (the first one in this thread) has to do with the ATM ideas fn presented, as presented?

I posted two examples to illustrate how today's ATM can usurp today's SM which was yesterday's ATM and it goes on and on. One often needs a calender to draw the line between ATM and SM. Take away the calender and we have nothing but ATM versus ATM which is FN's point. SM is a time dependent designation.

fn has not answered any questions yet, concerning what (parts of) "standard-model theories" he thinks are wrong, nor how any such can be determined to be wrong, today.

Give FN another fifty years and he will be able to look back on today's standard models and tell you exactly where they are were wrong and how they were determined be so just as we can look to the past and do the same.

How did you conclude, Bob Angstrom, that these are examples which fn considers to be within the scope of the ATM idea he has presented (as presented)?

I'm psychic. You want proof? You are thinking I am full of bull. Now, tell me it ain't so.

[stutefish]

...

History is revisionist but progress comes from the frontier and migrates to the mainstream. Considering the number of monkeys with keyboards, the important ideas for the next century are likely to already be in print- either by chance or design.

While this insight is trivially true, it's also totally worthless without some kind of system for sorting tomorrow's breakthroughs from tomorrow's hogwash.

Looking back at which ideas turned out to be breakthroughs isn't that system. ETA: I mean, simply pointing out that some ideas were once ahead of their time and later became part of mainstream history, isn't that system.

Also (direct question here), what do you mean by "chance or design" in this context?

[forrest noble]

Stutefish,

Have viewed your many postings and know that you are well informed.

I was kinda hopin that this thread would not be too popular with a few comments and quietly die since I was drafted by Nereid and Captain Swoop for this duty. But I perceive this thread like a game of chess that they wanted me to play. So I'll do my best. I'll take it on since there's a lot that I would like to say but don't have the time to address thoroughly nearly every modern theory in physics.

The basis for why Nereid and Captain Swoop drafted me for this defense duty was this quote:

Concerning a referee for the ATM section

My comment:

To me (this referee idea) implies that one side is right and the other wrong or has less merit.

This may be true in most cases but in others, I believe that this summation idea (concerning the merits being proposed in the thread) is unrealistic concerning ATM ideas/ hypothesis, since I assert that most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other..................

This statement was considered an ATM proposal worthy of being in this forum. OK then I'll see what I can do.

Stutefish, your request:

please present one "standard-model" theory (of the "most" that you assert), and demonstrate how in one part (of the "most" that you assert) it is specifically wrong (of the "generally" that you assert).
Or else retract the assertion.

I could give you almost every standard model in physics as an example, that I think there is something seriously wrong with but I will give you the one that I feel will be the first to fall. This is the standard model of cosmology, the big bang. The reasons that I have for expressing this opinion was very well expressed by Michael Disney, a renowned English astronomer. This is what he said about the standard model.

Modern Cosmology .........2008

by Michael J. Disney

Biography

Michael J. Disney is emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University. He has done research on stars, pulsars and quasars, but his main interest has always lain in galaxies and in designing novel instruments to observe them at many wavelengths. He has worked on the development of Hubble Space Telescope instruments since 1976.

The Significance of Cosmology:

The currently fashionable concordance model of cosmology (also known to the cognoscenti as "Lambda-Cold Dark Matter," or lambda-CDM) has 18 parameters, 17 of which are independent. Thirteen of these parameters are well fitted to the observational data; the other four remain floating. This situation is very far from healthy. Any theory with more free parameters than relevant observations has little to recommend it...
The three successful predictions of the concordance model (the apparent flatness of space, the abundances of the light elements and the maximum ages of the oldest star clusters) are overwhelmed by at least half a dozen unpredicted surprises, including dark matter and dark energy. Worse still, there is no sign of a systematic improvement in the net significance of cosmological theories over time.
...
Where Do We Stand Today?

Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity..............
In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations...

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come.

This is also my opinion and example, since I wrote a whole book concerning an alternative model to the standard model, new equations and all, at pantheory.org. For this reason I think I'm qualified to express an informed opinion concerning the problems with this model.

I will address questions concerning what I think is wrong with this model or any other ATM statement that I make.

respectfully, forrest

[forrest noble]

Bob Angstrom,

Thank you. I always learn from your many valuable and adroit postings.

[forrest noble]

Bob Angstrom,

Need an example of wrong?
The Big Bang theory is in violation of the Galilean principle of relativity where all motion is relative to some arbitrary point of reference. Expansion and contraction are motions in three dimensions and, if the universe is expanding, relative to WHAT is it expanding? What is not expanding and why? We can not say the universe is expanding unless we can identify some absolute that is not expanding. The length of a meter is a poor absolute because, if space is expanding, our units of length should also be expanding. Or, looking at the problem from the other direction, relative to the universe- everything within is contracting. Expansion and contraction are relative as are all other motions but universally speaking where is our reference point? And how do we know that our reference is not expanding or contracting?
The need for inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, and whatever other dark epicycles we may need to invent to keep the theory afloat is telling us that something is wrong.

right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most of this is similarly expressed in my book.

[korjik]

Stutefish,

Have viewed your many postings and know that you are well informed.

I was kinda hopin that this thread would not be too popular with a few comments and quietly die since I was drafted by Nereid and Captain Swoop for this duty. But I perceive this thread like a game of chess that they wanted me to play. So I'll do my best. I'll take it on since there's a lot that I would like to say but don't have the time to address almost every theory in physics.

The basis for why Nereid and Captain Swoop drafted me was this quote:



This statement was considered an ATM proposal worthy of being in this forum. OK then I'll see what I can do.

Stutefish, your request:



I could give you almost every standard model in physics as an example, that I think there is something seriously wrong with but I will give you the one that I feel will be the first to fall. This is the standard model of cosmology, the big bang. The reasons that I have for expressing this opinion was very well expressed by Michael Disney, a renowned English astronomer. This is what he said about the standard model.



This is also my opinion and example, since I wrote a whole book concerning an alternative model to the standard model, new equations and all, at pantheory.org. For this reason I think I'm qualified to express an informed opinion concerning the problems with this model.

I will address questions concerning what I think is wrong with this model or any other ATM statement that I make.

respectfully, forrest

I do not believe that you have answered stutefish' question.

Paraphrasing (feel free to correct me if I am wrong, stutefish):

Take a mainstream theory, take a part of that theory, and show that it is flat out wrong.

We are not here to discuss Big Bang Theory, we are discussing your assertion that mainstream theories are wrong.

[Bob Angstrom]

Looking back at which ideas turned out to be breakthroughs isn't that system. ETA: I mean, simply pointing out that some ideas were once ahead of their time and later became part of mainstream history, isn't that system.

Also (direct question here), what do you mean by "chance or design" in this context?

Yes, over time good ideas have a natural buoyancy and tend to rise to the top. That is one "system" we already have. We need a system to sort it all out but institutionalized systems tend to become obstructionist with time and more devoted to preserving the present paradigm than advancing knowledge. Lee Smolin has been strongly critical of current theoretical physics because of the "herd mentality culture" that has embraced string theory to the exclusion of all others and he blames this for a lot of stagnation. Not all systems are bad and I think we can use open mindedness" as a litmus test to tell the good from the bad but it has to be a balanced open mindedness. We don't want to toss out the old just because something new has come along.

I was borrowing from the old "monkeys typing Shakespeare" example, we have millions of "monkeys" typing their ideas on the internet. Some are good but mostly garbage. Some ideas are good because they are well thought out by design and others are good by serendipity or chance.

[DrWho]

Lee Smolin has been strongly critical of current theoretical physics because of the "herd mentality culture" that has embraced string theory to the exclusion of all others and he blames this for a lot of stagnation.

But is there a credible alternative? LQG is the main competitor but also has its own problems. Wouldn't another theory with potential be embraced by younger, ambitious theorists wishing to stand out from the crowd and to make a name for themselves? Sure, there may not be as much funding for such ideas, but the potential payoff would be enormous. Surely, a risk worth taking. Apart from ST and LQG, do you know of another theory which shows as much promise?

[Bob Angstrom]

Take a mainstream theory, take a part of that theory, and show that it is flat out wrong.

We are not here to discuss Big Bang Theory, we are discussing your assertion that mainstream theories are wrong.

I thought the Big Bang was a mainstream theory.

[Bob Angstrom]

But is there a credible alternative? LQG is the main competitor but also has its own problems. Wouldn't another theory with potential be embraced by younger, ambitious theorists wishing to stand out from the crowd and to make a name for themselves? Sure, there may not be as much funding for such ideas, but the potential payoff would be enormous. Surely, a risk worth taking. Apart from ST and LQG, do you know of another theory which shows as much promise?

Lee Smolin wrote the book “The Trouble With Physics- The Rise of String Theory and the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next” the last chapters are about what happens to younger, ambitious theorists wishing to stand out from the crowd and to make a name for themselves? They get squashed by the system. We have largely passed the time when a single Einstein can make a serious contribution by him or herself. String theory may show great promise for its proponents but it has failed to deliver. It continues to bifurcate and become more and more complex while explaining nothing, predicting nothing, and it provides nothing testable. I have little knowledge in this area so I am not one to think of a better theory but then I can't think of one that is worse.

[forrest noble]

Stutefish,

forrest noble, please present one "standard-model" theory (of the "most" that you assert), and demonstrate how in one part (of the "most" that you assert) it is specifically wrong (of the "generally" that you assert).

In answer to your question, The Big Bang Theory was my one example of mainstream theory that I think is wrong; to your second question-- where it is specifically wrong, I believe, is that the microwave background is being created by re-radiated starlight rather than a Big Bang. This is often the primary example of why the Big Bang is now the mainstream theory over a Quasi-steady- state model in the first place.

[Kwalish Kid]

Need an example of wrong?
The Big Bang theory is in violation of the Galilean principle of relativity where all motion is relative to some arbitrary point of reference. Expansion and contraction are motions in three dimensions and, if the universe is expanding, relative to WHAT is it expanding? What is not expanding and why? We can not say the universe is expanding unless we can identify some absolute that is not expanding. The length of a meter is a poor absolute because, if space is expanding, our units of length should also be expanding. Or, looking at the problem from the other direction, relative to the universe- everything within is contracting. Expansion and contraction are relative as are all other motions but universally speaking where is our reference point? And how do we know that our reference is not expanding or contracting?
The need for inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, and whatever other dark epicycles we may need to invent to keep the theory afloat is telling us that something is wrong.

Since forrest endorses this, I'll ask forrest: what about luminosity distance? Isn't this a robust measurement of relative expansion?

[forrest noble]

Since forrest endorses this, I'll ask forrest: what about luminosity distance? Isn't this a robust measurement of relative expansion?

Since forrest endorses this, I'll ask forrest: what about luminosity distance? Isn't this a robust measurement of relative expansion?

I may not understand your question properly.

Luminosity distance? do you mean luminosity vs. distance? This is the way I am interpreting your question so please correct me if I'm wrong.

"Luminosity vs. distance" is one of the valuable tools used by astronomers to judge the distance that stars and galaxies are away from us based upon their apparent brightness and the inverse square law of light. It is only a rough indicator because there is so much difference in brightness between individual stars and galaxies. Redshift is a better indicator of distances for galaxies and is also thought to be an indicator of the universe's relative expansion, which I generally disagree with based upon my own theories that are well developed and published at pantheory.org.

If I haven't answered your question please let me know.

[Nereid]

forrest noble, which of the following ATM ideas (or claims) presented, or endorsed, by you, in this thread, are you prepared to answer questions on, and address challenges to? Note that these are all direct quotes.

F1) Most standard-model theories for the most part are generally wrong and no more than an equal competitor to the proposal, like two ATM theories going against each other.

F2) Lots of ATM proposals (maybe 2-3%) would at least be on par with incorrect standard models in those cases {this assumes F1}

F3) The standard model of cosmology, the big bang [is wrong] {I note that you have already stated that you will "address questions concerning what I think is wrong with this model"}

F4) The need for inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, and whatever other dark epicycles we may need to invent to keep the theory afloat is telling us that something is wrong

F5) The microwave background is being created by re-radiated starlight rather than a Big Bang.

[Nereid]

I missed the origin of this thread so I don't know what was previously discussed but there appears to be a BIG difference your statement and FN's. FN is referring to the broad world ATM where every now and then a blind squirrel finds a nut or a nut rights a wrong. This is not to be confused with this section of BAUT where most threads could be prefaced with the note, “While sitting on the john yesterday I happened to think that maybe....”
I posted two examples to illustrate how today's ATM can usurp today's SM which was yesterday's ATM and it goes on and on. One often needs a calender to draw the line between ATM and SM. Take away the calender and we have nothing but ATM versus ATM which is FN's point. SM is a time dependent designation.Give FN another fifty years and he will be able to look back on today's standard models and tell you exactly where they are were wrong and how they were determined be so just as we can look to the past and do the same.I'm psychic. You want proof? You are thinking I am full of bull. Now, tell me it ain't so.

Perhaps a mod could be asked to split your posts out of this thread (all but the one fn quoted), into a new thread, here in the ATM section? That way you could present, and defend, you own ATM ideas and claims without getting everyone confused as to what ATM ideas are yours and what are fn's ...

[forrest noble]

Nereid,

I endorse and agree with everything Bob Angstrom has said on this thread so far so also consider his past statements as an extension of my own statements and beliefs.

[Nereid]

Some direct questions on F3) ("The standard model of cosmology, the big bang [is wrong]")

1) Is the derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe as a whole correct?

2) Is the observed redshift-distance relationship ("Hubble's Law") consistent with GR?

3) Are the observed abundances of H, D, and He - in the high-z ISM and IGM - consistent with big bang nucleosynthesis?

In all cases, if the answer is anything other than "yes", please provide an explanation.

[Nereid]

Nereid,

I endorse and agree with everything Bob Angstrom has said on this thread. So also consider them an extension of my own statements.

Thanks for the clarification.

For avoidance of doubt, does your endorsement include this?

---------------------------------------------------------
N: How did you conclude, Bob Angstrom, that these are examples which fn considers to be within the scope of the ATM idea he has presented (as presented)?

BA: I'm psychic. You want proof? You are thinking I am full of bull. Now, tell me it ain't so.
---------------------------------------------------------