Brad Aisa

Null Physics

34 posts in this topic

Where? Adjusting parameters isn't evidence.

Did you read the paper?

Read the paper, please, then show point by point where evidence is fudged and parameters adjusted.

ruveyn

I don't have time to read the paper line by line right now, I'm about to take an exam. I have scanned through it and see no evidence you speak of. Please be specific and provide this evidence you speak of, because the burden of proof is on you. It isn't my responsibility to spend my time disproving whatever fairy tale theory is invented to explain the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where? Adjusting parameters isn't evidence.

Did you read the paper?

Read the paper, please, then show point by point where evidence is fudged and parameters adjusted.

ruveyn

I don't have time to read the paper line by line right now, I'm about to take an exam. I have scanned through it and see no evidence you speak of. Please be specific and provide this evidence you speak of, because the burden of proof is on you. It isn't my responsibility to spend my time disproving whatever fairy tale theory is invented to explain the universe.

Peebles thrust in cosmology was given in

R. H. Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson, "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation", Astrophys. J. 142, 414 (1965).

wherein the CMBR was -predicted-. Serendipity was afoot in New Jersey because at Holmsedale N.J, that very year, Wilson and Penzias discovered the very thing that Peebles et al had predicted.

You say there is no evidence. Perhaps there is not enough evidence to convince you, but evidence there is and quite a bit of it. The B.B. hypothesis was not pulled out of a hat but was based on predictions made by evidence-corroberated scientific theories, including the theory of general relativity. Einstein fudged his theory (and later regretted doing so) to deny what Hubble eventually saw with the 100" telescope. If Einstein had been more courageous he might have -predicted- cosmic expansion before it was actually observed. The cosmos is expanding and the current variants of the B.B. hypothesis (Hot, Cold and lukewarm) have only done a partial job of dealing with this fact. There are other theories that also square with the evidence so the last word is yet to be said (if ever it is said). Problems there are, but there is evidence. Alfven dissented and so have others including Paul Steinhardt**, also at Princeton. Right now the B.B. is the currently accepted theory, but we must keep on mind other theories/hypotheses have been accepted and later refuted by evidence; for example phlogiston, caloric* and vital essence. The best way to refute the B.B. is to come up with another theory that accounts for all the evidence in hand and makes a correct prediction that either the B.B. does not make or makes incorrectly. And, I repeat, there IS evidence. There are also other theories that square with this evidence also.

ruveyn

*the caloric theory of heat accounted to some extent the expansion of materials when heated (i.e. filled with the heat fluid, caloric). Count Rumford later produced evidence that the caloric theory of heat was fault.

**Steinhardt's and Turok's theory has the B.B. as an intermediate point in an infinitely repeating cycle of cosmos formations and dispersions. This avoids the problem of having a causeless event start the whole thing off. There was no start, according to Steinhardt and Turok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, just to be clear, you see no problem with a scientific theory which claims existence exploded and expanded into non-existence? You don't see a metaphysical monstrosity there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where? Adjusting parameters isn't evidence.

Did you read the paper?

Read the paper, please, then show point by point where evidence is fudged and parameters adjusted.

ruveyn

I don't have time to read the paper line by line right now, I'm about to take an exam. I have scanned through it and see no evidence you speak of. Please be specific and provide this evidence you speak of, because the burden of proof is on you. It isn't my responsibility to spend my time disproving whatever fairy tale theory is invented to explain the universe.

Peebles thrust in cosmology was given in

R. H. Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson, "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation", Astrophys. J. 142, 414 (1965).

wherein the CMBR was -predicted-. Serendipity was afoot in New Jersey because at Holmsedale N.J, that very year, Wilson and Penzias discovered the very thing that Peebles et al had predicted.

You say there is no evidence. Perhaps there is not enough evidence to convince you, but evidence there is and quite a bit of it. The B.B. hypothesis was not pulled out of a hat but was based on predictions made by evidence-corroberated scientific theories, including the theory of general relativity.

You are trying to trumpet the might of a theory that invents new assumptions, new forces, new fields, and new forms of matter every time it fails to describe the universe?

First Guth invented Inflation to save the Big Bang, now we have dark matter, dark energy, and the amount of the latter seem to grow every day! Ruveyn, the mark of a patently bad theory is the need to constantly invoke new assumptions to repair whatever the latest contradiction is between theory and observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, setting aside the fact that The Big Bang is metaphysically impossible (a lot to set aside! :) ), I'll look at "the evidence" with you.

I read through some of Peebles paper, and found the pertinent section:

Without some knowledge of the density of matter in the primordial fireball we cannot predict the present radiation temperature. However, a rough upper limit is provided by the observation that black-body radiation at a temperature of 40K provides an energy density of 2X10^-29gmcm^3, very roughly the maximum total energy density compatible with the observed Hubble constant and acceleration parameter. Evidently, it would be of considerable interest to attempt to detect this primeval thermal radiation directly

This is offering a relatively large range of possible values with the lower limit already being set by the experiment that had been performed. The lower limit has then changed often, as subsequent experiments yielded different temperatures. This isn't a detailed prediction that was done entirely before the observation and that matched accurately the results of that observation, so it really isn't fair to claim this as evidence. It is an interesting start that could promote a further inquiry, but it really isn't that powerful considering that the CMB is explained very simply by noting that it matches the blackbody spectrum of the current temperature of outer space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is perhaps my favorite excerpt from the article you linked:

One sobering detail is that in the standard cosmology the two dominant contributions to the stress-energy tensor —

dark energy and dark matter — are hypothetical, introduced to make the theories fit the observations.

It would be best for the survival of the theory if they avoided such moments of honesty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First Guth invented Inflation to save the Big Bang, now we have dark matter, dark energy, and the amount of the latter seem to grow every day! Ruveyn, the mark of a patently bad theory is the need to constantly invoke new assumptions to repair whatever the latest contradiction is between theory and observation.
This is perhaps my favorite excerpt from the article you linked:
One sobering detail is that in the standard cosmology the two dominant contributions to the stress-energy tensor — dark energy and dark matter — are hypothetical, introduced to make the theories fit the observations.

It would be best for the survival of the theory if they avoided such moments of honesty!

A question about methodology, or perhaps scientific philosophy: The neutrino was predicted by theory and later discovered. What is the basis for deciding that dark matter and dark energy are not actual existents that are similarly predicted by theory but not yet detected? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if there's a general way to tell what's a real theoretical prediction and what's not, especially for those without specialized knowledge in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A question about methodology, or perhaps scientific philosophy: The neutrino was predicted by theory and later discovered. What is the basis for deciding that dark matter and dark energy are not actual existents that are similarly predicted by theory but not yet detected? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if there's a general way to tell what's a real theoretical prediction and what's not, especially for those without specialized knowledge in the field.

My thought is that predictions should explain observation, not theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First Guth invented Inflation to save the Big Bang, now we have dark matter, dark energy, and the amount of the latter seem to grow every day! Ruveyn, the mark of a patently bad theory is the need to constantly invoke new assumptions to repair whatever the latest contradiction is between theory and observation.
This is perhaps my favorite excerpt from the article you linked:
One sobering detail is that in the standard cosmology the two dominant contributions to the stress-energy tensor — dark energy and dark matter — are hypothetical, introduced to make the theories fit the observations.

It would be best for the survival of the theory if they avoided such moments of honesty!

A question about methodology, or perhaps scientific philosophy: The neutrino was predicted by theory and later discovered. What is the basis for deciding that dark matter and dark energy are not actual existents that are similarly predicted by theory but not yet detected? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if there's a general way to tell what's a real theoretical prediction and what's not, especially for those without specialized knowledge in the field.

From Wikipedia:

The neutrino was first postulated in December 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay, the decay of a neutron into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. Pauli theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles.

From this standpoint it was perfectly valid to theorize the existence of the neutrino while observing beta decay, because conservation of energy/momentum/angular momentum are all firmly absolute scientific principles. If you are observing some process and discover there is missing energy, that missing energy had to have gone somewhere in some form or another. If the neutrino did not exist, then the conservation laws of physics would be violated in beta decay.

So what happened here was that a new constituent of reality was predicted to exist based on the proper application of established principles of physics to the results of an experiment.

In The Big Bang the existence of dark matter/energy is assumed because otherwise there would be no hope of getting the theory to match reality. In this light it is simply a device to help the math work out correctly, and beyond that there is no basis to believe it exists; as such it is ridiculous to say that therefore dark matter/energy must exist, because the reason for proposing it is to get an unproven theory to match reality!

Also with dark matter, the rotation a galaxy can be observed and it is noted that it rotates so fast that the gravity of the galaxy could not hold it together. So it is reasoned that there must be some kind of extra mass we can't detect--dark matter--that helps to hold the galaxy together by providing extra gravity. The only problem I have with this is when it is treated as unconditional proof of the existence of dark matter, because the case could be that simply other large scale forces are in effect in the galaxy that are unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites