...Then I need to slip the noose back one notch and rephrase: The argument has become philosophical: What is the criteria for good scientic theory development? The Cosmological Principle requires local observables of all cosmic forces. I don’t think this includes observational failures: We can’t think of anything else, nothing we see can explain it, so it must be a mysterious force.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

That's a much better rephrase Jerry, I just want to note the above comment is not directed at yourself. That said, your clarification is far less contentious and more likely to be responded to reasonably.

So Freddo is happy with the term 'Mysterious Force', but not 'Religion'. :-k

Very diplomatic Mr Jensen. How did you get away with that?

The former implies we may at some point come to discover and understand what is currently mysterious. The latter implies an answer is unknowable (and that that lack of knowledge is further enforced by dogma). Jensen believes he has the start of a different and better answer and, as I understand it, disapproves in the current conclusion of the mainstream theory. It also appears he has a scientific plan of attack on the problem. More power to him in its pursuit. If his hard data results confirm his ideas, and his methods are sound and repeatable, he will gain support in the community. It's that simple.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

Twisting electricity into gravity. and getting it to behave in this very predictable manner qualifies as a mysterious force, but not a religion.

Electromagnetism in general is still quite mysterious to me, I am not happy with things moving at a distance without some kind of aether, not comfortable with most GR effects, but they are both real and mathematically modeled. Since Dark Energy has also been packaged mathematically, in this aspect they are still one up on us, Soup.

Don't get discouraged though, epicycles make great mathematical models, too. As far as I know, no one has observed a gravity wave. Are the current generation of tests turning in nulls, or are they as yet still inconclusive?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

See, now thats a lucid argument and you didn't use the word "religion."

I've got it! Wipe the slate clean. Start over from scratch!

That's the ticket! We just need to let someone else figure all this stuff out. Those who've been to universities? Who needs`em? They were taught wrong anyway! Let's start over. What do we throw out... hmmm, everything that don't work...

Here we go, alright:
List to throw out:

1. expansion. It's bunk. The dopplar shifts are cause by something else.
2. quantum. It contradicts itself everywhere. Get rid of it, regardless of any correctness therein...
3. c. It varies on whim. Whatever it's mood, it slows down, it speeds up, we just don't know, but it isn't constant...

Okay, now to start fresh:

1.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Sarcasm aside, it is not a bad idea to start over fresh every now and then. If nothing else, the order in which observations are made can greatly influence interpretation and explanation of those observations. In science, theories generally evolve as new observations are incorporated. However, if mainstream theory is too far down the wrong path, it can take a very long time to correct it. Aristotelian science comes to mind, though it is perhaps not directly relevant to the modern scientific world.

For a directly relevant example, take the CREIL effect that Jerry is proposing as a redshift mechanism. Suppose we had not yet observed cosmological redshift. The discovery of CREIL would predict redshift, we would have looked for it and found it, and possibly not ever have needed expansion as an explanation for cosmological redshift.

Note that I am not promoting CREIL as a redshift mechanism (at least not without more lab evidence and modeling of its characteristics), just pointing out that mere tweaking of existing theories to meet new observations is not always going to work out.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Not necessary - the resolution for this whole mess is for everyone to keep perspective on what is empirical evidence vs. what is interpretation vs. what is required by theoretical structure as opposed to what is required by observations.

The problems arise when people start thinking of interpretation as observation (eg. expansion is an interpretation not an observation) and set different standards for alternatives than for mainstream models (eg. Intrinsic redshifts are an unacceptable interpretation because that would require "new physics", but dark energy is an acceptable interpretation even though it also requires "new physic").

That is an excellent point. In my mind a fresh start does not have to be a complete abandonment of everything, but rather just a willingness, to periodically re-evaluate what might be possible if certain strongly held interpretations were in fact incorrect.

Surprisingly enough, I went to several Universities. Did alright too. got lots of degrees. Wot i wuz taught wuz that:
To prove something correct is extremely difficult because you cannot prove it for every case. To prove something wrong is easy. All you have to do is find just one example where the theory does not work and that's it! The theory is wrong.
That is what I was taught.
To quote feynmann, "it doesn't matter how beautiful a theory is, if you find just one case where it doesn't work, it is WRONG!"
That is what i was taught.
Has anyone else been taught any different?
So, when it comes to the Big Bang theory where we have many cases where it does not work, why do we not reject it?
Who is wrong?
My University professors who said you just need one result that a theory cannot explain and then you know the theory is wrong.
Or does this law of science only apply if it is not your theory?

Pardon me, but where, in its current incarnation, does the BB not work?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Scuse me my mate, but what planet are you on?
K Trumpler
Clumping of galaxies
CMB temp way off predicted
Quasar redshifts
ashmores paradox (www.lyndonashmore.com)
How many more cases do you want where the theory does not work?
To repeat: One only needs one case where a theory does not work and the theory is WRONG.
We are well beyond that now.

Have you ever published anything on the "Ashmore Paradox"? Is it in any way officially recognized? Has it been validated by anyone?

Here's one way to explain clumping of galaxies. Cosmic strings would be incredibly dense and have massive gravity. They happen to be predicted side-effects of inflation.

I haven't seen anything wrong with quasar redshifts.

The CMB, last I heard, fit what was predicted almost exactly.

Google doesn't give me anything on "K Trumpler" except for 2 german pages - ones is something on a German university's botanists, another is a 404 (the cached page shows it's from a forum called "Tommi's Gastebuch"). I'll have to try again with other search engines.

And in case you bring up something about dark matter, that happens to be backed by some evidence. You know about the famous "missing mass" problem, don't you? "Dark matter" needn't be made of strange particles either - there's also the possibility of MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects). At large distances, nonluminous bodies would be very hard to see...

And as for "dark energy", you know about the quantum vacuum fluctuations, don't you? The zero-point energy? It's been demonstrated via the Casimir effect.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

lyndonashmore, it sounds like you weren't taught right then. By your reasoning, virtually none of our current theories would stand.

One case where the theory doesn't work means the theory is incomplete, flawed, or flat wrong. That's three possibilities, not counting observational error. If it meant "automatically wrong," then most of our science is automatically wrong.

So tired light theories aren't wrong, they are just incomplete? I can live with that.
It seems to me then that every theory is incomplete but the Bb is more incomplete than others!

Hey LyndonAshmore, I still haven't found anything on "K Trumpler". Would you mind telling me who (or what - I figured it could be a galaxy, nebula, star, etc.) is?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

I am glad you asked me that question. Very glad. Because about ten minutes ago I just received notification that the paper has been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal - none of your page charges either. It takes time that's all. I am not complaining about the system, it will take time.

See Arp's experimental results

No way! Gamow and co. in 1949 said the CMB should be "at least 5K" not about, "at least". They then improved the method and gave the temp in 1961 as 50K
So how can you say that they predicted the temp exactly? Penzias and co got 3.5K by the way 1300% off!
K Trumpler effect is the skeleton in the BB cupboard. First noticed in 1911 by W.W. Campbell and confirmed year in and year out by others ever since, is where young high mass stars consistently have a higher redshift than they should have (don't ask me why they dont call it the W Campbell effect!) text books say "it is largely ignored" I wonder why?
So, if you will excuse me, I am off to the pub to celebrate acceptance of paper!
Cheers.

The exact temperature of the CMB depends on the mass and the age of the universe, neither of which were very well known at the time. (Gamow and company thought the universe was much younger than the current figure of 13.7 billion years and therefore that the CMB temperature was much higher.) The key prediction was that the CMB would be an almost perfect black body, and it is. So far as I know, no theory other than the Big Bang can account for this.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Yes. It is time to zero base and start over. There is too much new observational evidence that does not jive with theory. Everyone agrees the BB model is tightly constrained, and something is wrong. We cannot model the very energetic regions about active galactic nuclei. The gas flow rates are unrealistic, the luminosity exceeds the Eddington limit. Nothing makes sense.

Assigning intrinsic redshifts to brilliant regions, as Arp has argued for decades now, relieves many of these problems by making these active events closer and smaller. But after reassigning some of the redshift to an intrinsic effect, the whole model has to be reconstructed. Since many of the data reconstruction techniques (such as K corrections) are tied to the current model, it is extremely difficult to determine what is real and what is artifact. It is time to quit propping up a failed model and start over.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I've never heard anything about the K Trumpler effect. One would think that people like Fred Hoyle (who is still a steady-stater) would point it out.

Where can I find Arp's experimental results?

I've never heard of Gamow predicting it at 50 K. Also, how old did Gamow think the universe was? His inaccurate prediction might be accurate for a universe sveral billion years younger. And what about more recent results? *cough* COBE *cough*

You don't seem to explain on your page why your interesting little discovery implies that space is not expanding. Admittedly, it is pretty nifty, but why does it indicate that space isn't expanding? (Sorry, but I'm not exactly a cosmologist... not yet, anyway...)

What sort of theory would you propose as an alternative to the BB? How would you explain the increasing redshifts that are currently being observed? And again, what's this K Trumpler business - why haven't people like Hoyle, Arp, etc. rasied a fuss about it? You mention text bookes saying that it is largely ignored - which text books? Why am I unable to find any website with anything about it using any search engine? Could you provide some links or quotes about this stuff? I'd like links to reputable sites about the microwave background problem, the K Trumpler effect, Arp's results, etc....

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Darn! And I've been sitting on this PLASTIC chair for almost three years now. The physical properties we've invented must be all that's holding me up... No, wait, that don't sound right.
I'm all for the process that identifies a theory as incorrect when only ONE example of failure is present. Ether; aether. Good example. MM showed it doesn't exist. Others will say it does exist, only with a few caveats.
The redshift data we've been studying for all these years has had a proposed cause. Find another one. And another one. I'm sure someone has thought of it before.
I could also argue that the conventional model of the atom is completely wrong and that these energies aren't spherical. It still doesn't diminish the ability for me to sit in this chiar.
You all may have noticed I am a big supporter of the BB theories in general. This stems from my feelings. This is in no way scientific, but purely asthetic.
A static universe makes no sense. Why would everything hold still? What force would hold it at bay?
A collapsing universe makes more sense, but there isn't enough stuff or evidence, yet, to make it so.
An expanding universe makes the most sense, to me. Right now. From the evidence. Interpretations aside, there are only so many causes you can attribute to the symptom before the only one that's left is correct. If you find more potential causes, by all means, test them. I am not out to shade the truth, I don't think anyone of a scientific mind is out to do that. Pet theories (mine's massivespacetime, as outlandish as most) are great too. I don't contend that mine is correct, just that it makes sense to me.
I go a long way to put maybes and mights and ifs...


Maybe I get too hostile...


Edited for my terrible speeling

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Arp has also discussed this.

Congrats on the acceptance of your paper!!!

Here is the ADS search on Arp. He has also written several books including Seeing Red - which can be ordered from amazon.com or Apeiron. [/i]

The wave mechanics described by the CREIL do an excellent job of predicting a CMB – it is a natural product of coherent radiation transfers in a relaxed SS universe – exactly like the primary waves on the ocean would be if it had a constant heat pump. They also provide a solution for the near-black body of the infrared background, which, to the best of my knowledge was neither predicted by nor is it handled by the BB theory.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I’m way over my head in evaluating whether or not ISRS can be extended to produce this CREIL effect. I still want to see a good 3rd party (meaning not Jerry or JMB) journal article supporting CREIL. In particular:
1) Empirical evidence of coherence (non “blurring” )
2) A good equation relating the CREIL effect to the density of hydrogen ions

I’d also like to know if a CREIL effect would not be proportional to wavelength; if so, would we not see blueshifting in natural radio sources where the energy level is below the cosmic microwave background radiation?

For that matter, is not the 2.7K background radiation an estimate based on both the age and mass of the universe, neither of which is correctly estimated if observed cosmological redshift is indeed an effect of CREIL?

If CREIL is real, it certainly cannot be ignored.

Personally, I find CREIL more appealing than some of the “mainstream” explanations for the Pioneer blueshift effect (attenuation of quantum vacuum, inverted hubble expansion due to the “round trip”, unknown external force accelerating towards the sun, etc).

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Sadly, Fred Hoyle has been dead for a few years, so he is in no position to point anything out. However, there must still be other steady-state cosmologists out there.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

So would I. There is eons of room for credit here, if a team of eager young astrophycists would like to take this and run with it, I would gladly hand them the podium.

Unfortunately natural radio sources only deal us a broad continuum, so there is no spectral information, however, there is a degeneracy in the radio continuum, which is basically an increase in the temperature of this continuum with increasing distance, which of course is what CREIL would predict. (Inskip et al., “Deep spectroscopy of z~1 6C radio galaxies - II. Breaking the redshift-radio power degeneracy” astro-ph/0208549 )

{Big Bang} {The magic of inflation} {2.7K after 13.60 billion years}
Jim Bridger thought the Great Salt Lake was a spur of the Pacific Ocean, too.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Gullible Jones and to others

Click below to the article on CMBR. I think this should prove that the CMBR cannot be left over from the BB

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ght=cause+cmbr

cyrek1

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

The Bohr model is not applicable to the hydrogen atom. And I'm pretty sure what Spaceman Spiff said about black bodies is right...

Also, you state that this is a hypothesis, and hypotheses do not "prove" anything. I do not see how this "proves" that the CMB isn't a product of the BB.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?