Of course I don't know it, it is just my opinion. It is very hard for me to imagine that anyone would conclude that universe expands from looking only at CMBR. It's just radiation with minor ripples, what is there that would point towards the Big Bang if Big Bang theory wouldn't exist yet?

With my Hubble quotes I wanted to make a minor sidenote about Hubble's own thoughts, nothing more.

I'm already aware that there are lot of people that believe in Big Bang theory, but I don't see this as a popularity contest. Where did you get the 99% figure? It seems rather high since major part of scientific community has nothing to do with cosmology.

Google search of for example "a s t r o l o g y" yields 7,610,000 hits, but I don't think that I should take a s t r o l o g y more seriously because of that. (Spaces in that word are for preventing the targeted ads).

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

The fact that the background radiation is characterized by a single temperature (plus or minus .001) AND the fact that the spectrum of this radiation is a perfect blackbody curve. These observed facts are a billboard-sized signpost pointing to BIGBANGLAND.

Well, that's an unfair comparison. I searched on "expansion of the universe", not just "universe", which yields 25.9 million hits. If you search on "accuracy of astrology", you only get 0.002% of the total number of pages discussing astrology.
When I find myself in the position where I think everyone on the planet is wrong and I am the only one who is right, this is usually a good indication that it might be a good time to reevaluate my position.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Yes, but even in the expansion view of the universe, the redshift is not Doppler shifting. If you say that since it has been observed that motion causes redshifting/blueshifting of light, that all redshifting of light must be due to movement away from the observer – you are making an interpretation, not an observation. As I have said repeatedly – Expansion is an interpretation, not an observation.

It might be from expansion. It might be from the variable mass hypothesis. It might be from some other effect. The fact that we can propose alternative interpretations illustrates that it is an interpretation and not an observation. The fact that even by 1947, Hubble still was not convinced of expansion (see the last 3 pages of Ari’s link) – illustrates that expansion is interpretation not observation.


Really? So its not “rough” when multiple clusters deviate from the predicted flow by over 1000 km s-1? Its not rough when individual galaxies deviate from the predicted flow by over 3000 km s-1? The published distances do not back up your implication that this is some lockstep relationship that every galaxy follows tightly.

Not always – There are galaxies with the same distance in which the redshifts indicate one galaxy is nearly twice the distance of the other.

I never said it was surprising. What I said is that the deviations are much larger in many cases than would be expected from a smooth Hubble flow with superimposed peculiar motions. But you won’t respond to the cluster redshift discrepancies, so I’m not sure why I’m bothering to respond.

For billions of light years – yes, but within 400 million light years, that’s not the case at all.

Cougar, I’m constantly evaluating my position. I’ll say it again. If every university on this planet chooses to post on their Astronomy department’s website that Hubble observed expansion of the universe, then every university is overstating their case.

Hubble observed spectral redshifting generally increasing with distance which was interpreted to be the result of expansion. Rather than concern yourself with my personal self-evaluation, why not provide a cogent argument that I am wrong. If Berkeley et al that you cited have not overstated the case, then surely you can provide the evidence that expansion is a direct observation rather than an interpretation.

I didn't say Doppler shifting. I said relative velocity. Whether that relative velocity is due to objects streaming through space (which in this case makes no sense) or because the space between the objects is expanding (which in this case makes perfect sense), there is still a relative velocity between the objects, and that causes a measurable and predictable spectral shift.
I didn't say that. We do know that apparent movement away from an observer must cause a measurable and predictable redshift. There is no known mechanism to cause additional spectral shift. This does not mean it's impossible. But it's questionable whether the overall evidence makes it necessary.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

No, I don't think so. I'm not denying that Big Bang theory is succesful in explaining the CMBR, but like I said, if Big Bang theory wouldn't exist yet, in my opinion we wouldn't conclude that universe expands.

Suppose, for argument's sake, that CMBR would have been found in 1928 when static universe was preferred model of the universe. By that time, redshift-distance relation wasn't established yet, but there already was a prediction of blackbody temperature of space by Eddington. He predicted 3.18K. (But this was the temperature of interstellar space, not intergalactic space. When he made that prediction, the existence of galaxies outside Milky Way was not yet established.) So in that time, the CMBR would have seemed to be fitting quite nicely to static universe.

Ok, I just wanted to try out your research method. And that's not fair comparison either, because other one is quite common phrase and the other one is not. For "accuracy of the big bang theory" I get 49 hits and for "accuracy of astrology" 316 hits.

But let's try another search that is more fair, and this one is also more related to cosmology. I get 257,000 hits for "book of genesis". For comparison, I now get 144,000 hits for "expansion of the universe".

:-k Even I give more credit to the big bang theory than book of genesis. Are you sure that this is valid scientific research method?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Whoa there, Mr. Jokimaki. You have seriously mischaracterized Eddington's prediction, which referred to temperature only. One must also recall that in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, Eddington states....
So if the CMBR had been found in 1928 and its blackbody spectrum measured, scientists would have been forced to conclude that this background radiation was NOT just coming from all the very distant stars as Eddington had speculated. It was permeating all of space and all of it was coming from some source that was at one time in near perfect thermal equilibrium. Now, what could that be?

For more details on this now urban scientific myth, check out Prof. Ned Wright's page on this topic.
Of course I never said it was. I believe if you check my original statement in this regard, I simply said universal expansion was a very prevalent concept.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Let's not quibble over semantics, particularly when you inflect the word "interpretation" like a creationist denigrates the word "theory". "Oh, evolution is just a theory."

The fact remains that cosmological expansion is extremely well established. Like any scientific theory, it cannot be claimed as an ultimate truth. Unlike religion, science is not dogmatic. Science can "change its mind" if new evidence presents itself.

But let me reiterate. The fact remains that cosmological expansion is extremely well established. As the Dictionary of Physics points out, "non-standard cosmologies are promoted by a few generally independent researchers and amateurs who disagree with foundational assumptions and so reject the idea of applying concordance criteria to their models."

To say the "variable mass hypothesis" is a longshot would be a significant understatement.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Cougar, it is my hope that eventually I will hit upon a way to explain this that will help you understand the point.

This is not semantics. It is a very fundamental aspect of science - knowing the difference between an observation and an inference/interpretation. Rather than try to characterize this as "quibbling" why not simply acknowledge the point I have repeatedly made the last few posts: Expansion is an interpretation. Spectral redshifts are the observation.

You have not actually responded specifically to the various points I've made that illustrate the point. If I'm wrong make the case that Hubble's observations constitute a direct observation of expansion. Accusing me of quibbling and drawing comparisons with creationists is not a rebuttal of my point.

Here we go again. You are applying an incorrect motive to my point. I am not denigrating the word "interpretation". I do not consider interpretations to be a bad thing. Its a necessary part of science - and one of the fun parts. What I DO consider to be a bad thing is when people start to carelessly call interpretations observations. That is the fast track to making incorrect statements about what is "proven" and "disproven".

Its the crux of our disagreements. You keep insisting that expansion is an observation and therefore in your view any models regarding intrinsic redshifts are automatically null and void. Actually you're making two errors with that. Even if expansion was directly observed, intrinsic redshifts are not ruled out. Only non-expanding universe models would be ruled out. As I've repeatedly pointed out intrinsic redshifts may be superimposed upon expansion (gee I've even made that point in my papers). Yet in your response above you're implying that my motive for insisting that expansion is an interpretation is so that I can cast aside the Big Bang as carelessly as creationists cast away evolution.

Nonsense. As I've made clear, I'm making that point because its correct. You've not responded to any of my specific points where I defend that point. You keep talking in generalities and characterizations.

For example, could you address this:

or this:

or this:

which goes with this:

and this:

I continuously provide specifics and you respond with meaningless generalities such as this:

and this:

or with mischaracterizations such as your creationist comparison.

Whoa. You're equating inference with interpretation? That is a very large problem with your "hope that eventually I will hit upon a way to explain this that will help you understand the point."
Ain't gonna happen. First of all, you're creating a false dichotomy. And then you're misusing this word "interpretation."
Well, there's your problem. Your use of this word opens the door to the worst kind of postmodernistic, "relativistic, anti-scientific political ideology, with a frightening tendency, in the United States, at least, to harness the worst forces of puritanical fanaticism, forces that seem eager to burst out and have their day, in a new wave of campus totalitarianism that threatens with academic gulags and thought reform those who do not accept the moral absolute of the cultural relativists." [With apologies to Rutgers' Robin Fox.]

Obviously word choice is important here.

No, I think you made two errors there. I never insisted that, and that's not my view.
I thought I was being pretty specific. (?)
False dichotomy. And what Hubble thought means nothing! Surely you're not appealing to Hubble as a god or something?

You tried to sneak it in earlier and you should have stuck with it: Expansion is an inference. It is not a subjective "interpretation"! Any Sam, Dick, or Mary can have an interpretation, but that doesn't mean they have come anywhere close to a logical conclusion based on evidence. Expansion is a direct inference based on known physical laws, as I've made clear in previous posts. I don't know what your "variable mass hypothesis" is. It's certainly not based on known physical laws.
I've already clarified that I made no such implication.
I don't know. Systemic error?
You got a problem with that?
So you should realize it's a rhetorical question. It's a sarcastic response to your speaking of "intrinsic redshift" as if it is an established phenomenon, which it is not.
Boy, let a guy get a publication or two under his belt and he thinks he is the definer and ultimate arbiter of what has meaning and what doesn't. But let me reiterate. The fact remains that cosmological expansion is extremely well established. Not only is this a fact; it is a meaningful fact.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This site would seem to contain several answers to your discrepancies - without resorting to imaginary physics.

For example....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Now that’s funny – Earlier you said my distinction between observation and interpretation was “quibbling”. Now you’re trying to split hairs with inference and interpretation? Lets see what Carlo Lastrucci had to say about this in “The Scientific Approach” (1963 – page 225):

What an overreaction! I sincerely hope that made you feel better!

Well you said this a few posts ago:

Lets look at the definition of observation:

and of “fact”:

By choosing to emphasize claims that expansion is a “fact”, you’re (whether intended or not) placing it in the realm of direct observation as opposed to interpretation/inference.

What do you think is specific about saying things like this?:

Stating that most astronomers accept expansion as “established” is simply stating the obvious. It has no relevance to a detailed discussion of whether or not intrinsic redshifts exist.

Is that specific?

What exactly do you think is the false dichotomy? Could you be specific?

But again we see overreaction and attempt to assign motive. My point of bringing up Hubble’s view was two-fold and very clearly explained. First, I used his initial paper to illustrate the similarities between his assumptions and those made today (eg. Peculiar motions as the interpretation of redshift discrepancies). Second, I used his comments to illustrate that expansion is not an observation, but rather an interpretation ... [hair] or inference [/split].

Funny, Lastrucci was able to utilize the word “interpretation” in a very non-subjective context.

Even funnier that earlier you said this:

So earlier you accused me of inflecting the word "interpretation" but now you inflect it yourself by claiming interpretations are lowly "subjective" entitities.

Oh for goodness sakes Cougar – more overreaction on your part. If I always described intrinsic redshifts as if it was a universal interpretation/inference you’d have a point, but you’ve been in enough discussions with me to know that I almost always use the requisite “if” phrases – such as in this post and this post .

Clever – an attempt to imply that I’m rubbing my publications in your face while at the same time belittling those publications as “a publication or two”. The number is 7 publications actually, but you wouldn’t know that because I’ve not bothered to make a big deal about them or use them as a tool to bludgeon people with.

You keep emphasizing this as if I have insisted expansion could not be happening – one of the reasons I mentioned my papers on this thread in the first place:

Ari, I think the psychological component of your question is being answered through demonstration.

Well, not so seriously. I talk about blackbody temperature there, I'm not claiming he predicted CMBR accurately. I merely thought Eddington's prediction would be couraging in the situation I described. But my characterization was indeed incomplete, my reference didn't quote that paragraph from Eddington. So I knew Eddington was off, but now it seems that he was off even more than I thought, which certainly complicates things in my imaginary situation.

Infinitely old static universe would be expected to be in thermal equilibrium, because there has been enough time for things to settle. So perhaps in that situation answer would be sought there. In my opinion, it is not very probable that someone would come up with the idea of Big Bang, I think it's too imaginative in that situation.

Your number doesn't tell even that because your search words can be also used on pages that argue that expansion of the universe is not true.

Yes, but it's probably just the heat of the debate causing that.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

George Costanza also said that.

Well, if you define and restrict the meaning of the word to require "correct inference", then all's well and good. The problem with the general usage of the word "interpretation" is that lurking in its implication is the idea of subjectivism, as evidenced in Webster's New World:

interpret: 3. To show one's own understanding of the meaning of.

Yes, it certainly did. Here's another overreaction....
I didn't claim it was a fact. Cambridge did.
We're discussing intrinsic redshifts?
That cosmic expansion has to be either an observation or an interpretation. One or the other. Dichotomy. I don't think either word is defined well enough to make this a black-and-white situation.
Because he defined it thus.

Probably a good idea to make that point, otherwise they would likely not have been accepted.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I've already discussed that. One interpretation of the redshift discrepancies is that they result from peculiar motions. If correct, then peculiar motions still have limits - empirically ~1500 km s-1. In fact this is why astronomers typically use redshift cuts in determining cluster membership.

But that is for individual galaxies being tossed around by the gravitational field of the cluster core. What the peculiar velocity explanation cannot explain is the tendency of the peculiar motions to be related to cluster morphology such that late type spirals have systematic excess redshift while early type spirals have systematic deficits of redshift.

The peculiar motion interpretation also becomes problematic when you start talking about entire clusters or groups of galaxies having bulk motions greater than ~600 km s-1. There were examples in the cluster list I provided above in which the entire cluster would be required to have motions of +1200 kms- ... +1500 km s-1 ... +2200 km s-1 relative to the Hubble "flow". There is no basis for entire clusters to deviate that strongly from the Hubble flow.

There are several possible explanations:

1. The Hubble Constant is larger than 70. Try 85-90 km s-1 Mpc-1. But that would definitely result in a universe younger than its oldest dated objects.

2. The cluster distances are wrong. This is a possibility that always must be examined. However the scatter on the distance determination techniques has improved with better data and multple distance calculation methods (when more than one is available)give the same distances.

3. Real peculiar motions can exceed 2000 km s-1 - and perhaps much larger. If this is the reason then we're back to my initial point that Hubble distances are "rough". The Hubble relation then becomes useless for calculating distances. There is the added caveat that if peculiar motions were the answer, then peculiar motions get larger with increasing distance.

4. Intrinsic redshifts are superimposed upon a true cosmological redshift. In this situation - which obviously the one I consider most likely - you have a Hubble constant of ~ 50-60 km s-1 Mpc-1. Intrinsic redshifts ranging from a only a few km s-1 (too small to disentangle from everything else) to thousands of km s-1 contaminate the observed redshift. Thus the observed redshift is the result of two primary superimposed components (expansion cosmological + intrinsic ... or non-expansion cosmological + intrinsic).

Since words have multiple definitions, its possible to have differences of opinion if we're each thinking of different meanings. Certainly "interpretation" can include a subjective element, but it does not have to and in the context of scientific reasoning we should be talking in terms of interpretations that involve logical inference.

I agree.

But you used it to justify your position.


Among other things.

Thank you. That was exactly what I was looking for.

But I don't think this is a false dichotomy. Speaking here in the context of the scientific application of "observation" and "interpretation" it is possible to categorize "expansion". Observations are directly measured with instruments. Nobody disputes that spectral redshifting is an observation. Setting aside our disagreement as to how "rough" the Hubble relation is, we can say that as calculated distances increase, observed redshifts increase.

Classifying this is a little tricky because the Hubble plot incorporates any assumptions built into distance calculation methods. Are those distances truly an observation? I'd say they are- but they may cross into that gray area you're hinting at.

What about expansion? Is that an observation? If we "know" the universe is expanding, how do we know? Well, observations show that redshift increases with distance. But how do we get from the Hubble ploy to expansion? We must interpret the Hubble plot.

A good criteria for distinguishing observation from interpretation is to ask whether or not the data could mean something else (scientifically). If it could mean something else, then its a scientific interpretation/inference. This is the case with the current reasons most think the universe expands.

Keep in mind that the failure of other proposals (such as tired light) would not make expansion an observation. It would make expansion the best interpretation we have at the moment. But this is what scientists are trying to do - find and test the best interpretations of the data.

Because the point is correct. If someday the expansion interpretation is abandoned, it is very doubtful that intrinsic redshifts would be anything more than one contributing reason.

But if I made the mistake of insisting that intrinsic redshifts and expansion were incompatible, why would that lead to rejection of the entire analysis? Wouldn't an objective referee point out the interpretive mistake and insist that I fix that?

When you get a report you get one of the following:

1. Outright rejection
2. Recommendation for revisions and resubmission
3. Recommendation for acceptance pending minor revisions
4. Immediate acceptance

A paper should not be rejected outright for an error such as the hypothetical error we're discussing.

In response to Ari Jokimaki's initial question, I think that it is not necessary to have a general cosmology, but instead it is simply a useful tool. Almost everyone has some internal bias towards some specific idea at any given moment, based on their current prejudices, and this is fine if used as a means to set goals for research. This only becomes a problem when the desire to prove oneself to be correct introduces unfounded bias on that research.

In the case of Big Bang cosmology, it has become a systemic problem that scientists explain away all kinds of interesting or anomalous observations in the unfounded terms of the Big Bang. I argue that expansion of space is the most derelict of them all, as is overly apparent in Cougar's responses. Cougar appeals to authority, a classic falacy, but cannot seem to show any observational evidence of expansion seperate from Hubble Law interpretation. (I have encountered the same problem)

Let me explain why assumption of interpretation as fact is a huge problem:

When the distance to an object is verifiable through the plethora of techniques mentioned earlier by dgruss23, it is perfectly valid to say that for a large set of such data there is observed a very close relation between the object's apparent radial-velocity and distance. This is a well known phenomenon.

When the distance to an object is NOT verifiable by such means, it is not at all valid to retroactively apply this relation to the object. The expansion interpretation of Hubble's relation (ironically known as Hubble's Law even though he did not subscribe to it) is a useful generality which may provide clues to understanding phenomena for which distance is unknown, but it cannot be relied upon for useful or meaningful data in such a retroactive application. This is specifically because the mechanism used to justify the distance relation, expansion, is one of several interpretations of radial-velocity and has no independent verification.

It seems amazing to me that this independent verification has not been the central focus of astronomy for the last 80 years, for it is the crux of the argument for which almost every theory since has explained itself! Instead the search is for Dark Matter, which is several steps down the line of reasoning from expansion, and thus has even less credibility.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

You seem to do a lot of hand-waving, Akira. Contrary to your claims, the big bang is very well founded.
I believe I have mentioned Cepheid Variables and time dilation of supernovas. These are just a couple of observations supporting the expansion of space. But let's try something different. Let's say you're right. Let's say the universe is not expanding. Can you then explain the observed Hubble relation? The supernova time dilation? Any number of other observations that fit neatly into the big bang scenario? The elemental abundances? The CMB? It's rather inappropriate, I think, to label a theory that is perfectly consistent with all these observations as "derelict."

Many? I'm still waiting for you to come up with a single rational alternative "interpretation" of the redshift-distance relation.

I think there is actually significant and independant support for this position. But we can't exactly lay out a ruler to "verify" it as you would seem to prefer. Unlike physicists, astronomers cannot control everything that goes on in their "laboratory."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Wow. I hope you at least read my entire post before you started replying. :-? My contention with the specific 'derelict' unfounded term was laid out in the rest of the post

'perfectly consistent' -- right out of Richard Hoagland's lexicon [-X

A refresher of classical fallacies feels strangely appropriate (#3, #19, #21, #35, etc) I did not say 'space is not expanding,' and such a claim shows that you still have not understood what dgruss23 has been talking about.

Here is the argument, as concisely as language allows:

An exclusive interpretation of apparent radial-velocities as expanding spacetime is inherently wrong because it does not fully explain the observations.

On the subject of handwaving, why do you keep asking blank-slate questions to topics long ago conjectured, either in this post or the many like it, such as this thread that I linked earlier. Concerning your repetetive calls for an opposing hypothesis, the arguments have all been laid out. My personal belief is that they're ALL wrong, and that Nature will be stranger than we can imagine.

So in that vein, we should examine every argument and associated consequences. There is a serious problem in putting so much weight on Big Bang cosmology, which is not exclusively supported by neither CMB, time-dilation, nor apparent radial-velocities.

Again, refer to the first post of this thread for further discussion.

I realized shortly after posting, that, naturally, the search for Dark Matter was indeed the search for space expansion, for it would undeniably resolve this problem should it be discovered or be determined to no longer be necessary to explain observations.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Hmmmm...after reading this...

...I don't know if you're trying to pay Cougar a "compliment" or not.

Grey! You started it!
Cougar! dgruss23! Bad lads!

As Ari suggested in his original post, we don’t want another discussion of the merits of Big Bang Theories. Let us simply accept that some people do not go along with the mainstream. Is their opposition to be dismissed because, finding the mainstream explanation of the available data inadequate or unsatisfactory, they are unable to put forward an alternative explanation?

I am a retired psychologist. In my time, I have heard various attempts to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. I have found none of them satisfactory. Must I accept one of them, because I do not have a theory of my own?

I go along generally with the sentiments expressed by Ari. But I think that cosmological theory does not occupy a privileged position in such a discussion. Some people find it very difficult to say “I do not know”. It is as if human psychology, like nature, “abhors a vacuum”.

I can remember a discussion going on between some (circa) twelve year olds. There was a division of opinion over what happened when you died. Some believed that you went to heaven – or perhaps to hell if you had been really bad. Others (who had grown up under the same Christian-ish influences) decided that they believed in reincarnation. A slightly older child, asked his opinion, replied “We don’t know”. This comment was greeted dismissively by the others, who felt he had nothing to contribute to the debate.

People, in general, do not evaluate evidence with unbiased intellectual rigor. I would suggest that four particular biases tend to present themselves:
1. People have a tendency to favour the cultural beliefs of their group.
2. People have a tendency to favour an explanation leading to an optimistic rather than a pessimistic outcome.
3. People have a tendency to favour an interpretation that is favourable to them or their group.
4. People have a tendency to favour decision over indecision.

Now, looking at 3, I can imagine someone saying, “Well, they would, wouldn’t they!” But the point I am making is that these biases are quite unconscious. I have sat behind a spectator at a rugby match who was sure that almost every decision that the referee made which was unfavourable to his own side was wrong. I do not hesitate to state that his certainty was entirely sincere.

I suggest that these biases exist because they have evolutionary value. Each of them conveys an evolutionary advantage (either at an individual level or at a societal level) over unbiased freethinking skepticism.

In particular, indecision (Ari’s willingness to say he does not know or need to know) exhibits a negative correlation with survival. From an evolutionary perspective, it is best to make your mind up!

Society may benefit from individuals who feel a strong desire to uphold its cultural norms and beliefs. With regard to cosmology, this would equate to belief in the Big Bang. In a previous age, someone with the cast of mind of Cougar might have played a valuable role as a member of the Inquisition. Conversely, someone (like myself ) who he has reached that degree of mental maturity that enables him to make entirely rigorous bias-free judgements may be regarded (from an evolutionary perspective) as a sociopath.

BTW, “because it is there” is NOT an explanation. Anyone claim differently?

__________________
"True skepticism encompasses not dismissing evidence because it seems to defy rational explanation."

Is this a debate tactic you're trying here? It's ineffective. The fact remains - the expansion of space is indeed perfectly consistent with all those observations. This is not to say that it is perfectly consistent with all purported observations or "findings". For example, Hawkins reported a statistical finding that quasars do not exhibit time dilation. If this is correct, there is a problem. But single articles do not necessarily establish scientific consensus. Look at all the articles related to gamma ray bursts throughout the decades of the 70s and 80s. This was a difficult problem, data was scarce, and the prevailing "theory" during those decades was flat wrong.

I'm glad you're up on these. They're important. Still, regarding the charge of "appealing to authority", I think there's a difference between basing an argument on something like, "But so-and-so said it was true, and he's a professor!" and simply pointing out that "99% of the astrophysical community sees the logic and sense in this theory" and further pointing out that there is undoubtedly a good reason for such acceptance. I understand that such a point provides no proof on the merits, still I think it's a valid and important piece of information.

You said, "In the case of Big Bang cosmology, it has become a systemic problem that scientists explain away all kinds of interesting or anomalous observations in the unfounded terms of the Big Bang. I argue that expansion of space is the most derelict of them all...."

:-k

I would argue against such an assertion. As I mentioned, observations and findings are sometimes inaccurate, especially when they are based on inadequate or biased statistical sampling.

So you don't like the expansion explanation, but you have no better alternative. I find that expansion explains what we observe very well. But you must understand that I don't consider any scientific theory "infallible truth". Like the big bang, quantum physics, evolution by natural selection - expansion is currently the best explanation that we have. I tend to favor science's best explanations, but if a better one comes along (with adequate evidence), I'll be the first to embrace it. (Well, more likely the 14,764th.)

I don't follow this line of reasoning, but perhaps it should be discussed in another thread.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I'm sure you are right. Generally. However, science consciously attempts to put these biases aside. Individual scientists are not always successful in this endeavor, but at least they know they should be trying.

You seem to have fallen victim to a false recovered memory. See my previous post regarding best explanations based on observations and willingness to entertain better explanations. Problem is, on this board, "better explanations" are rarely that.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Hey, all I did was point out that I disagreed with one of his premises.

As far as that goes, not entirely. However, science generally works better if you have a working model to go on, rather than just assuming that you don't know anything because you don't know everything. Moreover, I really do think that Ari ovestates the significance of the criticisms of the Big Bang. No, we shouldn't necessarily dimiss them, but we should address them critically.

If someone says that the lambda-CDM model has problems explaining how giant ellipticals seem to lack dark matter, that's a valid criticism, and needs to be seriously addressed (possibly by adjusting the model, or finding out that dark matter can be stripped in some manner, or by demonstrating that the observations that originally led to this thought may have alternate interpretations). If someone says that a big bang can't be right because they think the universe has to have existed forever, that's not really a substantive complaint, unless they can provide some kind of evidence that supports that claim.

Not necessarily. But I'd imagine that if you were going to criticize one or more of them, you wouldn't just say, "I don't think that can be right". You'd say, "I don't think that can be right, because...", and give some reason. You'd certainly expect a proponent of that idea to try to show why your reason doesn't cause a problem for their model. And if one of these theories of consciousness helps explain certain observed behaviors well, then I don't think you'd be justified in saying that we really don't know anything about consciousness if you can't give solid reasons why that can't be the right explanation. Of course, the "soft sciences" (I hope I can use that term without offending anyone) sometimes rely more on subjective judgment. For example, what if none of these theories of consciousness helps explain behavior well? Or if they all do so equally well (or equally poorly), but contradict each other? In that case, these would more philosophical ideas and less scientific models, and it seems unlikely that any of them would really become the mainstream idea at all.

But in this case, the debate is purely philosophical. None of the twelve year olds had evidence of any kind to back up their ideas.

Except that, although I acknowledge that we all have unconscious biases, I think that ideas become mainstream in the scientific community not because scientists are simply inclined to accept them, but because they actually have evidence supporting them. It's true that mainstream ideas, once in place, are usually held to conservatively, and require serious evidence to topple, that's probably a good thing overall, since it keeps us from throwing out ideas that may yet be workable. And on the other hand, the highest accolades in science are given to those who show that the old model was wrong and are able to demonstrate it. People like Einstein or Schrodinger or Feynman changed the mainstream scientific viewpoint, and their ideas weren't quashed, because they work. Many researchers when conducting experiments are specifically looking to find places where the current models break down, and this is actively encouraged. But, the evidence needs to be there.

To claim something is 'perfectly consistent' is just poor choice of language, and will not ever help your debate. Don't make me break out the Feynman quotes.

Um, OK? So I still didn't say that space is not expanding. I said basing ideas exclusively on the idea that space expands is faulty, and then go on to examine why this might be the case. It is my view that we should first try to interpret events in terms of mechanisms we can already explain before relying on theoretical constructs derived from Big Bang cosmology.

Gee, really? :-?

Why do you keep mentioning this, as if it has meaning? I 'perfectly' understand your repetetive position that you see no reason to look any further for explanations, because you think the data fits well enough. Do you have anything new to add?

It is interesting that alternatives are not even mentioned in low level astronomy or earth science courses (my only formal experience), and that instead BB is presented as the Truth. Regardless, our understanding is constantly shaped by the wonderful research cited on BABB and elsewhere, so I find it more useful to refrain from limiting my understanding to any particular cosmology.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Please watch who you are quoting. :-?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Are you saying that GR is only a theoretical construct? The equations of GR, when applied to the universe as a whole indicate the universe has to either be expanding or contracting. (see my post in the other thread as to your confusion regarding the cosmological constant that Einstein added).
Unless you are going to claim GR is wrong.... which is a whole different debate.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

OK, how's this: The expansion of space is consistent with those observations. Do you deny this? If so, tell me where you think it is inconsistent. I was referring specifically to the Hubble relation and supernova time dilation.
Did you say something about the meaning content of one of my remarks?
That's not my position. I do, however, see no reason to rehash explanations or hypotheses that were rejected as flawed before you were born.
Educational methods have been shown to work best by first showing the broad brush strokes, then filling in the details, sprinkled with the state-of-the-art and possibly controversial minutiae. If you come right out with the state-of-the-art details, students are going to be hopelessly confused because they have no foundation on which to put these details.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

My mistake. Of course that was Mutineer who made that rather nasty and unfounded remark.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.