Is the cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang?

#41
I'm actually going to bail out on the conversation LoneShaman. You've mentioned suspicion of deception, suppression and other undesirable tactics in mainstream science multiple times and one thing I have learned on these forums is that where suspicion like that is involved, debate goes nowhere, no matter how much valid science I might try to bring up.
Ethan, before you go, I would really like it if you tidied up the discussion about red shifts. I mean as I understand it, if light passes through a large enough cloud of molecular hydrogen, it loses energy due to interactions with the molecules. I assume the energy is removed as rotational energy - Raman scattering.

1) Is this process established science?

2) Is there any good reason to doubt that H2 clouds might exist out there?

3) How significant is this to the validity of distance measurements using the red shift.

David
 
#42
At a slightly more general level, I think science has a real problem. It is, in effect, building an ever larger house of cards. Theories depend on measurements that depend on other theories, that are simplifications of complex phenomena, ........................................

The project is inherently unstable because a flaw lower down the house can bring down great chunks of the 'building', and all the time, more is being added. Scientists are only human, and the temptation to use a little glue to hold some of those lower cards in place, is simply too great!

There are loads of cranks - particularly on the internet - and it is awfully easy to sweep awkward folk into the community of cranks and dismiss them from further consideration. Once you label them as cranks, it doesn't even seem necessary to be scrupulously fair to their argument.

Rather than polarising around the idea of right and wrong - honest science against corrupt science - I think it is worth thinking more about the entire project of science (done by humans) - is it even possible to envisage it going on much further? Some areas like solid state physics are used to make things, and the money only goes on flowing if the output is useful. That is a harsh form of discipline, but at least it does mean that what comes out has some validity.

If we were an inter-galactic civilisation, getting ready to create another universe (or an ensemble of universes!) we might be ready to use cosmology like solid state physics, and I'd guess it would be shaken up pretty thoroughly as a result, but maybe science should not (cannot?) extend too far beyond the range of current technology?

In a way, the whole antipathy of science to ψ comes from the fact that science has pushed ahead into areas that can't be tested to destruction by technology. It has extrapolated from quantum experiments and assorted chemical facts, to an over-arching concept of the entire brain containing of the order of 10^26 atoms! The whole shebang is supposed to run on those individual particle-particle interactions, and nothing else. That extrapolation has lead to science rejecting perfectly good and potentially crucial data - such as say presentiment, or Ganzfeld ESP.

My increasing impression is that without that discipline, or something equivalent, science just isn't possible long term. There are now so many areas of science in which senior ex-members of the club are calling foul. As Ethan points out, that makes it very hard on honest scientists, but the problem is very real. We only need to think about what Wiseman did regarding Sheldrake's dog experiments, and the fact that the science community permitted him to behave like that - we know there is a problem.

David
 
Last edited:
#43
The educational system does not promote critical thinking, students are brought in completely under assumptions that are not established and are considered fact and beyond questioning. A culture forms, stories become ingrained in the culture held as irrefutable fact. A form of myth making. Complete with mathematical equations. One of those myths is materialism.
 
#44
The educational system does not promote critical thinking, students are brought in completely under assumptions that are not established and are considered fact and beyond questioning. A culture forms, stories become ingrained in the culture held as irrefutable fact. A form of myth making. Complete with mathematical equations. One of those myths is materialism.
(Been enjoying reading this dialogue - Ethan hope you stick with it!)

Regarding this: It may be different in the hard sciences but in my political science/history degree we were required in essays or exams to argue from different perspectives - at the very least putting forth our main argument and then addressing potential flaws. Or analysing other people's arguments and presenting the pros and cons of each position. I guess I can't speak for other universities or disciplines but if we had simply presented one view without critique we would not do very well.

I can see how in the hard sciences it could be very different though - with more answers being considered "right" and "wrong".
 
#45
(Been enjoying reading this dialogue - Ethan hope you stick with it!)

Regarding this: It may be different in the hard sciences but in my political science/history degree we were required in essays or exams to argue from different perspectives - at the very least putting forth our main argument and then addressing potential flaws. Or analysing other people's arguments and presenting the pros and cons of each position. I guess I can't speak for other universities or disciplines but if we had simply presented one view without critique we would not do very well.
I think it would be awfully interesting to try some of that in the sciences! For example, there are now claims - based on a number of large health surveys - that neither saturated fat,nor cholesterol produces heart attacks. The science is really down to statistics and various hypotheses used to explain some of the data that didn't come is the 'right' way. Students charged with proving the opposite of received wisdom could have some real fun! I guess the issue of quasars grouped around galaxies that are much closer based on red shift values, would be another fantastic project! Dare they even give some students the task of writing a paper opposing the theory of CAGW!

Maybe historians and political scientists could teach hard science a thing or two!
I can see how in the hard sciences it could be very different though - with more answers being considered "right" and "wrong".
I don't know - I reckon you are thinking more of school science.

David
 
#47
I will have to post these here since dissent is not allowed in the gravitational waves thread. And what a wonderful example of how science works these days it has turned out to be. By god it must be the multiverse! Oh wait maybe it is just dust. LOL!

Here is mathematician Stephen Crothers explaining the problems with the methodology, Big Bang, gravity waves and general relativity. This short video covers a lot including the paper I originally linked regarding the CMB by Robitalle.
 
#49
I will have to post these here since dissent is not allowed in the gravitational waves thread.
LS feel free to post in that Grav. Wave thread. I was just initially hoping for some discussion specifically related to the discovery at first, but that aspect of the conversation has since long died out. Not sure it ever started really, lol.
 
#50
LS feel free to post in that Grav. Wave thread. I was just initially hoping for some discussion specifically related to the discovery at first, but that aspect of the conversation has since long died out. Not sure it ever started really, lol.
Probably better here actually since this thread has a broader scope and some fundamenals of the big bang have already been touched. You could say that it does not bode well for the standard assumptions. :)
 
#51
Please take the time to watch Robitallie's lecture posted above. I have never seen a more thourough and destructive refutation of the interpretation of the CMB like that ever. Now that is science!
 
#52
I mentioned in another thread that singularities are impossible, of course that attracted some attention (with contradictions) so I thought I would address it here.

Black holes are perhaps the pinnacle of silliness in the fiction and is a cornerstone to the failure of the gravity central paradigm.

It might surprise some to say that black holes have never been confirmed as actually existing. There is a romantic attachment to them, I understand, people get upset like telling a kid Santa does not exist. Sorry to disappoint. No one has ever observed a black hole or event horizon. None of the observations surrounding the activities associated with black holes were ever predicted. None, it has all been adhoc, even when the observations are clear contradictions the mathematicians simply plug new invented solutions into the mix in yet more epicycles just like the rest of cosmology and never, ever consider that there base assumptions are actually false. A case once again of anchoring as Robitalle puts it. Well the assumptions are false, which can be confirmed in the original Swartzchild paper that I will link here.

There are many reasons to reject blackholes on purely logic alone, they make no sense at all, they are a mathematical illusion, however I would like to present Stephen Crothers excellent work that shows that general relativity does not permit blackholes. At the same time revealing some of the problems with GR. There is a lot of math involved but it is not difficult to see the errors. One of which is a historical blunder with a misinterpretation of the Swartzchild solution. The Schwartzchild solution does not resolve to black holes.

Ric = 0

This is one of the crucial mistakes, what it basically means is that there is no matter in the black hole. Embarrassingly the supporters of black holes can't even give a coherent definition of R, it keeps changing. Crothers explains exactly what it is.

You cannot divide by zero, but that is what they do. Can you believe it? Most primary school kids know this is absurd. You can't get infinity by dividing by zero! Ridiculous beyond measure!

Mathematicians have become so detached from reality they think they can just make it up. Leaving science behind with unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities being invented at every turn. Even when it does not conform to observation it is just a matter of fudging the equations and forcing the answer they seek.

How does a black hole interact with matter if it has none? How does it have mass without matter? Please take the time to watch and don't be put off by the math. He did a very basic rundown of some of the issues in the video above dealing with the Bicep2 findings, This is much more in depth.

Just to note, I have discussed this on another forum once and the expected attacks began, leveled at myself and at Stephen Crothers. It was very amusing, Stephen actually turned up and took part to the horror of his detractors and proceeded to tear them apart, the guy knows his shit like no else I know. Unlike the blind followers though he can see through the BS and can refute the mathemagicians on there own playing field. He is tenacious and pulls no punches.

Here is the link to the original Schwartzchild paper for the mathematically inclined.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

Now, there is actually a very plausible and simple alternative that very neatly can explain all the effects observed effects of black holes such as x-rays, gamma rays, even jets and fusion events without resorting to a metaphysical geometry and invented forces of nature. So you can decide which is more likely, a verifiable testable and practical explanation or one that has no empirical support whatsoever is riddled with contradictions and is nothing but yet another epicycle for a failed model. Stay tuned.
 
#53
Forget mathematics that has no foundation in reality, we can turn to the most successful science of them all for potential answers, engineering.
There is a device known as the plasma dense focus device or plasma gun, it can replicate the effects of black holes. There are no black holes, the highly energetic object at the heart of AGN's is a plasmoid. A term coined by Winston Bostick who created micro sized rotating spiral structures in the lab. Tiny spiral galaxies you could say.

The plasma gun shows what happens when converging current streams of the galactic spiral arms are pinched down into the small focal area of the galactic centre. It produces high energy x-ray and gamma ray radiation, intense beams of electrons and protons as well as fusion. Current filaments form along the electrodes and are pinched down into a hotspot, a tiny plasmoid capable of intense energy. Plasma is scalable, this easily accounts for the high energy observations that have taken astronomers by surprise. In fact the only consitant thing in cosmology is the constant surprise of astronomers.

You can actually see the current filaments feeding into the central plasmoid.

New scientist reports...

A pair of gamma ray bubbles, shaped like an hourglass, seem to be spewing from the black hole we think lies at the centre of our galaxy. That is according to the latest maps from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Its large area telescope has been scanning the whole sky every three hours since June 2008.

The article states....

Something big is going on at the center of the galaxy, and astronomers are happy to say they don’t know what it is.

What are they talking about? This is the same hour glass structure seen in many galaxies usually in arc mode, this is ubiquitous with a plasma z-pinch at the heart of galaxies, a structure not attributable to gravity but well known in plasma laboratories. The galaxy is in effect a giant homo polar motor.

I mean c'mon, the universe is 99% plasma, only a tiny amount of ionization is required before electric currents begin to flow. Magnetic fields are only created by electric currents. Cosmology is blind to this fact known by most high school students, and yet they still attempt to model in terms of hot gas. Time to wake up.

No invented forces are required to explain galactic structure only electrical forces. But mainstream cosmology refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity in space. Magnetic fields everywhere, but never a mention of the electrical currents that MUST create them. Everything is done by the magic of gravity with a theory that does not even explain gravity except with circular reasoning. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. This is why we have all the absurd notions plaguing cosmology.

“After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.”
Halton Arp – What has Science Come to? – Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 3.
 
#54


Once upon a time black holes only gobbled up matter, jets were never predicted in black hole theory.
The M87 jet is a classic example, here is the gravitational explanation.

The jet blasting out of the nucleus of M87, a giant elliptical galaxy 50 million light years away in the constellation Virgo (false color). At the extreme left of the image, the bright galactic nucleus harboring a supermassive black hole shines. The jet is thought to be produced by strong electromagnetic forces created by matter swirling toward the supermassive black hole. These forces pull gas and magnetic fields away from the black hole along its axis of rotation in a narrow jet. Inside the jet, shock waves produce high-energy electrons that spiral around the magnetic field and radiate by the "synchrotron" process, creating the observed radio, optical and X-ray knots.
Note we have electromagnetic forces, but yet they neglect electric currents, they refer to gas not plasma, the refer to magnetic fields withou a source! The gravity of the black hole (which has no matter/mass by definition!) Is pulling on them! Shockwaves produce high energy electrons! When the simplest answer is the particles are accelerated in an electric field, just as how we do it on Earth. Here It is all powered by a unseen, unverifiable hypothetical mathematical fantasy driving the whole thing. It just has to be the infinitely dense source of gravity to compensate for it's weakness compared to the electric force. What rubbish!
 
#55
Galaxy rotation.

One of the reasons dark matter is invoked is to explain the rotational curves of galaxies. It has been found that individual stars do not rotate around the galactic centre in accordance with Keplars laws of planetary motion. Stars outside the central bulge tend to rotate as if connected to a disc. According to kepplars laws the velocity should decrease as distance increases from the centre. This is the mystery of the flat rotation curves of galaxies.

Adding enough dark matter in the halo of galaxies can adjust the rotational curves. Well not just the rotation, without dark matter they would just come apart. Once again a fudge factor, another epicycle.

There is of course another explanation. The Faraday motor.

Galaxies are known, through precise Faraday rotation measures (RM) of the polarization of the light they emit, to possess magnetic fields aligned with their axes of rotation, and they also have conducting plasma among their stars. Assuming that currents exist in the plane of the galaxy similar to the equatorial current sheet known to exist in the Solar System, then the conditions appear to be similar to that in a Unipolar Inductor or Faraday Motor. Of course the disk in this case is not rigid. The exact mode of rotation would depend on the balance between the radial driving current and the rotationally induced opposing current, as in a Faraday Motor, but it is at least possible that it is these electrical effects that are causing the anomalous rotation that we see, not some huge quantity of invisible Dark Matter.
In this context, it is interesting to see the recent discovery by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey of a ring of stars in the equatorial plane of the Milky Way but outside our galaxy. The similarity with a toroidal current around a pinch in a large Birkeland Current along the axis of the Milky Way suggests that once again electrical forces on a galactic scale may be responsible for the formations we see.


A perfect example in the Crab nebulae.


https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/29/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-10/
 
Last edited:
#56
Turns out the theory regarding the jets I rubbished has been effectively falsified. They found circular polarization, something the current theories predicted should not be there.

"Different theories for electron acceleration and light emission within the afterglow all predict different levels of linear polarisation, but theories all agreed that there should be no circular polarisation in visible light."

"We believe that this detection means that most of the current theories of how electrons get accelerated in afterglows need re-examining."

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Shockwave_findings_set_to_rewrite_scientific_theories_999.html

Set to rewrite scientific theories, hmmm...

"We believe the most likely explanation is that the exact way electrons are accelerated within the afterglow shockwave is different than what we always thought."

Ya think?

 
#57
I hope you don't mind Ethan, I wanted to address your post here.

LS,
I would be very careful of the EU guys. They seem to distort much of modern science, while having a knack of sounding good in the progress. It's what I call making BS smell good.
This is a distortion in itself Ethan. Firstly EU has some speculation but the majority of it is based on actuall working plasma phenomena from the laboratory and well founded principles of electrical engineering. It relies on experimentally verified phenomena. It is also recognized by the IEEE. One of the pioneers was the great Hannes Alfvien!

To say it distorts much of science is not even wrong. It is the so called science, which it clearly does not qualify as science which is which is distorted.

Even in it's infancy it has made several successful predictions. This is an unfair dismissil and to be quite honest rediculous compared to the wild flights of fancy of cosmology such as multi universes, big bangs, black holes, dark everything, strange matter, curving space, and on and on.

The nature of it is grounded in empirical science, not mathematical illusions an unobserved entities. One is true to the scientific method the other is not. What a twisted world it is.

I listened to a bit of the Crothers video you posted where he addressed what I think you are referring to. Setting the stress-energy tensor to zero is analogous to setting m to zero in F=ma, or the charge to zero in F~=qE. It's an idealized situation. In other words, you can never take all mass, or all charge out of space, nor can you get infinitely far away from any mass/charge sources. If you could you would have no forces, or in GR speak, no curvature of spacetime. You can approach these conditions in intergalactic space, but never quite get all the way there. And, there is no interaction with matter in the Einstein Field Equation for an empty spacetime - that's the whole point, it's empty! So, Crothers trying to paint this into some contradiction is a misunderstanding of GR at best, or intentionally misleading, at worst.

Also, just because the Ricci tensor is zero, doesn't mean everything is zero. The Ricci tensor is a contraction of the Riemann Curvature Tensor. So, all the set of R_uv = 0 equations are saying is that a particular combination of the Riemann Curvature Tensor elements are summing to zero, but the Riemann Curvature Tensor itself may still not be zero. So the empty spacetime solution is analogous to taking a piece of paper and folding it into a cylinder. It may have extrinsic curvature now, but it still has zero intrinsic curvature, i.e. there is no stretching, or warping, of the initial idealized flat space, in order to get it into a cylinder. The interactions of spacetime and mass that are of concern in GR and describing real world physics deals only with intrinsic curvature - this is where the dynamic nature of spacetime lives in GR.
First paragraph seems to agree not contradict, no matter no forces. Exactly. What is not zero in an empty space time? So you take an empty space time, no forces, and fold it into a cylinder? Sorry mate this is meaningless. This is the gobbledy gook that mathematicians hide behind. The contradictions are quite clear even without the math. You can't have it both ways, yet they insist on it.

You can find all the support for what he talks about in the original papers here. Note the paper from one of the inventors of tensor calculus.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com

Keep in mind the stress-energy tensor, as it is used in Einstein's Field Equations, is a consequence of E=mc^2, or mass-energy equivalence from Special Relativity. So, if you have a beef with the stress-energy tensor here, then you also have a beef with Special Relativity.
.
Of course I have problems with special relativity. You say it like it is so unquestionable. There are many dissenters some have even been Nobel prize winners. It is not compatable with QM regardless of the interpretations of QM. Science thinks there is a holy grail that can unite them. When the most likely reason is that one is wrong. Considering the quality of experiments I doubt very much it is QM.

So, if anything, this shows GR is a complete, consistent description of curved space-times (which it should be since it is based off differential geometry!!) that is also analogous to (or rather reduces to) classical physics and the description of forces found there. But, Crothers paints an incomplete picture that he seems to want to sell as a contradiction, for whatever reason.
What? Where? So curving nothing into a cylinder shows how accurate GR is ? Ahh... OK. It can describe curved space time with imagination and numbers and contradictions. It does not make it real. I find it strange you can dismiss his work after a few minutes of video.

And, you know me ... I don't mind questioning anybody or anything. If anything, I enjoy it. So it's not me being brainwashed by society, or scientific institutions. I'm just saying this guy isn't jiving up with a basic understanding of General Relativity. If it was me, I would be very cautious and skeptical of these guys. There are a lot of areas of physics to be skeptical of and will probably end up wrong, but I'm of the opinion these EU guys are looking in the wrong place and, quite frankly, seem more keen on bringing all of modern science down.
Really? I suspect science is impeded by dogma and won't get anywhere until the road blocks are removed. I don't think you really know much about EU Ethan. To say Crothers does not have a basic understanding of GR is frankly ridiculous he has written many papers and engaged some of the high preists in relativity and they do not fare well at all. You can easily find the back and forths. They would also much prefer to ignore him and pass him off as someone who simply is not up to their holy than though magical understanding that mere mortals simply cannot comprehend! He has given lectures in the international astrophysical circles, not just EU conferences.

Not even a basic understanding? Common Ethan, I have seen this sort of talk from psuedoskeptics. Seriously he might join in soon, be careful.
 
Last edited:
#58
Let me ask a question, this is a major flaw in relativity if you ask me.

You have a stationary observer and two simultaneous lightning flashes, A and B.

Acording to relativity for some moving observers A happens before B.

And yet for other moving observers B happens before A!

This is said not to be a perceptual illusion but an actual timeline of events!

Seriously, no one has a problem with this? I would love to hear some opinions on this, is this acceptable?

He has takes the mathematics of Lorentz and Poincare and then adjust lengths and time to force the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. This sort of thing is the result.
 
Last edited:
#59
For the record I am putting this here as well.

There is another very simple observable refutation actually. Gravity must propagate faster than light, most probably instantaneous as in Newtons equation. Which lands probes on mars and landed man on the moon.

Light from the Sun to the Earth takes about eight minutes or so, the light comes from a measurably different point in the sky than the point in space that the earth is heading towards. No surprise, the the sun as it appears is from eight minutes in the past.

However the Earth is not accelerating towards the visible location of the Sun but 20 arc seconds in front of the sun where it will be visualy in 8 minutes! Where it actually is in absolute time!

The implication cannot be denied.

If gravity is constrained to propagate at the speed of light as relativity demands it, then the Earth and all other planets would be slung outwards in time. The distance the Earth is from the sun would double in 1200 years. This same effect can be seen in the position of stars.
 
#60
It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

Nikola Tesla
 
Top