Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Another problem for the big bang

  1. #1 Another problem for the big bang 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Today, scientists have observed strange new motion at the very limits of the known universe - kind of where you'd expect to find new things, but they still didn't expect this. A huge swath of galactic clusters seem to be heading to a cosmic hotspot and nobody knows why.

    The unexplained motion has hundreds of millions of stars dashing towards a certain part of the sky at over eight hundred kilometers per second.

    A black hole can't explain the observations - objects would accelerate into the hole, while the NASA scientists see constant motion over a vast expanse of a billion light-years.


    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-cosmic-h.html


    .


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    This pretty vague article refers to the somewhat more scientifically concrete article:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0923104410.htm

    The original publication is here:
    http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2008ApJ...686L..49K
    (click on arxiv reprint for the full article)

    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish. Question the big bang, and you fall under extremely harsh scrutiny. Uphold it, and the scrutiny is a little bit less extreme. Most of the time when you discover a trend in outer space, you don't have absolutely infinity certain proof. Without a small amount of suspension of disbelief, nobody would even read what you've written.


    I get the impression that the first article is more interested in the second article's data, and less interested in the conclusions the researchers drew from it. If indeed a bunch of galaxy clusters are converging on one spot in space, interpreting that as evidence in favor, or against, the big bang is more a matter of preference than anything else. How could it reasonably favor either view over the other?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish. Question the big bang, and you fall under extremely harsh scrutiny. Uphold it, and the scrutiny is a little bit less extreme. Most of the time when you discover a trend in outer space, you don't have absolutely infinity certain proof. Without a small amount of suspension of disbelief, nobody would even read what you've written.
    Kojax, there is nothing wrong with the Big Bang model, most specifically because it's actually quite vague. The article in question does not follow its premise when it claims the universe cannot exist as we say it does. We're merely ignorant to the cause of this phenomenon, it does not immediately invalidate anything other than strict cosmological models that demand rapid expansion in a uniform manner. It's worth noting that this is not the Big Bang model itself, but rather most interpretations of it (generally for simplicity and overall accuracy sake).

    I hope this cleared up a few things. This likely proves a few models inaccurate, but not the overall theory. In fact the basis of the theory, rapid expansion, is still quite accurate. A more disturbing idea is that this is how the original Big Bang was formed, by some spacial anomaly, and our universe will eventually be consumed by it.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish. Question the big bang, and you fall under extremely harsh scrutiny.
    Why would you think this observation is a problem particularly for the big bang? What is the alternative to the big bang anyway? Steady state universe? How would a convergence of galaxies support that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish.
    That's rubbish and is the opinion of someone who wants to spread conspiracy theories. The scientific discussion is much more controversial than you think. But not everything makes it into popular publications.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish.
    That's rubbish and is the opinion of someone who wants to spread conspiracy theories. The scientific discussion is much more controversial than you think. But not everything makes it into popular publications.
    You've got to be kidding, right? The scientific community is just as political as any other. You get less scrutiny if you agree with the status quo than you would if you were to disagree with it.

    Basically it's kind of like a court of law. The standing theory is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to challenge it, then you need to meet the same burden of evidence that a prosecutor would need to meet in a court of law. If you want to uphold it, then you only need to meet the burden of evidence that a defense attorney would need to meet.

    If you observe something interesting, and you want to publish it, then presenting your data in a way that suggests that it upholds the standing theory will offend fewer people, and make it easier to get taken seriously. Most publications don't want to publish something that could seriously hurt their own reputation, so they're not going to publish something that overturns or opposes the BBT unless you present a really really strong case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You've got to be kidding, right? The scientific community is just as political as any other. You get less scrutiny if you agree with the status quo than you would if you were to disagree with it.

    Basically it's kind of like a court of law. The standing theory is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to challenge it, then you need to meet the same burden of evidence that a prosecutor would need to meet in a court of law. If you want to uphold it, then you only need to meet the burden of evidence that a defense attorney would need to meet.

    If you observe something interesting, and you want to publish it, then presenting your data in a way that suggests that it upholds the standing theory will offend fewer people, and make it easier to get taken seriously. Most publications don't want to publish something that could seriously hurt their own reputation, so they're not going to publish something that overturns or opposes the BBT unless you present a really really strong case.
    This is true, and a valid criticism that scientists are in much need of, but as I stated in my post, it does not apply to this discovery. Your criticism would help you better if you weren't incorrect about your conclusion. I cannot stress enough: This is not evidence in any way that the "BBT" is incorrect, only that a few applications and models are.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4
    I get the impression that the first article is more interested in the second article's data, and less interested in the conclusions the researchers drew from it. If indeed a bunch of galaxy clusters are converging on one spot in space, interpreting that as evidence in favor, or against, the big bang is more a matter of preference than anything else. How could it reasonably favor either view over the other?

    Buy Acai Berry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish.
    That's rubbish and is the opinion of someone who wants to spread conspiracy theories. The scientific discussion is much more controversial than you think. But not everything makes it into popular publications.
    You've got to be kidding, right? The scientific community is just as political as any other. You get less scrutiny if you agree with the status quo than you would if you were to disagree with it.
    I partly agree with Darius saying that this particular topic cannot verify or falsify one or the other theory. But I would like you to present evidence for your claim. I agree that politics are part of the science business in a sense that funding is generally only provided for research topics that are "sexy". But it is preposterous to suggest that politics decide on what you may publish and what not. I can only speak for the astrophysics; maybe it is different for applied science like biology/genetetics/pharmacy, etc. where business is involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish.
    That's rubbish and is the opinion of someone who wants to spread conspiracy theories. The scientific discussion is much more controversial than you think. But not everything makes it into popular publications.
    You've got to be kidding, right? The scientific community is just as political as any other. You get less scrutiny if you agree with the status quo than you would if you were to disagree with it.
    I partly agree with Darius saying that this particular topic cannot verify or falsify one or the other theory. But I would like you to present evidence for your claim. I agree that politics are part of the science business in a sense that funding is generally only provided for research topics that are "sexy". But it is preposterous to suggest that politics decide on what you may publish and what not. I can only speak for the astrophysics; maybe it is different for applied science like biology/genetetics/pharmacy, etc. where business is involved.
    It's the part about it being a "confirmation" that provoked me to say that. I'm kind of skeptical that it honestly "confirms" the BBT. I certainly don't think it refutes it, but I highly doubt we're going to add it to the list with CMBR and Hubble Redshift as a "confirmation".

    What you may or may not publish is decided by what risks an editor is willing to take with their publication's reputation. That's falls under the category of being a political question. Usually one likes to assume that if the statements in an article are properly supported there will be no political backlash, but my point is that : "properly supported" varies.

    A less political way to say it would be to suggest that you don't need to support claims that the scientific community already believes to be supported elsewhere. The BBT is seen as something that's already supported, so no matter what you observe in the skies, if you say "this is consistent with the BBT", nobody is going to ask you for a lot of evidence of that assertion.

    If you say "this is inconsistent with the BBT", people will first check to see if your logic is right, and then they'll start checking to see if your observations were done correctly, and even the tiniest flaw might be seen as an excuse to disregard the entirety of your work. Thus: it is never wise to say you arrived at the "wrong" conclusion, unless you're certain that no doubt can be cast on your methods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Kojax has a very good point, and we all have witnessed this phenomenon in religious types. If you present an idea people disagree with, then your evidence will be analyzed for any real or imagined flaw to warrant total rejection of that idea. At the same time, people often blindly accept evidence supporting their position without similar review. It's a prevalent bias where individuals are highly "skeptical" of opposing ideologies simply because they're opposing. Many people also claim to "love being wrong", while at the same time going to great lengths to ignore anything proving it.

    As a criticism of scientists, this has a solid basis in human nature.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Kojax has a very good point, and we all have witnessed this phenomenon in religious types. If you present an idea people disagree with, then your evidence will be analyzed for any real or imagined flaw to warrant total rejection of that idea. At the same time, people often blindly accept evidence supporting their position without similar review. It's a prevalent bias where individuals are highly "skeptical" of opposing ideologies simply because they're opposing. Many people also claim to "love being wrong", while at the same time going to great lengths to ignore anything proving it.

    As a criticism of scientists, this has a solid basis in human nature.
    Kojax indeed makes an exceedingly pertinent point. Lest science begins to be more correctly termed - yet another religion.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Kojax has a very good point, and we all have witnessed this phenomenon in religious types.
    No, I don't think he has a point at all, given that he has offered no concrete example of the type of bias he is suggesting, let alone establish any kind of pattern. I think it is a stereotype he is painting, based on his own ideological leaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish. Question the big bang, and you fall under extremely harsh scrutiny. Uphold it, and the scrutiny is a little bit less extreme. Most of the time when you discover a trend in outer space, you don't have absolutely infinity certain proof. Without a small amount of suspension of disbelief, nobody would even read what you've written.
    Given what you appear to believe it is surprising that any real progress is ever made in scientific fields! You seem to suggest it is very difficult to overturn what you define as the "conventional wisdom", in a particular branch of science, or does this only apply to astronomy and the BBT? Of course, at one time during the last century, the BBT was a radical new theory and it managed to gain acceptance.
    Perhaps I am reading you wrongly, but you also appear to imply there are a large number of astronomers, and others, who are prepared to swallow their doubts, about the BBT, because of political considerations. These individuals are then contrasted with a small number of scientists, and others posting on Internet science forums, who are the only people brave enough to ignore their own self-interest and tell the truth about this supposedly flawed BBT theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Kojax has a very good point, and we all have witnessed this phenomenon in religious types.
    No, I don't think he has a point at all, given that he has offered no concrete example of the type of bias he is suggesting, let alone establish any kind of pattern. I think it is a stereotype he is painting, based on his own ideological leaning.
    What kind of evidence are you looking for?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Kojax has a very good point, and we all have witnessed this phenomenon in religious types.
    No, I don't think he has a point at all, given that he has offered no concrete example of the type of bias he is suggesting, let alone establish any kind of pattern. I think it is a stereotype he is painting, based on his own ideological leaning.
    What kind of evidence are you looking for?
    I think you would need to find a scientist or scientists who admit to publishing something that is the opposite of their true scientific opinion, or one who expresses a different opinion in private than his published work.

    Your statement about the religious types is actually ridiculous. What if I said "Darrius is probably a thief," and the way I know this is that we have all witnessed this phenomenon among prison inmates?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I think you would need to find a scientist or scientists who admit to publishing something that is the opposite of their true scientific opinion, or one who expresses a different opinion in private than his published work.
    If that was done, you would claim anecdotal evidence and request a scientific study. If you refuse to accept this observation, then there's little anyone can do to change your mind. I, personally, accept the notion because of my experience with the human psyche. Detailed knowledge of which is required for my occupation and hobbies.

    Your statement about the religious types is actually ridiculous. What if I said "Darrius is probably a thief," and the way I know this is that we have all witnessed this phenomenon among prison inmates?
    That comparison is inaccurate to the real meaning of the message. The reference to religious types was a reference to human nature, not a non sequitur. Not only are most scientists religious, but those that are not still carry on much of the dogmatic leanings. Abandoning religion does not abandon the mental framework that craves attachment to ideology; if it did, many Atheists wouldn't be borderline religious about their nonbelief.

    The majority of humans hold beliefs and ideologies they refuse to relinquish, and often go to great lengths to punish opposition to. To suggest the status of "scientist" eliminates these biases and attitudes is a great claim that demands great evidence.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    In essence, the authors do not question the validity of the Big Bang model. Quite contrary, they consider the phenomenon a confirmation of the inflation hypothesis.
    That's because you *have* to interpret your data that way in order to publish. Question the big bang, and you fall under extremely harsh scrutiny. Uphold it, and the scrutiny is a little bit less extreme. Most of the time when you discover a trend in outer space, you don't have absolutely infinity certain proof. Without a small amount of suspension of disbelief, nobody would even read what you've written.
    Given what you appear to believe it is surprising that any real progress is ever made in scientific fields! You seem to suggest it is very difficult to overturn what you define as the "conventional wisdom", in a particular branch of science, or does this only apply to astronomy and the BBT? Of course, at one time during the last century, the BBT was a radical new theory and it managed to gain acceptance.
    Astronomy exhibits it a lot more than anything else. In the first place, it affects peoples' egos. The BBT was always popular with Christians, because it gave God a chance to create everything.

    The BBT is something you accept on faith. The BBT only looks proven if you can convince yourself than one, and only one, thing could possibly be causing the uniform expansion of light waves. Outside of that, it's just the most credible, but "most credible" doesn't mean unquestionable or infallible. It doesn't mean you should automatically reject that which does not conform to it. Christians think Christianity is the most credible too.

    Perhaps I am reading you wrongly, but you also appear to imply there are a large number of astronomers, and others, who are prepared to swallow their doubts, about the BBT, because of political considerations. These individuals are then contrasted with a small number of scientists, and others posting on Internet science forums, who are the only people brave enough to ignore their own self-interest and tell the truth about this supposedly flawed BBT theory.
    I don't remember contrasting them with anybody. My experience in college is that most people blindly accept whatever they're told as long as the math adds up. It's more of a self esteem problem. A sort of "They're smart. I'm dumb" attitude. People believe the person instead of the person's evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Kojax, I agreed with criticism of scientists, but now you're talking out of your ass.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    It seems to a Reject that the biggest problem for the BBT, is as follows:

    For mine, there are actually two sources of energy - one being constructive and close enough to infinite, with the other being consumptive (and dependent).

    From a simple platform, the energy released as light from a bulb is creative and uses the constructive source - ultimately from light itself, however the energy released from a nuclear warhead is clearly destructive.

    Therefore light is a power supply from the positive end of the spectrum, with the other being perhaps best viewed as 'negative'.

    So how does a Big Bang, as based upon a 'negative' perspective eventuate, when there has previously existed nothing; by definition needing to be facilitated from the positive (creative) end?

    Just a question, is all.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Astronomy exhibits it a lot more than anything else. In the first place, it affects peoples' egos. The BBT was always popular with Christians, because it gave God a chance to create everything.

    The BBT is something you accept on faith. The BBT only looks proven if you can convince yourself than one, and only one, thing could possibly be causing the uniform expansion of light waves. Outside of that, it's just the most credible, but "most credible" doesn't mean unquestionable or infallible. It doesn't mean you should automatically reject that which does not conform to it. Christians think Christianity is the most credible too.
    No no no! You cannot compare science with religion like that. Science accepts a hypothesis, because there is a lot of evidence that supports it. Religion is a discipline, where people accept a hypothesis, although a lot of evidence argues against it. It is also not a matter of "most credible", at least not in a naive way. Many new theories that have been established during the recent decades started out to seem very incredible, and there was much opposition against them. Only evidence from experiments and astronomical observations were able to convince scientists that they are correct - correct in a way science is able to prove it. You cannot prove anything ultimately correct. You can only ultimately prove a hypothesis being wrong. And this is also true for the Big Bang, although not as firmly as for the theories that are now considered physical laws. No scientist - outside popular scientific publications - would argue that Big Bang is an infallible hypothesis.

    If you want to question that theory, you need to come up with results that clearly contradict its concept. Or even better: establish a hypothesis that explains all phenomena as least as good or even better, i.e. explains such phenomena that Big Bang cannot.

    By the way - Big Bang is not held up because cosmology is done by Christian scientists. Such beliefs have no meaning whatsoever in natural sciences. There are a lot of non-believers among the cosmologists that support Big Bang. That's just another conspiracy theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It seems to a Reject that the biggest problem for the BBT, is as follows:

    For mine, there are actually two sources of energy - one being constructive and close enough to infinite, with the other being consumptive (and dependent).

    From a simple platform, the energy released as light from a bulb is creative and uses the constructive source - ultimately from light itself, however the energy released from a nuclear warhead is clearly destructive.

    Therefore light is a power supply from the positive end of the spectrum, with the other being perhaps best viewed as 'negative'.

    So how does a Big Bang, as based upon a 'negative' perspective eventuate, when there has previously existed nothing; by definition needing to be facilitated from the positive (creative) end?

    Just a question, is all.
    What are you talking about? Nothing in nature is either good or bad. Those values are only produced by the human mind. That also holds for energy. Light can be destructive as well (e.g. gamma rays). "Destructive" and "constructive" depends on the perspective. Those terms have no meaning in physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Astronomy exhibits it a lot more than anything else. In the first place, it affects peoples' egos. The BBT was always popular with Christians, because it gave God a chance to create everything.

    The BBT is something you accept on faith. The BBT only looks proven if you can convince yourself than one, and only one, thing could possibly be causing the uniform expansion of light waves. Outside of that, it's just the most credible, but "most credible" doesn't mean unquestionable or infallible. It doesn't mean you should automatically reject that which does not conform to it. Christians think Christianity is the most credible too.
    I don't believe in God but I accept the BBT. If I did believe I see no reason why this fact should make me favour the BBT. I could argue that the universe (like God) had always existed or that God had created the universe, billions of years ago without any BB, looking pretty much, at the point of creation, as it looks today.
    Here is something I do accept "on faith" but also on what I have read. I simply do not believe that the mass of working astronomers, and those in related fields, accept the BBT "on faith". I say these individuals would argue the facts show the BBT is by far "the most credible" explanation, at the present time, for the existence of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Science accepts a hypothesis, because there is a lot of evidence that supports it.
    I would have thought that human beings accept or deny such things as hypotheses. Either way, why would anyone accept a hypothesis when 'a lot of evidence supports it', whilst at the same time choosing to ignore the single largest slice of evidence - which, despite all efforts at dismissal, will forever deny it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Nothing in nature is either good or bad. Those values are only produced by the human mind. That also holds for energy. Light can be destructive as well (e.g. gamma rays). "Destructive" and "constructive" depends on the perspective. Those terms have no meaning in physics.
    In the real world, even a dog would appreciate the good/bad comparison between a kindly pat, and a whack to the head by (say) a big stick in the hands of a dispassionate 'physicist'. Likewise, I would have thought it relatively axiomatic that a slow antelope in the process of being a snack would likely have a differing perspective on good/bad of the circumstances, to that of the ravenous tiger and her cubs – yet perhaps such scenarios do not equate with ‘nature’?

    So indeed ‘constructive’ and ‘destructive’ depend upon perspective – perhaps even a perspective such as whether a physicist on a cold rainy night; would prefer to sleep in a constructed, or destructed bed - that is provided he could get his head around there being no such thing as 'good' or 'bad'.

    Or perhaps physics might be best served with a little get real?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Science accepts a hypothesis, because there is a lot of evidence that supports it.
    I would have thought that human beings accept or deny such things as hypotheses.
    You are splitting hairs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Either way, why would anyone accept a hypothesis when 'a lot of evidence supports it', whilst at the same time choosing to ignore the single largest slice of evidence - which, despite all efforts at dismissal, will forever deny it?
    What are you getting at? A hypothesis is an idea with a concept, how to verify of falsify it. If the empirical evidence supports it, the hyposthesis is accepted for further scrutiny. If not, it is dismissed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Nothing in nature is either good or bad. Those values are only produced by the human mind. That also holds for energy. Light can be destructive as well (e.g. gamma rays). "Destructive" and "constructive" depends on the perspective. Those terms have no meaning in physics.
    I would have thought it relatively axiomatic that a slow antelope in the process of being a snack would likely have a differing opinion on good/bad of the circumstances, to that of the ravenous tiger and her cubs – yet perhaps such scenarios do not equate with ‘nature’.
    The problems with axioms is that you can't or don't have to prove them. What is bad for the antilope is good for the predator. That is how things are in nature. (I doubt that an antilope will ever meet a tiger, though, except in a zoo.) Objectively, this example is "neutral" at best. You could also argue that it is good for the health of the species "antilopes" that weak individuals are removed from the gene pool. This is also how equilibria in nature work. If you would interfere and spare all those cute antilopes, you would have overpopulated savannahs and the predators will be extinct some day.

    You are being subjective here. Of course, humans tend to think that it is bad, if someone or something gets hurt. That's because we have a consciousness and individualism is considered a higher value than the well being of the entire humankind. We have evolved beyond nature, because with our consciousness and intellect, we have set aside the rules of evolution. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing, because we are social and conscious beings. But this discussion goes beyond the scope of that sub-forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Another problem for the big bang 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Today, scientists have observed strange new motion at the very limits of the known universe - kind of where you'd expect to find new things, but they still didn't expect this. A huge swath of galactic clusters seem to be heading to a cosmic hotspot and nobody knows why.

    The unexplained motion has hundreds of millions of stars dashing towards a certain part of the sky at over eight hundred kilometers per second.

    A black hole can't explain the observations - objects would accelerate into the hole, while the NASA scientists see constant motion over a vast expanse of a billion light-years.


    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-cosmic-h.html


    .
    I read this article and all the responses to this posting and I saw many comments I whole hardily agree with. I know I have not posted for awhile but I have been having computer problems. Anyway I see this observation as supporting my view of the universe. I believe most of you have read my posting - Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe.

    My view of the universe does allow black holes to be very much larger than anything observed in the visible universe. For example a black hole with the mass of about one fourth our visible universe could have billions of galaxies in orbit around it, the same as a normal galaxy has stars in orbit. If such a black hole does exist just beyond the limit we can observe and has however many illuminated galaxies in our visible universe in orbit around it, they would appear to move just as the observation describes.

    Once again I would like to point out the obvious. Gravity is what causes all movement of mass in the universe. So when when a great deal of mass is observed to be moving there must be a gravity source that supports it and if that fact does not fit into the standard big bang model of our universe it does not bother me a bit, because it fits just fine in my view.

    While I am at it, may I ask any of you to comment on that article that claimed to have discovered a dark galaxy. All I can say is that I am seeing more supporting evidence for my view of the universe all the time and it seems to be adding up faster than I thought it would.

    I am not to concerned about building a fan club, but I would like to ask all of you who read this to consider my view of the universe whenever a new observation does not seem to fit into the accepted view. You may be surprised to find my model works very well if your not locked into the standard model for whatever reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •