Thread: Big Bang Theory is WRONG - 33 Top Scientists Object

Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd. There must be processes in place that enable energy to organize into more complex forms over time. I have watched every documentary ever made and never saw anyone propose a theory that did not involve a theory that we started with the big bang. In fact, they all talk about it as if it were a settled fact. But recently I had a realization that our universe requires more of a cause and effect explanation. So this is my 3rd Topic post within 1 week suggesting the universe evolved in some way.

I just discovered tonight that I am not the first person to suggest that the Universe Evolved. 33 top scientists signed an open letter to the science community in 2004 claiming the Big Bang Theory had some major flaws and that "Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."

The letter goes on to say "Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding."

Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math, but I assume it gets extremely slow. Too slow to account for the rapid expansion rate of the big bang.

See the full article here:

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

It is bad form to post the same content on two threads simultaneously.
Anyways, plasma cosmology isn't a viable model because it contradicts observational evidence in several key aspects :

Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math, but I assume it gets extremely slow. Too slow to account for the rapid expansion rate of the big bang.

And you seriously think this basic observation has been beyond countless cosmologists in the past? Get real. Are you even aware of the large amount of evidence that points towards a big bang and expansion? I don't think you are.

And yes, please stop making new threads on exactly the same thing. New ones will be deleted.

Originally Posted by markcgreer

I have watched every documentary ever made and never saw anyone propose a theory that did not involve a theory that we started with the big bang.

You haven't ever bothered to read original research papers in peer reviewedjournals then? Too complex for you?

Originally Posted by markcgreer

Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd.

Maybe. maybe not. We have no idea how the universe started (or if it even has a start). But whatever turns out to be the explanation, the universe doesn't really care whether you consider it absurd or not.*

There must be processes in place that enable energy to organize into more complex forms over time.

There is such a process. It is driven by gravity and electromagnetic forces.

Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math, but I assume it gets extremely slow. Too slow to account for the rapid expansion rate of the big bang.

Actually, the acceleration started relatively recently. Before that it appears it was decelerating (as you would expect from the effects of gravity). In which case as you go back in time the rate of expansion would get faster!

(And, no, the acceleration is not increasing exponentially - you obviously made that up for dramatic effect. Do you even know what "exponential" means?)

See the full article here:

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

Oh good. We are so often told by crackpots that no dissent is allowed. Here we have an example of dissent. That is good.

However, I am a bit worried that few of these appear to be cosmologists.

On the other hand, there are quite a few peer-reviewed papers, written by proper professional cosmologists and published in respected mainstream journals, which question various aspects of the big bang model. So it appears there is no censorship or suppression of dissent.

I suspect the reason these people think their ideas are being "suppressed" is because they are writing pseudo-scientific gobbledegook which no respectable journal would touch with a bargepole.

Originally Posted by markcgreer

Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd. There must be processes in place that enable energy to organize into more complex forms over time. I have watched every documentary ever made and never saw anyone propose a theory that did not involve a theory that we started with the big bang. In fact, they all talk about it as if it were a settled fact. But recently I had a realization that our universe requires more of a cause and effect explanation. So this is my 3rd Topic post within 1 week suggesting the universe evolved in some way.

I just discovered tonight that I am not the first person to suggest that the Universe Evolved. 33 top scientists signed an open letter to the science community in 2004 claiming the Big Bang Theory had some major flaws and that "Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."

The letter goes on to say "Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding."

Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math, but I assume it gets extremely slow. Too slow to account for the rapid expansion rate of the big bang.

See the full article here:

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

"Top Scientists" may be a stretch considering that some of the scientists listed are not directly involved in cosmology or astronomy. A great number of related scientists connected to cosmology/ astronomy, in the hundreds or thousands, believe the BB model is wrong but they are vastly in the minority, today making up maybe less than 2% of the whole. Also this list is a little out-dated being from 2004.

After the James Webb infra-red space telescope goes up in maybe 2017-2018 I believe the contradictions to the BB will begin to mount until maybe by 2020 many more astronomers and cosmologists will begin to doubt the BB model in earnest. Within 10 years after this I believe the BB model will need to change, no longer being a majority theory. Eventually I expect the BB model will be replaced by some sort of Steady-State model, but I think probably unlike Hoyle's models or Plasma Cosmology.

Originally Posted by markcgreer, I have watched every documentary ever made and never saw anyone propose a theory that did not involve a theory that we started with the big bang.

(bold added)

There have been almost countless alternative cosmological theories (not just BB model versions) presented by mainstream scientists over time, that are still available for study. If you have never seen any of these models then you have not been searching very long. I agree that in the last maybe 30 years or so it has been very difficult to get alternative-model reasearch papers published in mainstream journals. Use any search engine by putting in "alternative(s) to the Big Big Bang theory" and you will find almost countless links to other theories. Many or most of these theories/ models have never been disproved. Many of these models also include supporting math and theoretical physics.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

"Top Scientists" may be a stretch concerning the scientists listed as being directly involved in cosmology. A great number of related scientists connected to cosmology, in the hundreds or thousands, believe the BB model is wrong but they are vastly in the minority, today making up maybe less than 2% of the whole.

I challenge you to provide a source for this assertion. Are these "BB deniers" actual cosmologists, or are they scientists in some other field? I wouldn't put too much weight on a physicist's opinion of cancer therapies, for example.

After the James Webb infra-red space telescope goes up in maybe 2017-2018 I believe the contradictions to the BB will begin to mount until maybe by 2020 many more astronomers and cosmologists will begin to doubt the BB model in earnest.

What is the basis for your belief? OF course new data always informs theories, but what "contradictions" are you referring to? The BB model fits observational data extremely well (from multiple lines of evidence).

Within 10 years after this I believe the BB model will need to change, no longer being a majority theory. Eventually I expect the BB model will be replaced by some sort of Steady-State model, but I think probably unlike Hoyle's models or Plasma Cosmology.

You seem not to be aware that S-S models are severely broken. The chief problem is that the cosmic microwave background has been measured to amazing precision, and it conforms to blackbody radiation to a tee. That perfection rules out S-S models. See Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models for a more thorough discussion of why S-S models are DOA as a result.

Originally Posted by markcgreer

I just discovered tonight that I am not the first person to suggest that the Universe Evolved. 33 top scientists signed an open letter to the science community in 2004 claiming the Big Bang Theory had some major flaws and that "Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."

First, scientific truths are hardly determined by polls such as these. Second, do a quick background search on the scientists listed. Very few seem to be actual, practicing cosmologists, leading me to question the "Top Scientists" claim. Third, do a search for "plasma cosmology" and "steady-state cosmology" and you'll see that there are many and much more serious flaws with those alternatives than are allegedly suffered by BB cosmology.

Last, do more homework than watching documentaries. You can't reasonably expect to learn anything substantial about such a dense subject by watching TV. That's why university study involves actual hitting of the books instead of watching movies about molecular biology, quantum chromodynamics and calculus!

Originally Posted by tk421

That's why university study involves actual hitting of the books instead of watching movies about molecular biology, quantum chromodynamics and calculus!

Indeed. and most university study, certainly beyond first year courses will involve detailed readings of many peer reviewed research papers. I am constantly astounded by how individuals watch three discovery channel programs, misread an article in New Scientist and scan a couple of suspect internet sites, only to arrive at a confident feeling the world of science has it wrong. Sometimes I think coming out of the trees was a mistake.

tk421,

I challenge you to provide a source for this assertion. Are these "BB deniers" actual cosmologists, or are they scientists in some other field? I wouldn't put too much weight on a physicist's opinion of cancer therapies, for example.

I think you have misunderstood my quote. "Top Scientists may be a stretch" means that I also think the "33 top scientists .... " statement was/is misleading.

What is the basis for your belief? OF course new data always informs theories, but what "contradictions" are you referring to? The BB model fits observational data extremely well (from multiple lines of evidence).

I am referring to the Hubble as well as Earth scopes finding old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances. These observations are obviously predicted by steady-state models, and I believe all contradict the BB model. The James Webb scope has been designed to see the farthest galaxies. If the James Webb sees the same kinds of galaxies as the Hubble is presently seeing, even if the observations are wrongly interpreted for a while, eventually the BB model will be replaced.

You seem not to be aware that S-S models are severely broken. The chief problem is that the cosmic microwave background has been measured to amazing precision, and it conforms to blackbody radiation to a tee. That perfection rules out S-S models. See Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models for a more thorough discussion of why S-S models are DOA as a result.

Although I do not adhere to Hoyle's S-S models or Plasma cosmology, I believe many of Hoyle's explanations have validity and that a S-S model of some kind will eventually replace the BB model for the reasons stated above as well as for other reasons. My own S-S model can be seen at pantheory.org.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I think you have misunderstood my quote. "Top Scientists may be a stretch" means that I also think the "33 top scientists .... " statement is misleading.

Sorry for being unclear. I was referring to your assertion that there were "hundreds or thousands" of cosmologists who didn't believe in the Big Bang. You also mentioned a "2%" figure. Setting aside your troublesome casting of the question as a matter of belief, I was specifically asking you to back up this claim of "hundreds or thousands," as well as the "2%" number.

I am referring to the Hubble as well as Earth scopes finding old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances. These observations are obviously predicted by steady-state models, and I believe all contradict the BB model. The James Webb scope has been designed to see the farthest galaxies. If it sees the same kinds of galaxies as the Hubble is presently seeing, even if it is wrongly interpreted, eventually the BB model will be replaced.

You can make almost any model work in some regime to match a subset of the evidence. That's cherry-picking. I specifically cited where S-S fails -- fundamentally -- to offer an explanation. That's a deal killer. You can't dishonestly focus only the areas of agreement. That's not how one goes about doing science, my friend ("well, this airplane usually doesn't crash, so my control algorithm must be ok").

Although I do not adhere to Hoyle's S-S models or Plasma cosmology, I believe many of Hoyle's explanations have validity and that a S-S model of some kind will eventually replace the BB model for the reasons stated above.

In other words, you arbitrarily reject the BB model -- the best we have so far -- in favor of a vague replacement that suffers from an acknowledged (by practicing cosmologists) fatal flaw (viz, an embarrassing inability to explain the well-characterized CMB)?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I think you have misunderstood my quote. "Top Scientists may be a stretch" means that I also think the "33 top scientists .... " statement is misleading.

Sorry for being unclear. I was referring to your assertion that there were "hundreds or thousands" of cosmologists who didn't believe in the Big Bang. You also mentioned a "2%" figure. Setting aside your troublesome casting of the question as a matter of belief, I was specifically asking you to back up this claim of "hundreds or thousands," as well as the "2%" number.

I am referring to the Hubble as well as Earth scopes finding old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances. These observations are obviously predicted by steady-state models, and I believe all contradict the BB model. The James Webb scope has been designed to see the farthest galaxies. If it sees the same kinds of galaxies as the Hubble is presently seeing, even if it is wrongly interpreted, eventually the BB model will be replaced.

You can make almost any model work in some regime to match a subset of the evidence. That's cherry-picking. I specifically cited where S-S fails -- fundamentally -- to offer an explanation. That's a deal killer. You can't dishonestly focus only the areas of agreement. That's not how one goes about doing science, my friend ("well, this airplane usually doesn't crash, so my control algorithm must be ok").

Although I do not adhere to Hoyle's S-S models or Plasma cosmology, I believe many of Hoyle's explanations have validity and that a S-S model of some kind will eventually replace the BB model for the reasons stated above.

In other words, you arbitrarily reject the BB model -- the best we have so far -- in favor of a vague replacement that suffers from an acknowledged (by practicing cosmologists) fatal flaw (viz, an embarrassing inability to explain the well-characterized CMB)?

Over the many years I have heard from/of many cosmologists/ astronomers question the BB model or that do not adhere to it. If I have heard/ seen maybe close to a hundred, I am guessing that this number may be many times this amount. In the 2% statement, I said "maybe less than 2%." In this I meant based upon my readings that I think the number is between 1 and 2%.

You can make almost any model work in some regime to match a subset of the evidence. That's cherry-picking. I specifically cited where S-S fails -- fundamentally -- to offer an explanation. That's a deal killer. You can't dishonestly focus only the areas of agreement. That's not how one goes about doing science, my friend ("well, this airplane usually doesn't crash, so my control algorithm must be ok").

Although most cosmologists believe Hoyle's S-S models have been disproved, I totally disagree. I do not know what explanations you want me to offer, but don't fret, there are practically no questions in theoretical cosmology that I cannot answer. I also do not know what "deal killers" cosmologically speaking , that you are referring to other than the CMB. The cosmological background was explained by Hoyle and others as the temperature of intergalactic and intra-galactic space. A specific hypothesis concerning iron as the major propagator, was presented by Hoyle. Others after him have also included carbon in the form of graphite. Detractors of this steady state mechanism point out that this was an ad hoc hypothesis and that there is no evidence that such a mechanism could evenly distribute intergalactic temperatures, but forget that there also is no evidence that supports the BB mechanism of CMB temperature distribution.

In other words, you arbitrarily reject the BB model -- the best we have so far -- in favor of a vague replacement that suffers from an acknowledged (by practicing cosmologists) fatal flaw (viz, an embarrassing inability to explain the well-characterized CMB)?

There is no "arbitrarily" to it. I Don't believe you have looked at the link to my own S-S model that I provided (pantheory.org), otherwise I think you wouldn't be using the words "arbitrarily," or "vague replacement." It is true that I am in total sympathy with the OP statements and those of many alternative cosmologists, since I consider myself one of them.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Over the many years I have heard from/of many cosmologists/ astronomers question the BB model or that do not adhere to it. If I have heard/ seen maybe close to a hundred, I am guessing that this number may be many times this amount. In the 2% statement, I said "maybe less than 2%." In this I meant based upon my readings that I think the number is between 1 and 2%.

Ok, thanks for the reply, Forrest. I appreciate your verification that it's a complete guess, more or less.

Although most cosmologists believe Hoyle's S-S models have been disproved, I totally disagree. I do not know what explanations you want me to offer, but don't fret, there are practically no questions in theoretical cosmology that I cannot answer. I also do not know what "deal killers" cosmologically speaking , that you are referring to other than the CMB.

[Boldface mine] One deal killer would seem to be enough, yes? The nature of the CMB very tightly constrains theories. In fact, the constraints are so tight that S-S models fail miserably. I am unaware of any exceptions.

The cosmological background was explained by Hoyle and others as the temperature of intergalactic and intra-galactic space. A specific hypothesis concerning iron as the major propagator, was presented by Hoyle. Others after him have also included carbon in the form of graphite. Detractors of this steady state mechanism point out that this was an ad hoc hypothesis and that there is no evidence that such a mechanism could evenly distribute intergalactic temperatures, but forget that there also is no evidence that supports the BB mechanism of CMB temperature distribution.

I don't know what you mean by "CMB temperature distribution." That term is not used by any cosmologists I know. Perhaps you mean "CMB spectrum" or something similar. In any case, the current BB model(s) are accepted precisely because they are consistent with measurements. The same cannot be said of any S-S model, Hoyle's or anyone else's.

There is no "arbitrarily" to it. I Don't believe you have looked at the link to my own S-S model that I provided (pantheory.org), otherwise I think you wouldn't be using the words "arbitrarily," or "vague replacement." It is true that I am in total sympathy with the OP statements and those of many alternative cosmologists, since I consider myself one of them.

Here's why I used the term "arbitarily." It seems to me that you are among those who simply do not like the idea of a BB, for other than purely scientific reasons (because the best scientific model is the one that currently agrees with the greatest collection of data; that would be BB cosmology). But in rejecting a model that makes verified predictions (predictions that come from particle physics, among other things) in favor of one that has not, I would argue that one has exercised arbitrariness.

I have taken a quick look at your pantheory website, but frankly, reading your stuff is more work than I wish to undertake. However, if you really believe you have something, you ought to submit your work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. That's when you'll find out whether your theory overcomes the standard objections to S-S proposals.

Good luck!

tk421,

I don't know what you mean by "CMB temperature distribution." That term is not used by any cosmologists I know. Perhaps you mean "CMB spectrum" or something similar.

The temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation averages about 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Its temperature distribution/ variations correlate with what is called the CMB power spectrum. Its frequency range is between 300 MHz (0.3 GHz.) and 300 GHz.

WMAP CMB Fluctuations

Detection of the power spectrum of cosmic micr... [Phys Rev Lett. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Here's why I used the term "arbitarily." It seems to me that you are among those who simply do not like the idea of a BB, for other than purely scientific reasons (because the best scientific model is the one that currently agrees with the greatest collection of data; that would be BB cosmology). But in rejecting a model that makes verified predictions (predictions that come from particle physics, among other things) in favor of one that has not, I would argue that one has exercised arbitrariness.

If old galaxies keep appearing at the farthest distances, the standard model does not agree with observation. When the orbital motions of spiral galaxies does not agree with observation, the big bang model proposes the ad hoc hypothesis of dark matter. Although this is really a failure of the formulations of General Relativity, the Big Bang model is mathematically based upon General Relativity. When the Hubble formula, based upon the BB proposed expansion of the universe, disagrees with observations of type 1a supernova, the ad hoc dark energy hypothesis was proposed instead of trying to find out what is wrong with the BB model that produces the formula. The density of galaxies in the universe should have been much greater in the past in an expanding universe model. No such observations have ever been made. Element abundance predictions using the big bang model require too many adjustable parameters to make them even close to what is being observed. For the BB to work most believe the Inflation hypothesis is required. The physics of these Inflation models are ad hoc and based upon forever unobservable theoretical physics. And the list goes on and on. These criticisms are not arbitrary since many cosmologists are aware of most all of them.

.....(because the best scientific model is the one that currently agrees with the greatest collection of data; that would be BB cosmology).... the current BB model(s) are accepted precisely because they are consistent with measurements. The same cannot be said of any S-S model, Hoyle's or anyone else's.

I think the BB model has been contradicted by the above observations, and for the above reasons. As I said before, I think the BB model will fall as the mainstream model within two decades. In my opinion the new model will be a steady-state cosmology of some kind, again for the above reasons -- but primarily because I think old appearing galaxies at the greatest distances will remain in the same proportions that we can observe everywhere/ every-time in the universe.

I have taken a quick look at your pantheory website, but frankly, reading your stuff is more work than I wish to undertake. However, if you really believe you have something, you ought to submit your work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. That's when you'll find out whether your theory overcomes the standard objections to S-S proposals.

It is very seldom today that a mainstream journal will accept/ publish papers concerning alternative cosmologies, no matter who writes them. Such papers are mainly published in little-known peer reviewed journals that are generally only read by alternative theorists. No matter how good a model is the primary way to get the word out is by predicting things that contradict the mainstream model, and then making the observations or performing the experiments to verify the prediction. This is how Einstein did it, and how I hope to do it

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If old galaxies keep appearing at the farthest distances, the standard model does not agree with observation.

Are you claiming that we have data today that contradicts standard BB cosmology?? And isyour model able to explain the amazing isotropy of the CMB, as shown in the WMAP data you linked to? And are you also able to explain the deviations from isotropy? These are some of the major points of failure in S-S models. You can't explain the amazing isotropy, perfect conformance to blackbody spectral shape, and equivalent blackbody temperature of 2.7 kelvin with S-S models (this is not the "temperature of space" which is not a proper concept at all). People have tried. Many people. Tried very hard.

When the orbital motions of spiral galaxies does not agree with observation, the big bang model proposes the ad hoc hypothesis of dark matter.

I think that cosmologists would take issue with your characterization that dark matter is "ad hoc." The scientific method demands revision as more observations and data dictate. If revisions can't be made, you ditch the theory. Dark matter -- and dark energy, for that matter -- are readily accommodated within current models. You see, scientists are not eager to throw out a model that has worked so well over such a large range of data. That's not due to any stubborn blindness; it's a practical attitude. Any alternative contender must explain everything else as well as the older model (that's a very tall order!), and then perform the additional miracle of explaining something new that the older model can't. Miracles are hard to come by; two successive ones are even harder. Ad hoc? No, unless you expand the sense of the term so much as to be meaningless. Was the inclusion of the neutron ad hoc? Or was it the logical response to new data? I vote for the latter. You seem to have the odd idea that being responsive to data is somehow a bad thing.

Although this is really a failure of the formulations of General Relativity, the Big Bang model is mathematically based upon General Relativity.

Huh? What failure? GR has passed every test we've thrown at it. Scientists wishing to make a name for themselves (and perhaps snag a Nobel in the process) have been hoping to find some regime where GR fails. So far, no go. You are putting the cart wayyyyy before the horse, sir.

It is very seldom today that a mainstream journal will accept/ publish papers concerning alternative cosmologies, no matter who writes them. Such papers are mainly published in little-known peer reviewed journals that are generally only read by alternative theorists. No matter how good a model is the primary way to get the word out is by predicting things that contradict the mainstream model, and then making the observations or performing the experiments to verify the prediction. This is how Einstein did it, and how I hope to do it

Einstein famously published several papers in 1905 in Annalen der Physik, which was (and remains) very much a peer-reviewed journal. That's important. Peer review, although imperfect, is still the best method we have for filtering out flawed work. If you truly have a workable theory, the first step is to show that your S-S model successfully makes all of the same verified predictions as the BB model you hope to overturn. That unprecedented achievement by itself would get people to pay attention, so that's what you should be doing instead of posting on an internet forum! Then Part 2 of your work should address where your theory makes a different prediction.

From briefly perusing your work, I have to say that I worry for you. You do not seem to possess much of a grasp of the mathematical "hardware" you need to put your ideas on an actual theoretical basis. I gather that you are not a trained physicist (I think your website says that you are some kind of an engineer? Or do I have that wrong?). In any case, unless you can demonstrate a command of the language of the subject, you're going to have a tough time getting the relevant community to pay attention. Einstein spoke the language fluently, and still it took years for others to do much other than shrug.

Again, I wish you the best luck with your endeavor. You've bitten off quite a lot!

I spend a lot of time looking at and testing alternative explanations for things, in the hope of spotting something new.
Alternative cosmology is a big space to explore, but so far I have found zero evidence that BB is wrong.

There are some areas of BB I do not like, Dark matter and dark energy.

I am more interested in testing the alternatives than preaching them.

Originally Posted by tk421

Are you claiming that we have data today that contradicts standard BB cosmology??

Yes !, there are a great many contradictions of observations and problems with present explanations, especially those problems that I mentioned above.

And is your model able to explain the amazing isotropy of the CMB, as shown in the WMAP data you linked to? And are you also able to explain the deviations from isotropy? These are some of the major points of failure in S-S models. You can't explain the amazing isotropy, perfect conformance to blackbody spectral shape, and equivalent blackbody temperature of 2.7 kelvin with S-S models (this is not the "temperature of space" which is not a proper concept at all). People have tried. Many people. Tried very hard.

The isotropy of the CMB radiation is quite amazing concerning how little it varies. My own model is simpler than Hoyle's concerning the isotropy. My own mechanism is similar to Hoyle but mine is an aether model so an ad hoc mechanism is also added/proposed along with iron and carbon radiation, to smooth out the micro-wave background. This would not be more palatable to most theorists. The explanation concerning anistropy is similar to Hoyle's explanation, that most of these temperature upward blips are just very distant galaxies. Although some BB theorists originally predicted a possible afterglow from a hot BB model, the BB mechanisms of isotropy and anisotropy are still hypothetical that will seemingly forever remain in the domain of unprovability.

I think that cosmologists would take issue with your characterization that dark matter is "ad hoc."

I agree. Like the standard model adopting dark matter ad hoc, my own model of gravity (the equations) can also be considered ad hoc since I did not propose them until after Vera Rubin's discovery that disc stars in spiral galaxies totally contradict both Einstein's equations and Newton's

The scientific method demands revision as more observations and data dictate. If revisions can't be made, you ditch the theory. Dark matter -- and dark energy, for that matter -- are readily accommodated within current models. You see, scientists are not eager to throw out a model that has worked so well over such a large range of data. That's not due to any stubborn blindness; it's a practical attitude. Any alternative contender must explain everything else as well as the older model (that's a very tall order!), and then perform the additional miracle of explaining something new that the older model can't. Miracles are hard to come by; two successive ones are even harder. Ad hoc? No, unless you expand the sense of the term so much as to be meaningless. Was the inclusion of the neutron ad hoc? Or was it the logical response to new data? I vote for the latter. You seem to have the odd idea that being responsive to data is somehow a bad thing.

I think your point is valid -- that not all theoretical/ hypothetical responses to new data are favorably or properly described by using the phrase ad hoc only since ad hoc has a negative connotation.

Huh? What failure? GR has passed every test we've thrown at it. Scientists wishing to make a name for themselves (and perhaps snag a Nobel in the process) have been hoping to find some regime where GR fails. So far, no go. You are putting the cart wayyyyy before the horse, sir.

GR totally fails in the micro and macro worlds. None of its predictions hold up. Even with the inclusion of dark matter observations do not match theory.

Einstein famously published several papers in 1905 in Annalen der Physik, which was (and remains) very much a peer-reviewed journal. That's important. Peer review, although imperfect, is still the best method we have for filtering out flawed work. If you truly have a workable theory, the first step is to show that your S-S model successfully makes all of the same verified predictions as the BB model you hope to overturn. That unprecedented achievement by itself would get people to pay attention, so that's what you should be doing instead of posting on an internet forum! Then Part 2 of your work should address where your theory makes a different prediction.

I've presented a couple of papers to mainstream journals a few years back. These now self-published papers can also be seen at pantheory.org. I was told then that these journals do not publish material concerning alternative cosmologies, period. Maybe with a co-author who can get a main university endorsement of the material, would such a paper have the slightest chance of publication. I have considered this possibility, but I presently can only spend about 10% of my time in such pursuits.

From briefly perusing your work, I have to say that I worry for you. You do not seem to possess much of a grasp of the mathematical "hardware" you need to put your ideas on an actual theoretical basis. I gather that you are not a trained physicist (I think your website says that you are some kind of an engineer? Or do I have that wrong?). In any case, unless you can demonstrate a command of the language of the subject, you're going to have a tough time getting the relevant community to pay attention. Einstein spoke the language fluently, and still it took years for others to do much other than shrug.

There is plenty of math in the model, and on the website. A new theory of gravity, along with a reformulation of the Hubble formula based upon my own model, which assertively explains away dark energy. My degree was in Applied Mathematics.

Again, I wish you the best luck with your endeavor. You've bitten off quite a lot!

Thanks tk421, I've been theorizing now for more than 50 years. I was originally inspired in that both religion and much of science did not have what I considered a logical basis/ foundation. I consider the foundation for my entire model to be entirely logic supported by observation, and where applicable include the math to allegedly back it up.

Many alternative theorists, as in the OP, have problems with what they consider to be logical failures of a particular mainstream model. There are many other mainstream models that I think have failures in logic. For instance, I am fond of natural selection and chemical theory, geology, biology, concerning their logic, but consider most mainstream models in Physics as being logically deficient and likely to be wrong. I think observations must over-ride all else if proper interpretations have been made. Following that I think math should rank 3rd in importance as being the servant of logic rather than its master.

That subject is beyond peoples understanding...scientists can only guess

Originally Posted by slavenenco

That subject is beyond peoples understanding...scientists can only guess

I guess it might surprise you to know that is not the case. In this, as everything else, scientists use data and theory to reach their conclusions. Almost the exact opposite of guessing.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by slavenenco

That subject is beyond peoples understanding...scientists can only guess

I guess it might surprise you to know that is not the case. In this, as everything else, scientists use data and theory to reach their conclusions. Almost the exact opposite of guessing.

OK, but how come that they cant agree on anything, there is always new theories coming out, its in peoples nature to try to define things,and to be curious, but i don't think that they are always right, I really think that scientists usually come up with more questions than answers, and my opinion is that big bang theory is to simplistic

Do you have any science to back up your opinion?

Originally Posted by slavenenco

OK, but how come that they cant agree on anything

They can, and do, agree on many things (e.g. the big bang theory). But there are many things where there is uncertainty and room for disagreement until more information becomes available. That is one of sciences strengths.

there is always new theories coming out

Indeed, as we learn more we develop new theories to explain things. That flexibility is one of science's strengths.

its in peoples nature to try to define things,and to be curious, but i don't think that they are always right

They are certainly not always right. You could say that science is a process of testing and finding out where you are wrong. Being wrong is one of science's strengths.

I really think that scientists usually come up with more questions than answers

Indeed they do. That is what makes it so exciting.

and my opinion is that big bang theory is to simplistic

You are welcome to that opinion. Some people complain it is too complex. But nature doesn't really care what people think.

The theory "works" in the sense of explaining all the data. Other theories have been tested and failed. New theories are being developed and tested all the time. So far, none have worked better than the big bang. When one does, it will replace the big bang theory.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

GR totally fails in the micro and macro worlds. None of its predictions hold up. Even with the inclusion of dark matter observations do not match theory.

Could you cite some refereed publications that support those assertions? As far as I am aware, all tests of GR have resolved in favor of the correctness of GR. The equivalence principle has been directly tested down to gram-level masses separated by ~1mm distances, and again no discrepancies have been noted. Given how hard that measurement was, I find it hard to believe that someone has performed a more refined measurement at still smaller scales. Gravity Probe B gave us some of the most accurate measurements of frame-dragging (among other things), and again GR wins. A disagreement with the predictions of GR would've been worldwide news, so I doubt that I would have missed it, but perhaps I haven't been paying as much attention as I should. A citation or two allow me to discern whether you're making a reliable assertion, or whether you're making an aspirational exaggeration.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

GR totally fails in the micro and macro worlds. None of its predictions hold up. Even with the inclusion of dark matter observations do not match theory.

In the "micro" world GR is the basis of QED, the most accurate theory we have.

In the "macro" world GR predicts, well pretty much everything: the expansion of the universe, the CMB, the exact loss of energy through gravity waves in pulsar binaries, etc. etc.

Could you name even one prediction that doesn't hold up.

However, we can probably safely assume that GR is only a (very, very good) approximation. Any future theory will have to make all the same predictions that GR does.

GR totally fails in the micro and macro worlds. None of its predictions hold up. Even with the inclusion of dark matter observations do not match theory.

What a load of nonsense ! GR is one of the most verified theories in its domain of applicability. Would you care to reference some of those supposed "total failures" you are referring to ?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by slavenenco

OK, but how come that they cant agree on anything

They can, and do, agree on many things (e.g. the big bang theory). But there are many things where there is uncertainty and room for disagreement until more information becomes available. That is one of sciences strengths.

there is always new theories coming out

Indeed, as we learn more we develop new theories to explain things. That flexibility is one of science's strengths.

its in peoples nature to try to define things,and to be curious, but i don't think that they are always right

They are certainly not always right. You could say that science is a process of testing and finding out where you are wrong. Being wrong is one of science's strengths.

I really think that scientists usually come up with more questions than answers

Indeed they do. That is what makes it so exciting.

and my opinion is that big bang theory is to simplistic

You are welcome to that opinion. Some people complain it is too complex. But nature doesn't really care what people think.

The theory "works" in the sense of explaining all the data. Other theories have been tested and failed. New theories are being developed and tested all the time. So far, none have worked better than the big bang. When one does, it will replace the big bang theory.

I think you are just confirming the shit Im sayin, and We as "human race" are pretty stupid, I agree that scientists make this world better, but they should use their brains to make this world a better place, not for defining things that are beyond their understanding, and you are saying that not one theory worked as the big bang, but when u find one it will replace it- and you will be right again??? and then u tell me you understand it, come one, I think you are beating down your own theories.
Scientists defined the big bang, but they dont have any opinion on haw to get rid of poverty..., and shitload of other problems around us...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

Scientists defined the big bang, but they dont have any opinion on haw to get rid of poverty..., and shitload of other problems around us...

No, because that's not their job. That's what politicians are there for.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by slavenenco

Scientists defined the big bang, but they dont have any opinion on haw to get rid of poverty..., and shitload of other problems around us...

No, because that's not their job. That's what politicians are there for.

Thats their job by definition, but in reality their job is to work for their personal interests, My opinion is that people that have brains for that, should work on those problems,
that kind of thinking that you said got us here, it even stopped some great minds that wanted to make a difference like Tesla, Viktor Schauberger...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

I think you are just confirming the shit Im sayin, and We as "human race" are pretty stupid, I agree that scientists make this world better, but they should use their brains to make this world a better place

Well, which is it? Do they make the world better or not? Obviously they do. Would you rather live in a world with no modern medicine or anasthetic when you are ill, no computers or telephones, no transport beyond walking or horse and cart, no efficient agriculture using fertilizers, no ....

If you want to live like a subsistence farmer with no technology then you are free to do that.

Some things science studies may not appear useful. But who knows what they will lead to.

not for defining things that are beyond their understanding

By definition they cannot define things that are beyond their understanding. Perhaps you mean beyond your understanding?

and you are saying that not one theory worked as the big bang, but when u find one it will replace it- and you will be right again???

Yes. For example, Newton's theory of gravity was once the best theory we had. Then it was replaced by General Relativity. But Newton's theories are still useful. They are what you get taught in school. They can be used in the vast majority of cases. They are still "right" within limits. If you need to be more accurate you will use GR. One day there may be a more accurate theory. But GR will still be right and Newton will still be right. Any theory that replaces the Big Bang will have to explain and predict all the same things that the Big Bang does.

and then u tell me you understand it, come one, I think you are beating down your own theories.

I don't agree.

I'm not sure what you expect from science. If you are looking for some sort of Absolute And Eternal Truth then science is not the place to look. But if you want results that work, then that is what science excels at.

Scientists defined the big bang, but they dont have any opinion on haw to get rid of poverty..., and shitload of other problems around us...

Actually, if you extend science to include the "softer" sciences such as economics, then they can tell you a lot about how to end things like poverty, hunger, etc. The problems are usually political rather than scientific or technological.

For example, you might think that famine is caused by bad weather or poor crops or .... But it is not. It is almost entirely a political problem. Countries with good governments and good educational systems do not suffer from famines. Countries with corrupt governments and limited education (for fairly obvious reasons the two tend to go together) do.

Moved. Getting tired of the garbage threads in the real science forums.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by slavenenco

I think you are just confirming the shit Im sayin, and We as "human race" are pretty stupid, I agree that scientists make this world better, but they should use their brains to make this world a better place

Well, which is it? Do they make the world better or not? Obviously they do. Would you rather live in a world with no modern medicine or anasthetic when you are ill, no computers or telephones, no transport beyond walking or horse and cart, no efficient agriculture using fertilizers, no ....

If you want to live like a subsistence farmer with no technology then you are free to do that.

Some things science studies may not appear useful. But who knows what they will lead to.

not for defining things that are beyond their understanding

By definition they cannot define things that are beyond their understanding. Perhaps you mean beyond your understanding?

and you are saying that not one theory worked as the big bang, but when u find one it will replace it- and you will be right again???

Yes. For example, Newton's theory of gravity was once the best theory we had. Then it was replaced by General Relativity. But Newton's theories are still useful. They are what you get taught in school. They can be used in the vast majority of cases. They are still "right" within limits. If you need to be more accurate you will use GR. One day there may be a more accurate theory. But GR will still be right and Newton will still be right. Any theory that replaces the Big Bang will have to explain and predict all the same things that the Big Bang does.

and then u tell me you understand it, come one, I think you are beating down your own theories.

I don't agree.

I'm not sure what you expect from science. If you are looking for some sort of Absolute And Eternal Truth then science is not the place to look. But if you want results that work, then that is what science excels at.

Scientists defined the big bang, but they dont have any opinion on haw to get rid of poverty..., and shitload of other problems around us...

Actually, if you extend science to include the "softer" sciences such as economics, then they can tell you a lot about how to end things like poverty, hunger, etc. The problems are usually political rather than scientific or technological.

For example, you might think that famine is caused by bad weather or poor crops or .... But it is not. It is almost entirely a political problem. Countries with good governments and good educational systems do not suffer from famines. Countries with corrupt governments and limited education (for fairly obvious reasons the two tend to go together) do.

All I am sayin is that I respect scientists like a Tesla, he used his knowledge to make this world a better place, half the shit you said were discovered by Tesla, and I think that all the other scientists, should follow his steps,
You can write 20 pages, and still you are not gonna convince me otherwise, leave Newton alone, that dude knew what he was talking about, and cant you see as the so called smart guy, that there is not one country in this world that isn't corrupted

Originally Posted by slavenenco

Thats their job by definition, but in reality their job is to work for their personal interests,

I presume that refers to politicians.

My opinion is that people that have brains for that, should work on those problems,

Had a snippy remark on this, but will refrain from posting it...no point

Tesla was brilliant, but also rather a wacko. I still say your sigline is spam

And I note you have not responded to any of the requests above (see posts #23 and #25 above) showing where GR fails? We're still waiting...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

You can write 20 pages, and still you are not gonna convince me otherwise, leave Newton alone, that dude knew what he was talking about,.

No one doubts that. He was brilliant, in his own time, that's why everyone still knows his name, even close to 400 years later. And I believe that's exactly what Strange said in his post.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

We're still waiting...

Yes. Very much so.

Originally Posted by slavenenco

All I am sayin is that I respect scientists like a Tesla

I would say he was a (brilliant) engineer rather than a scientist, but that isn't really important. (I think engineers are way more important than scientists.)

half the shit you said were discovered by Tesla

He did a lot, but he didn't develop modern medicine, agriculture, cosmology or quantum theory. Don't get carried away.

leave Newton alone, that dude knew what he was talking about

That is what I said. Did I criticize Newton?

that there is not one country in this world that isn't corrupted

Maybe. But it is a matter of degree. Some countries are so corrupt it causes problems like war and famine.

All that I am trying to say is that great minds of our time, should deal with great problems of our time.

Still waiting for your refutation of GR...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

All that I am trying to say is that great minds of our time, should deal with great problems of our time.

And, in general, they do. They might not deal with the things that you personally think are most important right now but, unfortunately, you do not run the world.

There is no point getting every scientist in the world to work on, say, a cure for cancer or solving poverty because:
a) Most of them have no relevant expertise or experience of those subjects
b) There is only a limited amount of extra benefit to be gained from applying more people to a problem
c) Some of these problems are not scientific anyway; they are about money and politics
d) There are other problems that other people will think important
e) Pure research with no practical benefit is worth doing (whether you agree or not)
f) Who knows what might come out of that pure research; semiconductors were just a curiosity when they were first discovered. I doubt anyone could have predicted the Internet at the time.
g) More and more and more reasons ...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

All I am sayin is that I respect scientists like a Tesla, he used his knowledge to make this world a better place, half the shit you said were discovered by Tesla

Scientists aren't deliberately withholding their magic solutions to the world's problems. They're doing what they can. And it's important to keep things in perspective: Since the adoption of the scientific method, humanity has made incredible leaps. Consider how much things have improved just in the the last century (e.g., doubling of average lifespan; instant global communications; universal access to the cumulative storehouse of humanity's knowledge). The glass is half full, not almost empty!

And as far as Tesla is concerned, AC power is the only significant thing that he gave us (and it was hugely significant), as far as I am aware. What other important things do you think that he gave us? (Don't list "radio" -- that's a common assertion, but it's just not supportable.) I can't come up with anything, so help me out on what that 50% is.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by slavenenco

All I am sayin is that I respect scientists like a Tesla, he used his knowledge to make this world a better place, half the shit you said were discovered by Tesla

Scientists aren't deliberately withholding their magic solutions to the world's problems. They're doing what they can. And it's important to keep things in perspective: Since the adoption of the scientific method, humanity has made incredible leaps. Consider how much things have improved just in the the last century (e.g., doubling of average lifespan; instant global communications; universal access to the cumulative storehouse of humanity's knowledge). The glass is half full, not almost empty!

And as far as Tesla is concerned, AC power is the only significant thing that he gave us (and it was hugely significant), as far as I am aware. What other important things do you think that he gave us? (Don't list "radio" -- that's a common assertion, but it's just not supportable.) I can't come up with anything, so help me out on what that 50% is.

That dude envisioned television and internet at his time, he made a system which drew radio waves out of air and converted it into electricity, and he tested this successfully on a car(he basically made first electric car), he made plans and inventions for free electricity for everyone, that were covered by US government, he invented wireless transmission of electricity, wireless controlling, HAARP, and shitload of stuff that were attributed to others, no one supported him because there was no money to be made from those inventions, that's problem with our society, first money than everything else

Still waiting for your refutation of GR...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

That dude envisioned television and internet at his time, he made a system which drew radio waves out of air and converted it into electricity, and he tested this successfully on a car(he basically made first electric car), he made plans and inventions for free electricity for everyone, that were covered by US government, he invented wireless transmission of electricity, wireless controlling, HAARP, and shitload of stuff that were attributed to others, no one supported him because there was no money to be made from those inventions, that's problem with our society, first money than everything else

I don't suppose you have any sources for any of this, do you ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by slavenenco

That dude envisioned television and internet at his time, he made a system which drew radio waves out of air and converted it into electricity, and he tested this successfully on a car(he basically made first electric car), he made plans and inventions for free electricity for everyone, that were covered by US government, he invented wireless transmission of electricity, wireless controlling, HAARP, and shitload of stuff that were attributed to others, no one supported him because there was no money to be made from those inventions, that's problem with our society, first money than everything else

I don't suppose you have any sources for any of this, do you ?

If you are interested, research Tesla's work, there are numerous patents, and data regarding his work.
All I heard about before I researched Tesla's work is the AC current.
There is a lot of documents that confirms what I just said

Still waiting for your refutation of GR...

Originally Posted by slavenenco

There is a lot of documents that confirms what I just said

Such as...?
You could have just given a reference, if this is so straightforward.

Oh ya, we are still waiting for your evidence against GR.

Originally Posted by slavenenco

That dude envisioned television and internet at his time, he made a system which drew radio waves out of air and converted it into electricity, and he tested this successfully on a car(he basically made first electric car), he made plans and inventions for free electricity for everyone, that were covered by US government, he invented wireless transmission of electricity, wireless controlling, HAARP, and shitload of stuff that were attributed to others, no one supported him because there was no money to be made from those inventions, that's problem with our society, first money than everything else

"Envisioning" is rather different from "inventing," I would say. Lots of people thought of television decades before Tesla. The first demonstration of sending pictures by wire was before the US Civil War. With the advent of wireless, it was not a big intellectual leap to conceive of sending pictures wirelessly. Tesla doesn't get credit here, sorry, and not only because he never built any video gear whatsoever.

Tesla envisioned the internet? Really? That's a new one on me. First, please define "internet" in this context. Did Tesla conceive of a TCP/IP like protocol? Or are you just talking very generally of multiple people being able to communicate together? If the latter, what specifically did Tesla invent?

Tesla also gets no credit for being first to draw electricity out of the air. That was patented at least twice before the US Civil War. Tesla's contribution was the AC generator part that allowed him to crank up the frequency (allowing the use of more size-friendly antennas). Even so, there is no practical application for this technology, as the efficiency is just too low. Lots of people have tried and failed. I don't see lack of money as the reason for failure; the Tesla coil is just a glorified toy, as far as anyone can tell. No particular practical use for it has ever been identified. I don't see how HAARP has anything to do with Tesla coils, although I see that assertion made quite frequently in pro-Tesla screeds.

An Indian scientist, JC Bose, actually beat Tesla to the punch by a couple of years in the wireless control of things. If you feel Tesla has been overlooked by history, you should feel sympathetic about Bose.

I think he might have been referring to Tesla's insistance that AC power (50-60 Hz) was more effecient than Edison's DC power for distance transmission. However, he did nothing to develop it, that was left to Westinghouse and others.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

I think he might have been referring to Tesla's insistance that AC power (50-60 Hz) was more effecient than Edison's DC power for distance transmission. However, he did nothing to develop it, that was left to Westinghouse and others.

Perhaps, but slavenenco is a bit unclear. He seems to be attributing a whole lot more to Tesla, above and far beyond AC power. I'd be curious to see his references so that we can see for ourselves how much is fact and how much is fiction. What I find online is mainly unreliable noise. Lots of it. Way way too much (just Google "Tesla" and you'll see). But almost none of it is sourced. I've pretty much collected all of his patents (thanks, Google), but I never saw anything that even remotely resembled television, the internet, antigravity (yes, this is a common claim of Teslytes), infinite energy, transdimensional travel, etc. I guess the Men In Black buried all the good stuff after Tesla died...

That is true...I've tried to search some Tesla stuff and it's mostly "It was said he did this or that" with no documentation whatsoever, except for the credulous...

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

GR totally fails in the micro and macro worlds. None of its predictions hold up. Even with the inclusion of dark matter observations do not match theory.

Could you cite some refereed publications that support those assertions? As far as I am aware, all tests of GR have resolved in favor of the correctness of GR. The equivalence principle has been directly tested down to gram-level masses separated by ~1mm distances, and again no discrepancies have been noted. Given how hard that measurement was, I find it hard to believe that someone has performed a more refined measurement at still smaller scales. Gravity Probe B gave us some of the most accurate measurements of frame-dragging (among other things), and again GR wins. A disagreement with the predictions of GR would've been worldwide news, so I doubt that I would have missed it, but perhaps I haven't been paying as much attention as I should. A citation or two allow me to discern whether you're making a reliable assertion, or whether you're making an aspirational exaggeration.

All know that GR and Newtonian gravity cannot make predictions in the macro world without throwing in hypothetical dark matter. It is just assumed to be there to enable the rotation curves of galaxies to approximate what is being observed. The same thing applies to galaxies in a cluster. Often much of the dark matter cannot be indirectly observed. The reason why dark matter is presumed is because gravitational attraction is needed from it, yet it does not behave like matter nor does it cluster with matter necessarily. Granted it may be needed to make GR/ Newtonian gravity work at the galactic scale but even with its inclusion sometimes correct predictions cannot be made or even closely estimated. Instead it appear to be a place-holder for something that exists (but may not be matter) but as yet has not been explained, and the use of Newtonian gravity/ GR with dark matter at best could be called a retro-diction in the galactic domain. Assuming dark matter without observation is best characterized as an estimate/ guesstimate concerning stellar orbital velocities.

Dark Matter Clump Furrows Brows: Scientific American Podcast

Cosmic Log - Dark matter blob confounds experts

In my own model what we now call dark matter is aether flow in the, a substantive material vastly smaller than hypothesized dark matter, going down to Planck size or even smaller. which accordingly is the primary constituent of the ZPF. Their currents from high to lower pressure areas in the ZPF accordingly are the basis and forces of pushing gravity. Reformulation of gravitational equations are also accordingly needed to explain aether flow and accordingly therefore gravity.

As to the micro-world of quantum mechanics, it is well known the General Relativity does not work in the quantum world and is not comparable with quantum theory.

Q: How/Why are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity incompatible? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

I like that, ".... or whether you're making an inspirational exaggeration," nice prose.

Nearly all theorists would generally agree with my statement concerning the "failure of GR" in the quantum world, but most would disagree with my statement concerning GR failure at the galactic scale (macro-world) since this statement would at best be characterized as a controversial opinion, concerning most BB theorists. Most, however, would agree with the statement that GR and Newtonian gravity totally fail at the galactic scale to be able to make predictions without the inclusion of dark matter, and with it only retro-dictions can be made. And sometimes not very good ones.

Hi Strange,

GR totally fails in the micro and the (galactic) macro worlds. None of its predictions hold up. Even with the inclusion of dark matter observations do not match theory.

(my quote, word in parenthesis added)

In the "micro" world GR is the basis of QED, the most accurate theory we have.

SR/ LT is included in Quantum Theory but GR is not.

In the "macro" world GR predicts, well pretty much everything: the expansion of the universe,

Some of the possible outcomes of GR is an expanding universe. But of course in my model the universe is not expanding. It has a different explanation for galactic redshifts.

....the CMB, the exact loss of energy through gravity waves in pulsar binaries, etc. etc.

Theoretically this seems to work well concerning observations.

Could you name even one prediction that doesn't hold up.

The orbital velocities of stars in a spiral galaxy as well as galaxies in a cluster, even with the assumption of hypothetical dark matter such predictions cannot be made, just retro-dictions.

However, we can probably safely assume that GR is only a (very, very good) approximation. Any future theory will have to make all the same predictions that GR does.

In this I totally agree.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

All know that GR and Newtonian gravity cannot make predictions in the macro world without throwing in hypothetical dark matter.

This is just the same as when atomic theory couldn't preserve conservation of energy without invoking "hypothetical neutrinos" long before more direct evidence of their existence was obtained. Again, that's what science is supposed to do. You keep casting that responsiveness as a negative quality. I am very puzzled by your attitude.

It is just assumed to be there to enable the rotation curves of galaxies to approximate what is being observed.

Because if one does so, you get excellent agreement without having to break the rest of a remarkably successful, working theory. As I mentioned earlier, that pragmatism is an extremely useful guide.

Granted it may be needed to make GR/ Newtonian gravity work at the galactic scale but even with its inclusion sometimes correct predictions cannot be made or even closely estimated.

I'm sorry that I will not simply accept your assertions at face value. Please cite specific sources, as I simply don't have a basis for believing you over published scientists.

Instead it appear to be a place-holder for something that exists (but may not be matter) but as yet has not been explained, and the use of Newtonian gravity/ GR with dark matter at best could be called a retro-diction in the galactic domain. Assuming dark matter without observation is best characterized as an estimate/ guesstimate concerning stellar orbital velocities.

When observations force a modification to an existing theory, the result necessarily will be a retrodiction at first. How could it be anything but? You are raising a specious basis for deprecating a working theory; your criteria make no sense. Again, responding to new data is precisely how science is supposed to work. You add the idea of a neutrino, and you "retrodictively" explain away what had been a troublesome energy imbalance. That's only a defect if you never can do more than retrodict. If the theory successfully makes predictions, then the theory is strengthened.

In my own model what we now call dark matter is aether flow in the, a substantive material vastly smaller than hypothesized dark matter, going down to Planck size or even smaller. which accordingly is the primary constituent of the ZPF. Their currents from high to lower pressure areas in the ZPF accordingly are the basis and forces of pushing gravity. Reformulation of gravitational equations are also accordingly needed to explain aether flow and accordingly therefore gravity.

Wow...aether flow, ZPF, and pushing gravity, all in one paragraph! I don't know if I should cheer or weep.

As to the micro-world of quantum mechanics, it is well known the General Relativity does not work in the quantum world and is not comparable with quantum theory.

All we know is that QM and GR work in different domains. That's a different statement than your earlier assertion that GR fails in the quantum realm. I don't think you can fail at something you don't even try. Again, as far as I'm aware, no experiment has falsified GR in any tested regime. I continue to challenge you to cite one.

I like that, ".... or whether you're making an inspirational exaggeration," nice prose.

Although I actually wrote "aspirational exaggeration," I'll take the compliment.

This is just the same as when atomic theory couldn't preserve conservation of energy without invoking "hypothetical neutrinos" long before more direct evidence of their existence was obtained. Again, that's what science is supposed to do. You keep casting that responsiveness as a negative quality. I am very puzzled by your attitude.

The reason for the assertion is that no predictions can be made in the galactic domain with present formulations. First they must measure the rotation rate of the disk stars of the galaxy. Then they must estimate the amount of dark matter, then assert that X amount of dark matter explains the rotation rates. This is not prediction. It is called retro-diction.

I'm sorry that I will not simply accept your assertions at face value. Please cite specific sources, as I simply don't have a basis for believing you over published scientists.

The Failure of Self-Interacting Dark Matter to Solve the Overabundance of Dark Satellites and the Soft Core Question
http://www.space.com/13359-dark-matt...s-gravity.html
http://vixra.org/pdf/1010.0003v1.pdf
http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis

All we know is that QM and GR work in different domains. That's a different statement than your earlier assertion that GR fails in the quantum realm. I don't think you can fail at something you don't even try. Again, as far as I'm aware, no experiment has falsified GR in any tested regime. I continue to challenge you to cite one.

I do not consider a mathematical theory valid if it can only make retro-dictions. Such is the case for GR/ Newtonian gravity in the galactic orbital velocities concerning disc stars, or galaxies in a cluster. If GR were considered disproved then there would be no discussion. The question concerns volume domains of applicability/ capability.

Although I actually wrote "aspirational exaggeration," I'll take the compliment.

The compliment was sincere, a great one liner.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

This is just the same as when atomic theory couldn't preserve conservation of energy without invoking "hypothetical neutrinos" long before more direct evidence of their existence was obtained. Again, that's what science is supposed to do. You keep casting that responsiveness as a negative quality. I am very puzzled by your attitude.

The reason for the assertion is that no predictions can be made in the galactic domain with present formulations. First they must measure the rotation rate of the disk stars of the galaxy. Then they must estimate the amount of dark matter, then assert that X amount of dark matter explains the rotation rates. This is not prediction. It is called retro-diction.

You didn't understand the whole point of the neutrino story. The energy of (decay) products didn't equal the initial energy. Some scientists seriously considered abandoning energy conservation! Others postulated that there might be an as-yet undetected particle that carried away the "missing" energy. They "invented" this particle (just as dark matter was "invented") and assigned an energy to it that would balance the energy equation.

This is precisely the same logical process that we're following with dark matter. It is, as I said before (but you missed or ignored it), retrodiction, and there is nothing at all wrong with it. It is a canonical example of how science works! When the energy imbalance was first noted, scientists considered a family of hypotheses, including the possibility that energy was simply not conserved. But since declaring energy conservation invalid would have created quite a mess, they chose to focus on the "not yet detected particle" theory, as that choice was minimally invasive. The neutrino was then discovered, and we're off to the races again. The basis for your rejection of dark matter is not scientific.

Next, earlier I said:

I'm sorry that I will not simply accept your assertions at face value. Please cite specific sources, as I simply don't have a basis for believing you over published scientists.

And you replied with the following list of sources:

The Failure of Self-Interacting Dark Matter to Solve the Overabundance of Dark Satellites and the Soft Core Question
Dark Matter Gets Darker: New Measurements Confound Scientists | Cold Dark Matter Model | Dark Matter in Dwarf Galaxies | Space.com
http://vixra.org/pdf/1010.0003v1.pdf
http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis

Those aren't refereed sources. I assume that you have studied "real" papers in your long years of study, so please cite those, not popularized summaries, blogs, or news sites, Please avoid everything from vixra in particular. That site is a dumping ground for junk papers. There could be some gems in there, but they're rare. Your credibility only plummets when you cite trash like that, you should know.

I do not consider a mathematical theory valid if it can only make retro-dictions. Such is the case for GR/ Newtonian gravity in the galactic orbital velocities concerning disc stars, or galaxies in a cluster. If GR were considered disproved then there would be no discussion. The question concerns volume domains of applicability/ capability.

I agree -- and said earlier -- that if a theory only retrodicts, its utility would be low and I would certainly prefer a predictive theory. But the dark matter situation is not only retrodictive. Galaxy rotation curve data may have stimulated the "invention" of dark matter hypotheses, but along with that retrodiction came predictions. Gravitational lensing of the CMB is perhaps the most famous example. This is in fact observed -- not just qualitatively, but quantitatively. And it's consistent with GR. So, constraining the theory retrodictively (to account for observed galaxy rotation curves) led to a successful GR-consistent prediction of lensing.

Looks good to me. Why would anyone want to look to throw away all that? It would be like choosing to treat energy conservation as invalid in the neutrino example. What a mess that would have been.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

All know that GR and Newtonian gravity cannot make predictions in the macro world without throwing in hypothetical dark matter.

And Newtonian gravity couldn't predict the movement of the planets without throwing in a hypothetical planet that we could call "Neptune" as a place holder.

Do you not see how empty (and wrong) that argument is?

tk421,

This is just the same as when atomic theory couldn't preserve conservation of energy without invoking "hypothetical neutrinos" long before more direct evidence of their existence was obtained. Again, that's what science is supposed to do. You keep casting that responsiveness as a negative quality. I am very puzzled by your attitude.

You didn't understand the whole point of the neutrino story. The energy of (decay) products didn't equal the initial energy. Some scientists seriously considered abandoning energy conservation! Others postulated that there might be an as-yet undetected particle that carried away the "missing" energy. They "invented" this particle (just as dark matter was "invented") and assigned an energy to it that would balance the energy equation.

I did understand your point and acknowledged it as being a good point. What I said was that the term ad hoc is not always the best description because of its negative connotations and because sometimes such hypothesis eventually turn out to have validity.

This is precisely the same logical process that we're following with dark matter. It is, as I said before (but you missed or ignored it), retro-diction, and there is nothing at all wrong with it. It is a canonical example of how science works! When the energy imbalance was first noted, scientists considered a family of hypotheses, including the possibility that energy was simply not conserved. But since declaring energy conservation invalid would have created quite a mess, they chose to focus on the "not yet detected particle" theory, as that choice was minimally invasive. The neutrino was then discovered, and we're off to the races again. The basis for your rejection of dark matter is not scientific.

Retro-diction simply means that Newtonian gravity and GR cannot make valid predictions at the galactic scale, period. Without first getting the correct answer to the problem by observation, these formulations do not work at this scale.

Next, earlier I said:

I'm sorry that I will not simply accept your assertions at face value. Please cite specific sources, as I simply don't have a basis for believing you over published scientists.

And you replied with the following list of sources:

The Failure of Self-Interacting Dark Matter to Solve the Overabundance of Dark Satellites and the Soft Core Question
Dark Matter Gets Darker: New Measurements Confound Scientists | Cold Dark Matter Model | Dark Matter in Dwarf Galaxies | Space.com
http://vixra.org/pdf/1010.0003v1.pdf
http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis

Those aren't refereed sources. I assume that you have studied "real" papers in your long years of study, so please cite those, not popularized summaries, blogs, or news sites, Please avoid everything from vixra in particular. That site is a dumping ground for junk papers. There could be some gems in there, but they're rare. Your credibility only plummets when you cite trash like that, you should know.


The first link, The Astrophysical Journal, is a well-known and one of the primary mainstream peer reviewed Journals.

The Astrophysical Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not consider a mathematical theory valid if it can only make retro-dictions. Such is the case for GR/ Newtonian gravity in the galactic orbital velocities concerning disc stars, or galaxies in a cluster. If GR were considered disproved then there would be no discussion. The question concerns volume domains of applicability/ capability.

I agree -- and said earlier -- that if a theory only retrodicts, its utility would be low and I would certainly prefer a predictive theory. But the dark matter situation is not only retrodictive. Galaxy rotation curve data may have stimulated the "invention" of dark matter hypotheses, but along with that retrodiction came predictions. Gravitational lensing of the CMB is perhaps the most famous example. This is in fact observed -- not just qualitatively, but quantitatively. And it's consistent with GR. So, constraining the theory retrodictively (to account for observed galaxy rotation curves) led to a successful GR-consistent prediction of lensing.

I think lensing was well known before the dark matter hypothesis such as Einstein crosses, etc. The original prediction that brought Einstein into the mainstream was the bending of light around the sun during an eclipse, which he did quantitatively better than Newton's formula that did the same but was less accurate. But I understand that everything that they are doing is not totally worthless, even if the general dark matter idea turns out to be wrong. In my opinion there also is something there, but it is not matter -- that's my main point regarding the dark matter hypothesis.

...........Why would anyone want to look to throw away all that? It would be like choosing to treat energy conservation as invalid in the neutrino example. What a mess that would have been.

I'm not against anything, instead I am in favor of other answers and theories. You don't throw anything out until you have something better to replace it. The process involves first showing what's wrong with the present theory before anyone will listen to you concerning a new theory.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Retro-diction simply means that Newtonian gravity and GR cannot make valid predictions at the galactic scale, period. Without first getting the correct answer to the problem by observation, these formulations do not work at this scale.

That is how science works, how it is supposed to work: make observations; generate a model; make more observations to test the model; update the model to fit the new observations; and so on.

Are you saying we should reject Newton's laws of universal gravitation because they are just an ad-hoc attempt to fit the theory to observation and "retrodict" the effects of gravity?

I think lensing was well known before the dark matter hypothesis such as Einstein crosses, etc.

Did you really miss the point? The prediction was made that dark matter would cause (micro)lensing. And it does. Hey look, that is not a "retro"diction it is a prediction.

In my opinion there also is something there, but it is not matter

It may not be. But that is looking more and more unlikely.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

All know that GR and Newtonian gravity cannot make predictions in the macro world without throwing in hypothetical dark matter.

And Newtonian gravity couldn't predict the movement of the planets without throwing in a hypothetical planet that we could call "Neptune" as a place holder.

Do you not see how empty (and wrong) that argument is?

Howdy again Strange,

I agree Strange. tk421 made a similar point which I also believe is valid. My point is that first the BB model needed to bring in the Inflation hypothesis, next the dark matter hypothesis, next the dark energy hypothesis. Without these hypothesis the BB model does not match observation. There seemingly could never be direct evidence that could support Inflation of some kind so I call it ad hoc. So far there is no evidence to support any of the dark matter hypothesis. Most agree including myself, that there is something there but I contend that it is not matter but is instead movements of field material (the ZPF, a physical aether) that causes gravity by pushing and enables lensing. When observations do not match theory they invented the dark energy hypothesis which I believe can be otherwise explained by a reformulation of the Hubble formula which I have done and proposed. I also called this dark energy idea ad hoc. I think in our time ad hoc is not an incorrect characterization even if at some time in the future one or another ad hoc hypothesis turns out to be valid. All three of these hypothesis are needed to keep the BB model afloat today theoretically, but I believe that none of them are real/valid including the BB model itself.

If one would ask any of the "33 scientists" above that have objected to the BB model, the OP subject, there would be no consensus concerning what exactly is wrong with the model or what should replace it. But nearly all would agree that there seems to be too many problems with the BB model, especially in light of all its addendums over its history. Every twenty years of so something new comes along that seems to contradict the model whereby a new hypothesis is needed as an addendum to the model. Such is the case for the Lambda cold dark matter model also requiring Inflation.

I predict that the next proposed hypothesis that will be needed for the BB model will begin to take place about 2020 when the James Webb goes up and its observations have been coming in for a year or two. At that time I believe many will finally realize that the universe must be much older than the present BB model could allow based upon the distant galaxies being observed at that time. New hypotheses at first will involve many who will be trying to extend the predicted life of the universe via the BB model. The prediction is that they will settle on a BB hypothesis that will at least allow the possibility for a universe of twice its presently asserted age of 13.7 billion years old. But at the same time I predict that many theorists will also begin to discuss the possibility of other models which propose a much older universe.

Originally Posted by markcgreer

Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd.

Well that's a new one! I've never heard anyone say the universe was created by accident before.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Well that's a new one! I've never heard anyone say the universe was created by accident before.

Yeah. Sorry, my hand slipped.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Well that's a new one! I've never heard anyone say the universe was created by accident before.

Yeah. Sorry, my hand slipped.

Don't you hate it when that happens?

Dang -- created another one!

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The first link, The Astrophysical Journal, is a well-known and one of the primary mainstream peer reviewed Journals.

That's one out of 5. My point was, and continues to be, where are the primary citations? You have claimed that there are demonstrable failed predictions of GR (or other components of BB cosmology). I am disappointed that you haven't been able to produce them readily. If, as seems to be the case, you've been working on this for an extended period of time, surely you have a long list of references -- real ones -- at the ready!

I think lensing was well known before the dark matter hypothesis such as Einstein crosses, etc.

Please read what I write with much more care. I am taking the time to consider what you say, so please show me the reciprocal respect of responding to what I am actually saying. I wrote specifically about lensing of the CMB. That's a very powerful confirming bit of evidence in favor of dark matter and GR working together in a completely self-consistent way. And it is an example of something that was a predictive consequence of the dark matter hypothesis. A certain amount of dark mass-energy was inferred from the rotation curves, and the observed amount of lensing (as calculated from GR) matched that inference. That's good stuff.

I'm not against anything, instead I am in favor of other answers and theories. You don't throw anything out until you have something better to replace it. The process involves first showing what's wrong with the present theory before anyone will listen to you concerning a new theory.

Well, you seem to be very much against "standard" cosmology, and very much in favor of yours. What I'm trying to understand is whether there is a scientific basis to your preference. So far, it does not appear that you actually understand standard cosmology, or the scientific method, well enough to argue effectively against BB cosmology.

Originally Posted by Strange

Did you really miss the point? The prediction was made that dark matter would cause (micro)lensing. And it does. Hey look, that is not a "retro"diction it is a prediction.

.

Precisely. And here it is, in all its glory :

File:Gravitationell-lins-4.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A better example might be the lensing caused by dark matter outside of galaxies. Unfortunately the effect is too weak to be seen directly; it requires detailed statistical analysis of the background - that, unfortunately, seems to be a reason for some people to dismiss it.

Short Sharp Science: Darkness visible in galactic train wreck

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

All know that GR and Newtonian gravity cannot make predictions in the macro world without throwing in hypothetical dark matter.

And Newtonian gravity couldn't predict the movement of the planets without throwing in a hypothetical planet that we could call "Neptune" as a place holder.

Do you not see how empty (and wrong) that argument is?

Howdy again Strange,

I agree Strange. tk421 made a similar point which I also believe is valid. My point is that first the BB model needed to bring in the Inflation hypothesis, next the dark matter hypothesis, next the dark energy hypothesis. Without these hypothesis the BB model does not match observation. There seemingly could never be direct evidence that could support Inflation of some kind so I call it ad hoc. So far there is no evidence to support any of the dark matter hypothesis. Most agree including myself, that there is something there but I contend that it is not matter but is instead movements of field material (the ZPF, a physical aether) that causes gravity by pushing and enables lensing. When observations do not match theory they invented the dark energy hypothesis which I believe can be otherwise explained by a formulation of the Hubble formula which I have done and proposed. I also called this dark energy idea ad hoc. I think in our time ad hoc is not an incorrect characterization even if at some time in the future one or another ad hoc hypothesis turns out to be valid. All three of these hypothesis are needed to keep the BB model afloat today theoretically, but I believe that none of them are real including the BB model itself.

If one would ask any of the "33 scientists" above that object to the BB model, the OP subject, there would be no consensus concerning what exactly is wrong with the model or what should replace it. But nearly all would agree that there seems to be too many problems with the BB model, especially in light of all its addendums over time. Every twenty years of so something new comes along that seems to contradict the model whereby a new hypothesis is needed as an addendum to the model. Such is the case for the Lambda cold dark energy model requiring Inflation.

I predict that the next proposed hypothesis that will be needed for the BB model will begin to take place about 2020 when the James Webb goes up and its observations have been coming in for a year or two. At that time I believe many will finally realize that the universe must be much older than the present BB model could allow based upon the distant galaxies being observed at that time. New hypotheses at first will involve many who will be trying to extend the predicted life of the universe via the BB model. The prediction is that they will settle on a BB hypothesis that will at least allow the possibility for a universe of twice its presently asserted age of 13.7 billion years old. But at the same time I predict that many theorists will also begin to discuss the possibility of other models which propose a much older universe.

Why do people confuse this? Dark Matter and Dark Energy are NOT part of the Big Bang Theory. They came along later, to understand, and PREDICT the effects of observations.

This is only said by people who have no idea of what the BB theory is...

Add me to that list and make it 34.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Add me to that list and make it 34.

I never knew you were a top scientist.

That is an offensive insult to all scientists

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Add me to that list and make it 34.

I never knew you were a top scientist.

He's one of the "top men" mentioned at the end of the first Indiana Jones movie. Top. Men.

MeteorWayne,

Why do people confuse this? Dark Matter and Dark Energy are NOT part of the Big Bang Theory. They came along later, to understand, and PREDICT the effects of observations. This is only said by people who have no idea of what the BB theory is...

Wayne, I'm surprised at your comment

In the Lambda CDM model, which is the prevailing mainstream model today, Lambda is the Dark energy hypothesis and CDM is the cold dark matter hypothesis. Along with Inflation, all are part of the prevailing Big Bang model today, like it or not.




regards, Forrest

That's one out of 5. My point was, and continues to be, where are the primary citations? You have claimed that there are demonstrable failed predictions of GR (or other components of BB cosmology). I am disappointed that you haven't been able to produce them readily. If, as seems to be the case, you've been working on this for an extended period of time, surely you have a long list of references -- real ones -- at the ready!

Tis true. My old computer had problems so my son gave me this one but my old bookmarks to such links are on my other computer. My son knows how to get them off but I have to wait on him to get them. In the future I will make a separate list of them. But like I said before, if there were proof that GR was wrong we wouldn't be talking. This simply concerns the failure of GR in two domains, the galactic scale and the micro-scale. I think both Strange, SpeedFeek and others versed in cosmology can explain to you the problems of GR predictions in these domains if you cannot understand what I've explained so far.

....I wrote specifically about lensing of the CMB. That's a very powerful confirming bit of evidence in favor of dark matter and GR working together in a completely self-consistent way. And it is an example of something that was a predictive consequence of the dark matter hypothesis. A certain amount of dark mass-energy was inferred from the rotation curves, and the observed amount of lensing (as calculated from GR) matched that inference. That's good stuff.

Sorry, you're right. I missed that comment. Many may be impressed by this large scale study.

To me and I think others like the OP 33 above, however, the lensing of the CMBR is just a misinterpretation of observations and data. Instead I said that I believed that the CMBR is primarily redistributed inter galactic heat, but also intra-galactic HI hydrogen clouds in our own galaxy.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Co...Space_999.html

The principle is: if you look hard enough for something you will interpret its presence, whether it exists of not. In the case of dark matter I said that I thought there was something there but not matter. In the case of dark energy I believe it is just a miscalculation of type 1a supernova data via an incomplete Hubble formula.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Tis true. My old computer had problems so my son gave me this one but my old bookmarks to such links are on my other computer. My son knows how to get them off but I have to wait on him to get them. In the future I will make a separate list of them.

Thanks -- I look forward to seeing that list.

But like I said before, if there were proof that GR was wrong we wouldn't be talking.

You made the statement back in Post 14 about the failure of GR. That's the assertion I've been addressing the entire time. From your latest repeat restatement, it seems that you are acknowledging that this "failure of GR" is only that -- your assertion. Thanks for confirming this.

This simply concerns the failure of GR in two domains, the galactic scale and the micro-scale. Both Strange, SpeedFeek and others versed in cosmology, can explain the problems of GR predictions in these domains if you cannot understand what I've explained so far.

I will let them speak for themselves here, but it is not correct to speak of a failure of GR in the domains you cite. The proper characterization is that GR and quantum theory are incompatible in their current form. That might seem to be an insignificant difference to you, but it is quite important. There are currently no experiments (that I am aware of) that show a failure of GR in any regime, and I believe that the dynamic range of experimental confirmation spans something like 50 orders of magnitude of mass. Pause to consider what that means; 50 orders of magnitude is a lot. I wish I had 50 orders of magnitude more dollars than I currently have, for instance.

All we know is that somewhere along the line GR and QM -- as currently formulated -- will not agree. But there are many proposals that modify GR/QM to prevent that divergence. So it is sloppy and terribly premature to pick GR and say that it has already failed. Perhaps Strange and/or SpeedFreek will be good enough to correct one of us on this. But my point is that there is not a basis for the statements you have been making about the "failure" of GR.

To me and others I think like the OP 33 above, the lensing of the CMBR is just the misinterpretation of observations and data. Instead I said that I believed that the CMBR is primarily redistributed inter galactic heat, but also intra-galactic HI hydrogen clouds in our own galaxy.

Sorry, Mr. Noble. As they say in Texas, "that dog won't hunt." An S-S model that reproduces the observed isotropic CMB will also give us a z-independent equivalent blackbody temperature, instead of the increasing temperature we actually observe as z increases. If you claim to have developed an S-S model that reproduces an isotropic CMB that also has an increasing Tcmb with increases in z, just publish that part alone and pick up your Nobel. Seriously. You are making that level of an extraordinary claim. Have you done actual calculations? If so, please show them. If you have not, you ought to come clean and admit that your claim is another "aspirational exaggeration," meaning that you hope that your idea will work, but you haven't yet worked out the actual details to show that it does.

[Or perhaps you have come up with some variant of a QSS cosmology; those suffer from somewhat different, but no less serious, defects. Bottom line: BB cosmology best fits what we observe.]

The principle is: if you look hard enough for something you will interpret its presence, whether it exists of not.

I don't have any idea what you are asserting here. But if you're saying that scientists will see what they want to see, then you are simply wrong. Scientists have to stand up to other scientists and defend their theories. There's always a lot of other scientists who will cry "nonsense!" and send the fool packing. That is the scientific method.

In the case of dark matter I said that I thought there was something there but not matter. In the case of dark energy I believe it is just a miscalculation of type 1a supernova data.

Believe what you wish, but science largely doesn't care about your beliefs. That's why I've tried to keep the focus on what is supportable by measurement. You clearly don't like dark matter and dark energy, so you want to wish them away. Maybe future measurements will offer support for your beliefs, but at present, dark matter and dark energy are the best we have.

This simply concerns the failure of GR in two domains

There is no failure of GR. However, it is possible that GR is incomplete in the sense that it might be only an approximation to a higher level theory of gravity.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Add me to that list and make it 34.

I never knew you were a top scientist.

He's one of the "top men" mentioned at the end of the first Indiana Jones movie. Top. Men.

Us top scientists are too busy using our big brains to watch petty trivia like Indiana Jones movies, so if your insult was an insult it falls on deaf ears. And Speedy didn't know I was a top scientist because I'm super modest.

tk421,

........but it is not correct to speak of a failure of GR in the domains you cite. The proper characterization is that GR and quantum theory are incompatible in their current form. That might seem to be an insignificant difference to you, but it is quite important. There are currently no experiments (that I am aware of) that show a failure of GR in any regime, and I believe that the dynamic range of experimental confirmation spans something like 50 orders of magnitude of mass. Pause to consider what that means; 50 orders of magnitude is a lot. I wish I had 50 orders of magnitude more dollars than I currently have, for instance.

Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR which was the primary purpose of this most expensive study to date to confirm GR. The results were within a 19% error margin of what is predicted by GR. This certainly is not a confirmation of GR, although most think it was an error of the experiment itself rather than an error of GR, there was no identified problems that could have caused such a disparity. There will probably not be another such test of GR frame dragging for a long time if such a great expense is needed to do so.

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

.....Or perhaps you have come up with some variant of a QSS cosmology

My own cosmological model predates QSS cosmology, and proposes a non-expanding universe. Hoyle's models, like the BB model, proposed an expanding universe that because of new matter creation, was in a steady-state condition concerning density.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

........but it is not correct to speak of a failure of GR in the domains you cite. The proper characterization is that GR and quantum theory are incompatible in their current form. That might seem to be an insignificant difference to you, but it is quite important. There are currently no experiments (that I am aware of) that show a failure of GR in any regime, and I believe that the dynamic range of experimental confirmation spans something like 50 orders of magnitude of mass. Pause to consider what that means; 50 orders of magnitude is a lot. I wish I had 50 orders of magnitude more dollars than I currently have, for instance.

Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR which was the primary purpose of this most expensive study to date to confirm GR. The results were within a 19% error margin of what is predicted by GR. This certainly is not a confirmation of GR, although most think it was an error of the experiment itself rather than an error of GR, there was no identified problems that could have caused such a disparity. There will probably not be another such test of GR frame dragging for a long time if such a great expense is needed to do so.

Failure? I think not. In any case, what happend was the gravity probes were superceded by other measurements that confirmed fram dragging to greater precision.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR which was the primary purpose of this most expensive study to date to confirm GR. The results were within a 19% error margin of what is predicted by GR. This certainly is not a confirmation of GR, although most think it was an error of the experiment itself rather than an error of GR, there was no identified problems that could have caused such a disparity. There will probably not be another such test of GR frame dragging for a long time if such a great expense is needed to do so.

I am confused. First you declare affirmatively that GPB is a "widely known failure," and then later in the same paragraph you say more weakly that it is "not a confirmation." Then you confuse me even more by providing the following link:

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

The very first paragraph of the source you yourself cited calls the experimental results in agreement with Einstein's theoretical predictions of the geodetic effect and the frame-dragging effect. Unless you can cite peer-reviewed papers that support your claim that GPB is a "widely known failure," I'm going with the analysis of record. I think you may be falling prey to the syndrome you cited in a previous post -- you are seeing what you want to see, rather than what is there. You need to be very wary of falling victim to the temptations of confirmation bias. It is too easy to be seduced by the dark side of the Force, but you need to fight the urge.

My own cosmological model predates QSS cosmology, and proposes a non-expanding universe. Hoyle's models, like the BB model, proposed an expanding universe that because of new matter creation, was in a steady-state condition concerning density.

Very interesting. Then you have what would seem to be the challenging task of explaining away redshift, including that of the CMB.

tk421,

".....widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR...." is not the same thing as a widely know failure. You are taking words out of context. That is the confusion.

Although the text in the link makes a value judgement concerning a degree of success concerning the probe, the statistics speak for themselves, frame dragging accuracy within 19% error margin. And of course that does not necessarily mean they were in error at all. It may be like the Michelson Morley experiment where they were trying to find the aether. When they failed to confirm the aether model they were later given the Nobel Prize for their lack of discovery , or their discovery of its non-existence. A twist of fate would be if at some future time gravity probe B scientists were given the Nobel Prize for showing that Einstein's formulas concerning frame dragging were not correct pointing the way toward other formulations.

Very interesting. Then you have what would seem to be the challenging task of explaining away redshift, including that of the CMB.

The entire model is based upon the observed galactic redshifts just like the BB model is likewise dependent. Instead my model explains redshifts by the diminution of matter instead of the expansion of space. The CMB is readily explained by galactic hydrogen and inter-galactic starlight. It is a much simpler model than the mainstream model and asserts that there is no dark stuff, since it is not needed in this model.

MeteoWayne,

Failure? I think not. In any case, what happened was the gravity probes were superseded by other measurements that confirmed frame dragging to greater precision.

Don't think there were any superseding measurements because frame dragging is too difficult to measure and only something as sophisticated as gravity probe B would even have a chance of making such a measurement. If gravity probe B made accurate and correct measurements then it was a complete success even though it seemingly failed to confirm Einstein's frame dragging predictions to no better than a 19% error margin.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

".....widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR...." is not the same thing as a widely know failure. You are taking words out of context. That is the confusion.

I'm having a very tough time understanding your English. You started off in the earlier post saying, and I quote, "Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR." I cut and pasted directly from your post, so those are the precise words you wrote. Look at it: You said these words together: "Widely known failure." If that's not what you meant, then please restate it in clear English. I can only respond to what you write. I can't read your mind.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter here, because the article linked to made the statement that GPB was a success, not a failure. As far as I can see, you are arbitrarily calling it a failure solely because you want to call it a failure. You have offered no scientific criteria to support your assertion, nor have you provided any citations of peer-reviewed work that disagrees with Stanford's declaration of success. The best evidence says that you are twisting facts to push your agenda. That's not cricket.

Although the text in the link makes a value judgement concerning a degree of success concerning the probe, the statistics speak for themselves, frame dragging accuracy within 19% error margin. And of course that does not necessarily mean they were in error at all.

So 19% is "too large" an error margin? What value of error margin would you say is "small enough?" More important, what quantitative analysis leads to that "small enough" value? Or are you, once again, aspirationally exaggerating?

I am starting to sense that you have indeed given in to the dark side. You are a bit too zealous about deprecating data that actually supports ideas that compete with your own. If you truly wish real scientists to pay attention to you, you'll have to return to the light. Don't give in to hate.

tk421,

I'm having a very tough time understanding your English. You started off in the earlier post saying, and I quote, "Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure to confirm the frame dragging effect of GR." I cut and pasted directly from your post, so those are the precise words you wrote. Look at it: You said these words together: "Widely known failure." If that's not what you meant, then please restate it in clear English. I can only respond to what you write. I can't read your mind.

Maybe it would have been more understandable to you and others if I had written: "Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure-to-confirm" experiment ever designed to test the accuracy of General Relativity, in this case the frame dragging effect. The published goal of Gravity Probe B was an accuracy to within 1% but their expectations were much higher, i.e. a 5 sigma accuracy.

Others links concerning possible problems with GR

Gravity Probe B comes last in NASA review - physicsworld.com
The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong - Softpedia
Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented - a knol by Michael Suede (a listing of possible problems with SR and GR)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

"Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure-to-confirm"

Big difference in meaning, wouldn't you think...?

As for Gravity Probe B, I quote from Wikipedia :

In an article published in the journal Physical Review Letters in 2011, the authors reported analysis of the data from all four gyroscopes results in a geodetic drift rate of −6,601.8±18.3 milliarcsecond/year (mas/yr) and a frame-dragging drift rate of −37.2±7.2 mas/yr, to be compared with the GR predictions of −6,606.1 mas/yr and −39.2 mas/yr, respectively.^[7]

What is happening here is that the existence of frame-dragging has been conclusively confirmed; the uncertainty of 15% pertains only to the magnitude of the effect. One should bear in mind that for a weak field like that of the Earth the frame-dragging effect is tiny - it is an amazing feat of engineering that it can be measured at all, and the 15% are perfectly explainable in terms of data noise. I am sure future experiments will further narrow down this margin of error.

Gravity Probe B comes last in NASA review - physicsworld.com
The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong - Softpedia
Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented - a knol by Michael Suede (a listing of possible problems with SR and GR)

First article - all that this is saying that there are now better technologies available to measure this effect, and GravB is thus no longer needed ?!
Second link - doesn't work
Third link - much of this is either mere conjecture, just plain wrong, or doesn't belong in the domain of GR in the first place. A lot of the liturature referenced aren't even peer-reviewed sources. This isn't a valid scientific source so far as I am concerned; GR is experimentally well proven.

Originally Posted by markcgreer

Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math,

When someone criticizing a mathematical theory like this on the basis of (dubious) authority says, "I haven't done the math," they reveal themselves as a fool.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Maybe it would have been more understandable to you and others if I had written: "Gravity probe B was the most widely known failure-to-confirm" experiment ever designed to test the accuracy of General Relativity, in this case the frame dragging effect. The published goal of Gravity Probe B was an accuracy to within 1% but their expectations were much higher, i.e. a 5 sigma accuracy.

Others links concerning possible problems with GR

Gravity Probe B comes last in NASA review - physicsworld.com
The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong - Softpedia
Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented - a knol by Michael Suede (a listing of possible problems with SR and GR)

Thanks for the clarification. As Markus noted, your updated wording conveys a very different message than your original, so I appreciate the edit.

As to the links you've provided, the first is quite out of date. GPB had a problem that required significant additional algorithmic work to correct. That work is done, and a final report has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. A summary (and link to said article in Physical Review Letters) may be found here:

Physics - Finally, results from Gravity Probe B

The paper may be downloaded for free; no subscription required. If you read that paper, you find that, contrary to your characterization as a "failure-to-confirm", GPB is a successful confirmation. Again as Markus noted, the mere verification of any frame-dragging effect is itself significant. It took heroic engineering to measure it in the earth's frame, as the effect is exceptionally feeble. Sure, they failed to achieve their 1% goal, but that's not the same as saying that the whole experiment is therefore a failure. They set out to confirm GR's prediction of frame-dragging and that's what they successfully achieved.

The second link appears to be broken. The third seems to link to a "knol" that in turn links to a variety of sources, many of which are not peer-reviewed, so it is of dubious reliability.

So, contrary to your wishes, GR is on a very strong experimental foundation. It has been tested every which way, and it has held up. Someday some experiment may make us revise it, and theorists are eagerly standing by in anticipation of that exciting day. But that day has not yet arrived.

tk421,

Most reports concerning Gravity Probe B presented a rosy picture contrary to the disappointments that were really involved. Again the probe results may have been accurate even though its results varied from Einstein's predictions within a 19% concerning the frame dragging effect. Here is the real skinny on it seen in the link below.

My main point however involves the failure of GR to be able to predict the rotation rates of stars in spiral disks of a galaxy, as well as the orbital rates of galaxies in a cluster. I have no personal opinion concerning whether GR can accurately predict frame dragging, although I think that many of the related papers and new reports concerning Gravity Probe B, were a white-wash of the actual results.

The Reference Frame: Gravity Probe B final results: frame dragging within 20 percent

The second link above and below seems to have no problems for me. Here it is again. If you still have problems with the link put in the link title/ name as the subject of a search and an active link should come up.

The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong - Softpedia

Markus Hanke,

What is happening here is that the existence of frame-dragging has been conclusively confirmed; the uncertainty of 15% pertains only to the magnitude of the effect. One should bear in mind that for a weak field like that of the Earth the frame-dragging effect is tiny - it is an amazing feat of engineering that it can be measured at all, and the 15% are perfectly explainable in terms of data noise. I am sure future experiments will further narrow down this margin of error.

I agree that measuring the frame dragging effect of the Earth is almost impossibly difficult. In my own model this effect is also a certainty but I have proposed no equations for it so far.

First article - all that this is saying that there are now better technologies available to measure this effect, and GravB is thus no longer needed ?!

Please provide references for this statement if you can find them. I am unaware of any other technology/ technique that is available to test this effect so I would like to be edified.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Most reports concerning Gravity Probe B presented a rosy picture contrary to the disappointments that were really involved. Again the probe results may have been accurate even though its results varied from Einstein's predictions within a 19% concerning the frame dragging effect.

Thus bringing us back to a negation of your earlier assertion that GPB failed.

Here is the real skinny on it seen in the link below.

Thanks for the link to another of Lubos Motl's posts. He says, "if you ask whether the probe has helped to dramatically eliminate doubts that GR is correct once again, the answer is a resounding Yes."

Hard to interpret that as saying that GPB was a failure; in fact, it sounds like a "resounding" non-failure.

My main point however involves the failure of GR to be able to predict the rotation rates of stars in spiral disks of a galaxy, as well as the orbital rates of galaxies in a cluster.

So, having raised the GPB issue yourself, you're now backing away from your earlier claim, and now bringing back another one. Ok; move the goalposts.

I have no personal opinion concerning whether GR can accurately predict frame dragging, although I think that many of the related papers and new reports concerning Gravity Probe B, were a white-wash of the actual results.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think we've established that your opinion is not at all well supported by the facts.

The second link above and below seems to have no problems for me. Here it is again. If you still have problems with the link put in the link title/ name as the subject of a search and an active link should come up.

Thank you, Forrest. The link does seem to be working now. That article is quite old, though, and also exaggerates for the sake of intensifying interest in the story, I guess. The numerical discrepancy is actually of the order of parts per million (the article makes it sound like there's a gigantic discrepancy). It seems that no one has been able to replicate their results in the six years following publication. That's not a good sign (for Tajmar). If you were willing to call GPB a "widely known failure-to-confirm" GR experiment, applying the same criteria fairly would require that we say that the Tajmar paper describes a "widely known failure-to-contradict" GR experiment, so you can't reasonably cite it in support of your "anti-GR" campaign.

tk421,

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think we've established that your opinion is not at all well supported by the facts.

I don't agree with your statement that "we've established that your opinion(s) is/are not at all well supported by the facts" but I think we otherwise understand each others opinions, at least I think I understand yours. I believe I'm in favor of the statements that I have been making all along and think that you either have serious doubts about these same statements or have contrary opinions of them.

As to the big picture, my statements and opinions are in sympathy with the "33 scientists" above, and I think yours are contrary to these same scientist's opinions concerning their apposition to the BB model. That is an accurate statement and summary in my opinion , no?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Most reports concerning Gravity Probe B presented a rosy picture contrary to the disappointments that were really involved. Again the probe results may have been accurate even though its results varied from Einstein's predictions within a 19% concerning the frame dragging effect. Here is the real skinny on it seen in the link below.

What disappointments ? The effect was proven to exist, just as Einstein's theory predicts. New experimental setups will narrow the margin of error and prove the magnitude of the effect to be correct as well. Wait and see.

My main point however involves the failure of GR to be able to predict the rotation rates of stars in spiral disks of a galaxy, as well as the orbital rates of galaxies in a cluster.

This is a different topic altogether.

although I think that many of the related papers and new reports concerning Gravity Probe B, were a white-wash of the actual results.

How so ? The effect was confirmed to exist, wasn't it ? And once again, future experiments will confirm the magnitude of the effect to acceptable margins.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Please provide references for this statement if you can find them. I am unaware of any other technology/ technique that is available to test this effect so I would like to be edified.

The LARES satellite should do the trick to an accuracy of round about 1% :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES_(satellite)

It's only been up for about a month, so no results are available yet.

Hey. Thanx Markus! I don't know how this launch escaped me. I never heard about it. The results should be interesting. As I've said before, I love it when you come online in my morning. It's one of the highlights of my day, which I always look forward to.

An appreciative Wayne

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Hey. Thanx Markus! I don't know how this launch escaped me. I never heard about it. The results should be interesting. As I've said before, I love it when you come online in my morning. It's one of the highlights of my day, which I always look forward to.

An appreciative Wayne

No probs.
Actually, this wasn't a very public event, maybe because most folks wouldn't understand the purpose of this experiment anyway.

Certainly a number of posters here would fit in that category

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Certainly a number of posters here would fit in that category

Ooouuuch...!

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

As I've said before, I love it when you [Markus] come online in my morning. It's one of the highlights of my day, which I always look forward to.

With no disrespect to Markus - Meteror, you really need to get out more.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

As I've said before, I love it when you [Markus] come online in my morning. It's one of the highlights of my day, which I always look forward to.

With no disrespect to Markus - Meteror, you really need to get out more.

I get out regularly, thank you very much

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I don't agree with your statement that "we've established that your opinion(s) is/are not at all well supported by the facts"

I didn't expect you to acknowledge this reality; you've invested too much in your idea to let it go (perhaps ever). But someone with no stake in the outcome would look at the collection of your assertions and be able to see that even many of the references you cited contradict what you were asserting in the first place. I've shown it numerous times. I have no stake in the outcome (no theory of mine is at stake here; I'm just following the scientific method), so I've been able to evaluate your claims more dispassionately.

but I think we otherwise understand each others opinions, at least I think I understand yours.

That may be, but the fact that you're still sticking to your guns suggests that you haven't fully comprehended the extent to which your arguments have failed to meet the standards of the scientific method. Honestly, all that remains of everything you have said is that you don't like dark matter for your own reasons. Your deprecation of GR hasn't held up at all (GR remains fully supported by all experiments), and the dark matter hypothesis has made successful predictions (eg CMB lensing), not just retrodictions as you originally claimed erroneously. [For the record, I am not overly fond of the dark matter hypothesis myself, but I also know that the universe doesn't care what I like, so I'm just going with the evidence.]

I believe I'm in favor of the statements that I have been making all along and think that you either have serious doubts about these same statements or have contrary opinions of them.

As I said, you are completely free to believe as you wish -- I'm not a missionary. I listened patiently to your arguments, pointed out flaws in them, listened to your rebuttals, and pointed out flaws in those, too. I'm merely evaluating your arguments. I'm not here to change your mind, but if your goal is to convince a community of scientists that you have a better theory, I have pointed out why you are highly unlikely to succeed. You need to make a much greater effort to base your critiques on sound science. Your predilection for citing sources of dubious quality isn't serving your cause well. You're also seemingly sloppy in citing articles that actually contradict the point you're trying to make. It's almost as if you stop reading after you've gotten a google hit for key phrases in the title or abstract. That seems to be related to your penchant for cherry-picking. But science demands more self-doubt and intellectual honesty from the proposer of a new idea. If your idea is weak (and it is), it's far better to point it out to yourself first (and then work hard to act on that insight) before someone else does and nukes you.

As to the big picture, my statements and opinions are in sympathy with the "33 scientists" above, and I think yours are contrary to these same scientist's opinions concerning their apposition to the BB model. That is an accurate statement and summary in my opinion , no?

Yes, we certainly agree on that point. Those "top" scientists are your intellectual brethren, not mine.

Over and out.

--tk421

Originally Posted by tk421

I didn't expect you to acknowledge this reality; you've invested too much in your idea to let it go (perhaps ever). But someone with no stake in the outcome would look at the collection of your assertions and be able to see that even many of the references you cited contradict what you were asserting in the first place. I've shown it numerous times. I have no stake in the outcome (no theory of mine is at stake here; I'm just following the scientific method), so I've been able to evaluate your claims more dispassionately.

In summary: All would agree that my proposals are contentious otherwise it/ they would be the mainstream model. Besides myself there are many that are looking for an alternative model to General Relativity and Newtonian gravity because of their inability to predict stellar or galactic motions at the galactic scale, sometime even with the inclusion of dark matter.

There is no evidence other than the observed galaxy redshifts to support the hypothesis that space is expanding. Expanding space is the basis for the Big Bang model. General Relativity is the mathematical foundation of the Big Bang model and dark matter is presently the only mainstream remedy that justifies GR at galactic scales. Both the expansion of space and GR via dark matter, are two primary pillars supporting the Big Bang model. If either of these proposals were wrong the BB model would soon fall. Few would argue against these statements.

That may be, but the fact that you're still sticking to your guns suggests that you haven't fully comprehended the extent to which your arguments have failed to meet the standards of the scientific method. Honestly, all that remains of everything you have said is that you don't like dark matter for your own reasons. Your deprecation of GR hasn't held up at all (GR remains fully supported by all experiments), and the dark matter hypothesis has made successful predictions (eg CMB lensing), not just retrodictions as you originally claimed erroneously. [For the record, I am not overly fond of the dark matter hypothesis myself, but I also know that the universe doesn't care what I like, so I'm just going with the evidence.

I'm not here to change your mind, but if your goal is to convince a community of scientists that you have a better theory, I have pointed out why you are highly unlikely to succeed.

Showing what's wrong with another model usually doesn't go very far unless you have an alternative. You have only heard my reasoning concerning what I think is wrong with the Big Bang model. I think Eric Lerner the lead author and critique of the Big Bang model concerning the "33 top scientists" above, did a laudable critique of the BB model in his book the Big Bang Never Happened. My alternative cosmology is my own model and equations which you said you did not wish to review at pantheory.org.

As to the big picture, my statements and opinions are in sympathy with the "33 scientists" above, and I think yours are contrary to these same scientist's opinions concerning their apposition to the BB model. That is an accurate statement and summary in my opinion ...

(my quote above)

Yes, we certainly agree on that point. Those "top" scientists are your intellectual brethren, not mine.
Over and out.

I also agree with this statement sarcasm aside.

regards, Forrest