|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2001 : 22:44:20 [Permalink]
|
has this Arp fellow ever provided any evidence for these amusing concepts about reality. how come he has not won a nobel prize for his amazing new discoveries, or has the corrupt science establishment conspired to ignore these ideas?
In any event I'm sure Arp will find plenty of sympathy at the creation science institute or whatever they call it.
comrade billyboy |
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 20:34:33 [Permalink]
|
I am glad that I started this subject (which always bothers the *true believers*! So many of you have such knowledge. I am so impressed! What a great site this is. Of course, there are some other good skeptic sites (BadAstronomy, Internet Infidels, etc.) You always have to watch what you read at all of them. But if you have a pretty good knowledge of science, you can easily spot the frightful science.
The data on the Big Bang keeps growing.
ljbrs
You all know better and do better! What am I to do?
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 20:46:46 [Permalink]
|
comrade billyboy:
quote:
has this Arp fellow ever provided any evidence for these amusing concepts about reality. how come he has not won a nobel prize for his amazing new discoveries, or has the corrupt science establishment conspired to ignore these ideas?
In any event I'm sure Arp will find plenty of sympathy at the creation science institute or whatever they call it.
Actually, Halton Arp had some good ideas. He was a gatherer of photographs and data on *Unusual Galaxies* and wrote books about it. Some of these are of immense interest today. However, he evidently has some ideas which do not jibe, and these have been roundly criticized by the astrophysical community.
Fred Hoyle had some interesting ideas about the way the Sun operates (fusion) which led to much good science. But Hoyle's Steady State universe is a scientific dead end.
Scientists can have some good ideas, mixed in with weird science. Peer review tends to weed the bad stuff out. Then again, sometimes evidence comes along to prove these cranks right after all. Science is so much fun when this happens.
However, so far, the Big Bang with the Inflationary Period and the Accelerating Universe seem to be holding their own.
ljbrs
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2001 : 21:39:52 [Permalink]
|
Folks:
Here is a great URL for Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial plus some debunking of various scientific ideas and books:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Watch out, there are so may links to other places that you might get lost in there and never, ever find your way out again. Of course, I clicked my ruby shoes together and said the *magic words* and here I am.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 01:06:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Folks:
Here is a great URL for Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial plus some debunking of various scientific ideas and books:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth...
excellent and informative site-thank you
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 19:30:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
excellent and informative site-thank you
comrade billyboy
You are welcome. Dr. Wright's site is one of my favorites.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 15:47:10 [Permalink]
|
Hell-0
Just exploring this section for the first time, a very pleasant intelligent thread. (Me have work to do here...) It's just too bad this level of exchange is such a rarity on this WWW thingie.
Have been a cosmology (?!?) fan all of my adult life. Having watched as it separated from theology, and as it has accelerated to a near full stand alone science, today. And unbiased science, is where me rests my worldly faith. The elegant little formula of the scientific method, is to my mind, humanity's greatest achivement thus far. And the most inspirational trait of the true "scientific mind," as found within my experience, is the one of honesty, (ruling out tobacco, HMO doctors, and their like, for example), not just with those around him, but with himself. (BTW me use of gender here, is of old school english rules, as me is even older; "when gender is unknown, assume male") Me is not a scientist, butt me do likes to flatter meself, by thinking me does have a scientific mind.., kind'a.., sort'a, well almost like one, if yas squint. To remove any further speculation, allow me to display my command of a vast body of ignorance immediately henceforth.
While me do accept the "Big Bang" model, as the best and most tested, currently available, me does have some confusion with it, that perhaps you might endulge me with some clarification. Hope so, living in the dark, is such a major league drag.
The BB assumes a beginning from an infinitesimal point from which our current universe hyper-expanded from, a singlarity. True? Is there a distinction from a "singlarity" and the term, "Black Hole," knowing both are considered and treated as singlarities, but there is difference, right? If not, this orignal one of the BB, would have had to be the most humongous 'super massive black hole' of literally all time! Huh? If not, what is to prevent other Black Holes to suddenly bust out into their own universes by the same mechanism, and why would you suppose it hasn't happened? What is the current best guesstimate of what 'triggered' its expansion?
Just what the heck is a "monopole," anyways, and why is this particle considered a 'problem' by some for the BB?
Understand to a degree, the inference of the cosmic background microwave radiation showing different (?) densities of engery, which supposedly allowed matter to coalesce into stars and galaxies. Butt, if all energy emanated from this single said point, what mechanism could have formed these differences in the first place, matter-antimatter annihilation by product? Actually, me don't have a clear concept of how these different uh, hot spots in the background radiation equates to matter densities large enough for star formation, either. Clue?
Welp, guess that's enough confusion for an introduction, and one post.  Would truly appreciate any assistance in geting a handle on these concepts. Or is too late and me is beyond help? Again Howdy Dooty.
What, me worry...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 17:29:31 [Permalink]
|
Nubiwan:
You be pretend dodo person. You not real dodo, only pretend silly thingy.
Me be pretend astronomyerist. Me like stars. Me think sky nice. Whee!!!
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 17:32:45 [Permalink]
|
Nubiwan:
You have neat things in your posts. Maybe you not dodo after all.
ljbrs  
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 11:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The BB assumes a beginning from an infinitesimal point from which our current universe hyper-expanded from, a singlarity. True? Is there a distinction from a "singlarity" and the term, "Black Hole," knowing both are considered and treated as singlarities, but there is difference, right? If not, this orignal one of the BB, would have had to be the most humongous 'super massive black hole' of literally all time! Huh? If not, what is to prevent other Black Holes to suddenly bust out into their own universes by the same mechanism, and why would you suppose it hasn't happened? What is the current best guesstimate of what 'triggered' its expansion?
Last night I was rereading a section of Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" that mentioned a controversial theory by Lee Smolin which posits that our universe is only one of a possibly infinite number that exist within a "multiverse". According to this theory, each time a star collapses into a black hole, it creates a new "baby universe" with slightly different physical rules. I should note that Shermer didn't bring this up as one of the "weird things" people believe in. He used it as an argument against another idea. Specifically, the argument that our existence is proof of God since if the universal constants (speed of light, etc.) of the universe were even slightly different, life couldn't exist. The assumption is that the probability of the rules matching those necessary for life is so remote that it could not have happened by chance. If however, there are an infinite number of universes, then it was in fact highly probable that at least one of them would have rules favorable to life.
Personally, I find this notion a little suspect. Steven Hawkins(?) proved that due to quantum effects, a black whole can radiate energy and eventually evaporate. If black holes produce universes, then universes can evaporate back into there source universe. This idea strikes me as a bit hard to swallow. Nevertheless, scientists don't consider this idea as a violation of our current understanding of physics.
As far as the issue of the universal constants being proof of God, I think Shermer was getting a little too complicated in his counter argument. The real problem with the notion is that just because the particular constants of our universe explain why we exist, it doesn't follow that our existence is the reason the constants are the way they are. If they had been slightly different, it wouldn't make much difference to the universe itself. We just wouldn't be around to argue the point.
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 03:46:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personally, I find this notion a little suspect. Steven Hawkins(?) proved that due to quantum effects, a black whole can radiate energy and eventually evaporate. If black holes produce universes, then universes can evaporate back into there source universe. This idea strikes me as a bit hard to swallow. Nevertheless, scientists don't consider this idea as a violation of our current understanding of physics.
Wow! That's pretty far out there for me, Espritch. As me understands it, yeah, a black hole can evaporate, but over a time span humpty-hump times, (a really really long time), the current age of our uh.., local universe. Have heard of the "froth of universes", or multiple "bubble" universes, that came from, and may still be coming from, the BB. That part about a universe 'evaporating' back into its source, is a new one on me, dunno. Ya got any links to them scientists, that are saying its so? Our local one surely isn't, and before i venture into those possibilities, need to nail down a few simpler concepts first, closer to home. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/19/2001 03:51:46 |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 10:47:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wow! That's pretty far out there for me, Espritch. As me understands it, yeah, a black hole can evaporate, but over a time span humpty-hump times, (a really really long time), the current age of our uh.., local universe. Have heard of the "froth of universes", or multiple "bubble" universes, that came from, and may still be coming from, the BB. That part about a universe 'evaporating' back into its source, is a new one on me, dunno. Ya got any links to them scientists, that are saying its so? Our local one surely isn't, and before i venture into those possibilities, need to nail down a few simpler concepts first, closer to home.
Actually, this whole thing is a little far out there for me also. I don't know that any actual scientists have claimed that a universe could evaporate back into it's parent universe. That was speculation on my part based on putting together Hawkins' claim that black holes evaporate and Smolin's assertion that they create new universes. That might not be what actually happens. It might be that the new universe remains after the black hole evaporates. In that case you could think of the black hole as a one way door between the parent universe and the spawned universe. When the whole evaporates, the link between the two universes is severed but both remain.
I was under the impression that the rate of evaporation of a black whole is dependent on it's size (i.e. the amount of matter involved in creating it). A small one might evaporate fairly quickly (assuming it wasn't swallowing sufficient matter/energy to compensate for the evaporation).
My source for Smolin's theory was Shermer's book (I also recall reading about this theory in a Newsweek article a while back). The Hawkins stuff was from his book
"A Brief History of Time".
I don't have any web links on this. You could try entering the names "Lee Smolin" and "Steven Hawkins" in a search engine (I'm not sure if I'm spelling "Hawkins" correctly).
A few other thoughts to chew on:
The only way to really know what is in a black hole would be to go into it. Normally the result of trying to do this would be that the tidal forces of the black hole would turn you into a long thin thread of spaghetti before you even reached the event horizon (boy, I hate when that happens). However, if you were moving at almost the speed of light, could you enter the black hole before the tide turned you into pasta? And would anyone be crazy enough to try given that it would be a one way trip and you have no way to know where you would end up? (You couldn't even send a probe in first since even if it survived the trip, there is now way it could send a signal back to you to let you know.
According to one theory I've read (sorry, don't remember where), if a black whole is rotating rapidly and you entered it at the right point, you would not be trapped but would actually come back out at some other time/place in the same universe (possible method of interstellar travel?). But how can you tell if a black hole is spinning?
Steven Hawkins theorized that during the big bang, mountain sized chunks of matter could have created tiny black holes. If black wholes create new universes, does the size of the black hole effect the size of the resulting universe? Do those tiny black wholes produce tiny universes?
Inquiring minds want to know! Just not badly enough to what to go out and try to get a PhD in astrophysics. 
|
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 11:33:54 [Permalink]
|
One very serious problem with the Compton-scattering hypothesis for redshipft is that it is *SCATTERING* -- the photon does not come out in the same direction that it entered, and several scatterings would result in it doing a random walk, and its original direction would be lost. Light diffusing in a cloud is a familiar example of this phenomenon.
So if there was enough intergalactic medium to do a significant amount of redshift from photons kicking electrons, it would be essentially impossible to see through it.
|
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 14:40:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Duh...  *LOL* Geez, they must have been talk'n about a "Big Crunch" in one of those bubble universes with enough mass. Huh? The use of "evaporate" threw me off, actually an easy thing to do...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
