The Cosmologist that weighs less than a duck.

[busterdog]

Michael J. Disney

Michael J. Disney is emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University. He has done research on stars, pulsars and quasars, but his main interest has always lain in galaxies and in designing novel instruments to observe them at many wavelengths. He has worked on the development of Hubble Space Telescope instruments since 1976. Address: School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, 5 The Parade, Cardiff, Wales, CF24 3AA, U.K. Internet: mjd@astro.cf.ac.uk

It is true that the modern study of cosmology has taken a turn for the better, if only because astronomers can now build relevant instruments rather than waiting for serendipitous evidence to turn up. On the other hand, to explain some surprising observations, theoreticians have had to create heroic and yet insubstantial notions such as "dark matter" and "dark energy," which supposedly overwhelm, by a hundred to one, the stuff of the universe we can directly detect. Outsiders are bound to ask whether they should be more impressed by the new observations or more dismayed by the theoretical jinnis that have been conjured up to account for them.
My limited aim here is to discuss this dilemma by looking at the development of cosmology over the past century and to compare the growing number of independent relevant observations with the number of (also growing) separate hypotheses or "free parameters" that have had to be introduced to explain them. Without having to understand the complex astrophysics, one can still ask, at an epistemological level, whether the number of relevant independent measurements has overtaken and comfortably surpassed the number of free parameters needed to fit them—as one would expect of a maturing science. This approach should be appealing to nonspecialists, who otherwise would have little option but to believe experts who may be far too committed to supply objective advice. What one finds, in my view, is that modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support.

Where Do We Stand Today?
Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.
In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.
In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.
The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come.

[SIZE=-1]A witch! A witch! A witch! WITCH[/SIZE]

Burn the witch! Buuuuuuuuuuuurn the witch!

Six days of creation is NOT more crazy that 15 billion years and BB.

The funny thing is, I raised most of Disney's objections, with different words, and as a creationists. It was all completely dismissed here as having no basis in science. That's what they do instead of burning people alive like they used to.

 

[shernren]

Firstly, it is important to hold in context statements that busterdog has made elsewhere. Yesterday he said:

... doesn't it go back to the essential point of whether conventional science or the Bible is the ultimate frame of reference? One must make an assumption to begin any origins analysis. You assume that observation is reliable. We assume that an inerrant witness is reliable.

Yet here he is, quite willing to accept the testimony of someone who starts by assuming that observation is reliable, nowhere assumes an inerrant witness, and ends with the idea that observation must always trump theory. Quite a turnaround. As described later in the same thread:

When your back is against the wall, deny the eyes God gave you. Otherwise, appeal to science whenever else possible. A common anti-evolutionary creationist mindset...

Hold that in the balance.

Also note how he has not been able or willing to link to the full article. It can be found here: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839 . Read through it.

Busterdog paints a picture of cosmology in complete collapse by selective quoting. If he had looked elsewhere, he may have found a more nuanced and representative quote for the author's views:

Where Do We Stand Today?
Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.

In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.

(emphases added) Now, let me first say that this is by no means an uncommon sentiment among cosmologists. Some of the world's best astronomers are at ANU and have given public lectures which I have attended (giving a perfect opportunity for name-dropping). But when a key discoverer of dark energy expansion acceleration admits that he has no idea what dark energy actually might be, and a key discoverer of dark matter considers aloud the possible merits of Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of gravitational dark matter ... I think it's safe to say that cosmologists nowadays don't take their theories for granted. Which, really, is what science is all about.

Because science is all about theories that explain data. And Disney gives complete credit where due to the many data points that conventional cosmology does explain: redshift, CMB, nucleosynthesis. Crucially, these are observations that no creationist theory as yet has explained. Busterdog tries to paint the following picture: the Big Bang does not explain all the data, and an arbitrary six-day creation model does not explain all the data, so choosing between them is really a matter of taste, like choosing what tie to wear to work. (I'll pick a page from Busterdog's book here and nitpick on word choice.) Otherwise, why would he carefully say "six days of creation is NOT more crazy than 15 billion years", instead of going all out and saying that six days is in fact LESS? Because in his picture the choice between six days and 15 billion years is not scientific. (And yet he tries to cite a scientific source to come to that conclusion; can you see the duplicity?)

One might as well say that because a flat Earth theory doesn't explain all the data, and a round Earth theory doesn't explain all the data, it is equally acceptable to believe in a flat Earth as it is to believe in a round Earth. The point should be obvious: a theory may explain some of the evidence, but not all, and still be more right than a theory that explains (or attempts to, even) explain less of the evidence. The theory that explains more is then scientifically preferable; the theory that explains less might be chosen, but not for any scientific reason. And the Big Bang theory does explain more than any creationist has so far; it might not explain everything, but it suffices to explain more. Therefore the Big Bang is still more scientific, even if it is not as scientific as we would like it to be - and cosmologists admit that dissatisfaction themselves openly.

(And note that I have not had to say a single bad thing about Disney to disembowel Busterdog's attempts at logic. Clearly, someone here is indeed acting like a fanatical witch-hunting Inquisitor. But I'm pretty sure it isn't me.)

 

[busterdog]

Firstly, it is important to hold in context statements that busterdog has made elsewhere. Yesterday he said:



Yet here he is, quite willing to accept the testimony of someone who starts by assuming that observation is reliable, nowhere assumes an inerrant witness, and ends with the idea that observation must always trump theory. Quite a turnaround. As described later in the same thread:



Hold that in the balance.

Also note how he has not been able or willing to link to the full article. It can be found here: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839 . Read through it.

Busterdog paints a picture of cosmology in complete collapse by selective quoting. If he had looked elsewhere, he may have found a more nuanced and representative quote for the author's views:



(emphases added) Now, let me first say that this is by no means an uncommon sentiment among cosmologists. Some of the world's best astronomers are at ANU and have given public lectures which I have attended (giving a perfect opportunity for name-dropping). But when a key discoverer of dark energy expansion acceleration admits that he has no idea what dark energy actually might be, and a key discoverer of dark matter considers aloud the possible merits of Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of gravitational dark matter ... I think it's safe to say that cosmologists nowadays don't take their theories for granted. Which, really, is what science is all about.

Because science is all about theories that explain data. And Disney gives complete credit where due to the many data points that conventional cosmology does explain: redshift, CMB, nucleosynthesis. Crucially, these are observations that no creationist theory as yet has explained. Busterdog tries to paint the following picture: the Big Bang does not explain all the data, and an arbitrary six-day creation model does not explain all the data, so choosing between them is really a matter of taste, like choosing what tie to wear to work. (I'll pick a page from Busterdog's book here and nitpick on word choice.) Otherwise, why would he carefully say "six days of creation is NOT more crazy than 15 billion years", instead of going all out and saying that six days is in fact LESS? Because in his picture the choice between six days and 15 billion years is not scientific. (And yet he tries to cite a scientific source to come to that conclusion; can you see the duplicity?)

One might as well say that because a flat Earth theory doesn't explain all the data, and a round Earth theory doesn't explain all the data, it is equally acceptable to believe in a flat Earth as it is to believe in a round Earth. The point should be obvious: a theory may explain some of the evidence, but not all, and still be more right than a theory that explains (or attempts to, even) explain less of the evidence. The theory that explains more is then scientifically preferable; the theory that explains less might be chosen, but not for any scientific reason. And the Big Bang theory does explain more than any creationist has so far; it might not explain everything, but it suffices to explain more. Therefore the Big Bang is still more scientific, even if it is not as scientific as we would like it to be - and cosmologists admit that dissatisfaction themselves openly.

(And note that I have not had to say a single bad thing about Disney to disembowel Busterdog's attempts at logic. Clearly, someone here is indeed acting like a fanatical witch-hunting Inquisitor. But I'm pretty sure it isn't me.)

Shernren likes to argue disparate threads and points out of context when a scientist says something he doesn't like.

He particularly likes to reinvent his adversary to suit his attacks.

Its like a divorce when you want to talk about paying the mortgage and the other side wants to blame you for not cutting the grass five years ago.

SO, Disney is right. Big Bang is a crock, or at least unproven. And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.

 

[Mallon]

I always thought the Big Bang was one of the best arguments for a Creator, because it implies a cause that is outside time and space.

 

[gluadys]

Firstly, it is important to hold in context statements that busterdog has made elsewhere. Yesterday he said:

... doesn't it go back to the essential point of whether conventional science or the Bible is the ultimate frame of reference? One must make an assumption to begin any origins analysis. You assume that observation is reliable. We assume that an inerrant witness is reliable.

Not to mention that it is a false dichotomy in the first place. The ultimate frame of reference is neither conventional science nor the Bible, but what God actually created.

 

[gluadys]

And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.

Except for the fact that they do admit it. They are saying, these are current hypotheses, but they are not well-supported by evidence.

That is exactly why these are current areas of research and why Disney and others speak as they do about needing more solid evidentiary support.

Sounds like science to me!

 

[busterdog]

I always thought the Big Bang was one of the best arguments for a Creator, because it implies a cause that is outside time and space.

I am quite happy to agree that this is a reasonable position. It is one of the implications of the Big Bang.

The question of whether it holds together as a model is a different question. The most troubling part about that question is that other theories are dismissed with hostility if they don't square with Big Bang. As an unfinished project with major gaps, I find the Big Bang model to be a pretty lousy basis for outright mockery of the creationist position.

 

[busterdog]

Except for the fact that they do admit it. They are saying, these are current hypotheses, but they are not well-supported by evidence.

That is exactly why these are current areas of research and why Disney and others speak as they do about needing more solid evidentiary support.

Sounds like science to me!

Except it isn't science when Halton Arp, Barry Setterfield, Busterdog or Genesis says it.

Do I think Big Bang is a crock? Yes. Absolutely I do. Do I also think it is an elegant theory with some evidential support and something problem worthy of study. Also yes. Big Bang is science. Many isolated parts of it are very good science. Why can't a creationist say the same things as Disney and get some recognition for being having offered a valid scientific position?

Disney and other says it has fundamental problems. There is lots to say it is wrong. Has final judgment been passed? No.

But, why is it so hard to say that the guys on the fringe have in fact raised intractible questions that put Big Bang into doubt? Why does it matter whether plasma theory is finished or proven? Big Bang isn't?

 

[gluadys]

Except it isn't science when Halton Arp, Barry Setterfield, Busterdog or Genesis says it.

For exactly the reason shernren said. Because, even if BB is not a complete theory, it does explain some data well.

Arp, Setterfield, busterdog and Genesis don't explain even as much as BB does. So the latter is still the best theory on the playing field.

Present something that consistently and coherently explains at least as much as BB, and you will get respectful attention. Present something that does all this and explains even more data--stuff that is currently puzzling the scientists, and you will get a lot of attention.

But it is certainly inconsistent to deplore that these hypotheses are not accepted as valid science and in the next breath dismiss observations as unreliable anyway.

 

[shernren]

Shernren likes to argue disparate threads and points out of context when a scientist says something he doesn't like.

He particularly likes to reinvent his adversary to suit his attacks.

Its like a divorce when you want to talk about paying the mortgage and the other side wants to blame you for not cutting the grass five years ago.

SO, Disney is right. Big Bang is a crock, or at least unproven. And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.

Firstly, I think we should all be very aware of the attempted psychological projection happening here.

When in this thread has a scientist said something I don't like? Note that I have nowhere either stated or implied any dislike or disrespect of Disney or his views. Nor, indeed, has any other TE on this thread. Busterdog posted this anticipating a witch-hunt; but none of us TEs have seen any witches or built any stakes to burn them on. He would like very much for us to turn on Disney and accuse him of being a heretic in the grand temple of Copernicus.

If anything, I think the witch hunt is on against us, not them. Busterdog has recently accused TEs of saying Jesus is an idiot, making strawmen, quoting him out of context, and not admitting facts. His latest overarching metaphor for us is a nest of hornets, a horde of swarming stinging insects that mindlessly defend their hive even if it is empty inside. So he has to imagine that the hornets are out in force and out to sting him and his sources to death, even though not a bad word has been said about Disney here on this thread. (And everything bad that has been said about busterdog comes with documentary proof.)

Furthermore, Disney makes points that Busterdog has neither quoted nor provided answers to. For example:

The currently fashionable concordance model of cosmology (also known to the cognoscenti as "Lambda-Cold Dark Matter," or ΛCDM) has 18 parameters, 17 of which are independent. Thirteen of these parameters are well fitted to the observational data; the other four remain floating. This situation is very far from healthy. Any theory with more free parameters than relevant observations has little to recommend it. Cosmology has always had such a negative significance, in the sense that it has always had fewer observations than free parameters (as is illustrated at left), though cosmologists are strangely reluctant to admit it. While it is true that we presently have no alternative to the Big Bang in sight, that is no reason to accept it. Thus it was that witchcraft took hold.
​

That's Disney's take on the situation, and the situation really is rather ugly. But tell me: how many parameters does Setterfield's theory have? How many of them fit to evidence? How many parameters are plain out? How much does he have to fudge?

Quite frankly, I have no problem with people trying to tell me that the Big Bang theory has problems. You accept Disney's authority on that. Why do you not accept his authority that there is presently "no alternative ... in sight"? Not Setterfield, not Arp, not any creationist cosmology, which right now have more holes in them than the Big Bang. Science right now is about the Big Bang because right now the Big Bang is the best theory we have. You want to dethrone it?

Find a better theory. If the universe really is as hostile to the Big Bang theory as you really think it is, if conventional cosmology is really only held by unswerving loyalists to a long-dead order, then it should be fantastically easy to come up with a theory that explains everything the Big Bang already explains, explains far more, and makes even more testable predictions that come true. As it is, don't expect us to take your warnings that our horse can't run seriously, if all you have in your stable is a troupe of ponies with broken legs.

 

[USincognito]

Shernren likes to argue disparate threads and points out of context when a scientist says something he doesn't like.

He particularly likes to reinvent his adversary to suit his attacks.

Its like a divorce when you want to talk about paying the mortgage and the other side wants to blame you for not cutting the grass five years ago.

SO, Disney is right. Big Bang is a crock, or at least unproven. And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.

Could you attack the argument, not the person? (and no, reiterating your original argument is not the same as replying to a rebuttal)

 

[shernren]

By the way, just in case anybody doesn't get the Monty Python reference: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/witch.asp

Bedevere: So. Why do witches burn?

(long silence)
(shuffling of feet by the villagers)

Villager: (tentatively) Because they're made of.....wood?
Bedevere: Goooood!
Other Villagers: oh yeah... oh....
Bedevere: So. How do we tell whether she is made of wood?
One Villager: Build a bridge out of 'er!
Bedevere: Aah. But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Villagers: oh yeah. oh. umm...
Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
One Villager: No! No, no, it floats!
Other Villager: Throw her into the pond!
Villagers: yaaaaaa!

(when order is restored)

Bedevere: What also floats in water?
Villager: Bread!
Another Villager: Apples!
Another Villager: Uh...very small rocks!
Another Villager: Cider!
Another Villager: Uh...great gravy!
Another Villager: Cherries!
Another Villager: Mud!
Another Villager: Churches! Churches!
Another Villager: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck!
Villagers: (in amazement) ooooooh!
Bedevere: exACTly!
Bedevere: (to a villager) So, *logically*...
Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word)
If...she...weighs the same as a duck......she's made of wood.
Bedevere: and therefore...

(pause)

Villager: A Witch!
All Villagers: A WITCH!


(they do consequently weigh her across from a duck on Bedevere's largest
scale, and she does indeed weigh the same as the duck.)

 

[USincognito]

I don't get the "How can you tell he's the King" reference. Can you explain that one to me?

 

[shernren]

Just saw this on my PHD Comics Facebook widget. Beautiful.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I gotta get me a dark thesis!