Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[florida2]

IMO the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits anything from achieving "infinite density at a point", although I'm sure that very massive gravitational objects form in space.

The Pauli exclusion principle can be overcome with extreme gravitational forces, such as when a neutron star forms when electrons are forced into the nucleus to merge with protons to form neutrons, forming degenerate matter. Sufficiently high gravity can overcome even this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Astrophysics_and_the_Pauli_principle

 

[Michael]

The Pauli exclusion principle can be overcome with extreme gravitational forces, such as when a neutron star forms when electrons are forced into the nucleus to merge with protons to form neutrons, forming degenerate matter. Sufficiently high gravity can overcome even this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Astrophysics_and_the_Pauli_principle

I'm familiar with neutron star theory, but the presumed limits of neutron stars have been called into question by recent observations of unexpectedly large neutron stars:

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/neutron-star-largest-ever.htm

Most computer models can't account for neutron stars bigger than 1.5 times the mass of the sun without resorting to exotic particles like hyperons or condensates.

"If you want to reach two solar masses, it's a lot harder to make a neutron star that's not just neutrons. It tests the ability of the particles to hold up," Feryal Ozel, an assistant professor of astronomy and physics at University of Arizona, told Discovery News.

"Even the difference between a 1.8-solar-mass neutron star and a two-solar-mass object is quite a big one. We search for these things all the time. The fact that this was a two-solar-mass object is significant," Ozel said.

Dr. Oliver Manuel also discovered that neutrons tend to repulse one another:

http://phys.org/news/2005-12-scientist-neutron-stars-black-holes.html

His observation of neutron repulsion might be explained by the actual structure of neutrons themselves, which turns out to be more complicated than we first believed. They have a layered structure with negative charges in the core, and the outer shell, with a positively charged layer sandwiched in between. That outer negative shell may explain the repulsive aspects of neutrons:

http://www.livescience.com/4601-discovery-understanding-neutrons.html

A study by Cornell pushes that observed maximum size to perhaps as high as 2.7 solar masses:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/01/neutron-stars-are-more-massive-previously-thought

Neutron stars also produce "jets" that very much seem to rival those we see in so called "black holes":

http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/05/neutron-star-takes-on-black-holes-in-jet-contest/

I tend to share Dr. Manuel's belief that what we call "black holes" are simply very large neutron stars/pulsars that spin at close to the speed of light.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/

The centripetal force of their rotation allows them to remain stable in very massive sizes IMO.

There are also some theoretical options like 'quark stars' that may form, or may form the actual core of the largest black holes, but I personally highly doubt that any configuration of mass reaches 'infinite density'.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Not one of them can name a single source of 'dark energy' and it makes up the *vast* majority of their theory.

I find this whole idea of dark this and dark that really quite hilarious. It can't be measured or detected in any way and yet it must exist, because its effects can be seen (or something like that). Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does? Oh I forgot, that would be unscientific wouldn't it and we can't have that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find this whole idea of dark this and dark that really quite hilarious. It can't be measured or detected in any way . . .

It is detected the same way gravity is detected, by the movement of stars and the bending of starlight.

Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does? Oh I forgot, that would be unscientific wouldn't it and we can't have that.

You accuse people of believing in fantasies, and then say that they should believe in fantasies. Priceless.

 

[Michael]

I find this whole idea of dark this and dark that really quite hilarious. It can't be measured or detected in any way and yet it must exist, because its effects can be seen (or something like that). Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does? Oh I forgot, that would be unscientific wouldn't it and we can't have that.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=451d95e2d12383ac15852e6c6dccf56a

I hear you!

FYI, if you read that link I posed to Thunderbolts, you'll see that the mainstream's 'dark matter' claims are all based upon their (now falsified) claim that they had accurately accounted for all the ordinary baryonic matter in their now infamous 2006 lensing study. It turns out however that they miscounted the number of whole stars in various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star, and the type of galaxy. They also found more mass in the form of million degree plasma surrounding every galaxy in 2012 than they had found in the history of astronomy prior to 2012.

Their 'dark energy' claims have been based upon their "assumption" that SNIA supernova events are all exactly the same, and therefore they can be considered "standard candles'. That "standard candle" claim has also been falsified.

What really frosts my cookies however is that uniformed folks like Tom Bridgman sit there and complain about a purely empirical explanation of the universe (EU/PC theory), and compare it to YEC, while he himself desperately clings to supernatural constructs galore, which make up a full 95 percent of his claims! He can't even physically define and commit to either "dark" idea, and all the 'popular' brands of dark matter theory have already been falsified by LHC. The pure hypocrisy is simply astounding.

I wouldn't mind so much if folks like Tom actually took the time to understand the ideas that they are railing against, but his kludge of Birkeland's cathode solar model demonstrates that he really doesn't even care to understand the ideas that he's complaining about.

 

[Michael]

It is detected the same way gravity is detected, by the movement of stars and the bending of starlight.

Ordinary matter bends starlight. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that you folks completely botched those 2006 lensing studies by under-counting entire stars in those galaxies by a factor of somewhere between 3 and 20!

You accuse people of believing in fantasies, and then say that they should believe in fantasies. Priceless.

The fact that you completely missed and ignored the hypocrisy factor that he was complaining about is also priceless. Lots of folks have claimed the God has influenced their lives, whereas no photon has ever claimed 'dark/invisible stuff did it'.

 

[pshun2404]

Information is by nature that which informs. It is a set pattern or an amalgam of guide lines or possibly instructions followed or adhered to. When caught up in gravity without the power strong enough to overpower its effect one becomes subject to it. The fact that mass would exhibit gravitational force preceded the existence of mass.

Also information can be that from which knowledge and data can be derived. Therefore information creates information whether or not anyone is there to observe it. Information does not necessitate an “observer” to exist. It can be, and then later realized and observed. At its most basic level, information equals the propagation of cause and effect in any system whatever the cause of whatever effect we may discuss (even the Universe itself then and now).


So here is my edict and my question will follow at the end…Information for something must precede information as something, from which we can get to information in something, by accumulating information about something that we may use for something other.


The mass/energy of initial space/time took form according to extant qualities of space/time that we describe as laws and guiding principles, and this information was not matter or energy. It may or may not have been more simple at earlier times, but without doubt in my mind either the primary or primordial information is a non-material function of this Universe, or it preceded it from some other source (or it both preceded it and was built into it to make these processes occur).


But none the less, what happened with and within matter/energy since the Universe became was a matter of following or being subject to certain laws and principles already inherent. Matter/energy did not devise the laws and principles before being subject to them. The information preceded the aggregation. In my opinion (totally subjective) the various and eventual forms of aggregation have purposes which when conceived fulfill. Without information there is only chaos and random coincidence.


So did gravity precede the formation of stars and planets? I mean in your opinion. Is aggregate mass a function of gravitational force or is gravity a function of mass that increases with size and density of the mass?

In my theory that information must precede aggregation, even aggregation of mass (gaseous liquid or solid) in the formation of planets and stars followed laws and principles which caused it to happen in the way it did, but not everyone agrees...

If this is true then the formation process happened as informed...or was it random and arose within the coincidence of chaos????

 

[Michael]

So did gravity precede the formation of stars and planets?

I think it would be fair to say that gravity is "caused by" the existence/presence/concentration of mass/energy. Large massive objects can form from smaller ones. Certainly a loose collection of gas and dust can be drawn together by gravity to produce planets and stars, but the material is there all along, as is gravity.

I mean in your opinion. Is aggregate mass a function of gravitational force or is gravity a function of mass that increases with size and density of the mass?

I'd say the latter is true, but the curvature created by mass also causes mass to "clump". I'm not sure it's an either/or proposition to start with.

In my theory that information must precede aggregation, even aggregation of mass (gaseous liquid or solid) in the formation of planets and stars followed laws and principles which caused it to happen in the way it did, but not everyone agrees...

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by information. The aggregation aspect is pretty much caused by the curvature of spacetime, which in turn is directly caused by the existence of mass/energy.

If this is true then the formation process happened as informed...or was it random and arose within the coincidence of chaos????

I certainly don't believe that the order of the universe is a coincidence of chaos. I might accept the idea that we experience order that is imposed by gravity, but it's not necessarily a coincidence of chaos. In fact, I highly doubt that anything is a coincidence of chaos.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

If I rip that particular post to shreds, will that accomplish anything in terms of your opinions?

I can't speak for the OP, but the only thing that will convince me of your personal views on cosmology is if you present them to the actual scientific community and get them accepted and become part of mainstream cosmological science.

Until that happens, why would I simply believe you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You didn't read my papers apparently .

It seems actual cosmologists who actually publish in mainstream journals, didn't either.

You tried to hide behind an appeal to authority fallacy.

Appeal to expertise isn't the same as appeal to authority.

When all doctors tell me to take certain meds and then there's one guy who tells me otherwise and can't get any one in the medical field to agree with him.... Guess what I'll do.

No, I will not be listening to the one guy. I'll rather go with the consensus of all the others.

And you know what? That consensus COULD be wrong and the one guy COULD be right. But until there is evidence to actually demonstrate and accept that, it would be irrational to go with the one guy....

You don't get a free pass. You'll have to go through the harsh scrutiny of science, just like every other idea in science has to do.

Surely you can understand that, especially for lay people, when there is a tiny minority saying X, while the consensus of the mainstream says "X is ridiculous", it would be irrational to go with X anyway, right? Right?

 

[Michael]

I can't speak for the OP, but the only thing that will convince me of your personal views on cosmology is if you present them to the actual scientific community and get them accepted and become part of mainstream cosmological science.

Until that happens, why would I simply believe you?

I have already presented my views in the standard scientific manner. Your demand for instant acceptance is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy in the final analysis. Even GR theory wasn't accepted instantly by the mainstream. By your logic, Einstein wasn't credible until the mainstream finally realized that he was credible, and that was more than a decade later.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have already presented my views in the standard scientific manner. Your demand for instant acceptance is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy in the final analysis.

I didn't demand "instant" acceptance.
Great that you are fighting to stand up for your ideas. I encourage everyone to do so.

But don't expect me to pay one iota of attention to your against-the-mainstream ideas until it becomes a mainstream idea...

Even GR theory wasn't accepted instantly by the mainstream.

Point being?

By your logic, Einstein wasn't credible until the mainstream finally realized that he was credible, and that was more than a decade later.

Exactly.

Einstein only became a public icon when his peers realised he was spot on.

Why do we attach the name Newton to gravity for example instead of alchemy?
The guy wrote a heck of a lot more about alchemy then gravity.



So here's a question for you......

What is the rational thing to do for lay-people?
To go with the mainstream of science?
Or to pick an outsider whose ideas go against the mainstream?

And if the latter, for some incomprehensible reason, how should lay-people pick and choose which against-the-mainstream idea they should run with?

 

[lesliedellow]

I have already presented my views in the standard scientific manner. Your demand for instant acceptance is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy in the final analysis. Even GR theory wasn't accepted instantly by the mainstream. By your logic, Einstein wasn't credible until the mainstream finally realized that he was credible, and that was more than a decade later.

It took four years for General Relativity to be experimentally confirmed, if you leave aside the fact that it had already accounted for the anomalous orbit of Mercury. Special Relativity may have been ignored at first, but it took only until the following year before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it, and from then on it was generally accepted.

So when are we going to see your name up in lights, eh Michael?

 

[Michael]

It seems actual cosmologists who actually publish in mainstream journals, didn't either.

And that's my fault somehow? Most of them haven't read Alfven's work, or Birkeland's work either. Is that my fault too?

Appeal to expertise isn't the same as appeal to authority.

What exactly makes them 'authorities' or 'experts' when they can't even name a single source of dark energy, and their 'standard candle' claims have been falsified by later date? If they're 'experts' on dark matter, why have dark matter models failed every single lab test done over past decade?

When all doctors tell me to take certain meds and then there's one guy who tells me otherwise and can't get any one in the medical field to agree with him.... Guess what I'll do.

You're comparing empirical tangible physics to hypothetical mumbo jumbo. Imagine your doctor telling you that the only thing that can help you is some invisible magical energy that is contained in these invisible pill that he wants you to take every day? Oh, and by the way the cost 1000 bucks each. Would you take them and take him at his word that they exist and hand over your cash?

No, I will not be listening to the one guy. I'll rather go with the consensus of all the others.

It's clearly your choice of course, but I'm not just "one guy". EU/PC theory is a growing community, and I'm simply one member of that growing community. It's not me against the scientific world as you seem to think.

And you know what? That consensus COULD be wrong and the one guy COULD be right. But until there is evidence to actually demonstrate and accept that, it would be irrational to go with the one guy....

So there goes Einstein, Darwin, and pretty much everyone that's changed the scientific world. You'd always be behind the curve, and always wrong, mainly because you're basing your opinions on an appeal to authority fallacy, not physics.

You don't get a free pass. You'll have to go through the harsh scrutiny of science, just like every other idea in science has to do.

That's fine by me. It seems to me that the harsh scrutiny of science has pretty much devastated Lambda-CDM over the past decade. The walls are starting to crumble. Empirical physics has always trumped metaphysical nonsense over the long haul and I'm a patient guy.

Surely you can understand that, especially for lay people, when there is a tiny minority saying X, while the consensus of the mainstream says "X is ridiculous", it would be irrational to go with X anyway, right? Right?

I do understand it to a point. What I don't understand however is why you're embracing empirical physics in the realm of modern medicine, and simply rejecting it with a handwave in favor of metaphysics with respect to astronomy. Your commitment isn't to empirical physics, it's to "group think". Unfortunately astronomy has a long history of being wrong, and *eventually* figuring it out, usually decades or centuries later. It took the mainstream over 60 years to figure out that Birkeland was right about aurora. At the rate they are going, it will take them another 100 years to figure out he was right about solar physics. The mainstream still can't explain things that Birkeland actually *predicted* via empirical lab tested physics.

 

[Michael]

It took four years for General Relativity to be experimentally confirmed, if you leave aside the fact that it had already accounted for the anomalous orbit of Mercury. Special Relativity may have been ignored at first, but it took only until the following year before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it, and from then on it was generally accepted.

So when are we going to see your name up in lights, eh Michael?

Actually special relativity was published in 1905 so his beliefs were ignored for more than a decade by the mainstream. Einstein did get some early help too as you note. That's not always how it works however. Chapman's theories were preferred over Birkeland's ideas with respect to energy transfers between the sun and the Earth until satellites in the early 1970's showed the mainstream that they were wrong. That was more than 6 decades later, and Birkeland never lived to see his name in lights with respect to mainstream acceptance of any part of his theories.

Since these ideas aren't technically "mine" to begin with, I don't really ever expect to see my name in lights.

 

[lesliedellow]

What exactly makes them 'authorities' or 'experts' when they can't even name a single source of dark energy

Energy doesn't have a "source". Like matter it is one of the fundamental constituents of the universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

Actually special relativity was published in 1905 so his beliefs were ignored for more than a decade by the mainstream.

At the risk of repeating myself, it took only until 1906 before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it.

 

[Michael]

I didn't demand "instant" acceptance.
Great that you are fighting to stand up for your ideas. I encourage everyone to do so.

But don't expect me to pay one iota of attention to your against-the-mainstream ideas until it becomes a mainstream idea...

I love how you appeal to authority/popularity with respect to metaphysical interpretations of the universe, yet reject that concept with respect to the topic of God. You're not even consistent in your application of that popularity fallacy.

Point being?

The point being that Aristarchus of Samos first suggested (and demonstrated) that the Earth revolved around the sun over 1500 years before Galileo was finally accepted by the mainstream. You're always going to be behind the technology curve with that attitude, maybe 1000 years behind the curve if you're waiting for popularity fallacies to die out.

Exactly.

Einstein only became a public icon when his peers realised he was spot on.

So would you have ridiculed and rejected his ideas too prior to acceptance by the mainstream. How about Aristarchus? Was he a putz too?

Why do we attach the name Newton to gravity for example instead of alchemy?
The guy wrote a heck of a lot more about alchemy then gravity.

Good question. Apparently he was wrong about both gravity and alchemy in the final analysis. The difference between them however is that Alchemy didn't actually work and do anything useful, whereas Newton's ideas got us to the moon and back.

So here's a question for you......

What is the rational thing to do for lay-people?
To go with the mainstream of science?
Or to pick an outsider whose ideas go against the mainstream?

The "rational" thing to do is to study the topic in earnest yourself and *then* make a choice, otherwise it's simply an act of faith, and you'd be arguing with Aristarchus for 1500 years that he was wrong about the sun being the center of the solar system. Then one day, 1500 years later, you'd finally have to admit to him that he was right, and you were wrong for 15 centuries.

And if the latter, for some incomprehensible reason, how should lay-people pick and choose which against-the-mainstream idea they should run with?

Empirical physics is always a good way to choose because empirical physics always trumps metaphysics over time. EU/PC theory, for all it's limitations, is based on pure empirical physics, whereas 95+ percent of Lambda-CDM is based upon metaphysics, in fact four different forms of metaphysics. That should be your first clue.

 

[Michael]

At the risk of repeating myself, it took only until 1906 before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it.

And how long did it take before the "consensus" drifted from Newton to Einstein?

 

[Michael]

Energy doesn't have a "source". Like matter it is one of the fundamental constituents of the universe.

If I claimed that EM fields cause plasma acceleration, I can demonstrate that claim in a lab, and tell you how to generate EM fields from stuff you'll find at Walmart to test that idea in the lab. How do I generate "dark energy" and how do I get it to accelerate even a single electron in a lab?