Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

Cool, but that just makes you wrong too.

Not unsupported claims so much as blatant errors. Even if he wasn't a crank his credibility as a science communicator would have been completely busted before he even got to discussing the paper on anisotropy. Anyone with a modest understanding of cosmology (for example someone who'd just taken a freshman survey course) would have stopped watching after a few of those major errors. (@sjastro detailed them for you, so I will not go over them for you again.

As a "scientist" he has no credibility to attack. He writes crank physics articles for a crank journal, which I wouldn't have known unless you linked them. So, thanks?

So the anomelies he points out in the dipoles is a blantant error. How can that be when this is supported by a number of scientists and tests as I linked. You don't seem to be able to seperate the facts and the messager.

The Earth is not in the middle and it is not a measurement problem. The Universe is expanding and expanding everywhere. Even with anisotropy in the density and expansion rate, more distant galaxies would *still* be more redshifted at larger distances in every direction and from every place in the Universe.

No it doesn't. Not about how the expansion works, and also not about how these new results and analyses work. (Well at least the ones from actual cosmologists.) If the Earth is in a local underdensity or there is a massive structure "nearby" altering expansion a small bit locally does not change the overall properties of expansion, but it might change some of the parameters derived somewhat. This is particularly a problem if the observations are only made in a limited set of directions (such as only in the part of the Northern sky not obscured by the Milky Way.). I would gladly discuss those things with you, but you have latched on to persons promoting fantasy physics and until you give up the guy with his own (laughable) alternative to standard particle physics there isn't any real hope of a reasoned conversation.

Even if that paper is correct and the dark energy effect is just a consequence of local anisotropy in the expansion the cosmological principle would still apply just at a larger scale (which we are already seeing evidence of just from the detection of large structures) and the "expanding away from every observer" thing would also still apply.

Well actually its the very large structures that are contradicting the cosmological principle. The distance at which the cosmological principle should be a good approximation to the real distribution of matter was calculated from the concordance model in a 2010 paper by Hunt and Sarkar. They found that the deviation from the uniform distribution fall below one part in a hundred from an averaging distance of about 200 to 300 Mpc on. (300 Megaparsec is around 1 billion light years).

The distance to the next closest galaxy andromeda is about 2 and a half million light years. But from that distance on the cosmological principle should be fullfilled to a good degree of accuracy and look pretty much the same if the concordance model is correct ie there should be no clumps more than about a billion light years.

But scientists keep finding these large clumps like the Clowes-Campusano- Quasar which is around 9.5 billion light years away and 2 billion light years in size. Or the hugh quasar group spanning a massive 4 billion light years and the 'Great Arc' that spans 3 billion light years across. Theorectically these structures should not exist. The Giant Arc has a probability of less than 1/100,100 to come about by chance and that doesn't factor in all the other big structures.

It looks like we live in a part of the universe that has significantly less density in what is called the Local Hole which means the local value of the Hubble rate needs to be corrected down. This may help as the measurement of the local Hubble rate has been in conflict with the value of the early universe and one of the biggest conflicts for many years.

But as Sabine said this is a pretty mild tension of around 3 sigma. The paper she refers to by Sarkar who did a consistency check on the cosmological principle measuring nearby quasars and the CMB dipoles and found a conflict of 4.9 sigma. Thats a 1 in a million chance of being a coincident. This along with the other anomelies caused Sabine to believe that we would see a paradigm shift in the standard model.

First, Sabine Hossenfelder is not the source for those ideas or results. Here she is just a science communicator. Her area is black holes and quantum gravity. Flemming, on the other hand, does claim to have his own models for these things and (if she knew about him) Sabine would rip him apart.

Yes she probably would. But though Sabine is not the source she is relaying what the source said based on the tests done. So its real science and not some individual idea.

So am I.

Sarkar (who is the last author on the paper) is, as far as I can tell, a particle physicist with only a passing contact with cosmology all related to this anisotropy analysis.

Sarkar was just one of several scientists in the paper though he has headed the theorectical physics group at Oxford for many years which includes astrophysics and cosmology. That is usually how it works that different scientsist have different expertise relating to the issue.

For example Jacques Colin is head of astrophysics at Niels Bohr Institute and Roya Mohayaee who works in theoretical cosmology and large-scale astrophysics, working, in particular, on the understanding of dark matter and large-scale anisotropies in the universe. So between them they cover the topic.

An adjustment related to changing the scale of cosmological principle (smooth mass distribution)? That's all I'm seeing now and while it does make the metric equations for the evolving Universe a bit messier, the consequences to the general facts don't seem that large.

One of the (150) citations to the paper from Colin et al. (Sarkar) that is this one that considers the kind of things I was thinking of as the next step -- actually extending the Lambda CDM model from the isotropic and uniform expansion of the FLRW spacetime to one with a simple asymmetry.

Testing spatial curvature and anisotropic expansion on top of the ΛCDM model

Not only does this expanded model (with the breaking of the isotropy condition) *not* eliminate the "Dark energy" in the form of a cosmological constant, but it doesn't even remove the so-called "Hubble tension".

Yes we will have to wait and see. But I suspect rather than solve the problems it will only get worse because its not just about the cosmological principle but a number of issues with the standard model, the omission of gravity being a major one that despite decades of investigation cannot be resolved as well as dark matter which makes up the majority of the universe.

6 major cracks have appeared in the standard model of cosmology. Is it wrong?

6 major cracks have appeared in the standard model of cosmology. Is it wrong?

The standard model of cosmology tells the story of the evolution of the Universe. But contradictions suggest the story isn't quite right.

bigthink.com

Is your expertise as great in the rest of cosmology as well?

No I am not a cosmologists and thats why I rely on those who are.

Don't get lost chasing anomalies.

Ok but we should alos not lose the anomelies as they may indicate that something major is wrong. If anything I think the many adjustments and add ons over the years to explain away the anomelies is what is causing scientists to get lost among the trees thus losing sight of the forest.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So the anomelies he points out in the dipoles is a blantant error. How can that be when this is supported by a number of scientists and tests as I linked. You don't seem to be able to seperate the facts and the messager.

Please reread my post, particularly the block you quoted above this paragraph.

Well actually its the very large structures that are contradicting the cosmological principle. The distance at which the cosmological principle should be a good approximation to the real distribution of matter was calculated from the concordance model in a 2010 paper by Hunt and Sarkar. They found that the deviation from the uniform distribution fall below one part in a hundred from an averaging distance of about 200 to 300 Mpc on. (300 Megaparsec is around 1 billion light years).

Again, I don't think you understood what I wrote.

The distance to the next closest galaxy andromeda is about 2 and a half million light years. But from that distance on the cosmological principle should be fullfilled to a good degree of accuracy and look pretty much the same if the concordance model is correct ie there should be no clumps more than about a billion light years.

Andromeda is a nearby *large* galaxy, but it is not the nearest. Many smaller galaxies are close. It is not a question that the cosmological principle doesn't apply for distances as close as 1 Mpc. Structure much (and I mean *much*) larger than that have been known since the 1980s, not to mention earlier knowledge of things like the Virgo cluster and the Local Group.

Andromeda is not relevant to the cosmological position.

But scientists keep finding these large clumps like the Clowes-Campusano- Quasar which is around 9.5 billion light years away and 2 billion light years in size. Or the hugh quasar group spanning a massive 4 billion light years and the 'Great Arc' that spans 3 billion light years across. Theorectically these structures should not exist. The Giant Arc has a probability of less than 1/100,100 to come about by chance and that doesn't factor in all the other big structures.

Yes we know there are large structures. That's what this part of the thread is (probably) about. (It can be difficult to tell what you are trying to argue sometimes.)

It looks like we live in a part of the universe that has significantly less density in what is called the Local Hole which means the local value of the Hubble rate needs to be corrected down. This may help as the measurement of the local Hubble rate has been in conflict with the value of the early universe and one of the biggest conflicts for many years.

As I recall, it does not resolve the Hubble tension.

But as Sabine said this is a pretty mild tension of around 3 sigma. The paper she refers to by Sarkar who did a consistency check on the cosmological principle measuring nearby quasars and the CMB dipoles and found a conflict of 4.9 sigma. Thats a 1 in a million chance of being a coincident. This along with the other anomelies caused Sabine to believe that we would see a paradigm shift in the standard model.

Yes she probably would. But though Sabine is not the source she is relaying what the source said based on the tests done. So its real science and not some individual idea.

There must be someone well versed in cosmology who has been interviewed on these anisotropy matters. Could you track down such an analysis? Lets keep Hossenfelder out of this if we can and go to actual experts.

Sarkar was just one of several scientists in the paper though he has headed the theorectical physics group at Oxford for many years which includes astrophysics and cosmology. That is usually how it works that different scientsist have different expertise relating to the issue.

I don't think he is just adding his name to a paper as a group leader. It seems like something he has invested some effort into.

For example Jacques Colin is head of astrophysics at Niels Bohr Institute and Roya Mohayaee who works in theoretical cosmology and large-scale astrophysics, working, in particular, on the understanding of dark matter and large-scale anisotropies in the universe. So between them they cover the topic.

I'm not dismissing their work or qualifications, but there are other works responding to this one from 5 years ago.
So I wrote about another paper that comes to a different conclusion as Colin et al., and you write:

Yes we will have to wait and see.

Which says nothing. It is not even an acknowledgement of that paper.

But I suspect rather than solve the problems it will only get worse because its not just about the cosmological principle but a number of issues with the standard model, the omission of gravity being a major one that despite decades of investigation cannot be resolved as well as dark matter which makes up the majority of the universe.

The omission of gravity?

6 major cracks have appeared in the standard model of cosmology. Is it wrong?

6 major cracks have appeared in the standard model of cosmology. Is it wrong?

The standard model of cosmology tells the story of the evolution of the Universe. But contradictions suggest the story isn't quite right.

bigthink.com

See post #392.

No I am not a cosmologists and thats why I rely on those who are.

Ohh, I know that. Perhaps I should have put "expertise" in quotes.

Ok but we should alos not lose the anomelies as they may indicate that something major is wrong. If anything I think the many adjustments and add ons over the years to explain away the anomelies is what is causing scientists to get lost among the trees thus losing sight of the forest.

I have no idea what this sentence is.

 

[sjastro]

A couple of points here.

The final nail in the coffin for Fleming's model is the CMB being opaque to light.
The cremation of the coffin is comparing the CMB and the Galactic foreground model at different scales using multipole analysis.

If the CMB and the Galactic foreground model are supposed to be one and the same thing the pattern of the temperature variations at the different scales should be exactly identical as the magnitude of the variations themselves.

The second point is the supposed problem with the cosmological principle with the reported tension between the kinematic dipole of the CMB and the matter dipole using quasars where the probability of it being statistical noise highly unlikely at 4.9σ.
The latest study however using Bayesian analysis of 1.3 million quasars from the quasar catalogue from the Gaia Space Observatory (Quaia) indicates no such tension exists.

We present a Bayesian analysis of the Quaia sample of 1.3 million quasars as a test of the cosmological principle. This principle postulates that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on sufficiently large scales, forming the basis of prevailing cosmological models. However, recent analyses of quasar samples have found a matter dipole inconsistent with the inferred kinematic dipole of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), representing a tension with the expectations of the cosmological principle. Here, we explore various hypotheses for the distribution of quasars in Quaia, finding that the sample is influenced by selection effects with significant contamination near the Galactic Plane. After excising these regions, we find significant evidence that the Quaia quasar dipole is consistent with the CMB dipole, both in terms of the expected amplitude and direction. This result is in conflict with recent analyses, lending support to the cosmological principle and the interpretation that the observed dipole is due to our local departure from the Hubble flow.​

The cosmic dipole in the Quaia sample of quasars: a Bayesian analysis

ABSTRACT. We present a Bayesian analysis of the Quaia sample of 1.3 million quasars as a test of the cosmological principle. This principle postulates that the

academic.oup.com

Will Sabine provide an updated video or maintain the sensationalism?

 

[SelfSim]

.. Here, we explore various hypotheses for the distribution of quasars in Quaia, finding that the sample is influenced by selection effects with significant contamination near the Galactic Plane.

Hmm .. more or less consistent with what @Hans Blaster mentioned in his post #377:

The biggest problem is that the local galaxy is in the way of the distant galaxies.

Interesting .. and thanks!

 

[Mountainmike]

Okay, please do so. Please give me a list of all the physicists who claimed that time was around before time existed. Please make sure you quote them making this claim, and provide a link to where they made such a quote.

A list which you have not provided (and which I doubt you will ever provide.)

I'm not talking about gravity or matter, I'm talking about time.

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about time.

I'm not talking about gravity or matter, I'm talking about time.

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about time.

I'm not talking about the speed of light, I'm talking about time.

As always you sure researched the hell out of that!
eg String theory predicts time before the big bang, and there are many involved in string theory!

eg many multiverse advocates think universes spawn others, so why should ours be first?
.
eg Penrose nobel laureate has written a lot on time before big bang - you will find many others if you look. But you didnt.

The fairest comment is that of Sean Carroll with a big dont know,
But even he says the entropy is so low in origin , it begs the question of a “ before”

One day you might actually study science before comment on it. I wont hold my breath

Just a point of very basic science. Time is only one element of a model .You cannot discuss it in isolation.

 

[Mountainmike]

Ihowever, lest you get the idea that there are any credible claims for Eucharistic Miracles, let me set the record straight, there are none.

A pause on my travels caused me to look at this forum again. Alas in one post the above proves how pointless it is, to look on a science forum where the posters just want to promote their atheist beliefs devoid of a shred of scientific integrity,.


Let us summarise his stated support of this stated conclusion from his past posts.

He is by his own admission the worst read person on this forum - does he own a single book yet? So not a good start...

His only contact with the subject was online theft of a good summary book serafini *yes really- go back and check his posts!!!
(I reported it by the way, not the poster, the online source defrauding the copyright holder sophia institute)
As someone who has had work plagiarised , I take a dim view of people refusing to pay. For one thing - what you get for free you do not value.

Back to the book. I suggest all read Serafini OBJECTIVELY, then go back to the individual cases. Books out there on all of them
Some spanish, polish , italian etc...but that is the nature of the geography.

But sadly instead of read it ALL to become informed on it, he cherry picked just one section of it - the dismissing of a report which nobody either pro or against uses as evidence anyway!!! So a meaningless conclusion on a meaningless report. That concerned the old Lanciano. It had nothing to say on the modern pathology of events in recent times, on which it has nothing to say.

The only other comments made were to attempt to attack one of the pathologists involved. (A well qualified professor of legal and forensic medicine actively involved in criminology, which is a job you do not get without a lot of qualifications and experience, positive vetting for criminal work, and also getting it right..)
But an attack on a person as we all know is a classic straw man anyway. It does not matter who said it, or even what they believe, it is the evidence that wins , not the attempt to smear the one producing it!.

Of the evidence itself he has yet to comment. Not once has he to my knowledge based on his posting gone back to any of the source books. If that is not true, let us see you dismiss it all piece by piece...

So in the one corner we have Partinobodycular

Who has never seen any of the samples.
Is not medically qualified to understand them.
Has not even done an extensive trawl of the mass of evidence out there.
So in consequence he has no valid scientific opinion on them, only a "belief" documented in his post.

In the other corner we have
ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO ACTUALLY STUDIED THE EVIDENCE FIRST HAND!
Many highly qualified , pathologists, forensic scientists, chemists, histo pathologgists, cardiologists dna labs and so on.
There are at least five INDEPENDENT teams on multiple continents.

They say the evidence is clear of actual human cardiac or cardiac type tissue, with signs of recent life, and factors which are scientifically inexplicabe and discount fraud. In each case the human tissue appeared in breadcircumstance was a eucharistic consecration.
So they state there is plenty of evidence.

As a scientists my vote in with the many scientists, not the unqualified illiformed person who has never seen a shred of the evidence in the "flesh" to use a metaphor!

Not partino doing what this forum usuually does - he is letting his beliefs interfere with his judgement.

A very basic point of logic for you partino. If you want to dismiss it, or reach the conlusion you have you have to study it ALL and dismiss it ALL piece by piece.
One smear of one person , is a straw man and a smear of a report nobody is putting in evidence is meaningless... but it is the usual sceptic trope!

I wish just some of you on these phenomena would study the evidence> THEN comment. Good order!
There is a fascinating world out there, for those not trapped by tramlined thinking.

 

[partinobodycular]

He is by his own admission the worst read person on this forum -

And proudly so. I'm an unread, uneducated idiot. But then again, the world doesn't need another you. Or another @sjastro, or another @Hans Blaster, or another anybody else. Somebody has to be the dumbest person in the room, and I'm perfectly content with it being me. I'm never gonna convince anybody with my less than extensive book learning, or my ninth grade education, and I'm only gonna look foolish if I try.

But I can read, and I can think, and I can try to put the two together into something that makes sense, and if you can do that better than me, then more power to you. If not then I don't think it really matters how many books I've read. But go ahead and keep beating that horse, and I'll keep pointing out why the evidence for EM's isn't really all that convincing.

Meanwhile, I'll do me, you do you, and the world will keep turning just like it always has.

His only contact with the subject was online theft of a good summary book serafini *yes really- go back and check his posts!!!

Don't blame me. You told me to read the book. I went online and found it, just sitting there for anybody in the world to read... so I did. Now if you'd like to discuss internet ethics I'd be happy to oblige, but this obviously isn't the thread for it. But it does kinda negate your argument about me not reading anything.

But sadly instead of read it ALL to become informed on it, he cherry picked just one section of it - the dismissing of a report which nobody either pro or against uses as evidence anyway!!! So a meaningless conclusion on a meaningless report. That concerned the old Lanciano. It had nothing to say on the modern pathology of events in recent times, on which it has nothing to say.

The only other comments made were to attempt to attack one of the pathologists involved. (A well qualified professor of legal and forensic medicine actively involved in criminology, which is a job you do not get without a lot of qualifications and experience, positive vetting for criminal work, and also getting it right..)
But an attack on a person as we all know is a classic straw man anyway. It does not matter who said it, or even what they believe, it is the evidence that wins , not the attempt to smear the one producing it!.

Of the evidence itself he has yet to comment. Not once has he to my knowledge based on his posting gone back to any of the source books. If that is not true, let us see you dismiss it all piece by piece...

So in the one corner we have Partinobodycular

Who has never seen any of the samples.
Is not medically qualified to understand them.
Has not even done an extensive trawl of the mass of evidence out there.
So in consequence he has no valid scientific opinion on them, only a "belief" documented in his post.

Fair enough, you can complain about my poor research and weak arguments, but you have to keep in mind that you're debate style is equally frustrating. From denigrating the reputations of those experts with differing opinions, to extolling the reputations of those who agree with you, to constantly jumping from one case to another rather than examining them on a case by case basis.

For example, if you'd like to discuss Buenos Aires, then discuss Buenos Aires without going off an a tangent to the incompetency of the Shroud dating. That's the problem, as with NDE's, when broken down case by case the evidence isn't as strong as you think it is. And combining a lot of weak cases doesn't make for one strong case.

Until you do that, I'll stand by my claim:

lest you get the idea that there are any credible claims for Eucharistic Miracles, let me set the record straight, there are none.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I clicked on the "mention" first since several of the other threads I'm following have been blowing up this afternoon and...

And proudly so. I'm an unread, uneducated idiot. But then again, the world doesn't need another you. Or another @sjastro, or anther @Hans Blaster, or another anybody else. Somebody has to be the dumbest person in the room, and I'm perfectly content with it being me. I'm never gonna convince anybody with my less than extensive book learning, or my ninth grade education, and I'm only gonna look foolish if I try.

am I being insulted by an englishman? Looking back it would seem so. All because he doesn't know that his favorite little thingy, which is most likely fraud, doesn't tell a single thing about the origin of life. Not one. And he thinks we can't note that without reading some obscure book with a 1000 copy print run. Sure. :eyeroll: I guess I'll have to do another post on cosmology.

 

[Mountainmike]

And proudly so. I'm an unread, uneducated idiot. But then again, the world doesn't need another you. Or another @sjastro, or anther @Hans Blaster, or another anybody else. Somebody has to be the dumbest person in the room, and I'm perfectly content with it being me. I'm never gonna convince anybody with my less than extensive book learning, or my ninth grade education, and I'm only gonna look foolish if I try.

But I can read, and I can think, and I can try put the two together into something that makes sense, and if you can do that better than me, then more power to you. If not then I don't think it really matters how many books I've read. But go ahead and keep beating that horse, and I'll keep pointing out why the evidence for EM's isn't really all that convincing.

Meanwhile, I'll do me, you do you, and the world will keep turning just like it always has.



Don't blame me. You told me to read the book. I went online and found it, just sitting there for anybody in the world to read... so I did. Now if you'd like to discuss internet ethics I'd be happy to oblige, but this obviously isn't the thread for it. But it does kinda negate your argument about me not reading anything.



Fair enough, you can complain about my poor research and weak arguments, but you have to keep in mind that you're debate style is equally frustrating. From denigrating the reputations of those experts with differing opinions, to extolling the reputations of those who agree with you, to constantly jumping from one case to another rather than examining them on a case by case basis.

For example, if you'd like to discuss Buenos Aires, then discuss Buenos Aires without going off an a tangent to the incompetency of the Shroud dating. That's the problem, as with NDE's, when broken down case by case the evidence isn't as strong as you think it is. And combining a lot of weak cases doesn't make for one strong case.

Until you do that, I'll stand by my claim:

So as a person who has never studied the evidence in depth, and certainly not first hand , who is neither medically or scientifically qualified to assess any of it, you are happy to claim that a big group of scientists who HAVE done both all got it wrong in their core areas of expertise!!
On multiple occasions and samples.



That is the problem with ALL your arguments: you seem to think it is me , or other forum goers you are arguing with. It isn’t .. it’s all those well qualified scientists and medics who actually studied them and THEY clearly disagree with YOU!
I am just the messenger, telling you to read their message.


So I call that supreme Arrogance On your part!
As a scientist if i come to a different collusion to my peers, am obliged to do a lot of study before I assume that they , not I , got it wrong. I have to find the specific errors in reasoning, which with such alarge group is highly unlikely.

So . Your blanket statement that “there are no credible claims” is just personal belief based in faith not science , and that is why it does not belong on a science forum in a discussion of evidence.

@Hans Blaster - I think it’s @partinobodycular insulting you not me! He seems to take issue with better qualified people than he Is.

 

[partinobodycular]

So as a person who has never studied the evidence in depth, and certainly not first hand , who is neither medically or scientifically qualified to assess any of it,

So are you asserting that unlike me you have studied the evidence first hand? Or that you're medically and scientifically qualified to assess it? If so, please cite said qualifications.

If all that you're basing your opinion on is your personal in depth study, then please cite a specific example, but it seems a bit disingenuous in a debate to ask your opponent to go find said evidence for themselves. Especially since my opponent already has such an in depth familiarity with the subject. Or am I expected to supply both sides of this debate?

It isn’t .. it’s all those well qualified scientists and medics who actually studied them and THEY clearly disagree with YOU!

Awesome. Great place to start. Now all that you need to do is to pick a specific case... say Buenos Aires for example, but any will do, and then we can begin by doing an 'in depth' study of your 'experts'. That's the prudent place to start, because the reliability of the evidence begins with the credibility of the source. And yours are supposedly impeccable.

But as I recall from one of our previous exchanges the credibility of your 'experts' wasn't all that impressive. And simply describing them as a 'large group' doesn't seem to alleviate my skepticism, as if the findings of a 'large group' somehow becomes unassailable. Perhaps we could even begin with your ace in the hole... Dr. Zugibe.

But as I say, pick anything and I'll run with it.

He seems to take issue with better qualified people than he Is.

Such as Dr. Zugibe:

PROF. DR. FRED ZUGIBE BURIED IN OURÉM CASTLE NEAR FATIMA PORTUGAL

Dr. Zugibe was also Knighted into the Dynastic Order of Our Lady of the Conception​

of Vila Vicosa by His Royal Highness, Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganca and Head of​

the Royal House of Portugal in recognition of great acts and services to the Royal​

House and the Church.​

A devoted Catholic, Zugibe was a Eucharistic Minister, a Franciscan Tertiary Prefect,​

Member of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima and a pro-life defender. He publicly​

supported the anti-abortion campaign during the Portuguese National Referendums and​

also defended the authenticity of the Fatima Message, having decided out of Love for​

Fatima and devotion to Saint Nuno, to be buried near the Holy House and Saint Nuno​

Museum in Ourém Castle, near Fatima, known as the Castle of the Queen of the World.​

If impartiality was of any importance to the legitimacy of the Eucharistic claims then one might want to go with someone who isn't quite so blatantly biased. On the other hand if you've already been to two other experts and gotten unfavorable results, you might decide to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone's life is dedicated to authenticating claims of the miraculous.

But it's up to you. You've got the irrefutable evidence, so let's see it.

 

[Mountainmike]

So are you asserting that unlike me you have studied the evidence first hand? Or that you're medically and scientifically qualified to assess it? If so, please cite said qualifications.

you do love your false hoods.
Have you ever actually studied logic? Clearly not.

I don’t need medical qualifications to trust a consensus of well qualified scientists, medical doctors, pathologists et. in multiple instances, who did study the evidence! They deserve benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.


It is you and anyone else who wants to contradict Them that needs a basis : in your case neither studying the phenomena in general, the evidence first hand or having any kind of scientific education let alone specific professional skills to comment.
You have no “opinion“ worthy of calling it that.. Only a belief.

But I notice your usual straw men. Attack the people , since you have no basis to challenge the evidence.
It’s the sceptic atheist thing. Attack the man. it’s also a logical falacy.

You are the ones with confirmation bias. Your faith will only let you accept one verdict.

The Christian’s amongst the scientists ( and that is a minority in most cases ) can accept either. They let the evidence do the speaking. I am just as happy to see the bleeding statue of civatecchia outed as fraud, as I am that the bleeding statue of Cochabamba stood medical scrutiny. Because I am a scientist. I let evidencr speak.
i draw a big line between what I know from evidence and what I believe otherwise.

One day you might try it - actualky study anll the evidence, read up on subjects involved and take a scientific view INSTEAD of your usual present confirmation bias.

I can’t be bothered speaking to someone who knows little and refuses to study.

 

[stevevw]

Please reread my post, particularly the block you quoted above this paragraph.

Again, I don't think you understood what I wrote.

Yep my bad I just assumed it was another attempt to side step some of the facts he mentioned. But yes he is not the best choice to support arguements given his lack of credible support. That is why I turned to Sabine and the authors that are saying similar things.

Andromeda is a nearby *large* galaxy, but it is not the nearest. Many smaller galaxies are close. It is not a question that the cosmological principle doesn't apply for distances as close as 1 Mpc. Structure much (and I mean *much*) larger than that have been known since the 1980s, not to mention earlier knowledge of things like the Virgo cluster and the Local Group.

But the thing is they keep finding more and more and bigger and bigger galaxies and further away. The Clowes-Campusano- Quasar group and the 'Great Arc' are around 9.5 billion light years away and span 2 billion and 3.3 billion light years across. If the cosmological principle is correct these should not exist. Perhaps JWST will find more.

The one Sabine mentions by Sarkar was doing a consistency check on the cosmological principle and tested 1,000s of quasars and they found a conflict at a 1 million to one odds of just being coincident. Just these seem a pretty big anomelies.

I mean if these anomelies in finding old stars, galaxies too big and bright and too early, black holes forming way to early along with the anomelies in the cosmological principle and the CMB keep going then its certainly not heading in the right direction in support of the standard model.

'Giant arc' stretching 3.3 billion light-years across the cosmos shouldn't exist

How big is too big?

www.livescience.com

Yes we know there are large structures. That's what this part of the thread is (probably) about. (It can be difficult to tell what you are trying to argue sometimes.)

Sorry I am not a cosmologists.

As I recall, it does not resolve the Hubble tension.

Sabine links a paper discussing the solutions but I think she was saying that because of the anomelies the evidence is mounting against the cosmological principle.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

There must be someone well versed in cosmology who has been interviewed on these anisotropy matters. Could you track down such an analysis? Lets keep Hossenfelder out of this if we can and go to actual experts.

Well the papers I linked especially the last one discusses the conflicts but then goes through different proposals so of testing the waters including modified gravity as to how they can reduce or increase the tension. But don't ask me to understand the formulas as I am not a cosmologist and my head would explode lol. The final paragraph seems to sum up things well I think.

The overwhelming effort in the field to find a new cosmological concordance scenario that could accommodate current tensions between complementary datasets that probe vastly different scales and times, strongly suggests that we are now facing a critical phase. While upcoming astronomical observations will shed light on this issue, a synergy of both new theoretical scenarios and improved experimental measurements will be mandatory to solve the Hubble constant puzzle.

I don't think he is just adding his name to a paper as a group leader. It seems like something he has invested some effort into.

Yes I guess its his field of interest. Often A scientist may do their degree on one area of physics and then become more of an expert in a specialised area of interest by doing further studies and reseach.

I'm not dismissing their work or qualifications, but there are other works responding to this one from 5 years ago.

It seems that there is a back and forth of new discovers and their conflict with the standard theory and then rebuttals but nothing really gets resolved. My question would be why are scientists coming out with these conflicts in the measurement if the responses were good enough to dispel the conflicts. It seems they are not because the conflict remains enough for them to keep bringing it up.

So I wrote about another paper that comes to a different conclusion as Colin et al., and you write:

Which says nothing. It is not even an acknowledgement of that paper.

Yeah sorry I could only read the abstract because it was pay walled. Based on that I didn't think it was a big thing as several added ideas and adjustments to the measure have been proposed but none really solve the overall issue and often bring up other issues.

Now that I have found the paper I sort of understand the proposal to relax the spatially flat RW assumption to what they call "a more realistic one" than the spatially flat and maximally symmetric spacetime which may help reduce the conflict and tension. Though I havn't checked whether this is right.

This seems a little similar to the ideas with the article I linked above and it has a number of other adjustments as mentioned which seems to be the way many are going to solve the problems. My only concern is this sort of thing has been going on for decades and though it sometimes solves the problem for a while they end up complicating things later when new discoveries come along.

A lot of its theorectical and that is why I think evidence from actual observations like the JWST are so important as they actually put to the test those adjustments and their predictions in the real world.

The omission of gravity?

Although the Standard Model describes the three fundamental forces important at the subatomic scale, it doesn't include gravity.

https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/big-ideas-physics/standard-model#gref

See post #392.

I'm not necessarily saying that existing models have to go. Often its a gradual process where parts of models are kept and adjustments are made or added. But occassionally there are major paradigm shifts as we understand better through new discoveries.

I would have imagined before the discovery of QM when the whole was based on the Newtonian physics the (billiard ball schema) scientists were shocked at the QM findings. Eistein was. It was counter to Newtonian thinking and in many ways conflicting and still is. So a paradigm shift was needed to accommodate this new information.

We having had that level of change for decades. We are now down to the Higgs and I think thats as far as we can go and yet theres something still missing to unite physics. It seems the current thinking has been exhausted to the point that the answer is not there in this paradigm but beyond.

Like with consciousness, we can do all the measurements we want and know every last brain activity that describes conscious experience. But that it not telling us about conscious experience itself, how a qualitative experience can come from a quantitative process. How our consciousness reveals a deeper level of connection with the physical world that is not explained by the physical world.

I have no idea what this sentence is.

You said don't get lost in the anomalies and I was saying don't dismiss them either.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don’t need medical qualifications to trust a consensus of well qualified scientists, medical doctors, pathologists et. in multiple instances,

Wait a minute, two of the three experts that Dr. Castanon consulted on the Buenos Aires host actually disagreed with Dr. Zugibe's findings. That hardly sounds like a consensus.

But there you go again relying on some 'large group' of 'experts' to validate collectively what are in fact weak cases individually.

But I notice your usual straw men. Attack the people , since you have no basis to challenge the evidence.

Is it, or is it not a fact that the first two experts consulted by Dr. Castanon came nowhere near drawing the conclusions that Dr. Zugibe drew?

If you want me to stick to the evidence then I'll stick to the evidence, and in deference to your objections Dr. Zugibe's history as a staunch supporter of miraculous claims is a valid point, as his findings are based upon his interpretation of the morphology of the samples, and is therefore largely subjective. Findings that the two previous experts disagreed with.

You may not like what the evidence suggests, but the evidence suggests that Dr. Zugibe's findings in the Buenos Aires case are definitely questionable, and not nearly as irrefutable as you claim they are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yep my bad I just assumed it was another attempt to side step some of the facts he mentioned. But yes he is not the best choice to support arguements given his lack of credible support. That is why I turned to Sabine and the authors that are saying similar things.

OK, no problem.

But the thing is they keep finding more and more and bigger and bigger galaxies and further away. The Clowes-Campusano- Quasar group and the 'Great Arc' are around 9.5 billion light years away and span 2 billion and 3.3 billion light years across. If the cosmological principle is correct these should not exist. Perhaps JWST will find more.

The cosmological principle is really about at what scale smooth matter distributions can be applied in deriving useful equations for the evolution of the Universe. Here is a proper defintion:

cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is uniformly isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale

Shifting the scale at which the cosmological principle operates doesn't change it's "correctness". We always knew there were smaller scales where it doesn't apply.

The one Sabine mentions by Sarkar was doing a consistency check on the cosmological principle and tested 1,000s of quasars and they found a conflict at a 1 million to one odds of just being coincident. Just these seem a pretty big anomelies.

I mean if these anomelies in finding old stars, galaxies too big and bright and too early, black holes forming way to early along with the anomelies in the cosmological principle and the CMB keep going then its certainly not heading in the right direction in support of the standard model.

'Giant arc' stretching 3.3 billion light-years across the cosmos shouldn't exist

How big is too big?

www.livescience.com

I'm not sure what the "old stars" issue is, but the rest is clearly about the galaxy formation and related BH growth models. I'm not seeing any serious issues at this point.

Sorry I am not a cosmologists.

Sabine links a paper discussing the solutions but I think she was saying that because of the anomelies the evidence is mounting against the cosmological principle.

I'm beginning to wonder if she properly understands what it is. It's a very standard thing in physics to set scales at which certain approximations are applied. In this case the approximation of smooth density distributions and the impact on localized variations in the expansion.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Well the papers I linked especially the last one discusses the conflicts but then goes through different proposals so of testing the waters including modified gravity as to how they can reduce or increase the tension. But don't ask me to understand the formulas as I am not a cosmologist and my head would explode lol. The final paragraph seems to sum up things well I think.

The overwhelming effort in the field to find a new cosmological concordance scenario that could accommodate current tensions between complementary datasets that probe vastly different scales and times, strongly suggests that we are now facing a critical phase. While upcoming astronomical observations will shed light on this issue, a synergy of both new theoretical scenarios and improved experimental measurements will be mandatory to solve the Hubble constant puzzle.

This is an interesting looking review. Thank you for pointing it to me. I'll read it later, but I thought you'd like a response this month, so I replied first.

Yes I guess its his field of interest. Often A scientist may do their degree on one area of physics and then become more of an expert in a specialised area of interest by doing further studies and reseach.

No, I get it. quite familiar.

It seems that there is a back and forth of new discovers and their conflict with the standard theory and then rebuttals but nothing really gets resolved. My question would be why are scientists coming out with these conflicts in the measurement if the responses were good enough to dispel the conflicts. It seems they are not because the conflict remains enough for them to keep bringing it up.

It's a little more than rebuttals, there are also attempts to tweak or modify those models and ideas, and with each "round" more "extravagant" extensions tend to gain traction. This is how it goes. Science is messy and cutting-edge science is always dealing with the barely detectable or margianlly explainable. Today in cosmology that includes things like the newest super-large structures.

Yeah sorry I could only read the abstract because it was pay walled. Based on that I didn't think it was a big thing as several added ideas and adjustments to the measure have been proposed but none really solve the overall issue and often bring up other issues.

Now that I have found the paper I sort of understand the proposal to relax the spatially flat RW assumption to what they call "a more realistic one" than the spatially flat and maximally symmetric spacetime which may help reduce the conflict and tension. Though I havn't checked whether this is right.

This process of starting to use non-uniform cosmologies is fairly new, so it's going to take a while to work into the standard way cosmologists deal with the early universe and observations of it. Don't worry if you haven't worked out the complications for yourself yet.

This seems a little similar to the ideas with the article I linked above and it has a number of other adjustments as mentioned which seems to be the way many are going to solve the problems. My only concern is this sort of thing has been going on for decades and though it sometimes solves the problem for a while they end up complicating things later when new discoveries come along.

The anisotropic models are fairly new. Only recently has there been anything like strong evidence that anisotropy is needed (from the CMB dipole, to the newly discovered large structures, to potentially the Hubble tension).

A lot of its theorectical and that is why I think evidence from actual observations like the JWST are so important as they actually put to the test those adjustments and their predictions in the real world.

Right now the JWST observations we've been discussing are about the evolution of structure, galaxies, and black holes. It certainly challenges those theories, but less so the isotropy of the Universe. That requires broad surveys in many directions as are being or will be covered shortly by Euclid, DES, LSST, etc.

Although the Standard Model describes the three fundamental forces important at the subatomic scale, it doesn't include gravity.

https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/big-ideas-physics/standard-model#gref

I'm not necessarily saying that existing models have to go. Often its a gradual process where parts of models are kept and adjustments are made or added. But occassionally there are major paradigm shifts as we understand better through new discoveries.

I'm aware of the Kuhnian model, but moving out the length where the cosmological principle applies doesn't really feel like a "paradigm shift". It certainly complicates the expressions used in cosmology by putting in more terms in the multipole expansion of the evolution equations.

I would have imagined before the discovery of QM when the whole was based on the Newtonian physics the (billiard ball schema) scientists were shocked at the QM findings. Eistein was. It was counter to Newtonian thinking and in many ways conflicting and still is. So a paradigm shift was needed to accommodate this new information.

We having had that level of change for decades. We are now down to the Higgs and I think thats as far as we can go and yet theres something still missing to unite physics. It seems the current thinking has been exhausted to the point that the answer is not there in this paradigm but beyond.

QM and the standard model aren't relevant to these issues in cosmology.

Like with consciousness, we can do all the measurements we want and know every last brain activity that describes conscious experience. But that it not telling us about conscious experience itself, how a qualitative experience can come from a quantitative process. How our consciousness reveals a deeper level of connection with the physical world that is not explained by the physical world.

Consciousness also isn't relevant to these cosmology issues.

You said don't get lost in the anomalies and I was saying don't dismiss them either.

OK, got it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Wait a minute, two of the three experts that Dr. Castanon consulted on the Buenos Aires host actually disagreed with Dr. Zugibe's findings. That hardly sounds like a consensus.

But there you go again relying on some 'large group' of 'experts' to validate collectively what are in fact weak cases individually.



Is it, or is it not a fact that the first two experts consulted by Dr. Castanon came nowhere near drawing the conclusions that Dr. Zugibe drew?

If you want me to stick to the evidence then I'll stick to the evidence, and in deference to your objections Dr. Zugibe's history as a staunch supporter of miraculous claims is a valid point, as his findings are based upon his interpretation of the morphology of the samples, and is therefore largely subjective. Findings that the two previous experts disagreed with.

You may not like what the evidence suggests, but the evidence suggests that Dr. Zugibe's findings in the Buenos Aires case are definitely questionable, and not nearly as irrefutable as you claim they are.

Well I suppose it is progresss that finally you are engaging with evidence , which is why I reply instead of the usual straw man attacks against those whose opinions violate your beliefs.

So pointing out your first straw man -at one level it doesn’t matter whether the samples were cardiac or not, they are all still bread became human flesh. None are disputing that. That is the essence of a Eucharistic miracle.
Cardiac is the fascinating detail.

But even on that you are wilfully misleading Our readers:
The first investigator they sent it to was not a cardiac specialist, who thought it epithelial, as did a second . But you conveniently fail to tell our readers how the story ended - that he in the end concluded it was Cardiac.!!!

The CARDIAC SPECIALISTS thought it was cardiac -As they did elsewhere - notice there are multiple cardiac specialists In the different groups.

so Why The dispute?

The reason the histological presentation Was unusual and twisted out of shape was - as zugibe stated - the cells were traumatized, as happens after a beating! Thats why there were leucocytes too. One of many extraordinary facts They were living In vivo which also should not happen. But it did.

And the slides are out there to see. Intercalated disks, nuclear pyknosis etc. the defining characteristics.
It takes true specialists such as zugibe was to know the unusual presentation.

So Mystery solved to the satisfaction of the first investigator who CHANGED HIS MIND after specialist examination - that is how science works. Why don’t you mention that He changed his mind?

So I use the word consensus correctly.
Across all the samples the overwhelming consensus is cardiac. And for so called eucharistic miracle - it is sufficient bread became human flesh.

Another error on your part: It wasnt even castarnon who was the lead in sending out the samples -
I have several books by the man who did.
I also have several books by castarnon Too.
When you have read ALL of it, and checked the science , then You too can have an opinion.

Even on that I am ahead of you. My other half is a molecular biologist at director level who specialised in immunology, and knows plenty about human tissue structure, and those leucocytes. - my source for specialised explanation.

 

[partinobodycular]

The first investigator they sent it to was not a cardiac specialist, who thought it epithelial, as did a second . But you conveniently fail to tell our readers how the story ended - that he in the end concluded it was Cardiac.!!!

If it wouldn't be too much trouble I'm gonna need you to document these claims, just to make sure that we're clear on exactly what was and wasn't claimed by the people involved. Accuracy is important after all.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why don’t you mention that He changed his mind?

Because I don't know specifically what he said. I know what he's claimed to have said. But again accuracy is important.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well I suppose it is progresss that finally you are engaging with evidence , which is why I reply instead of the usual straw man attacks against those whose opinions violate your beliefs.

Just so that we can begin with a mutually agreed upon timeline, the following is the series of events as best that I can piece them together, mostly from Dr. Castanon's own statements.

If you have a problem with this timeline please let me know, and I'll gladly edit it where necessary.

1. August 15, 1996 A consecrated host was found in a church in Buenos Aires. It was subsequently placed in a container of water, and placed in a tabernacle.
2. August 26, 1996 The tabernacle was reopened to remove the Host from the container, and it was found that the Host had not dissolved and had some reddish stains.
3. October 6, 1999 Dr. Castanon went to Buenos Aires and interviewed the five priests who witnessed the event.
4. October 21, 1999 Dr. Castanon took samples of the host to the Forensic Analytical genetics laboratory in San Francisco.
5. January 28, 2000 The genetics lab reported... in your words... epithelial material.
6. Subsequent to March 2000 Dr. Robert Lawrence was consulted and confirmed the presence of epithelial material.
7. 2001 Professor Linoli was consulted and identified the sample as containing white blood cells and probably heart tissue.
8. 2002 The sample was sent to Professor John Walker at the University of Sydney who concluded that they contained muscle cells and white blood cells.
9. September 2003 Dr. Lawrence was again consulted and confirmed that in the light of the new investigations one could conclude that the sample could correspond to the tissue of an inflamed heart.
10. March 2, 2004 Dr. Zugibe was consulted, and the pathology of a live victim of cardiac trauma was established.
11. March 26, 2005 The final report was sent out.

If this timeline is sufficient for you, then I'll begin my analysis of Dr. Castanon's report.

If you would like to offer any documentation or clarifications please feel free to do so, otherwise we'll just have to deal with any objections as we go.

 

[Kylie]

But we know time is not physical, we can't put it in a test tube so its a created mental concept and not real.

Can you put a foot into a tgest tube? By the same argument, distance isn't real either.

Silly me yes the earth is round and due to its axis all lines on earth converge at the north pole and stop though there is a point higher than the north pole called . But then there is such a thing as the North Galactic Pole which is in the constellation Coma Berenices.

And your point? Do you have some source that says that the location of the north galactic pole is found by going north from Earth';s north pole?

that makes about as much sense as the Earth's north pole is found by going north from the north pole of the globe I have in my study.

But like time the idea of north is arbitray and due to our particular location, axis and rotation. If we were on another planet it would be completely different, in a different direction. In fact the poles will occassionally flip every 10,000 yers or so.

Ask Ethan: Are "North" and "South" totally arbitrary on Earth?

Is there any good reason for assigning North and South the way we do, or could we have just as easily done the reverse?

bigthink.com

But there is a very clear definition of north, that can be done by anyone. It's not arbitrary.

Of course there is. For example the idea that our universe is but one of many rebirthed universes or that our universe in one of many in a multiverse. So before our universe began there were other universes which had beginnings before our universe and had time according to our understanding of time. So the idea of time existed before our time.

Before time there was something happening such as the singularity and inflation and we can hypothesize about what that may be as a real entity regardless of the concept of time.

Please give me a source from a legitimate scientist where they claim that time existed before the Big Bang.

 

[Kylie]

As always you sure researched the hell out of that!
eg String theory predicts time before the big bang, and there are many involved in string theory!

Source please.

eg many multiverse advocates think universes spawn others, so why should ours be first?

And who says those universes have the same dimension that we would call "time"?

.
eg Penrose nobel laureate has written a lot on time before big bang - you will find many others if you look. But you didnt.

Source please.

The fairest comment is that of Sean Carroll with a big dont know,
But even he says the entropy is so low in origin , it begs the question of a “ before”

That doesn't follow.

The number of cells in my body increased after I was conceived. By this logic, it implies I was somewhere before I was conceived. I was not.

One day you might actually study science before comment on it. I wont hold my breath

I could say the same of you.