The Age of the Universe

[[serious]]

I've produced *many* such papers RC. It's a real pity that you never read them, just like you *refuse* read a textbook on MHD theory.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000A&A...353.1134R&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML
http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/59/6/002
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...Y&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c28155
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401529
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...1987Natur.326..363W&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML

I'll assume you are leading with your strongest source and address that one rather than trying to keep up with a Gish Gallop

Now that first paper never even attempts to supplant redshift generally, but rather addresses discordant galaxies, or those that appear to be interacting but have different redshifts. Furthermore, it appears that he is talking about a frequency dependant redshift from his discussion of the frequency widening. This paper is a narrowly focused on a very specific topic. It is not a general explanation of redshift at all.

Now, while i don't have any issue with the paper at first glance, I probably should note that we would also need some sort of statistical analysis to rule out simple line of sight coincidences.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...non-reply yet again!...

Read what you wrote "You won't point out a single flaw in his work either."
I made that statement into a lie by citing a post that you might have read months ago and another flaw
3 March 2015 Michael: A flaw in the Lerner et al paper is that it does not use multiple bands as a self-check on their analysis.
18 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is flawed because it ignores changes in surface brightness as galaxies evolve.
Can you count to 2 as in 2 flaws, Michael !

With hints that the paper would be considered flawed by astronomers:
15 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is "flawed" enough so that astronomers have not cited it since it was published a year ago.
18 June 2015 Michael: A nitpick for the Lerner et al paper is that this is the first paper that the authors have written on the subject of the Tolman surface brightness test - they have no published expertise in this complex subject.
The Tolman surface brightness test is complex enough that Sandage and Lubin had to split it up into five papers in 2001!

 

[JacksBratt]

I can see why people might think that but from the perspective of the writers and to the culture it was principally written to it would be apparent to the audience of that day.

As I pointed out earlier if you asked the question in the 1950 of scientists (the mainstream view) How old is the universe the most common answer would have been that the Universe is eternal. Thus the idea that the Universe had a beginning would have been roundly scoffed at.

What I can say definitively based upon the CONSENSUS view of science is that the first 3 words in scripture are absolutely true... IN THE BEGINNING

This is where things get dicey... everything that has a beginning has a cause.

When you look at the attributes needed for this Quantum Fluctuation what you see are all of the attributes of Gd.

Multiple universes is frankly a cop out and has no way of being verifiable by any means known to man. Most physicists admit this.

More to the point though, as I've said, it has been shown that the 24 hour 6 day creation is absolutely 100% mathematically possible while from our point of observation we see the universe being ~15 billion years old. Again, Genesis is showing us creation from G-d's perspective FORWARD. We look at creation looking BACK.

Gravity absolutely has a major impact on time. The greater a bodies gravity the slower time moves... at the event horizon of a black hole time is all stops.

The baseline problem with the basic question of the creation of the universe simply can not be answered by science. Scientific Theories are necessarily theories of something, some physical reality. Equations describe properties, and thus describe something. There can not be equations that describe not-anything.

The fact of the matter is that people are abusing and outright misrepresenting quantum mechanics to attempt to explain the cause of the Big Bang. More than a few well noted esteemed scholars are voicing their descent on the attempted use of a quantum event that cause the Big Bang. Chief among those is Dr David Albert a professor at Columbia university (Phd in Theoretical Physics) Albert's is critical of Lawrence Krauss (one of the architects of a Quantum Fluctuation for the cause of the BB) Albert is not known for being friendly to those who believe in creation or intelligent design.

The key, fundamental flaw of quantum fluctuation is there is a massive and fundamental difference from a quantum event in a vacuum and one theoretically occurring where there is NOTHING. In the case of the Big Bang, literately NOTHING existed. A Vacuum exists in SPACE which is something... massive, fundamental difference. The fact that a quantum event occurs or can occur in space vacuum or otherwise is a foundation, fundamental difference that trying to state that not anything exists yet a quantum fluctuation can and did occur causing the Big Bang.

As Albert states it: The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these popping—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.1

1. Albert, D., On the Origin of Everything: review of A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, 23 March 2012; nytimes.com

I like this post. I would like to add that the first thing that God created was light.

Would it not be fitting then, that everything else was founded on light?

I fed myself to the fish and they acted like I expected. However, check out this new book coming out, by a lady, educated and peer reviewed, a book on the speed of light.


From what I can tell, there are at least three different theories in the works dealing with the speed of light and it's slowing down, inconsistency or variability.

The author of this book has an interesting little fact or news item on her blog.

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/

I quote the news item:

The Failure of Peer Review
Publisher Biomed Central has been forced to retract a large number of papers due to abuses of the "peer review" system. From the Washington Post: Major Publisher Retracts 43 Scientific Papers Amid Wider Fake Peer Review Scandal The system of "peer review" is supposed to ensure the quality of scientific papers. In fact the system rejects unconventional theories while allowing papers that are mediocre or completely false. Many, many more scientific papers are published full of questionable research. This scandal is barely the tip of an iceberg. Scientific research has become broken.

Now, you would have thought that this would have came up somewhere on this forum......wount'cha?

Two of the scientists are pretty young. Maybe the new upcoming scientists couldn't give a sniff about the old boy's fantasy world of chucking anything new if it doesn't fit their precious model.

 

[Michael]

Read what you wrote "You won't point out a single flaw in his work either."
I made that statement into a lie by citing a post that you might have read months ago and another flaw

You're apparently just lying to yourself again. You didn't cite any *actual* flaw in Lerner's work RC, not even a *specific* reference to a page number, paragraph, sentence, or formula. All you did is add your *own personal requirement* (like a breakdown of a dielectric) that has *no real bearing* on his work nor is it required in his work. You simply *made up* your own personal requirement and then blamed Lerner for not giving it to you!

Sorry RC, that's not citing an *actual* flaw, that's your own personal pet peeve, just like your own personal pet peeve about the term "actual discharges". You just made it up. FYI, Lerners work is *newer* and uses *larger redshifts* than previous work too.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...a series of ignorant statements snipped...

You really need to learn some astronomy, Michael.
The points in 18 June 2015 Doveaman: The overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding remain valid.

Olbers' paradox is not solved by you not citing any solution involving dust, etc.

Fallacies of
* argument from authority - Hubble is not the only astronomer who ever existed
* argument from outdated sources - Hubble died in 1953 years before the discovery of the CMB which could have changed his mind.
* argument from fringe theories - tired light is physically wrong!

Argument from ignorance:
* Eddington never predicted the existence of the CMB. As you state he calculated an average temperature of the universe based on ordinary starlight which is not the CMB
* The early calculations of the actual CMB temperature varied because the parameters used varied.

A lie: Two of the greatest successes of the Big Bang theory are its prediction of the almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. The CMB spectrum has become the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.[8]
If we plot the spectrum against Planck's law then the error bars have to be multiplied by 400 in order for them to be visible.

It is expected that the high angle (low l) CMB power spectrum will not fit models. It is there that instrumental errors are large (see the larger error bars) and models are less precise (see the fattening out of the model curve)
Planck's power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background
You do not mention the complete failure of the deluded EC/PC "models" to predict any CMB power spectrum, Michael!

A delusion that neutral hydrogen is dust or plasma!
Lyman-alpha forest is measurements of the spectral line corresponding to a hydrogen "electron transitioning between the ground state (n=1) and the first excited state (n=2).". Astronomers look at distant quasars and see that there are multiple red-shifted Lyman-alpha absorption spectral lines as the light passes through clouds of neutral H. These lines get thicker and thicker as they look at more distant quasars until

I will not obsess about an obscure paper from non-experts with a couple of probable flaws when there is a comprehensive and cited paper written by experts.

Psst:

The lack of any detection of infinitely or even > 13.8 billion year old objects is more evidence against an eternal, static universe than for an expanding universe.

is about the age of objects !
Where are all of the black dwarf stars?
Where are all of the infinitely massive galaxies since galaxies merge?
Where are all of the infinitely massive black holes (they grab and keep matter!)

 

[Michael]

I'll assume you are leading with your strongest source and address that one rather than trying to keep up with a Gish Gallop

Now that first paper never even attempts to supplant redshift generally, but rather addresses discordant galaxies, or those that appear to be interacting but have different redshifts.

Ya, and that ties right back into our earlier conversation about presenting you with data that conflicts with mainstream claims. There certainly *are* inelastic scattering processes taking place within the plasma medium, it's a matter of *how much* inelastic scattering is occuriing, not a question of if it's occurring.

Furthermore, it appears that he is talking about a frequency dependant redshift from his discussion of the frequency widening. This paper is a narrowly focused on a very specific topic. It is not a general explanation of redshift at all.

Now, while i don't have any issue with the paper at first glance, I probably should note that we would also need some sort of statistical analysis to rule out simple line of sight coincidences.

I'm gathering from your responses to the first couple of links that I probably didn't present the in the best order. I'll check it out.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped non-reply..

So you cannot understand what you wrote, Michael ?
You said that I could not find a single flaw and I found 2.
3 March 2015 Michael: A flaw in the Lerner et al paper is that it does not use multiple bands as a self-check on their analysis.
18 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is flawed because it ignores changes in surface brightness as galaxies evolve.

With hints that the paper would be considered flawed by astronomers:
15 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is "flawed" enough so that astronomers have not cited it since it was published a year ago.
18 June 2015 Michael: A nitpick for the Lerner et al paper is that this is the first paper that the authors have written on the subject of the Tolman surface brightness test - they have no published expertise in this complex subject.
The Tolman surface brightness test is complex enough that Sandage and Lubin had to split it up into five papers in 2001![/

 

[Michael]

So you cannot understand what you wrote, Michael ?

Oh I understand what I wrote, I just never really fully understand your strawmen, because they never make any 'actual' sense. That is because as with this case, multiple bands aren't *actually* required, anymore than a breakdown of a dielectric is required in an "actual' electrical discharge in plasma! You just make up stuff as you go, and you never site any published references, just yourself and Clinger, and neither of you have even read a textbook on MHD theory!

With hints that the paper would be considered flawed by astronomers:

I'm not looking for "hints", I'm looking for *specific* objections to *specific* formulas or page numbers. Got any?

 

[[serious]]

Ya, and that ties right back into our earlier conversation about presenting you with data that conflicts with mainstream claims. There certainly *are* inelastic scattering processes taking place within the plasma medium, it's a matter of *how much* inelastic scattering is occuriing, not a question of if it's occurring.



I'm gathering from your responses to the first couple of links that I probably didn't present the in the best order. I'll check it out.

But there does not exist a known inelastic scattering mechanism that isn't frequency independent. Nor is there any known frequency dependence in observed redshift.

I've got no issue with scattering, nor the existence of plasma in space. Heck, i'm not even at the point of addressing the issue of how much as you seem ready to tackle. I'm still on the topic of frequency dependence.

 

[[serious]]

Oh I understand what I wrote, I just never really fully understand your strawmen, because they never make any 'actual' sense. That is because as with this case, multiple bands aren't *actually* required, anymore than a breakdown of a dielectric is required in an "actual' electrical discharge in plasma! You just make up stuff as you go, and you never site any published references, just yourself and Clinger, and neither of you have even read a textbook on MHD theory!



I'm not looking for "hints", I'm looking for *specific* objections to *specific* formulas or page numbers. Got any?

Failure to address something isn't something that lends itself to specific page numbers. Are you asking him to pick a specific page it should have appeared on?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The Big Bang is still an open question for many scientists:

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Sorry, Doveaman, but that is wrong for a few reasons.
That is a letter from 2004.
It was signed by scientists, engineers, "independent researchers" and "others".
It was published in a popular science magazine. If the authors were really serious about it then they would have published in Scientific American, Nature, etc.
The letter basically starts with a lie "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.". Even back in 2004, there was empirical observational evidence for inflation, dark matter and dark energy. The only scientist that would sign such a letter would be one who was in denial of or ignorant about that empirical observational evidence. What would be worse is if we had a "scientist" signing who thought that empirical evidence did not include observations
The letter thinks that already known to be invalid Alfven's Plasma Cosmology model or the steady-state model can explain observational evidence (such as the CMB). Hopefully they are not relying on the deluded modern "plasma cosmology"!

If you want to play the numbers game: A list of a few hundred engineers and scientists when there maybe hundreds of thousands of scientists publishing about the Big Bang! The Planck collaboration alone may have more scientists than signed that letter.

 

[Michael]

You really need to learn some astronomy, Michael.

Well, I can't learn much about a mostly plasma universe from a guy who's never read a textbook on MHD theory and who has a *toy* understanding of the processes that MHD theory describes.

Olbers' paradox is not solved by you not citing any solution involving dust, etc

Yep, and the universe was indeed *dustier* than you folks ever realized.

Fallacies of
* argument from authority - Hubble is not the only astronomer who ever existed

Who cares? He wasn't closed minded like you, and unlike you he and Lerner have published papers on the topic of astronomy.

* argument from outdated sources - Hubble died in 1953 years before the discovery of the CMB which could have changed his mind.

Nothing about it suggests it would have changed his mind.

* argument from fringe theories - tired light is physically wrong!

Except unlike your mythical dark sky deity, inelastic scattering show up in a lab, and has a real effect on real photons in controlled experimentation. Your dark sky thingy is *impotent* everywhere, *especially* in the lab.

Argument from ignorance:
* Eddington never predicted the existence of the CMB.

He certainly did predict that dust in the universe would emit light at the right temperature based on nothing but scattering of starlight off dust. No dark deities required! Better yet, he was within a 1/2 a degree whereas the the first *wild guess* at the temperature based on BB theory was off by more than a whole order of magnitude! Ooops?

I'll stick with Eddington's *empirical* explanation, without a pantheon of supernatural dark sky thingies thanks.

A lie: Two of the greatest successes of the Big Bang theory are its prediction of the almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. The CMB spectrum has become the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.[8]

Ya, the CMB has been measured *so* precisely that they found unexpected *hemispheric variations* that defy the "predictions" of inflation theory, that's how *well measured* it is. Another fail.

It is expected that the high angle (low l) CMB power spectrum will not fit models.

Ya, I've definitely come to expect failure from Lambda-CDM. It's pretty much par for the course these days actually. Dark matter theories have been an epic disaster because they were based on flawed galaxy mass estimates. BICEP2 claims about inflation bit the dust. New revelations about SN1A events undermine the entire premise of 'dark energy'. Failure is *normal* with Lambda-CDM "predictions" alright.[/QUOTE]

The rest is a point less rehash so I'll save my breath and grab something eat.

 

[Michael]

Failure to address something isn't something that lends itself to specific page numbers. Are you asking him to pick a specific page it should have appeared on?

Lerner's failure to include the price of frozen corn-dogs in his study isn't a real "flaw", and the fact he left out corn-dog prices is irrelevant to the validity of this paper.

 

[[serious]]

Lerner's failure to include the price of frozen corn-dogs in his study isn't a real "flaw", and the fact he left out corn-dog prices is irrelevant to the validity of this paper.

If your argument is that his stated concerns are not relevant tot he subject at hand, maybe you should explain why those concerns aren't relevant?

 

[Michael]

Sorry, Doveaman, but that is wrong for a few reasons.
That is a letter from 2004.
It was signed by scientists, engineers, "independent researchers" and "others".
It was published in a popular science magazine. If the authors were really serious about it then they would have published in Scientific American, Nature, etc.
The letter basically starts with a lie "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.". Even back in 2004, there was empirical observational evidence for inflation,

Observational evidence the begins with an affirming the consequent fallacy isn't the same thing as "observing" it directly, nor does it make your claim any less "hypothetical". Your power spectrum claims blew up in your face in Planck data sets, and you've got another problem with that hemispheric variation that isn't supposed to exist!

dark matter

Nope. All you've ever had evidence of in that regard is evidence that the galaxy mass estimation techniques weren't worth the paper they were printed on in 2004, and many studies since 2004 have *proven* that point over and over and over again.

and dark energy.

Nope. That claim was based entirely upon a *now falsified* premise!

The only scientist that would sign such a letter would be....

....badmouthed repeatedly by RC......

If you want to play the numbers game:

An atheist relying upon a appeal to popularity fallacy? How ironic!

 

[Michael]

If your argument is that his stated concerns are not relevant tot he subject at hand, maybe you should explain why those concerns aren't relevant?

Since he hasn't even clearly explained why *he personally* believes they are relevant, what's the point? Why would I take my time explaining what a study on *much more redshifted* objects than another study wasn't done exactly the same as someone else? His objection, his responsibility. If he thinks a *lack of* corndog prices is a problem, he needs to *specifically* explain why it's a problem, and how it affects any part of Lerner's work.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped gibberish and repeated ignorance...

That sounded like what I mentioned in my post and will expand on, Michael.
We do have empirical observational evidence for inflation, dark matter and dark energy and that was true in 2004. Thus the letter seems to contain the idiocy of stating that only thinks we observe in labs can exist, e.g. stars do not exist because we have never had one in a lab

 

[RealityCheck01]

Well, I can't learn much ...MHD book insanity again...

We know that you have not even learned basic astronomy or facts about the Sun, Michael. See Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
Or in a nutshell: 18 June 2015 Michael: Some "evidence" on this web site is insanely ignorant

Some "evidence" on this web site is insanely ignorant. A set of images of

• solar flares
• roughly 4 thousand kilometers about above the surface of the Sun
• that are plasma made of 98% hydrogen with a trace of other elements including iron
• at temperatures greater than 160,000 K

become in his mind rigid iron mountain ranges on or below the surface of the Sun !

The points in 18 June 2015 Doveaman: The overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding remain valid.

No addressing with science of
18 June 2015 Michael: Fallacies, ignorance and fantasies about the evidence for an expanding universe!

18 June 2015 Michael: A lie about Eddington's Temperature of Space (it is from stars not dust and is not the CMB )

Arthur Stanley Eddington, in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, talks about Diffuse Matter in Space. In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Here is a quote of what Eddington actually said:

The total light received by us from the stars is estimated to be equivalent to about 1000 stars of the first magnitude. [...] We shall first calculate the energy density of this radiation. [...] Accordingly the total radiation of the stars has an energy density of [...] E = 7.67 10-13 erg/cm3. By the formula E = a T4 the effective temperature corresponding to this density is 3.18o absolute. [...] Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18o it is much richer in high-frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature.

Eddington then specifies a model for the spectrum of his estimate for the interstellar radiation field which is plotted in blue in the figure below.

 

[Michael]

But there does not exist a known inelastic scattering mechanism that isn't frequency independent. Nor is there any known frequency dependence in observed redshift.

There aren't any known sources of "dark energy' either. That really shouldn't matter. At least several authors have suggested mechanisms that *could* be tested in at least some cases. Even Zwicky had a "tired light' theory as I recall. If I'm not mistaken, it was rather interesting as well.

Lot's of medium interaction *possibilities* have been suggested over the years, but frankly I don't see a lot a lab work cited by even mainstream astronomers in terms of ruling out things like brillouin scattering, etc. About the only paper I've read that ruled out any scattering method was Zwicky's complaints about ordinary Compton scattering, but he was *selling his own tired light* theory too.

There's a lot of handwaving in terms of frequency independence, but the wavelength ranges that it applies to are really quite limited from what I've seen thus far, and the signals are typically 'averaged' and or filtered.

I've got no issue with scattering, nor the existence of plasma in space. Heck, i'm not even at the point of addressing the issue of how much as you seem ready to tackle. I'm still on the topic of frequency dependence.

I'd like to test Marmot's claims, and see about testing Brynjolfson's model. Both of the suggest a method, but as you noted, neither of them has been demonstrated.

The "advantage" to tired light theories is that many of them *can* be tested in a lab, whereas dark energy is a non starter in terms of experimentation, complete with real control mechanisms.

 

[Michael]

We do have empirical observational evidence for inflation, dark matter and dark energy and that was true in 2004.

Nope. You had empirical observational evidence that your galaxy mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2004, and you just fudged the difference and called it 'dark matter'. We since found out that you folks botched the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. *Epic* fail.

Thus the letter seems to contain the idiocy of stating that only thinks we observe in labs can exist, e.g. stars do not exist because we have never had one in a lab

Do you have any idea how ironic that sounds coming from an atheist? You hold faith in *four* supernatural invisible entities, none of which show upon Earth, whereas I can *see* the 'God' that I believe in every day and night of my life, and I've ascribed nothing to the universe that doesn't empirically show up here on Earth, including awareness in a variety of forms.

Your space entities are more impotent on Earth than an average *supernatural* definition of "God". As least humans report being affected by something called 'God", whereas no photon ever said 'inflation did it'.