Prophetic or Actualistic approach to cosmologies?

And just to add one more thing, this quote I found from Eric Lerner pretty much sums up my opinion on this matter;

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In science we work from observation; from empirical observation that starts in the here and now, and works backwards and outwards. The Big Bang works from mathematical formulas, deductions, that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. This is the same mathematical deductive approach that lead to the Ptolemaic universe. What these theories have in common is that they try to derive what the universe should be, based on what perfect principles we can develop; what god should have made the universe to look like, and then try to fit the universe into this perfect framework. However, what has happened over the years, as observations have come up that dont agree with the predictions of the Big Bang theory, the theory adds an extra assumption, that is not tested, or resting on conventional known physics, and simply assumes that this must be true. The problem with that is it develops myth; not science. It develops a religious faith in which nothing in the real observable world can contradict the theory. The trouble with this is it undermines the entire scientific enterprise, the reason science has been valuable to humans is because it allows us to predict nature in such a way that we can utilize nature in a predictable and useful fashion, with whatever modern technology is available. To abandon this approach, that has served us so well, and instead to go to the idea that we can deduce from perfect mathematical principles what the universe must be, to "read the mind of God" as Stephen Hawkins says, is to abandon the scientific method.


Many people think that the Big Bang is so popular today because it has a deep connection to religous stories of creation; for most people it satisfies a deep inherent feeling that there should be a beginning, a now, and an end. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 4000, or 10,000 years ago, they now simply say to us it was created out of nothing 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time, and this approach from the very outset has very serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


&gt;&gt;&gt; "The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden."
- Halton Arp
&gt;&gt;&gt; "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
- Halton Arp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by InferredReality</i>
<br />
The basic premise is that anything that we can not experimentally verify in laboratory experiments should be treated with severe skeptisism, this includes many of the foundations that modern cosmology is based on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree with a large part of the paper. The cited point is not precise enough: If lots of experiments show that a theory works well, it seems valuable to extrapolate the theory out of the usual values of its parameters; there is a risk, but it may be low if two conditions are fulfilled:
1- The theory must show that experiments are impossible with the used values of the parameters.
2- MANY independant applications must show that the theory works in the new field of parameters.

An application of this rule is the use of CREIL effect:

1- Unusual values of parameters: It is commonly observed that the pulses of femtosecond lasers are shifted while they propagate in matter. This is explained by coherent spectroscopy which explains how the shifts depend on the length of the pulses, on matter, on intensity (if it is large), on other light beams (in particular thermal background). Applying these rules to usual light (it is CREIL) shows that the effect can work only at very low pressures, in particular gases, and that the redshift, in the best conditions, is inversly proportional to the cube of the length of the pulses: the interaction length must be so large that the observation is not possible with Earth size paths.
-2 Many applications:
i) In supernova 1987A, a large redshift of Lyman alpha line of atomic hydrogen is observed inside the ring, not for the ring, that is for light that crossed the inside of its Stromgren sphere, not for light crossing the outside. Why? Inside, it crosses excited atomic hydrogen which is OK for CREIL, outside only unexcited atomic hydrogen. Remark that this property was found BEFORE the observation of SNR 1987A.
ii) The radio signals of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes are blueshifted by the CREIL effect when the probes enter a region where the solar wind cools enough to make atomic hydrogen.
iii) All hot astronomical objects (quasars,...) make excited atomic hydrogen which redshifts their spectra and the spectra of the objects observed through their halo.
iv) The periodicities of the Lyman spectra of the quasars results from the spectroscopy of hydrogen and CREIL effect.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
What are peoples thoughts on this? Is the entire approach of the Big Bang wrong from the very outset?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes. Hubble's law which is needed to found the BB theory is evidently wrong for SN1987A: applied to the spectrum of the SURFACE of the disk inside the ring, it gives a distance of 2 billions light-year, while the comparison of its angular and absolute size give only 168000 l-y.
More generally, it is wrong each time there is excited atomic hydrogen on the light path.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by InferredReality</i>
<br />
The basic premise is that anything that we can not experimentally verify in laboratory experiments should be treated with severe skeptisism, this includes many of the foundations that modern cosmology is based on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree with a large part of the paper. The cited point is not precise enough: If lots of experiments show that a theory works well, it seems valuable to extrapolate the theory out of the usual values of its parameters; there is a risk, but it may be low if two conditions are fulfilled:
1- The theory must show that experiments are impossible with the used values of the parameters.
2- MANY independant applications must show that the theory works in the new field of parameters.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Thanks for the feed back, couldn't agree more. There is an argument that can be made for extrapolating a theory beyond its parameters, but I often feel that (in the case of the big bang) there are far too many free parameters to make it a scientifically tenable theory anymore. The Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An application of this rule is the use of CREIL effect [...]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

thanks for the info, I had not heard of CREIL before, but i'll be sure to check up on it over the coming days, seems interesting.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i) In supernova 1987A, a large redshift of Lyman alpha line of atomic hydrogen is observed inside the ring, not for the ring, that is for light that crossed the inside of its Stromgren sphere, not for light crossing the outside. Why? Inside, it crosses excited atomic hydrogen which is OK for CREIL, outside only unexcited atomic hydrogen. Remark that this property was found BEFORE the observation of SNR 1987A.

Yes. Hubble's law which is needed to found the BB theory is evidently wrong for SN1987A: applied to the spectrum of the SURFACE of the disk inside the ring, it gives a distance of 2 billions light-year, while the comparison of its angular and absolute size give only 168000 l-y.
More generally, it is wrong each time there is excited atomic hydrogen on the light path.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Ah, yes, I'm familiar with SN1987A, I recently read a very interesting (although quite controversial) paper discussing this. It proposes that we need a new model of stars that includes an electrical component to account for the shape and morphology of it, based on plasma scaling relationships. Heres the paper; ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url.../04287093.pdf?temp=x (I can mail you the full publication if your interested, copyright issues, etc) and some of the basic ideas are covered on this webpage; www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

Your thoughts?

I'll check out CREIL meanwhile, only just finished reading up about "plasma redshift" theory...



&gt;&gt;&gt; "The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden."
- Halton Arp

&gt;&gt;&gt; "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
- Halton Arp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by InferredReality</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by InferredReality</i>
<br />
The basic premise is that anything that we can not experimentally verify in laboratory experiments should be treated with severe skeptisism, this includes many of the foundations that modern cosmology is based on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree with a large part of the paper. The cited point is not precise enough: If lots of experiments show that a theory works well, it seems valuable to extrapolate the theory out of the usual values of its parameters; there is a risk, but it may be low if two conditions are fulfilled:
1- The theory must show that experiments are impossible with the used values of the parameters.
2- MANY independant applications must show that the theory works in the new field of parameters.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Thanks for the feed back, couldn't agree more. There is an argument that can be made for extrapolating a theory beyond its parameters, but I often feel that (in the case of the big bang) there are far too many free parameters to make it a scientifically tenable theory anymore. The Big Bang model has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of any scientific theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The Big Bang introduces new theories, and their number is often as large as the number of observations that their authors want to explain. An example of what I mean by extrapolation of the parameters: Maxwell made his theory using electromagnetism, but the theory applies to light, up to X rays; however, it does not apply anymore to higher frequencies because electron pairs may be produced.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An application of this rule is the use of CREIL effect [...]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

thanks for the info, I had not heard of CREIL before, but i'll be sure to check up on it over the coming days, seems interesting.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You can see my papers on arxiv.org, writing my name (Moret-Bailly) as author, and simply physics (without restriction as astro-ph, because it is optics as well...)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Ah, yes, I'm familiar with SN1987A, I recently read a very interesting (although quite controversial) paper discussing this. It proposes that we need a new model of stars that includes an electrical component to account for the shape and morphology of it, based on plasma scaling relationships. Heres the paper; ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url.../04287093.pdf?temp=x (I can mail you the full publication if your interested, copyright issues, etc) and some of the basic ideas are covered on this webpage; www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

Your thoughts?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Up to now, I read only the abstract; it seems to me that the authors found that the pearls of SNR1987A result from a coherent emission. It is my point that you can read on my last paper of arxiv (0801.0925). This paper is now too old, but it contains the foundations of a presentation that I will do to morrow (in French!) and in Brass Tacks meeting (next month, in English)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by InferredReality</i>
a new model of stars that includes an electrical component to account for the shape and morphology of it, based on plasma scaling relationships. Heres the paper; ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url.../04287093.pdf?temp=x (I can mail you the full publication if your interested, copyright issues, etc) and some of the basic ideas are covered on this webpage; www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thank you, can you send it to &lt;jacques.moret-bailly@u-bourgogne.fr&gt;?
Simple optical effects explain the main ring of SN1987A. They may be produced by a z-pinch, or more easily by a Stromgren sphere.