Creating Galaxies

"J. Scott Miller" wrote...
in message ...

Bill Sheppard wrote:
P.S.
Some while back our friend Scott Miller issued a challenge,
asking for an example of something the CBB model predicts that can be
verified by observation. The model predicted an amplitude-drop in light
coming from extreme cosmological distance. That's due to a drop in the
speed of light across the density gradient in the spatial medium at
those distances ('density-gradient c-dilation' or DGCD).
I submit that the recent 1a supernova data showing ancient
light to be 'dimmer than it should be' at a given redshift is direct
evidence of DGCD, exactly as the CBB model predicted 31 years ago.
"Accelerating expansion" is the illusion created by assuming universal
c-invariance.

DGDC is not to be confused with "tired light" theories, which are all
predicated on universal c-invariance.

oc

Nice try but I said predict something that we had not observed. More
importantly, show specifically for the distances to the supernova in question
how CBB predicts the alleged fall off different than predicted by the standard
model with c-invariance. If there is no difference then there is no need to
consider CBB.

Nicer try than you think, Scott, because as Bill explained...

"The model predicted an amplitude-drop in light coming from extreme
cosmological distance. That's due to a drop in the speed of light across
the density gradient in the spatial medium at those distances ('density-
gradient c-dilation' or DGCD)."

This as you say had not been observed until the 1A SN, correct? So
the CBB model had predicted something that we had not observed,
isn't this so?

Admittedly, the math is still weak... very, very wanting.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Cut like a knife,
Flake like an axe,
Break out the sax,
Get you a life!

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote, replying to Scott,

This as you say had not been observed
until the 1A SN, correct? So the CBB
model had predicted something that we
had not observed, isn't this so?

Admittedly, the math is still weak... very, very wanting.

Yep, very true. The numbers are certainly wanting. And to be perfectly
forthright about it, I had to correct an error in Wolter's original
model, as was posted here a few months ago. He had erroneously assumed
there would be a frequency-drop along with the c-drop, thereby adding a
third component to the observed redshift (along with the cosmological
expansion and Doppler components).
I set up a 'thought experiment' using acoustics; a
pipeline is laid from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest. The pipe has
no leaks and is open at both ends. A loudspeaker feeds in at the bottom,
and at the top are a microphone and precision amplitude recording gear.
The density of air is lower at the top than at sea level, so the speed
of sound is lower there also. Sound propagating up the pipe loses speed
and loses energy (amplitude) as it traverses the density-gradient up the
pipe. The amplitude is 'lower than it should be' were there no density
gradient. But there is NO frequency change.
Similarly, there would be no frequency change in
ancient light as Wolter erroneously predicted. But there WOULD be the
amplitude-drop, as evinced in the recent 1a SN data.

As you and Scott allude, the math is wanting and the CBB model doesn't
deal in math, but precepts. It offers a number of things the standard
model cannot, up to and including unification of gravity in the UFT. Not
to mention validation of Einstein's original lambda Steady-State idea,
while at once validating the Expanding and Contracting phases in an
overarching whole. The concept seems far more elegant and rational than
a "one shot" BB, void-space, and an open-ended entropic heat death for
the (visible) universe.

oc

Just a sub-note to Scott, Painius et al.-

Regarding the primacy and relevance of math to the *overall concept* of
the CBB model, Wolter stated that it would never get by the 'math heads'
because they're all locked into the void-space paradigm. Now he didn't
use the term 'math heads' pejoratively as he had no meanness or rancor
whatsoever in his character. He used the term in fun, in the same vein
we would say "computer geeks" today.
The point being, while math certainly has its place
in the scheme of things, overall concepts frequently require no math
whatsoever to convey. And the CBB model and ALL is sidebars fall under
that category.

oc

Painius wrote:


Nicer try than you think, Scott, because as Bill explained...

"The model predicted an amplitude-drop in light coming from extreme
cosmological distance. That's due to a drop in the speed of light across
the density gradient in the spatial medium at those distances ('density-
gradient c-dilation' or DGCD)."

This as you say had not been observed until the 1A SN, correct? So
the CBB model had predicted something that we had not observed,
isn't this so?

Admittedly, the math is still weak... very, very wanting.

Not quite so nice because all he did was claim the model predicted such a drop
but he did not show that to be the case. In other words, where was the results
of this "prediction" published? What challenges were made to those published
results? What counterproofs have been put forth to answer those challenges.
And, is the amplitude drop on the same order of magnitude that is observed? As
you say, the math is weak, to weak to be remotely considered scientific.

Bill Sheppard wrote:
Just a sub-note to Scott, Painius et al.-

Regarding the primacy and relevance of math to the *overall concept* of
the CBB model, Wolter stated that it would never get by the 'math heads'
because they're all locked into the void-space paradigm. Now he didn't
use the term 'math heads' pejoratively as he had no meanness or rancor
whatsoever in his character. He used the term in fun, in the same vein
we would say "computer geeks" today.
The point being, while math certainly has its place
in the scheme of things, overall concepts frequently require no math
whatsoever to convey. And the CBB model and ALL is sidebars fall under
that category.

oc


You are right, but only in a philosophy discussion. If we cannot mathematically
make predictions with a hypothesis, it is of no use, no matter how good it
sounds. Such is the strength of science, no matter what you think of the
current paradigm.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Just a sub-note to Scott, Painius et al.-

Regarding the primacy and relevance of math to the *overall concept* of
the CBB model, Wolter stated that it would never get by the 'math heads'
because they're all locked into the void-space paradigm. Now he didn't
use the term 'math heads' pejoratively as he had no meanness or rancor
whatsoever in his character. He used the term in fun, in the same vein
we would say "computer geeks" today.
The point being, while math certainly has its place
in the scheme of things, overall concepts frequently require no math
whatsoever to convey. And the CBB model and ALL is sidebars fall under
that category.

oc

Study the work of any scientist, Bill... Jane Goodall for instance...
without her work, chimps are just another bunch of jungle beasts
virtually unknown to us. Goodall brought science to the discipline
of ethology, the study of animals in their natural habitat. She
brought meticulous observation, measurement... mathematics.

You must do more than merely "convey." You must CONVEY!
Without math all you have is a philosophical argument. It may be
the strongest philosophical argument ever made, and yet without
measurement and math, it's just not scientific.

Wolter's words, "it won't get past the math heads" effectively
means that he never expected the CBB model to get beyond
philosophy and into the realm of science.

OR... perhaps he issued these words to you as a challenge?

At any rate, Scott hinted at a way mathematics can become
involved...

". . . show specifically for the distances to the supernova in
question how CBB predicts the alleged fall off different than
predicted by the standard model with c-invariance. . . ."

Not being a "math head" i have no clue as to how difficult a
task this is. Wouldn't it seem to be a good starting point?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp without oil,
Love without prejudice
A world without soil,
Tool without toil.

Paine Ellsworth

"J. Scott Miller" wrote:

You are right, but only in a philosophy discussion. If we cannot mathematically
make predictions with a hypothesis, it is of no use, no matter how good it
sounds. Such is the strength of science, no matter what you think of the
current paradigm.

Take quantum mechanics for example; several of its key concepts are
anything but "elegant and rational" -- at least when one tries to
explain them in everyday language, or using analogies from the
macrospcopic world -- yet in terms of its quantitative predictions
it's one of the most successful theories ever developed.

--Odysseus

Odysseus wrote,

Take quantum mechanics for example;
several of its key concepts are anything
but "elegant and rational" --

Very true. And one of its most 'non-rational' tenets, nonlocality, is
fundamental to the CBB model. Without quantum nonlocality and its
extension, non-plurality, the model is an assemblage of disparate parts.
This was troubling to Wolter, and it wasn't until his last few months
that he delved deeply into quantum mechanics and saw that nonlocality
ties the model into a seamless whole. It answered the troubling question
"what happens to the spatial medium once it's ingested by matter?" He
was finally completely happy and at peace with his model thanks to
quantum mechanics.

oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Well, how does one convey a truth? . . .

oc

hmm... how does one convey a truth...

While an oversimplification, it all boils down to a solid definition
of "truth."

There are two basic kinds: subjective and objective.

Sit down to a yummy dinner, your favorite... steak? turkey with
all the trimmings? a good roast duck?

If you're from another system that's been around for a couple of
billion years, then perhaps your favorite is raw human livers?

Injecting mathematics into an argument reduces, perhaps even
eliminates subjectivity, Bill.

While you and i may agree on certain subjective truths, we may
also disagree on others. However it's much harder to disagree
when an argument for truth is objective. And the one single way
to guarantee objectivity is with a flawless mathematical proof.

Even this won't guarantee that everyone will agree with you, but
it *will* guarantee that your truth *is* truth...

as long as the math is flawless...

So most people think math is boring, and so nearly everybody
loses interest quickly in any scientific feat... the bright side is that
good science acts as a solid foundation for future work--inventions,
discoveries and so forth.

It's difficult to be led astray by science... otherwise, it's much easier
to land up in someplace like Jonestown, Guyana. Nothing to show
but koolade stains on your lips.

Truth...

The next sentence below is true.
The previous sentence above is false.

It's a pair o' ducks quackin' to beat hell.

disregard the following
(if the next sentence is true, then the first sentence is false... but if
the first sentence is false, then the next sentence is false... but if
the next sentence is false, then the first sentence is true... but if
the the first sentence is true, then the next sentence is true...

BUT...

if the next sentence is true, then the first sentence is false... but if
the first sentence is false, then the next sentence is false... but if
the next sentence is false, then the first sentence is true... but if
the the first sentence is true, then the next sentence is true...

....oy!)

/disregard

There is nothing in this world worse (for me) than a mathematical
paradox. Say, for example a...

singularity -- infinitely massive yet infinitely small

really suks! here's another...

To express a given number in English, it takes a certain minimum
number of words. For example, the number 5984 could be
expressed as "five thousand nine hundred eighty-four" (five or six
words, depending on how you count it), or perhaps as "six
thousand minus sixteen," which is only four words. But four is
probably a minimum for that number; 5984 probably can't be
expressed in three English words or fewer. (Unless it happens to
be your house number, in which case I suppose "my address"
would work.) Similarly, there are (large) numbers which can't be
expressed in ten English words or fewer; there are even larger
numbers that can't be expressed in thirteen English words or fewer.

Now, by a mathematical principle the name of which escapes me,
if you examine the set of such numbers, there must be a least
member of that set-that is, a smallest number in that class of
numbers. And that number could be referred to as:

The smallest number which cannot be expressed in thirteen English
words or fewer.

The above sentence has thirteen English words, so it contradicts
itself.

Now *that's* beautiful, wouldn't you agree?

Awww, c'mon now!

Well, with your permission, i have to go and talk to David again
about how the Earth and Moon form a binary planet system and
why the Moon ought to be ranked as a full-fledged planet. I
swear, i don't know how many times i have to repeat the evidence,
some of it strongly supported by mathematics, before those die-
hard skeptics (astronomers) will finally come around!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Sweet home, oh Precious Earth,
The ONLY home we know,
Tell us what you need of worth,
And we can make it so.

Do you want our hearts to beat
And thrive within your air?
Then teach us what we know we need
So we can learn to care.

Paine Ellsworth

Bill Sheppard wrote:
Painius wrote,


You must do more than merely "convey." You must CONVEY! Without math

all

you have is a philosophical argument. It
may be the strongest philosophical
argument ever made, and yet without
measurement and math, it's just not
scientific.


Well, how does one convey a truth?

"Truth" is the province of philosophers and there are many of them. What is
interesting to me is that some philosophers laud the Big Bang models while
others bash it, all in the name of "Truth". Extreme right-wingers in our
country tout the "Truth" of a 10,000 year old Earth. Can't be any other way.

So, whose "Truth" do you want to use as the basis of scientific models for the
formation and evolution of the universe? Seems there is no end to them and they
all say different things.

Sorry, Bill. Nice your friend died in peace with himself, but he left nothing
useful from a scientific, logical standpoint for the rest of us.