A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Facts against BB Theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old June 20th 14, 07:20 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default Facts against BB Theory

On 6/16/14, 1:43 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
There was also a numerical coincidence between this and the Pioneer
anomaly, but the latter was shown to have an origin on the spacecraft.


Such a definitive statement on the Pioneer anomaly is unwarranted.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf
assumes the decay for Pioneer acceleration aP

daP/dt = -k*aP model one

This fits the assumption that all aP components
are tied to the RTG half life with aP decay approaching zero with time.

A better fit to stochastic data is:

daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two

Initially, the thermal emission overwhelms
the anomalous acceleration (aPinfinity)
but diminishes with time(model one)
with aP decay approaching aPinfinity with time (model two).

The Pioneers probes may be sensing an acceleration in space
as they approach the interstellar region
that may indeed be linked to space expansion and galactic rotation.
  #92  
Old June 26th 14, 09:39 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Nicolaas Vroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Facts against BB Theory

Op dinsdag 17 juni 2014 08:13:56 UTC+2 schreef Jos Bergervoet:
On 6/15/2014 3:21 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

IMO all what is written about multiverses, parallel universes,
bubbles is unfalsifiable.


Some things, like 2x2=4, are unfalsifiable, since they
are "trivially correct".

Concepts like our numbering systems 1,2,3 ets and concepts
like 2*2=4 belong to our "mathematical tool box".
Concepts we all agree upon.
As such they are "true" by definition

But surely, Nicolaas, you don't
mean to apply that to all three concepts you mention?!

They are in a certain sense neither falsifiable nor
unfalsifiable.

The biggest problem is the clear definition of each
(about something we all agree....)

of the three concepts.

"Bubbles" are things that happen in phase transitions,
we all agree on that.

Bubbles happen when you boil water, to describe the behaviour
of lava, but that is not what we are discusssing here.
Bubbles as described in the previous text, like:
" multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the
" cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble.
are descriptions of physical phenomena which are completely
unclear to me.
IMO this whole subject is speculation if it is something
outside Our Universe.

If the energy differences are big
between the phases then the metric of space must be
affected, as GR tells us and we all agree on that.

I doubt if GR describes anything that happens outside our Universe.
If .... that is the subject

In some of those cases the metric gives us a child universe
(with just an evaporating black hole left in the parent
universe) since that's what the Einstein equations tell
us. It's as 2x2=4.

What is a child universe ?

Is it falsifiable? Surely, if the fields don't include
phase transitions with sufficient effect on space-time
metric, then the above does not happen! We may not now
be able to probe the necessary energies, but we surely
are studying quantum fields (currently the quark-gluon
plasma, including bubbles, droplets etc.) So in principle,
at appropriately higher energies the same can be done.

If anything of these processes happen as part of the evolution
of our Universe (after the Big Bang) than it makes sense to
discuss them.
If not than you should clearly indicate that.

If you are interested I have written comments about the
book "The Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Max.Tegmark.htm

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
  #93  
Old June 28th 14, 11:45 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default Facts against BB Theory

In article , Nicolaas Vroom
writes:

IMO all what is written about multiverses, parallel universes,
bubbles is unfalsifiable.


Some things, like 2x2=4, are unfalsifiable, since they
are "trivially correct".

Concepts like our numbering systems 1,2,3 ets and concepts
like 2*2=4 belong to our "mathematical tool box".
Concepts we all agree upon.
As such they are "true" by definition

But surely, Nicolaas, you don't
mean to apply that to all three concepts you mention?!

They are in a certain sense neither falsifiable nor
unfalsifiable.

The biggest problem is the clear definition of each
(about something we all agree....)

of the three concepts.

"Bubbles" are things that happen in phase transitions,
we all agree on that.

Bubbles happen when you boil water, to describe the behaviour
of lava, but that is not what we are discusssing here.
Bubbles as described in the previous text, like:
" multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the
" cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble.
are descriptions of physical phenomena which are completely
unclear to me.
IMO this whole subject is speculation if it is something
outside Our Universe.

If the energy differences are big
between the phases then the metric of space must be
affected, as GR tells us and we all agree on that.

I doubt if GR describes anything that happens outside our Universe.
If .... that is the subject

In some of those cases the metric gives us a child universe
(with just an evaporating black hole left in the parent
universe) since that's what the Einstein equations tell
us. It's as 2x2=4.

What is a child universe ?

Is it falsifiable? Surely, if the fields don't include
phase transitions with sufficient effect on space-time
metric, then the above does not happen! We may not now
be able to probe the necessary energies, but we surely
are studying quantum fields (currently the quark-gluon
plasma, including bubbles, droplets etc.) So in principle,
at appropriately higher energies the same can be done.

If anything of these processes happen as part of the evolution
of our Universe (after the Big Bang) than it makes sense to
discuss them.
If not than you should clearly indicate that.


I have quoted all of the above post because I was going to point the OP
to a book which answers most or all of his questions...

If you are interested I have written comments about the
book "The Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Max.Tegmark.htm


.....but apparently he has already read it. If so, I suggest reading it
again, as it really does answer all of these questions. Yes, some of it
is speculative and non-mainstream, but Max is careful to point out what
is consensus and what is not. Here is my review of the book, which
appeared in the June 2014 issue of The Observatory:

http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/he..._universe.html
  #94  
Old June 30th 14, 06:49 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Nicolaas Vroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Facts against BB Theory

Op zaterdag 28 juni 2014 12:45:24 UTC+2 schreef Phillip Helbig:
In article , Nicolaas Vroom

writes:

IMO all what is written about multiverses, parallel universes,
bubbles is unfalsifiable.


" multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the
" cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble.


What is a child universe ?


I have quoted all of the above post because I was going to point the OP
to a book which answers most or all of his questions...


If you are interested I have written comments about the
book "The Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Max.Tegmark.htm


I have updated this document around page 120.

....but apparently he has already read it. If so, I suggest reading it
again, as it really does answer all of these questions.

Sorry it does not. That does not mean I do not like the book.
The book is very good as a challenge for a critical mind...

The books discusses clearly many possibilities, but it does show
which, from all these posiblities, is right or wrong.

The problem discussed is mentioned in the message by Jos
Bergervoet 17 June and my reply:
IMO all what is written about multiverses, parallel universes,
bubbles is unfalsifiable. (or falsifiable)


The biggest problem is the clear definition of each
(about something we all agree....)

The book does not solve these issues.

Yes, some of it is speculative and non-mainstream, but Max is
careful to point out what is consensus and what is not.

That is correct but what does that bring you in detail?

Here is my review of the book, which
appeared in the June 2014 issue of The Observatory:


http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/he..._universe.html

To discuss your review is a whole different discussion.

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chapt1 What is this theory #11 Atom Totality Theory replacing BigBang theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 3 September 29th 11 08:38 PM
How do you shut up Hagar and Sgall over Healthcare? Just the facts,nothing but the facts......... vtcapo[_2_] Misc 0 November 12th 09 01:29 PM
MECO theory to replace black-hole theory #41 ;3rd edition book: ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY [email protected] Astronomy Misc 8 May 20th 09 01:17 AM
Farm Theory, Also Called, Spring Theory, Yard Theory And TheEvolution Of Our Universe [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 3 September 29th 08 01:11 PM
Facts of the Universe vs the BB theory Ralph Hertle Misc 3 November 4th 07 11:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.