A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 6th 09, 08:03 PM posted to sci.astro
Androcles[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,135
Default Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis


"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Snip
================================================== ===
Maybe Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University is a complete

dickhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Posted by
Androcles


RKS:
Science is all about resolving contradictory observations.


Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order. It is not the invention of dork matter
or black holes and then go looking for them.

If you have a contradictory observation, change the explanation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg
Is the pencil really bent?
No, the light is.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ — Galileo
Galilei


http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/20...3aql_LC_V2.gif
Does the nova really explode twice?
No, the light in your eye does.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ — Galileo
Galilei

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

Is there dork matter?
Only for dorks.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ — Galileo
Galilei

How many new and
more accurate theories evolved from observations that did not conform to
contemporary theory?


You tell me.


Of course there are others who, secure on their flat Earth in the middle
of
the universe, settle for shouting obscenities to all those who disagree
with
their world view...

Robert


And there are dorks who, secure on their flat Earth in the middle of the
universe, are more concerned with diplomacy than science.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Androcles.


  #2  
Old May 7th 09, 04:29 AM posted to sci.astro
Robert Karl Stonjek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis


"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Snip
================================================== ===
Maybe Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University is a complete

dickhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Posted by
Androcles


RKS:
Science is all about resolving contradictory observations.


Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order. It is not the invention of dork matter
or black holes and then go looking for them.


RKS:
We share a dislike for the dark matter solution to contradictory
observations (observations that contradict theory), but this is more of a
question of *how* we resolve the contradictory observations. Do we retain
current theoretical underpinnings and explain new observation by appending
ever less solid theory to explain it? Or do we have another look at the
underlying model?

The later has been avoided by modern cosmologists for reasons other than
scientific ones. Either they don't have the imagination or are simply
incapable of generating alternative models, but either way it is a very poor
reflection on modern cosmology in general.

It is prudent to consider a model that does not require ever more patches to
staunch the theoretical leaks. Recalling Hoyle's model, which I also didn't
like, he proposed that a tiny amount of hydrogen would have to be generated
somehow to explain the apparent expansion of the universe. We now look at
the enormous amount of observation that require huge leaps of faith in the
current model and it is clear that the old Hoyle model was more robust to
the first approximation.

Dark Matter appears to explain observations of the bullet cluster. But it
fails for the observations mentioned at the root of this thread.

Thus the article questions dark matter. I wonder why, if you are opposed to
the idea of dark matter, you did not embrace these findings.

Robert


If you have a contradictory observation, change the explanation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg
Is the pencil really bent?
No, the light is.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -

Galileo
Galilei


http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/20...3aql_LC_V2.gif
Does the nova really explode twice?
No, the light in your eye does.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -

Galileo
Galilei

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

Is there dork matter?
Only for dorks.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -

Galileo
Galilei

How many new and
more accurate theories evolved from observations that did not conform to
contemporary theory?


You tell me.


Of course there are others who, secure on their flat Earth in the middle
of
the universe, settle for shouting obscenities to all those who disagree
with
their world view...

Robert


And there are dorks who, secure on their flat Earth in the middle of the
universe, are more concerned with diplomacy than science.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Androcles.




  #3  
Old May 7th 09, 07:36 AM posted to sci.astro
Androcles[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,135
Default Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis


"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Snip
================================================== ===
Maybe Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University is a complete
dickhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Posted by
Androcles


RKS:
Science is all about resolving contradictory observations.


Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order. It is not the invention of dork matter
or black holes and then go looking for them.


RKS:
We share a dislike for the dark matter solution to contradictory
observations (observations that contradict theory), but this is more of a
question of *how* we resolve the contradictory observations. Do we retain
current theoretical underpinnings and explain new observation by appending
ever less solid theory to explain it? Or do we have another look at the
underlying model?

Look at the underlying model, of course. When you go down a blind alley
the solution is to back ALL the way out. If all the planets show retrograde
motion then the Earth is not the centre of the solar system. If spacetime
is curved is it convex or concave?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm

The later [latter- Ed.] has been avoided by modern cosmologists for

reasons other than
scientific ones. Either they don't have the imagination or are simply
incapable of generating alternative models, but either way it is a very
poor
reflection on modern cosmology in general.

It is prudent to consider a model that does not require ever more patches
to
staunch the theoretical leaks. Recalling Hoyle's model, which I also
didn't
like, he proposed that a tiny amount of hydrogen would have to be
generated
somehow to explain the apparent expansion of the universe. We now look at
the enormous amount of observation that require huge leaps of faith in the
current model and it is clear that the old Hoyle model was more robust to
the first approximation.



Quite so. The Hubble redshift nonsense has another explanation commensurate
with a steady state universe. It is quite simple, but you have to give up
faith
in only one speed of light, not to mention magical Big Bangs where matter is
created out of nothing. The Pope would approve of such idiocy, of course.
He has a backstop theory, "God made it", the instant answer to every
mystery.


Dark Matter appears to explain observations of the bullet cluster. But it
fails for the observations mentioned at the root of this thread.

Thus the article questions dark matter. I wonder why, if you are opposed
to
the idea of dark matter, you did not embrace these findings.


My comment was in reference to Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University
challenging Newton and nothing to do with dork matter.
"Maybe Newton was indeed wrong", declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa...
"Maybe Kroupa is a complete dickhead", declares Dr. Androcles.


Robert


If you have a contradictory observation, change the explanation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg
Is the pencil really bent?
No, the light is.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -

Galileo
Galilei


http://www.theastronomer.org/vars/20...3aql_LC_V2.gif
Does the nova really explode twice?
No, the light in your eye does.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -

Galileo
Galilei

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

Is there dork matter?
Only for dorks.
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -

Galileo
Galilei

How many new and
more accurate theories evolved from observations that did not conform
to
contemporary theory?


You tell me.


Of course there are others who, secure on their flat Earth in the
middle
of
the universe, settle for shouting obscenities to all those who disagree
with
their world view...

Robert


And there are dorks who, secure on their flat Earth in the middle of the
universe, are more concerned with diplomacy than science.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Androcles.






  #4  
Old May 7th 09, 11:52 AM posted to sci.astro
Robert Karl Stonjek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis


"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Snip
================================================== ===
Maybe Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University is a complete
dickhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Posted by
Androcles RKS:
Science is all about resolving contradictory observations.

Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order. It is not the invention of dork matter
or black holes and then go looking for them.


RKS:
We share a dislike for the dark matter solution to contradictory
observations (observations that contradict theory), but this is more of

a
question of *how* we resolve the contradictory observations. Do we

retain
current theoretical underpinnings and explain new observation by

appending
ever less solid theory to explain it? Or do we have another look at the
underlying model?

Look at the underlying model, of course. When you go down a blind alley



the solution is to back ALL the way out. If all the planets show

retrograde
motion then the Earth is not the centre of the solar system. If spacetime
is curved is it convex or concave?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm

RKS:
There is a wise saying often made by traders (who don't go broke):
"When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging."
Doesn't appear to apply to cosmologists (no bailouts for shoddy theory)

Robert


  #5  
Old May 7th 09, 12:53 PM posted to sci.astro
Androcles[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,135
Default Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis


"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news
"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Snip
================================================== ===
Maybe Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University is a complete
dickhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm
Posted by
Androcles RKS:
Science is all about resolving contradictory observations.

Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, in that order. It is not the invention of dork matter
or black holes and then go looking for them.


RKS:
We share a dislike for the dark matter solution to contradictory
observations (observations that contradict theory), but this is more of

a
question of *how* we resolve the contradictory observations. Do we

retain
current theoretical underpinnings and explain new observation by

appending
ever less solid theory to explain it? Or do we have another look at
the
underlying model?

Look at the underlying model, of course. When you go down a blind alley



the solution is to back ALL the way out. If all the planets show

retrograde
motion then the Earth is not the centre of the solar system. If spacetime
is curved is it convex or concave?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ro/Crapiro.htm

RKS:
There is a wise saying often made by traders (who don't go broke):
"When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging."
Doesn't appear to apply to cosmologists (no bailouts for shoddy theory)

Robert

Do you know where dork matter originated?
I do, I was watching some crazy woman on a BBC Horizon show many
years ago (forgot her name now) and she was taking a poke at galaxies,
measuring red and blue shift on opposite sides to get their rotational
velocity. If you subtract the receding side from the approaching side
then you get the receding velocity of the galaxy as a whole.
She said this was too fast, so there had to be hidden matter in the galaxy.
One nut who believes Einstein is all you need to bake an entire fruitcake.








  #6  
Old May 7th 09, 02:52 PM posted to sci.astro
Robert Karl Stonjek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis

snip
RKS:
There is a wise saying often made by traders (who don't go broke):
"When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging."
Doesn't appear to apply to cosmologists (no bailouts for shoddy theory)

Robert

Do you know where dork matter originated?
I do, I was watching some crazy woman on a BBC Horizon show many
years ago (forgot her name now) and she was taking a poke at galaxies,
measuring red and blue shift on opposite sides to get their rotational
velocity. If you subtract the receding side from the approaching side
then you get the receding velocity of the galaxy as a whole.
She said this was too fast, so there had to be hidden matter in the

galaxy.
One nut who believes Einstein is all you need to bake an entire fruitcake.


RKS:
'Dark Time' can't be too far off.

Maybe even 'Dark Light' ~ now there's a bright idea for patching up the next
hole in the current Cosmological Model

Robert


 




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
COSMOLOGY CRISIS AND REDSHIFT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 14 September 6th 08 11:50 PM
What can ZPF Theory achieve in terms of Cosmology? Zordan UK Astronomy 0 May 13th 07 01:39 AM
Cosmology and String Theory Jo Misc 6 June 29th 06 08:39 PM
Crisis in Cosmology Jose B. Almeida Research 17 May 31st 05 09:07 PM
Crisis in Cosmology [email protected] Research 1 March 8th 05 05:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 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.