|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |