3 ms·

The universe does not expand: www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf I follow the BSM-SG model in which dark matter/dark energy is absolutely clear what it

by poelzi 11y ago

The universe does not expand: www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf I follow the BSM-SG model in which dark matter/dark energy is absolutely clear what it is and how it functions. The illustration is even a bit similar to the BSM-SG model, if you see it as the CL dimensions. Larger astronomical bodies have their own CL space, which means they carry a bubble with them those geometry is dependent on the body itself. This is why the photons get into a gravitational pull on heavy bodies, time goes differently, ...

Steuard 11y ago
The Big Bang model of cosmological history is one of the most exquisitely tested ideas in science. Just for starters, any competing model would need to duplicate the highly sensitive predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis), the results of detailed simulations of structure formation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation), and the existence of the cosmic microwave background (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) (and at this point it would probably need to match the detailed spectrum of the CMB at least as well as inflationary models do). That's not an impossible task, but it's an awfully high bar: the widely accepted "Lambda-CDM" model (a specific Big Bang scenario involving both dark energy and cold dark matter) and its parameters have proven to be amazingly consistent under a whole bunch of very different observational tests. The odds that it has passed all of those tests so very consistently purely by dumb luck, while the universe actually follows some entirely incompatible set of rules and history, seem vanishingly small.
hliyan 11y ago
What I meant to say was: our observations with regards to expansion (or lack thereof). Thanks for the clarification (although you could have explained some of tho acronyms you used for the benefit of non-physicists).
- Steuard 11y ago
  The previous poster probably ought to have explained those acronyms for the benefit of physicists, too: I'm a tenured physics professor specializing in high energy theory (with some research experience in relativity and cosmology), and I've never heard of that model. (Most physicists I know are also hesitant to flat out contradict widely accepted and observationally verified models without at least a bit of caution in their language, too: just saying "the universe does not expand" without qualification is unusually bold. To my knowledge I have never met a professional physicist who doesn't buy into at least the basic framework of the Big Bang model.)
  - poelzi 11y ago
    I linked the newsletter, go through each of those papers and you will see, that those come from the peer reviewed process. It's hard to believe that those scientists will still think that the Big Bang happened. Eric Lerner, from LPP fusion to just mention one of them: Nice presentation with his findings: https://vimeo.com/97608525 https://vimeo.com/97608525 If you give me an explanations for each of the findings in the newsletter mentioned, I would reconsider, but 20 evidential findings that do absolutely not fit, are enough for me to declare a theory falsified. Apart from the Background Radiation, (2.72 K) which is derived for me (BSM-SG Mainbook Chapter 5.2), not much speaks for the theory at all and this is ignoring the huge number of theoretical problems.
scentoni 11y ago
In case this isn't immediately clear, BSM-SG is crackpottery akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
- poelzi 11y ago
  explain: I take logic errors or math errors seriously, everything else is just crackpot talk.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    Do not forget errors of fact (which are not logic errors). A statement can be logically deductive, and contain no arithmetic errors; yet be based on propositions which do not have true interpretations in this universe.

by poelzi 11y ago

Steuard 11y ago

The Big Bang model of cosmological history is one of the most exquisitely tested ideas in science. Just for starters, any competing model would need to duplicate the highly sensitive predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis), the results of detailed simulations of structure formation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation), and the existence of the cosmic microwave background (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) (and at this point it would probably need to match the detailed spectrum of the CMB at least as well as inflationary models do). That's not an impossible task, but it's an awfully high bar: the widely accepted "Lambda-CDM" model (a specific Big Bang scenario involving both dark energy and cold dark matter) and its parameters have proven to be amazingly consistent under a whole bunch of very different observational tests. The odds that it has passed all of those tests so very consistently purely by dumb luck, while the universe actually follows some entirely incompatible set of rules and history, seem vanishingly small.

hliyan 11y ago

What I meant to say was: our observations with regards to expansion (or lack thereof). Thanks for the clarification (although you could have explained some of tho acronyms you used for the benefit of non-physicists).

Steuard 11y ago
The previous poster probably ought to have explained those acronyms for the benefit of physicists, too: I'm a tenured physics professor specializing in high energy theory (with some research experience in relativity and cosmology), and I've never heard of that model. (Most physicists I know are also hesitant to flat out contradict widely accepted and observationally verified models without at least a bit of caution in their language, too: just saying "the universe does not expand" without qualification is unusually bold. To my knowledge I have never met a professional physicist who doesn't buy into at least the basic framework of the Big Bang model.)
- poelzi 11y ago
  I linked the newsletter, go through each of those papers and you will see, that those come from the peer reviewed process. It's hard to believe that those scientists will still think that the Big Bang happened. Eric Lerner, from LPP fusion to just mention one of them: Nice presentation with his findings: https://vimeo.com/97608525 https://vimeo.com/97608525 If you give me an explanations for each of the findings in the newsletter mentioned, I would reconsider, but 20 evidential findings that do absolutely not fit, are enough for me to declare a theory falsified. Apart from the Background Radiation, (2.72 K) which is derived for me (BSM-SG Mainbook Chapter 5.2), not much speaks for the theory at all and this is ignoring the huge number of theoretical problems.

scentoni 11y ago

In case this isn't immediately clear, BSM-SG is crackpottery akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

poelzi 11y ago
explain: I take logic errors or math errors seriously, everything else is just crackpot talk.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Do not forget errors of fact (which are not logic errors). A statement can be logically deductive, and contain no arithmetic errors; yet be based on propositions which do not have true interpretations in this universe.