Abundant Cheap Energy...

[tallguy]

Actually if I can just cool off the debate for a second, I would like to make clear that I in no way consider repeated and persistent advancement of specious, invalid and unsound arguments in a long series of posts to constitute evidence of anything less than profound intelligence.

It might just be an incredibly long run of bad luck, for example.

Now that was funny Mirage...

The fact is, humans have an innate need to discern predictable patterns in reality. It's a Darwinian evolved behavioural trait that has obvious benefits. Most notably, the benefit of being able to predict and therefore control one's environment.

The problem for many humans is that they have neither the time, energy or intellect to nail down many of those patterns. All they ever see are vague shapes in the gloom of their perceptions. Nevertheless, the neeed to see those shapes clearly is so great that, in the absence of clarity, many humans are psychologically compelled to make sh*t up to fill in the gaps. A lie, for many humans, is preferable to an honest acceptance of ignorance.

For those people who do have enough time/energy/intellect to see futher into the gloom, the behaviour of the majority is utterly exasberating. Particularly, as you say, when that majority get to determine how the rest of us have to live by virture of their numbers.

Edited November 19, 2010 by tallguy

[Bloo Loo]

Please note that what I am about to say is just a general observation. It is not being directed at you or any other poster on this thread.

The problem is that if someone is saying something that you find completely and utterly ignorant and / or stupid it's very hard to reply without being insulting, simply because it's impossible to call what a person says is stupid without calling them stupid. Similarly if their arguments are attacks, or highly flawed.

I beleive I made an observation the poster found offensive....not the first time I would add.

his reply was, not even an attempt at correction, but a flat no way, you are ignorant.

I may be ignorant, but not of facts...ignorant of consencus maybe, but not ignorant.

I made further points and it was just no, no, no, even though the link I was asked to read confirmed one of the points. then the ad hominum started. out of order.

Valerius the Troll used to make comments that were mathematically incorrect....he did so delierately to spin a view...he was put right, but REFUSED to change the spin.

Not worht getting cross over....

[Toto deVeer]

I beleive I made an observation the poster found offensive....not the first time I would add.

his reply was, not even an attempt at correction, but a flat no way, you are ignorant.

I may be ignorant, but not of facts...ignorant of consencus maybe, but not ignorant.

I made further points and it was just no, no, no, even though the link I was asked to read confirmed one of the points. then the ad hominum started. out of order.

Valerius the Troll used to make comments that were mathematically incorrect....he did so delierately to spin a view...he was put right, but REFUSED to change the spin.

Not worht getting cross over....

You have to question why someone would come to a House Price Crash Forum to find deep insights into the cosmological origins of the Universe anyway...

[tallguy]

You have to question why someone would come to a House Price Crash Forum to find deep insights into the cosmological origins of the Universe anyway...

He hasn't. My goodness, you are fond of the strawman approach to rhetoric aren't you.

He is engaging with you and others on this thread becase he dislikes the rather fashionable post-modern cultural trend for all views to be held in equal esteem simply as a function of them being held. I know this is going to be difficult to for you to hear but, when if comes to scientific knowledge, some views really do have more validity than others....

Edited November 19, 2010 by tallguy

[Bloo Loo]

snip

I have not even favoured the big bang in my generous and kindly discussions with you two! What I favor is people getting off their lazy ignorant arses and actually reading up on the combined labour of centuries of incredibly clever people before airily dismissing key fruits of it as "pure speculation"!

Have we reached a measure of understanding?

no. you are a bully who provides nothing but references to others thoughts.

I HAVE studied the Universe for years, not full time, but have discussed many ideas and views.

You just poo poo anything that isnt proved...

And I have yet to see ANY refute from you other than...NO IT ISNT...

THIS Astro lost a lot of research money by making known ideas that his peers found disagreed with his theories.

http://www.haltonarp.com/..

Short biography for Halton C. Arp

Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the Big Bang theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined.!

another comment on the above:

Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo

Halton Arp is to the 21st century what Galileo was to the 17th. Both were respected scientists, popular leaders in their field. Both made observations which contradicted the accepted theories. Seventeenth century academics felt threatened by Galileo's observations and so, backed by ecclesiastical authority, they ordered him to stop looking. Twentieth century astronomers felt threatened by Arp's observations and so, backed by institutional authority, they ordered him to stop looking.

Both refused. Both published works geared to the non-specialist when specialists would no longer take note. Galileo's paper, "A Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World" , favored a heliocentric model of the solar system and undermined the accepted geocentric model. Arp's books, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Seeing Red, and Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, favor a steady-state model of the universe and undermine the accepted big bang model.

The Church responded by placing Galileo under house arrest: his peers would not even look through his telescope and the Church judged his books heretical. The modern astronomical community responded similarly to Arp. Observatory officials cancelled his telescope time and astronomical journals refused to publish his research.

How did these men create such a furor?

Galileo introduced a simple new concept that changed the universe as it was known then. Arp introduces a simple new concept that will change the universe as we know it now.

Seventeenth Century educators taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Sun, the moon, the planets and the stars revolved around it. Galileo confronted his contemporaries with a universe centered around the sun. If you had lived in Galileo's time, would you have been willing to examine his work?

Today's educators teach that the universe started from a big bang 15 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Galaxies and quasars are scattered according to their redshift. Arp confronts us with a universe of ejected galactic families. You live in Arp's time: are you willing to examine his work?

Incidentally, you may poo poo my ideas, but actually, I havent discussed it with you or anyone else here at all, so you actually are 100% ignorant of my ideas, how I think about them and refine them with time.

How about we see an idea from you that isnt a link to wikipedia?

[Azbola]

Bloo, I think Mirage's point is that your posts come across a bit like this:

"Contrary to the currently perceived orthodox way of conducting science using experiments and maths and stuff, I prefer to just have a jolly good think about it and all becomes clear. A bit like Einstein."

It doesn't help that you then talk about the subject in a way that to the casual observer sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about.

Sorry

Edited November 19, 2010 by Azbola

[Toto deVeer]

He hasn't. My goodness, you are fond of the strawman approach to rhetoric aren't you.

He is engaging with you and others on this thread becase he dislikes the rather fashionable post-modern cultural trend for all views to be held in equal esteem simply as a function of them being held. I know this is going to be difficult to for you to hear but, when if comes to scientific knowledge, some views really do have more validity than others....

Science is not based upon views, it is based upon proof. If you want to discuss scientific views, then you are delving into the realms of philosophy. The entire premise of the big bang is that there was nothing and then there was. But scientists could not answer so many questions, so many errors of logic. How could time not exist, then exist? What created the bang? Was there anything before?

Does that sound like clutching at straws?

Then several mathematicians and physicists dreamt up the concept of membranes colliding, and creating matter. Do you see physical proof of this? It is another mathematical speculation. Are we developing the the science based upon the idea or the idea around the science?

I am not saying that any of these are incorrect, they may very well be, but there is nothing but mathematical and scientific speculation behind them.

[Bloo Loo]

Bloo, I think Mirage's point is that your posts come across a bit like this:

"Contrary to the currently perceived orthodox way of conducting science using experiments and maths and stuff, I prefer to just have a jolly good think about it and all becomes clear. A bit like Einstein."

It doesn't help that you then talk about the subject in a way that even to the casual observer sounds like you don't really know what your talking about.

Sorry

Thats OK, much appreciated, when you get deeper into the thread and review the vids from Richard Feynman, you'll see what I meant. I have no way of doing the experiments that a "scientist" is able to do, so all I am left with is what I read, what I think and how I interpret the information I have.

I am not a nuclear scientist.. I dont know all the maths that they use to support theories, I dont pretend to. I am capable of making observations and extracting a conclusion, for further amendment as more information arrives.

Im sorry if the language I used was simple, but to poo poo an idea, with the retort...you dont know anything, then provide a link to wikipedia????

anyway, here is a little more on the theory of Halton Arp and his treatment at the hands of the "consencus"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE

[Bloo Loo]

Science is not based upon views, it is based upon proof. If you want to discuss scientific views, then you are delving into the realms of philosophy. The entire premise of the big bang is that there was nothing and then there was. But scientists could not answer so many questions, so many errors of logic. How could time not exist, then exist? What created the bang? Was there anything before?

Does that sound like clutching at straws?

Then several mathematicians and physicists dreamt up the concept of membranes colliding, and creating matter. Do you see physical proof of this? It is another mathematical speculation. Are we developing the the science based upon the idea or the idea around the science?

I am not saying that any of these are incorrect, they may very well be, but there is nothing but mathematical and scientific speculation behind them.

Time to wheel in Realist Bear and the other 2 billions "creationists"...

[Toto deVeer]

Bloo, I think Mirage's point is that your posts come across a bit like this:

"Contrary to the currently perceived orthodox way of conducting science using experiments and maths and stuff, I prefer to just have a jolly good think about it and all becomes clear. A bit like Einstein."

It doesn't help that you then talk about the subject in a way that to the casual observer sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about.

Sorry

This is becoming a little bit of a lions den, Mirage must be away for dinner. I'm sure when he gets back we're all going to get hammered.

[Stars]

The Arthur C Clark book was Fountains of Paradise and the location was Sigiriya in Sri Lanka.

The device was an elevator composed of molecular strands 30 km in length, woven together. A spool was placed on orbit and a payload was lifted while another was lowered. Then the payload was moved from spool to spool to different locations around the earth, where it was lowered again. Essentially a frictionless and almost zero energy system.

The main problem with this was the material used in the fabric. It was thought that there was no material that could be used for this. Until the late 1990's, when a single strand of carbon, one molecule in thickness was found to have sufficient tensile strength for a 30 km length. So Clark's idea, like satellites, turns out to be feasible.

The spools would have to be geostationary orbit, so that’s not 30km length, more like 35,000 km (total length of the structure) - it is totaly infeasible as described because of the weight

Bloo's concept involved a wire (i'm filling in the concept a bit) whose centre of gravity would be in geostationary orbit but one end would dangle on to the surface of the earth. That's a wire of consistent density about 60,000 km long

I should add bloo never claimed it was a goer

Edited November 19, 2010 by Stars

[Azbola]

Thats OK, much appreciated, when you get deeper into the thread and review the vids from Richard Feynman, you'll see what I meant. I have no way of doing the experiments that a "scientist" is able to do, so all I am left with is what I read, what I think and how I interpret the information I have.

I am not a nuclear scientist.. I dont know all the maths that they use to support theories, I dont pretend to. I am capable of making observations and extracting a conclusion, for further amendment as more information arrives.

Im sorry if the language I used was simple, but to poo poo an idea, with the retort...you dont know anything, then provide a link to wikipedia????

anyway, here is a little more on the theory of Halton Arp and his treatment at the hands of the "consencus"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE

I can't see them at the moment as unfortunately work firewall block youtube.

I do appreciate what you're saying, but on the other hand to other people it can appear arrogant to assume you know enough to dismiss the consensus of an area of study/work whatever by watching some videos and reading up blogs/wikipedia whatever (I may be wrong here but this is how you are coming across).

There is no reason to think that other people have not already had the same ideas as you and after studying/experimenting further have realised there is more to it than an initial 'idea'. They would then naturally be offended if someone came along saying "look its obvious, just have a think about it like this".

[Azbola]

This is becoming a little bit of a lions den, Mirage must be away for dinner. I'm sure when he gets back we're all going to get hammered.

Personally I'm off to get hammered in about 5 minutes

[Toto deVeer]

The spools would have to be geostationary orbit, so that’s not 30km length, more like 35,000 km (total length of the structure) - it is totaly infeasible as described because of the weight

Bloo's concept involved a wire (i'm filling in the concept a bit) whose centre of gravity would be in geostationary orbit but one end would dangle on to the surface of the earth. That's a wire of consistent density about 60,000 km long

I should add bloo never claimed it was a goer

That's really interesting. I recall Clark using the 30 km value from memory, but I could be wrong. But if a single thread one molecule thick can support its weight over 30 km, would there be much effect due to gravity above that elevation? Or would it be weightless?

[Stars]

That's really interesting. I recall Clark using the 30 km value from memory, but I could be wrong. But if a single thread one molecule thick can support its weight over 30 km, would there be much effect due to gravity above that elevation? Or would it be weightless?

The wire would have weight all the way up to orbit

It would have less and less weight the further up you go because as you go higher the wire's path is getting closer to being freefall (orbit)

But (for instance), the second 30 km cable section of 1000, is going to have much the same weight as the first and indeed the first 50 30km sections

Also bear in mind that the spool and the cable are connected and so their centre of gravity would need to be in orbit

[mirage]

OK lads, it is Friday night and all, so despite the huge enjoyment I derive chatting with you all, this will have to be brief for now.

Now in this connection, the entire basis of the big bang presupposes characteristics that are found in Judeo-Christian origins. In fact those believers of eastern religions such as Hindus or Buddhists, might take the opposite view, that there was never a big bang, that time is, in fact, infinite. There is an element of pure religious faith tied up in the very concept of the big bang, and western-centric values.

No, I'm afraid that none of this is true. Honestly. You apparently have no idea what the big bang model (really a family of models, ranging from the basic, pretty-much-proved framework to more, as you say, speculative hypotheses.). I am not saying this with any hint of venom - I have temporarily got over my contempt-and-disgust-at-willful-ignorance bit.

The concensus big bang framework merely points out the very strong evidence that the observable universe has a history featuring a very hot, very dense state around 13.7 billions of years ago. It's the only hypothesis that currently satisfactorily accounts for many of the observations. It is a hypothesis that has also made very specific predictions and had them confirmed by observation. That is why it is also a theory.

Now, there are various optional add-ons and refinements that may or may not turn out to be so well established with time.

None of this implies anything about the metaphysics of existence, the Judeo-Christian worldview, or "something" arising from "nothing".

Whilst Einsteins theories and observation support that the Universe is expanding, that does not mean that it began with a big bang (or that there was any beginning at all).

It is expressions like this from you that demonstrate you have not even a basic grasp of what you are being critical of. You obviously have no idea whatsoever of the observations that underpin big bang theory.

You don't trust experts in a room. Well done you. Now how about you go and read a popular science book? I can point out you don't know what you think you know, but I'll be damned if I'll be your amateur physics teacher too.

[cock-eyed octopus]

Thats OK, much appreciated, when you get deeper into the thread and review the vids from Richard Feynman, you'll see what I meant. I have no way of doing the experiments that a "scientist" is able to do, so all I am left with is what I read, what I think and how I interpret the information I have.

I am not a nuclear scientist.. I dont know all the maths that they use to support theories, I dont pretend to. I am capable of making observations and extracting a conclusion, for further amendment as more information arrives.

Im sorry if the language I used was simple, but to poo poo an idea, with the retort...you dont know anything, then provide a link to wikipedia????

anyway, here is a little more on the theory of Halton Arp and his treatment at the hands of the "consencus"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE

I looked up Arp on Wiki:

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[5] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[6][7][8] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. "[9]

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.

Thing is, there still remains the problem of background microwave radiation, plus there are independent methods which agree on the age of the universe.

So his theories don't explain as much as existing ones unfortunately.

Edited November 19, 2010 by cock-eyed octopus

[mirage]

I beleive I made an observation the poster found offensive....not the first time I would add.

his reply was, not even an attempt at correction, but a flat no way, you are ignorant.

I may be ignorant, but not of facts...ignorant of consencus maybe, but not ignorant.

You seem to be really struggling with this Blu. I have repeatedly, over and over again made only really one point:

You don't know appear to know anything about the theory you are sceptical of. You have not demonstrated any knowledge whatever of what the tenets of the various theories are or what evidence supports them. You dismiss this vast body of work as "just guesswork" and simply don't respond to questions asking how this fits with all the experimental observation that is explained, and in some cases predicted, by this "guesswork".

Indeed, you don't seem even to know what a scientific theory is! You pointed out that the big bang theory was just a theory and not a fact!

As if that is a revelation to anyone! As if anyone had ever said otherwise!

So, to sum up:

On this particular subject,

on this particular day,

You are indeed ignorant.

Now go and get over it. It's not like I called you a paedophile.

[LuckyOne]

This thread has offered a complete non-scientist an amazing view into how scientists' minds work.

[Bloo Loo]

You seem to be really struggling with this Blu. I have repeatedly, over and over again made only really one point:

You don't know appear to know anything about the theory you are sceptical of. You have not demonstrated any knowledge whatever of what the tenets of the various theories are or what evidence supports them. You dismiss this vast body of work as "just guesswork" and simply don't respond to questions asking how this fits with all the experimental observation that is explained, and in some cases predicted, by this "guesswork".

Indeed, you don't seem even to know what a scientific theory is! You pointed out that the big bang theory was just a theory and not a fact!

As if that is a revelation to anyone! As if anyone had ever said otherwise!

So, to sum up:

On this particular subject,

on this particular day,

You are indeed ignorant.

Now go and get over it. It's not like I called you a paedophile.

I said I disagreed with it...I havent told you what my theory is, and others, including scientists also call the current consencus into question..all YOU do is say ITS WRONG ITS WRONG, wheres your proof?, and YOUR proof is where.

In English the world Ignorant is an insult.

Thats is my last word with you.

[Toto deVeer]

You don't trust experts in a room. Well done you. Now how about you go and read a popular science book? I can point out you don't know what you think you know, but I'll be damned if I'll be your amateur physics teacher too.

Dissent is Verboten.

[Bloo Loo]

I looked up Arp on Wiki:

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[5] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[6][7][8] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. "[9]

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.

Thing is, there still remains the problem of background microwave radiation, plus there are independent methods which agree on the age of the universe.

So his theories don't explain as much as existing ones unfortunately.

he should alter his image with the change in data..sure thing.

Point is, he was Ostracised at the time he made his observations, which, at the time, appear to reveal new data...consencus said NO, and stopped him further.

Maybe they should have waited also till the Hubble provided more data.

You see this sort of thing in Sects like the Jehovahs witnesses, whom I have looked at the last few weeks...their "peer review" is controlled by an elite called the Watchtower Organisation. To disagree strongly with the current Wathctower theory of worship leads to a serious penalty of Disfellowship and "shunning" by members, including those of the same family....EVEN if subsequent revisions and "New Light" is revealed and the Disfellowed had a point.

[Bloo Loo]

snip. They would then naturally be offended if someone came along saying "look its obvious, just have a think about it like this".

Fair point.

BUT...science is NOT about personalities...and my view and the position I take I havent seen discussed anywhere.

I HAVE discussed it at length with others, and when I take time to go through the steps, they see a point...and much is, it appears, is explained.. But not here. And I wont discuss it here.

But to take offence that I, ignoramous as I am, have come to another conclusion is just daft. Witchfinder General stuff.

[Toto deVeer]

he should alter his image with the change in data..sure thing.

Point is, he was Ostracised at the time he made his observations, which, at the time, appear to reveal new data...consencus said NO, and stopped him further.

Maybe they should have waited also till the Hubble provided more data.

You see this sort of thing in Sects like the Jehovahs witnesses, whom I have looked at the last few weeks...their "peer review" is controlled by an elite called the Watchtower Organisation. To disagree strongly with the current Wathctower theory of worship leads to a serious penalty of Disfellowship and "shunning" by members, including those of the same family....EVEN if subsequent revisions and "New Light" is revealed and the Disfellowed had a point.

I have direct experience of this. I headed up a 15 year full scale research project. The conclusions did not support the consensus; they refuted it. I could not believe this to be true initially, so I contacted other Scandinavian research labs and found they were encountering the same.

I and another PhD submitted a research paper for a conference in New Zealand. Three experts were selected to evaluate it. Two of the reviewers wrote that it deserved an award. The third absolutely slated it and point blank refused to agree to accept it in any form. The paper was not published.

I later checked the background of the expert who rejected it. It turned out that he had built his career on theoretical development of principles that our data did not support, in fact refuted.

Since that time, standards around the world have been changed, and the practitioners now agree with our findings. We went ahead and incorporated this in our programmes to great benefit.

I learned that science and religion are actually not that far removed, amongst many researchers. I also learned not to trust a consensus.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Toto deVeer

[Toto deVeer]

This thread has offered a complete non-scientist an amazing view into how scientists' minds work.

It's actually quite a deep rabbit hole...