Could use a bit of help

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
rcglinsk
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:06 pm

Could use a bit of help

Unread post by rcglinsk » Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:14 pm

Hi y'all,

I'm in an debate over at bad astronomy and would like some help with an argument.
The point that you are still missing is that the current model of cosmology, theory of black holes, neutron stars, etc. all come from standard physics and are very self consistent (in some cases, almost scarily so!). If you can come up with an explanation that is just as self consistent and that also explains the observations, you'll have achieved a coup d'eta like none other. Not even Einstein's papers from the Annus Mirabilis overturned as many aspects of physics as you will have to.


I've managed to convince them I think that on some level internal consistency is not evidence for a theorem, but rather a prerequisite. For example, the amount of dark matter deduced from a series of rotation curve analyses for a galaxy cluster should probably give the same answer as a cosmic virial theorem analysis of the galaxy cluster as a whole. Regardless of whether it's magnetic forces or dark matter gravity that's responsible for the forces on the galaxy cluster, both the sum of rotation curve and cosmic virial theorem analysis give about the same answer for the total force on the system, and hold the same force of gravity from visible matter exists, so they should both deduce the same amount of dark matter. Of course, the other piece of evidence they offer, consistency with gravitational lensing near field surveys, is not so easy to explain the lack of contradiction to it. Of course, the whole analysis is predicated on the hubble law which is kind of silly.

So, here's my problem. I've tried to ask how big the error bars on the gravitational lens calculation are in the hopes that (as I suspect) I can argue they're so darn big they'd be consistent with anything. No one's biting on giving me an answer. Putting that aside, is there any good way to explain why internal consistency is not ever going to be evidence if you've got elements to the system that are totally theoretical? I've tried talking about degrees of freedom and how curve fit analysis always works out with enough adjustable parameters. It didn't really work. Apparently the nature of a neutron star and the impact of dark matter are all based on something called "standard physics," and because the internal dynamics and rules of formation of neutron stars are certain, deduced from first principles, my argument doesn't apply.

I'm sure I'm not describing much of a novel dilemma, but I'm kind of at a loss. Any advice?

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Could use a bit of help

Unread post by MGmirkin » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:46 am

As an aside, their claim that all of the standard model is "self-consistent" seems to me to be rubbish. Perhaps the quote was taken out of context...

Anyway, it seems like Black holes are a fictional entity according to Crothers; one based on erroneous maths and one which can be corrected by going back to the original uncorrupted sources:

(Big Bang Busted! - The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)
http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/a ... others.htm

I'm not a mathematician, so can't comment on Crothers' assessment, but he is a mathematician and has deduced that the original papers did NOT imply that a black hole should exist and in fact excluded it. Only later papers (possibly not as rigorous) hinted at black holes. If true, then the "internal consistency" and "working from first principles" arguments seem to break down. Also the emphasis on "math now, observations later" seems faulty.

(Where have you gone, Isaac Newton?)
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3147

It seems to me that much of the "Standard Model" is ad hoc explanation of things that were either NOT predicted or that explicitly violated expectations. Which isn't to say necessarily that finding something novel and trying to explain it is a bad thing. But constant surprise and reworking seems somehow "bad..." I dunno.

There's a difference between a prediction and a post facto description. Predictive ability is to be lauded, lack thereof is not.

The fact that the Standard Model of Stellar Evolution has been called into question on several occasions in the past weeks due to lack of predictive ability does not speak loudly in its favor.

(Pulsar issues appear to have stumped Standard Model scientists.)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 246802.htm
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Weird ... s_999.html
A few quote wrote:"Our ideas about how the fastest-spinning pulsars are produced do not predict either the kind of orbit or the type of companion star this one has," said David Champion of the Australia Telescope National Facility. "We have to come up with some new scenarios to explain this weird pair," he added.

[...]

"This combination of properties is unprecedented. Not only does it require us to figure out how this system was produced, but the large mass may help us understand how matter behaves at extremely high densities," said Scott Ransom of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

[...]

"What we have found is a millisecond pulsar that is in the wrong kind of orbit around what appears to be the wrong kind of star," Champion said. "Now we have to figure out how this strange system was produced."

[...]

"If you were to ask any astronomer if we would have found a system like this, they would have said no. So this is a very big surprise," adds US team-member Dr Scott Ransom of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia.
(Predictions, Falsifiability and the Standard Model of Stellar Evolution)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch ... ctions.htm

Even more recently:

(Newly Formed Identical Twin Stars Reveal Surprising Differences)
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/s ... stars.html
Because astrophysicists have assumed that binary stars form simultaneously, the discovery provides an important new test for successful star formation theories, forcing theorists back to the drawing board to determine if their models can produce binaries with stars that form at different times.

[...]

In addition to causing theorists to re-examine star-formation models, the new discovery may cause astronomers to readjust their estimates of the masses and ages of thousands of young stars less than a few million years old.
In both cases (granted it's a small sampling of a larger problem), data didn't match expectations and have sent scientists scrambling for ad hoc explanations. The former, apparently explicitly violated existing theories, according to several commentators (who didn't put it quite that explicitly but acknowledged that the results were unexpected and that had they been asked a few weeks prior they would have said that such a thing was not possible).

Aside from which, black holes which were supposed to be the grand "eaters of all" now seem to routinely be said to eject polar jets. Not because theory says so (they seem unable to properly explain it), but because the jets were observed, stunning scientists who had completely not expected such a thing. Black holes are supposed to be cosmic drains, not active ejectors. In attempting to shoehorn various objects into the "black hole" paradigm, scientists seem to have run into obstacles at every turn. Could it be that the black holes, as Crothers argues, are simply a fictional entity based on non-rigorous mathematical derivations from original documents which did not list Black Holes as an extrapolation?

Just some, shall we say, cursory thoughts. I don't know whether they'd help on BAUT or not. Probably don't address the original question, specifically either. But hey, such is life. ;o)

Cheers,
~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Could use a bit of help

Unread post by MGmirkin » Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:05 am

Consistency is not the measure of a theorem.

Yes, consistency is necessary for a theory to be considered a good theory. That's just common sense.
No, consistency does not equate logically to correctness.

One can be internally consistent all day long and still be wrong if the premise is incorrect.

Case in point "frozen-in field lines" and "magnetic reconnection."

(Double layers and circuits in astrophysics; Hannes Alfvén, 1986)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 013880.pdf

(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos; Don Scott, 2007)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf

They can be used consistently all day long by astronomers, solar physicists, et al. But that does not make the premise any less incorrect.

Just a thought.
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Could use a bit of help

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:43 am

Hi, don't know if this is any use but I came across it this morning:
Accidental astrophysicists
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... physicists

It's about gravitational lensing, here's a snippet:
Dmitry Khavinson and Genevra Neumann didn’t know anything about astrophysics. They were just doing mathematics, like they always do, following their curiosity. In 2004, they posted a new result, an extension of the fundamental theorem of algebra, on arXiv.org, a preprint server.
Five days later, they received an e-mail. Congratulations, it said. You just proved Sun Hong Rhie’s conjecture on gravitational lensing.
Gravitational what? Khavinson, of the University of South Florida in Tampa, and Neumann, of the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, had never heard of it.
So they started a crash course in gravitational lensing. When we peer at stars in the distant reaches of the universe, they learned, we can’t simply believe our eyes. Light can play tricks as it travels across such distances. For example, if a star or other massive object lies near the path between the distant star and us, its gravity will bend the light rays. As a result, that light from the distant star will reach us from two different directions, bending around either side of the massive object — so that a single star looks like two.
There is some maths stuff in the article but it way beyond me.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests