Just like that! It will happen overnight and everyone will accept it! Get more gut-busters at Could All Our Scientific Knowledge Come Tumbling Down Like A House Of Cards?At some point, you’re inevitably going to find something that doesn’t jibe with the prevailing wisdom. You’re going to find something that conflicts with what you expected. You’re going to get a result that contradicts your old, pre-existing theory. And when that happens — if you can verify the contradiction, if it holds up to scrutiny and shows itself to be really, really real — you’re going to get to do something wonderful: have a scientific revolution.
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
- Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Nonsense. That's simply not true. If redshift is *not* related to expansion as "assumed", the whole concept of a "big bang" becomes moot. None of the other so called "evidence" is entirely 'independent' of that assumption.But it’s important to remember that we didn’t arrive at this picture by focusing on one dubious result that may crumble away. We have literally dozens of lines of independent evidence that all lead us to this same conclusion.
False. Again, if redshift is related to tired light, and what they interpret as "time dilation" is nothing more than ordinary signal broadening, there is no need for dark energy at all.Even if it turned out that we didn’t understand supernovae at all, dark energy would still be needed;
False. Dr. Scott's paper explains galaxy rotation (and counter rotation) patterns without any need for dark matter.even if it turned out we didn’t understand galactic rotation at all, dark matter would still be needed;
Totally false. Eddington correctly predicted the background temp to within 1/2 of one degree without a "bang". The first BB estimates on the other hand were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. If the CMB isn't from a 'big bang', then a big bang isn't required to explain it.even if it turned out the microwave background was all spurious and needed to be thrown out, the Big Bang would still be required.
This is such a silly and ridiculous statement. Ptolemy theory was flat out *wrong*. It wasn't just "incomplete". Once that was realized, we no longer had any need of Ptolemy, epicycles or any such nonsense. Likewise the BB theory is flat out *wrong*, it's not just "incomplete".The Universe might turn out to be very different in detail from how we conceive of it today. Like many of you out there, I hope we live long enough to see what challenges, surpasses, and supersedes our best present understanding. But when that occurs, it won't invalidate what we understand now. Our leading theories of today aren't wrong, they're just incomplete.
Aside from the obviously overly optimistic belief that one or two contradictory observations might overturn BB theory, the author obviously hasn't studied history very well. Some scientific theories are simply *wrong*, and there's nothing salvageable about them. Big bang theory is a perfect case in point. A full 95 percent of the BB model is made of placeholder terms for human ignorance. It's not just a little "incomplete". It's a total metaphysical disaster. There's nothing about it that's even worth trying to salvage anymore than there was anything about Ptolemy worth saving. Some theories are simply wrong.
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
- Location: London, England
For example, we now have "super heavy" dark matter - for crying out loud when will they get real?
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.12865.pdf and also https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.12418.pdf
I could not agree more with your comment on the final paragraph either when it states the absurd nonsense that "our current understanding isn't wrong, it's just incomplete" - this statement reminds me of the claim way back (and embarrassingly, I cannot remember who said it) that there is "nothing new left to discover in physics, it is just filling in the details now"
The whole LCDM model is an epic fail - period - and should be consigned to the bin along with Ptolemy's epicycles.
- nick c
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
There is an inherent problem with that view. Hidden baryonic matter does not explain the rotation of galaxies. That was the first thing mainstream cosmologists considered when it was realized that galactic rotations and motions were casting doubt on the prevailing gravity only paradigm....no need for exotic "dark" matter at all - there is simply ordinary matter we cannot yet see.
In order to explain observations you would need something like 90% or more of the Universe to be composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Any attempt to replace this "magic" with hidden baryons is doomed; because if you had enough hidden matter and placed it into the necessary positions to explain galactic motions, then it should form into obserable stars, nebula, etc., because that is what normal matter does!
Postulating that galactic motion and rotation can be explained by hidden baryonic matter is still working on the implied assumption that the gravity only paradigm is correct.
Realizing that "hidden" baryonic matter could not explain the observations, mainstream concocted a heretofore unknown and unobservable, special type of unobservable matter and named it "Dark Matter". This magical ad hoc concoction does not behave in the manner of baryonic matter, other than that it exerts a gravitational signature which conveniently enough (for the gravity only paradigm) explains galactic motion and rotation.
The alternative for mainstream was to give serious consideration that the gravity only paradigm had been falsified by observations. That was and is an unacceptable course.
The homopolar model of galaxies does not need Dark Matter nor does it need an untenable amount of hidden ordinary matter.
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:03 pm
- Location: Brandon, Manitoba,Canada
Michael, I am of the understanding, that not much of mainstream science make ANY sense. electrons do not 'jump rings' any more that I teleport from point a to b... mainstream got it wrong MANY MANY MANY times in the past (earth is the center, is flat, Michelson/Morley, plank, higgs, etc, etc, etc.) Am I shaking the ground you walk on ??
The foundation that mainstream has built it's ideals on, is wrong in the first place, gut instinct, is point. why are dinosaurs so deep in the ground ? everything is buried ?? because the earth as it travels through space (if you want to call it that) is CONSTANTLY gaining mass !
Want a ton of olives? take just one out of each jar that the olive company makes.. the point is most people look at life as a static model of nature, she ain't static, the earth has been gaining mass all along... (and growing because of this). Younger/Dryas even.. 3-5 feet deep ?? where did all that overburden come from ?? Sure some might be rain washout, some might be tectonic movement, but most is added mass from the heavens !
As you add mass to a planet, that added mass squishes the tectonic plates, this is why the ocean floor is newer than the edges (USGS), the core oozes out at the plate boundaries (pushing them apart (Pangaea)).
The sea (excepting ice melt) is NOT rising, the continents are sinking as the earth grows both in circumference, and mass (think Fukashima and 3 feet) Japan didn't move, the crust formed an anomaly just east...
PEOPLE NEED TO think Dynamically... and not simply in the "here and now"
There, I'll get off my soap box now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests