View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
More trouble at Hamlet's Mill?
Gravitational waves are one of the cornerstones of cosmic inflation theory.
But according to Quanta Magazine, analysis showing that the swirl pattern detected by the astronomers fits the profile of radiating space dust rather than gravitational waves.
...
So where, one might ask, does the new analysis leave the theory of cosmic inflation? That no definitive gravitational wave signal could be seen through the dusty haze does not imply that the waves don't exist, but rather translates into a new upper bound on how strong they could be, given that they have managed to stay under the telescopes' radar. The finding confirms that a few models of inflation are eliminated, but does not disprove the 35-year-old theory itself, which in most models would have generated gravitational waves too gentle for the telescopes to detect.
Some back-peddling called for?
"I have always tried to emphasize that inflation was not the thing at stake here, actually," said Eva Silverstein, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University
So, it's now a matter of faith rather than science that cosmic inflation exists.
We return now to our studio in Norway.
Cosmic expansion theorists, can you hear me? Your boys took a hell of a beating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Is nothing sacred?
Someone is saying "There are no such things as black holes"
According to Ars Technica:
The paper's primary author, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, claims her work proves that black holes cannot form in the first place. "I'm still not over the shock," she said in a written statement issued by the university. "We've been studying this problem for more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
Mersini-Houghton is not the first one to claim that black holes don't exist. Stephen J. Crothers has been claiming to have disproven their existence for quite some time, and even Stephen Hawking has issued a statement that "there are no black holes"
What they found in their simulations (my emphasis) is that the repulsive, anti-gravitational force from the negative energy builds up as the star collapses. Right before the star's core becomes a black hole, it bounces. Rather than continuing to collapse, the star stops before it gets dense enough to form an event horizon, then it rapidly expands.
What happens to the star next is uncertain, since the authors' simulation consistently breaks down at this point. Regardless, their conclusion about black holes is certain: they can't exist. They never form in the first place.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/completely-implausible-a-controversial-paper-exists-but-so-do-black-holes/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Stone
In: conclusive
|
|
|
|
The sun isn't a thermonuclear fusion reactor, its power is derived from an external source. |
That's one power-cable and plug I'd like to see. From a safe distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Roger Stone wrote: | The sun isn't a thermonuclear fusion reactor, its power is derived from an external source. |
That's one power-cable and plug I'd like to see. From a safe distance. |
Roger, you are right to be skeptical. That is the mark of a true scientist.
However, and if I understand correctly, Komorikid was pointing at something very important. Even to this day, mainstream astrophysicists still invoke Newton as the God that explains everything before Einstein.
What is almost completely (and strangely) ignored is anything to do with electromagnetic energy. In his study in Princeton, Einstein had pictures of three scientists on the wall: Newton, Faraday and Maxwell. The latter two of these three Gods of Physics dealt in electromagnetic energy.
To a friend who had given him a book about Faraday, Einstein (employing a poignant image worthy of a poet) wrote: "You have given me great joy with the little book about Faraday. This man loved mysterious Nature as a lover loves his distant beloved. In his day, there did not yet exist the dull specialization that stares with self-conceit through horn rimmed glasses and destroys poetry. . . ."
Electromagnetic energy is far more powerful than gravity. Yet our explanations for how the Sun works are stll locked in Newtonian realms (of gravity, mechanical and chemical energy).
There is an anomaly here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Someone is asking
Is there a crisis in Cosmology? |
What's happening? Is the sky falling down again?
According to the standard model, which is the basis for essentially all research in the field, there is a fixed and precise sequence of events that followed the Big Bang: First, the force of gravity pulled together denser regions in the cooling cosmic gas, which grew to become stars and black holes; then, the force of gravity pulled together the stars into galaxies. |
Yes, yes, we all know that.
The Webb Telescope data, though, revealed that some very large galaxies formed really fast, in too short a time, at least according to the standard model. This was no minor discrepancy. The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves. |
Maybe it's dodgy data?
It was not, unfortunately, an isolated incident. There have been other recent occasions in which the evidence behind science’s basic understanding of the universe has been found to be alarmingly inconsistent. |
Is that bad?
Physicists and astronomers are starting to get the sense that something may be really wrong. It’s not just that some of us believe we might have to rethink the standard model of cosmology; we might also have to change the way we think about some of the most basic features of our universe — a conceptual revolution that would have implications far beyond the world of science. |
But what should we do about it?
We may be at a point where we need a radical departure from the standard model, one that may even require us to change how we think of the elemental components of the universe, possibly even the nature of space and time. |
https://web.archive.org/web/20230902113652/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/opinion/cosmology-crisis-webb-telescope.html/
Cue the obligatory Trekky reference.
It's space, Jim, but not as we know it.
Gentlemen, start your AEL engines. Or phone Professor Brian Cox and ask him to explain it to you.
That's Brian Cox the astrophysicist employed by the BBC, not Brian Cox the Scottish actor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p09z0tj9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
If they can't get the basic model of the Solar Stem right, I don't give them much of a hope when they scale it up. I saw Brian Cox playing a Russian detective the other day so maybe he should pay more attention to the day job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
As this "AEL in Space" topic started in 2009, I can confidently say AEL has boldly gone where few have gone before (or come back).
The latest blow to Astro-orthodoxy?
Saying goodbye to the Big Bang -
The prevailing story of our universe is starting to unravel |
What's the orthodox position?
The Big Bang theory asserts (among other things) that our universe was born in a gigantic explosion 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang is one of the most stubborn dogmas in science today. Thousands of scientific papers, textbooks, popular books and articles have treated the Big Bang theory as if it were essentially a proven fact. |
So? What's wrong with that?
The opposite is the case ... the Big Bang theory is contradicted by an overwhelming mass of astronomical evidence – evidence that is constantly accumulating – while mainstream cosmologists continue to twist and turn in attempts to save the theory and discredit its critics. |
Was it all astro-turf?
Fortunately, there is a new-orthodoxy waiting in the wings, the Plasma Cosmology, with physics describing electromagnetism, plasma, gravitation and nuclear fusion reactions. Advocates of that approach published papers correctly predicting what the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would reveal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm old enough to remember when the Big Bang happened. It was put forward in opposition to the then standard 'Steady State' model. I didn't know then but I know now that this was all part of -- the culmination, one might say -- the long march from Uniformitarianism to Evolutionism. Applied Epistemologists always
(1) observe these trends with heroic detachment and
(2) assume that whatever theory is being put forward to justify the change is a back-of-the-envelope job.
Once everybody is signed up (e.g. all proponents of Steady State are dead or emeritus) then two envelopes can be used. Like this one recently drawn to our attention
Plasma Cosmology, with physics describing electromagnetism, plasma, gravitation and nuclear fusion reactions |
Why don't the jackasses use the scientific method by creating a statistical sample of pre-Universes and seeing which of their models gets us to where we are today?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
I didn't get where I am today without playing with models.
It all started innocently enough, with Airfix and glue. "Big Bang" back then meant the awful crashing sound when the model fell off the table.
I progressed onto "Steady State" models with Hornby model trains chugging round and round.
Then I progressed onto an interest in swimwear models. I was hoping for a "Big Bang" with one of those, but sadly was never rich, famous, or good-looking enough to succeed.
The "Big Bang" nowadays is likely to be the sound of M'Lady's tea tray hitting the side of my head as she yells abuse at me for wasting time on internet forums talking to a load of w....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Cool kids had Triang train sets, soppy kids played with Hornby Double-O. And played on their own, because they were soppy. Still I expect it taught you self-reliance, right, Borry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|