Big Bang "blown away" by "shadow test"?

Jim
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 3 months ago #9243 by Jim

Reply from was created by Jim

This is just one more example of how models destroy any hope of making sense of observations such as the 3k background radiation. If it had been discovered with no preconcieved model this radiation may have lead people who make things happen in science to a different explaination of the radiation. But, it had to be made to fit the model and now we have more mysteries. I guess someone gains from this activity but there is no gain in understanding real events.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JMB
Offline
Elite Member

18 years 3 months ago #16107 by JMB

Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly

At least a large part of the microwave background is the result of a CREIL effect which transfers energy lost by redshifts to thermal radiation. Consequently, this radiation is observed very powerful close to bright, very redshifted objects.
The observation of periodicities shows the nature of the matter which produces the CREIL effect: atomic hydrogen in 2S or 2P states for the very redshifted objects, a molecule in its first vibrational degenerate state, the efficiency of the molecule for a CREIL effect resulting from a recoupling of the vibrational angular momentum of an oscillator with a spin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 3 months ago #16108 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 At least a large part of the microwave background is the result of a CREIL effect which transfers energy lost by redshifts to thermal radiation. Consequently, this radiation is observed very powerful close to bright, very redshifted objects.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Doesn't the new result, which shows no correlation with redshift, falsify CREIL? If not, what would? Theories are not scientific unless they can be falsified, and are not persuasive unless they make predictions with little probability of being correct by chance.

Note that MM predicts that the microwave radiation is the "temperature of space" calculated by Eddington in 1923, and therefore has nothing to do with "background". Do you see how the new result fits right in with MM, without need for any new ad hoc helper hypotheses? That is one way to tell good theories from bad because the good ones are "useful" -- i.e., predict or explain things before they are discovered. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JMB
Offline
Elite Member

18 years 3 months ago #16109 by JMB

Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 That is one way to tell good theories from bad because the good ones are "useful" -- i.e., predict or explain things before they are discovered. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There are two ways making a theory:

-either make new hypothesis, new physics.

-or develop well known and verified theories.

In the second case, if the application of the theory requires only the hypothesis of very simple systems, a good result is sufficient to show that this application is probably valuable. A lot of such probably valuable applications show that the theory applies.

The CREIL effect explains many observations with very simple hypothesis:

- Assuming that a heavy object (neutron star) is surrounded by impure hydrogen, so that there is an accretion which heats it extremely, depending on the density of the gas, one obtains, BY PURE SPECTROSCOPY the very complex spectrum of a quasar or the necklace of supernova SN1987A.

- While the "periodicity" of the spectrum of a quasar shows that atomic hydrogen plays a remarkable role, the almost identical explanation of an other periodicity found and verified by Tifft, Napier and others in the spectra of the galaxies requires only replacing atomic hydrogen by cold molecules.

- The CREIL explains the anomalous "acceleration" of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes simply assuming that the solar wind cools beyond 10 UA, making atomic hydrogen.

And there are other, but less spectacular applications ( anisotropy of the microwave background bound to the ecliptic, proximity effects, redshifts of the galaxy and the quasars in Arp's systems, ...)

Is it any other so powerful APPLICATION OF ORDINARY PHYSICS in astrophysics ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 3 months ago #16111 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 A lot of such probably valuable applications show that the theory applies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I do not agree. As we can plainly see in the case of the Big Bang, inventive theorists can find ways to explain any possible observational result no matter how wrong the theory may be. To be scientific as well as useful, it is not sufficient to explain things already known. It requires predicting new things before they are discovered that distinguish the favored theory from all competitors. A theory is only convincing if it predicts things not yet known AND places itself at risk to be falsified in doing so.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The CREIL effect explains many observations with very simple hypothesis:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So does the "guardian angels" hypothesis. "Explaining things" after the fact is too subjective.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Assuming that a heavy object (neutron star) is surrounded by impure hydrogen, so that there is an accretion which heats it extremely, depending on the density of the gas, one obtains, BY PURE SPECTROSCOPY the very complex spectrum of a quasar or the necklace of supernova SN1987A.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">"impure"? "extremely"? "depending on density"? Those seem so non-specific as to allow most theories to pass.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the almost identical explanation of an other periodicity found and verified by Tifft, Napier and others in the spectra of the galaxies requires only replacing atomic hydrogen by cold molecules.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It would be interesting to see an attempt to make such an argument here. I doubt you could get past the solar-system-centered nature of the Tifft/Napier result. At least, you give no hint how your favored theory might get past it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The CREIL explains the anomalous "acceleration" of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes simply assuming that the solar wind cools beyond 10 UA, making atomic hydrogen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The Pioneer anomalies are almost certainly an on-board phenomenon from waste heat dumping. But if your theory explains it too, do you care to use this as a falsification test? I.e., if the Pioneer anomaly goes away, does that falsify CREIL? Or does CREIL merely explain the effect to whatever extent it may or may not exist, with a correspondingly low ability to convince others?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is it any other so powerful APPLICATION OF ORDINARY PHYSICS in astrophysics ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Rarely doea a day go by here at Meta Research when we don't receive new theories that its authors are absolutely convinced of and have a longer list of things explained than yours. At least 98% of them are fooling themselves. If you wish to avoid the same fate, learn about "controls" to remove your biases from objective testing of your favored theory. Then be prepared to see this and some of your other very best ideas fail, which is what is required to start to develop a scientific mindset about what is needed to truly advance scientific frontiers. Good luck. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JMB
Offline
Elite Member

18 years 3 months ago #16112 by JMB

Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 A lot of such probably valuable applications show that the theory applies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I do not agree. As we can plainly see in the case of the Big Bang, inventive theorists can find ways to explain any possible observational result no matter how wrong the theory may be. To be scientific as well as useful, it is not sufficient to explain things already known. It requires predicting new things before they are discovered that distinguish the favored theory from all competitors. A theory is only convincing if it predicts things not yet known AND places itself at risk to be falsified in doing so.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I found the CREIL searching a problem for my students, and only 20 years later, I found that it can be applied to astrophysics...
Thus, the CREIL predicted, a long time ago a redshift of light propagating in convenient media (excited atomic hydrogen, some molecules,...). When I knew that the Pioneer probes have an "anomalous acceleration", I simply applied the CREIL to this problem.
The planets were observed before the building of celestial mechanics ...

What is important is explaining the observations without anyad hoc new theory or extraordinary hypothesis.

I found the spectrum of the quasars looking for the spectrum of a hot object in hydrogen; it happened that this purely physical building gives the spectrum
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The CREIL effect explains many observations with very simple hypothesis:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So does the "guardian angels" hypothesis. "Explaining things" after the fact is too subjective.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
We must imagine the Sun, the planets... without observation.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Assuming that a heavy object (neutron star) is surrounded by impure hydrogen, so that there is an accretion which heats it extremely, depending on the density of the gas, one obtains, BY PURE SPECTROSCOPY the very complex spectrum of a quasar or the necklace of supernova SN1987A.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">"impure"? "extremely"? "depending on density"? Those seem so non-specific as to allow most theories to pass.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
In the nature, it is easier to find mixtures than pure matter. The elementary theory of the accreting neutron stars shows that their temperature is larger than 1000000 K. I explain that "they are never seen" because they are named quasars!
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the almost identical explanation of an other periodicity found and verified by Tifft, Napier and others in the spectra of the galaxies requires only replacing atomic hydrogen by cold molecules.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It would be interesting to see an attempt to make such an argument here. I doubt you could get past the solar-system-centered nature of the Tifft/Napier result. At least, you give no hint how your favored theory might get past it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Read arxiv:physics/0607105. This paper must be slightly modified to explain that the redshifts described as Doppler are the speed of the light divided by an integer power of 2. The result is: in a molecule, maybe water, the recoupling of the vibrational angular momentum in the first vibrational state with a spin has a frequency of the order of 100 MHz, allowing a CREIL effect. The study of the propagation of a continuous spectrum light (one or several beams) in this gas shows that the space splits into "a" regions in which there is an usual propagation (with absorbed lines, for instance) and "s" regions where the frequencies of the light are shifted, (without any visible absorption of lines). The "s" regions are much thinner than the "a" regions, so that the light, in the average crosses an integer number of regions "s". Each region "s" crossed divides , with the previous convention on the redshifts, the speed of the light by two.

The galaxies are surrounded by shells of "a" and "s" regions, almost spherical, giving the the solar-system-centered nature of the Tifft/Napier result.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The CREIL explains the anomalous "acceleration" of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes simply assuming that the solar wind cools beyond 10 UA, making atomic hydrogen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The Pioneer anomalies are almost certainly an on-board phenomenon from waste heat dumping. But if your theory explains it too, do you care to use this as a falsification test? I.e., if the Pioneer anomaly goes away, does that falsify CREIL? Or does CREIL merely explain the effect to whatever extent it may or may not exist, with a correspondingly low ability to convince others?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The authors of papers show that the hypothesis of disgassing, leaks of valves, waste heat do not work, in particular because it would not give the same "accelerations" for both probes.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is it any other so powerful APPLICATION OF ORDINARY PHYSICS in astrophysics ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Rarely doea a day go by here at Meta Research when we don't receive new theories that its authors are absolutely convinced of and have a longer list of things explained than yours. At least 98% of them are fooling themselves. If you wish to avoid the same fate, learn about "controls" to remove your biases from objective testing of your favored theory. Then be prepared to see this and some of your other very best ideas fail, which is what is required to start to develop a scientific mindset about what is needed to truly advance scientific frontiers. Good luck. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The fundamental point is that CREIL is not a new theory, it is deduced from ordinary optics and spectroscopy.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.315 seconds