Wednesday, August 1, 2012
AGAINST The Standard Cosmological Model
Video: Scientific Method (May 1, 2012)
Some of the text from this video comes from "Astronomy-A Beginner's Guide to the Universe, Sixth Edition, by Chaisson/McMillan., page 18-20" My impression of the Standard Model of Cosmology is that it does not, in fact, meet the criteria of the Scientific Method. It has not made predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed. Instead, it has made no predictions at all. The basis of the standard model is to have so many predictions out there by so many different people that when something turns out to be right, one of those people will get a prize. But that's not a prediction. That's just a lottery.
July 9, 2012.
This is me expressing some dismay over a blunder, which I think Einstein himself made, but it seems no-one has ever noticed it. I should point out that my initial reaction: "This is a nonsense argument" has somewhat become more nuanced. If General Relativists will stand by their argument and acknowledge that this means there is an observer dependent force on distant objects, then it is no more unbelievable than the idea that the TIME at distant locations is observer dependent. The only trouble I have with it now, is that they have already rejected the idea that time is observer dependent by invoking that there must be a cosmological scale factor a(t). They have just replaced one unbelievable statement (relative distant time) with another unbelievable statement (relative distant force.)
I don't have any problem with having two possible hypotheses--the trouble I have is that the previous hypothesis (observer dependent time) is rejected and the latter hypothesis (observer dependent force) is accepted, and nowhere in the literature do you see any acknowledgement that these two ideas are different.
July 10, 2012
Still reading the same document as above. This video is probably not terribly clear what I'm trying to get across. In it, I'm trying to remember what I know about hyperbolic geometry and relativistic velocity addition. What I want to make clear here is that the Pettini article uses an incorrect form of velocity addition, and anything derived from an incorrect formula is probably also incorrect.
In this video, I'm whining and making excuses for the first 30 seconds or so, but then I give you some good animations of Milne's Model. This is to show the striking difference between the Kinematic Universe described by A.E. Milne and the Stretchy-Space universe described by Einstein and Eddington. This video highlights the difference between having distant time being an observer dependent quantity, and having distant force being an observer dependent quantity. I have an incomplete comment at the end. "If you do your bookkeeping right, you get the same answer." What does this mean? Either he distant forces are NOT in fact observer dependent, and you'd get the same answer (zero) for the force for all observers, or it IS observer dependent, in case all observers find distant objects are accelerating toward them.
Here is a record of the Edit War I had on Wikipedia with "scienceapologist." I eventually gave up the edit war, because I actually have some semblance of a life, and I don't have the kind of time to devote to fighting a fairly sizable group of people who want to present false information on Wikipedia. I believe they reason that since scientific consensus believes that Milne was wrong, they're duty is to present scientific consensus rather than what Milne's model actually was. In my opinion, they are wrong. They should allow Milne's actual words, and text and equations from Milne's actual books to be presented in the article on Milne's model.
How come I can't find any documentation on why don't people believe in using Lorentz Transformations on the large scale? Twofish Quant says "you have to do some digging." Really? Don't you think, if I've been asking this question probably at least once per year for the last 10 years on internet forums that SOMEONE would have known by now? No, the reason I can't find any documentation on it is because it was just forgotten. Nobody gave it any real thought, outside Milne and Epstein. In this video I try to explain something that seems to me so obvious that it hardly needs explanation, but I find myself stumbling to explain it. I will need to re-do this sometime in the future.
TwofishQuant claims that the density of the universe was about 100 times the density of water, just three minutes after the Big Bang. I disagree and believe the mass of the 10 or 20 nearest stars were packed into a radius of about a mile. This enormous density is greater than that of neutron stars, but would have been prevented from collapse by a balance of forces, i.e. the sum of forces in an infinite isotropic distribution is zero. (That's the central disagreement, here, by the way... Einstein and Eddington apparently believed, via this "Birkhoff's Theorem" argument, that the sum of forces in an infinite isotropic distribution was observer dependent.)
General Relativity experts frequently invoke "the data" (generally) in order to support their argument that the Standard Model is correct. It's very strange that most of "the data" they invoke (specifically) runs counter to their expectations. Here I'm expressing a wish that there were more people making an analysis of the Milne's model besides myself, and that an honest effort could be made to fit the data into Milne's model--as a living breathing theory, instead of treating Milne's model as a null hypothesis that we want to reject via statistics, because "we" already believe it's nonsense anyway.