Dark Matter

[xelasnave]

Bojan said.....
You are talking religion here, not science

I may not be scientific but what I am on about is not about religion.... I dont believe in it or that there is any supreme who created everything...
I reject the notion my views are religious and say I have the right to believe what I like..it is not as though I have approached my subject with outregaurd for what is currently available ..GR says there is no force...Newton says gravity is the force of God... I find it ammussing that you can thereofre say I am the religious one here..

Still if science regards further thought or explanation as to the actual force of gravity offencive because the current science can not take it further that is a problem for science not me...

I openned a thread in general chat which has had no takers so it seems it is not a matter for general chat either...and so I will leave off further talk about my ideas ....when you think I am being unscientific please have a look thru the stuff out there from scientists who are publishjed and tell me how statementsd of believe...re inflation, time travell via a black hole, and the possiblity of communication with another dinmention via a gravity wave present as serious science.... my views are somewhat subdued in comparrision I feel.

alex

[bojan]

Alex,
Do not take my reply as an offense, please..

Religion does not necessarily imply belief or discussion about supreme being.
Rather, it is a method used to explain things around us.

Scientific method assumes experiment (or observation of certain phenomena), hypothesis to explain them, more experiments to confirm hypothesis, working theory, prediction of new phenomena that follow from theory, confirmation of those predictions by even more experiments, acceptance of theory, and then back to the beginning, for re-checking. All in that order, no step should be missed, and all that must be possible to be repeated by anyone [properly equipped with tools (math and others) of course].

Your method is hypothesis, acceptance of hypothesis and then extrapolation to everything else, without any experimental confirmation, and without looping back.
This is what I call religious approach, and it is certainly not scientific.
By all means you have the right to your opinions, but please do not discuss them here, because this is supposed to be the discussion forum for scientific stuff, as mentioned in the header.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

..big bang relies heavily upon the background radiation and yet it is clear certain galaxies appear to be in front of this radiation..do you see the problem ..well one should but big bangers do not seem to want to consider the problem because if the observations are sound the big bang is dead...

From the point of reference of any observer in the Universe all galaxies are in front of the Cosmic Radiation Background (otherwise it wouldn't be a background).

So I assume your claim is that certain galaxies predate the photons that ultimately formed the background. I'd be interested if you posted this information.

Predjudice is not an appropriate word in my view as for me it carries a suggestion of underlying hate..I dont hate the big bangers or physisists and I cant see how I am in any way predudiced but if you like the application of the word to my manner that can be you reality however it is not mine.

Here is one of the definitions of prejudice from Dictionary.com

1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Steven said
As I have mentioned on a couple of occasions the solar corona varies with the sunspot cycle which would not occur if push gravity is the mechanism.

Sun spots are parts of the suface that are a result of the flow seeking to past thru the Sun..areas of higher concentration..look at a vidio and you can see what I mean...but this is my view and as far as I know this view does not have world wide support

Unbelievable! Once again theory invented on the run........

It's pointless continuing this debate any further.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Steven said.......

From the point of reference of any observer in the Universe all galaxies are in front of the Cosmic Radiation Background (otherwise it wouldn't be a background

Sorry Steven re reference to background radiation the galaxies I was refering appear not in front but rather behind the backgro0und radiation...


I am sure you must be aware of these observations... it has been out there for a while... University Alabama (I will get I link for you if I have time but a goggle will turn it up)...again I did not accept that at face value because of the geographic location of the University and my concern that being in the bible belt certain results would have been welcomed more than others..the question is.... were the researchers under any pressure to down the big bang because the University board may have been all christian.. I dont know but my point is even though the research on the galaxy shadowing was above board I still consider they may be right or they may be wrong.. I am not set in my views, well not set the way it must be perceived by folk here... I think I am open minded and accepting of all propositions.

May I point out Steven that I did not call my idea "a theory" re Sun spots nor have I called my ideas re gravity a theory..a theory requires certain things to be a scientific theory which I have more than once addmitted as to these requirements I am inadequate (predictions, math etc)... my thoughts on gravity are ideas and I have always said so...I would never call my ideas a theory because I have seen the use of the word corrupted ...as in say in the case of calling the "idea" re "inflation" a theory..it is not a theory other than in the way a layman would use the word..it is an idea, it is no matter how important for the big bang still an idea..so why let it be called a thoery...why? ... however given that the idea of inflation was really needed to save the big bang it was quickly elevated to the status of theory... now Steven you like having a go at things that I say that you feel are wrong well if I am wrong with my assessment of the "inflation theory" please say so... your views have as much right as mine to be aired.. I have made a claim and I welcome your efforts to reject it...and if inflation is only an idea the steady state theory has as much right to presentation as does the big bang theory..



However I feel there can be no debate upon the propostion I just presented.
Not that I have considered anything in this thread as the material of a debate and for my part I would like to think I do not present my views in such a manner that it appears that I seek to exclude any others... and if it appears as such I appologise for it is not my thing..I dont care that I am the only person who likes my idea ..it is not a problem.


Maybe I missed the experiments offerred in support of the "inflation theory" and am happy to be informed that I am not up to speed on what they have done to establish their idea as a theory.

I am not against the big bang as such but from my view no one asks the hard questions..it is accepted as fact...I think there has to be a better way to arrive at what inflation seeks to solve however by blindly accepting the idea without testing then a more valid answer may escape us simply because we accepted an idea with no support.

AND given we are looking into events that are some 13 plus billion years old (accepting big bang time frame) it is extremely presumptious for anyone to say they know exactly what happened....yet they do.. if they are not all knowing and God like such an approach can only be regarded as foolish and arrogant... there is no way of proving beyond doubt how the Universe came into existence... observations and experiment may fit the theory but such in itself still does not take us back to the start..we think we know but we should be humble enough to admit that we are after all guessing... sophisticated guessing but there is no higher plane I can elevate the process to... and so I have no problem in not falling down and worshipping the knowledge handed to me by someone who tells me they know it all.... maybe they do but I doubt it.

Anyways thats my view..I dont say that my view is correct and there can be no other views ..which I must say seems very much where you come from..and that is neither right or wrong it is just the way I perceive you approach things......

I dont throw out the big bang but I think they have been hasty in accepting evidence as clear support, background radiation for example is cited as absolute support and yet the aspect of galaxy shadowing has not been addressed as far as I know....

I am sorry however that my ideas can be seen as so difficult to discuss for some... I dont care who is right or wrong but I do enjoy hearing folks views even if they are different to mine ...

Anyways it has been nice chatting.

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

May I point out Steven that I did not call my idea "a theory" re Sun spots nor have I called my ideas re gravity a theory..a theory requires certain things to be a scientific theory which I have more than once addmitted as to these requirements I am inadequate (predictions, math etc)... my thoughts on gravity are ideas and I have always said so...I would never call my ideas a theory because I have seen the use of the word corrupted ...as in say in the case of calling the "idea" re "inflation" a theory..it is not a theory other than in the way a layman would use the word..it is an idea, it is no matter how important for the big bang still an idea..so why let it be called a thoery...why? ... however given that the idea of inflation was really needed to save the big bang it was quickly elevated to the status of theory... now Steven you like having a go at things that I say that you feel are wrong well if I am wrong with my assessment of the "inflation theory" please say so... your views have as much right as mine to be aired.. I have made a claim and I welcome your efforts to reject it...and if inflation is only an idea the steady state theory has as much right to presentation as does the big bang theory..

Alex,

There are theories and there are thought experiments (or ideas).

In the simplest terms a theory is a concept to explain observation or experimental data. It may also allow specific predictions to be made which can be later verified by observation or experiment.

The BB falls into this category. The theory and the mathematics of the BB is built around the observation that galaxies are moving away from us. The Cosmic Radiation Background was predicted in 1948 and verified in 1965. The BB also correctly predicted the percentage breakdown of Hydrogen and Helium in our Universe.

A thought experiment in Physics can involve extrapolating theory into areas that cannot be defined by observation or experiment. A good example is time travel through wormholes.

The important point about thought experiments is that the laws of physics are not violated.

Unfortunately your ideas are not even thought experiments as they consistantly violate even the most basic principles in Physics.

Maybe I missed the experiments offerred in support of the "inflation theory" and am happy to be informed that I am not up to speed on what they have done to establish their idea as a theory.

I am not against the big bang as such but from my view no one asks the hard questions..it is accepted as fact...I think there has to be a better way to arrive at what inflation seeks to solve however by blindly accepting the idea without testing then a more valid answer may escape us simply because we accepted an idea with no support.

You continuously bring up inflation theory as a way of saving the BB. May I suggest you read up on the subject. The whole point of inflation theory is to explain why the Universe ended up flat. The BB predicts three possibilities for the Universe, open, flat or closed depending on it's density.
Inflation theory is an outcome of the BB.

There are some scientists that claim we don't even need inflation theory by invoking the Anthropic principle. If the Universe wasn't flat we wouldn't be here to observe it.

I dont throw out the big bang but I think they have been hasty in accepting evidence as clear support, background radiation for example is cited as absolute support and yet the aspect of galaxy shadowing has not been addressed as far as I know....

This is what I found on the net regarding galaxy shadowing.
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html

If the microwave background is not the result of the BB and is closer to us, than the resultant background must be caused by photons being emitted by some form of intervening matter.

Galaxy clusters behind the background would have their photons scattered by this matter much like the effect of interstellar reddening. If this is not observed it is unlikely the cluster is behind the background.

If this is so the problem lies with the data or the theory about galaxy shadowing.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Thanks for the link Steven.
I did not call my idea even a thought experiment again it is my idea of how I believe things work.
I will read more of course and thank you for your help in guiding me. I do appreciate what you do for me.
I still have no net conection but I now have a new lap top at least... I tried to get a pre paid telstra connection but in two places they have sold out...I think I will buy some cheap dvd,s and relax with them...
Thank you for taking the time and although you may think I am a lost cause assure you that I like these matters and in my defence at least try to think things thru using the little informsation I pick up from the net...
regards

alex