The Epicycles of Inflation


Recommended Posts

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientifi...nflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not.

All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientifi...nflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not.

All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes physicists believe they've any idea of the actual extent of the universe? For example, if one is stuck in the middle of the ocean at the bottom, no device is going to help you perceive how far it goes. It's just going to trail off as far as you can see, and no matter how much you improve your devices, you'll see more of it but never the end of it.

Shayne

Edited by sjw
Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes physicists believe they've any idea of the actual extent of the universe? For example, if one is stuck in the middle of the ocean at the bottom, no device is going to help you perceive how far it goes. It's just going to trail off as far as you can see, and no matter how much you improve your devices, you'll see more of it but never the end of it.

Shayne

Distances to radiation sources can be measured. We have a fairly good idea of how far out we can see. Of course, the cosmos could be much larger than this do to early supra-luminal expansion.

There is no end of it. It might be infinite or it might be curved. Can we find the "ends of the earth"? No. The surface of the earth is spherical (approximately) and is unbounded. Taking the topology of S3 (the surface of the sphere, not the ball) there are no boundary points.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientifi...nflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not.

All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.

Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift.

You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientifi...nflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not.

All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.

Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift.

You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology.

Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shift as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift.

Edited by dennislmay
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientifi...nflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not.

All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.

Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift.

You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology.

Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shit as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift.

The "stretching" of spacetime is a direct consequence of Einstein's field equations. He fudged his theory because he liked a steady state Cosmos better. In any case even his bad move was a good move because it can account for the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of spacetime (that fudge factor Einstein added was a tensor corresponding to so called "Dark Energy" (I dislike the term)).

So far General Relativity has not been falsified. If it is ever tested in a super dooper strong gravitational field like a black hole I suspect there will be problems for the theory.

In the mean time every time my Garmin ™ tells me to turn right in fifty feet it is also telling me that GTR is correct at least in a moderate gravitational field such as surrounds the earth.

GTR will remain the gold standard until such time as it is explicitly falsified by an adverse experiment or someone comes up with a better theory that makes every correct prediction made by GTR and predicts something that GTR doesn't which is upheld by experiment. Only adverse facts or a blatant mathematical contradiction can really falsify a theory. Philosophical objections do not matter one little bit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes physicists believe they've any idea of the actual extent of the universe? For example, if one is stuck in the middle of the ocean at the bottom, no device is going to help you perceive how far it goes. It's just going to trail off as far as you can see, and no matter how much you improve your devices, you'll see more of it but never the end of it.

Shayne

Distances to radiation sources can be measured.

If not obscured and not too far away to be detected.

We have a fairly good idea of how far out we can see. Of course, the cosmos could be much larger than this do to early supra-luminal expansion.

There is no end of it. It might be infinite or it might be curved. Can we find the "ends of the earth"? No. The surface of the earth is spherical (approximately) and is unbounded. Taking the topology of S3 (the surface of the sphere, not the ball) there are no boundary points.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Seems rather tenuous to me to be talking about the "size" of the universe, what they should rather talk about is the size of the known universe. It sounds like a hypothetical leap to presume we've seen to the edge, or at least, what you're saying here doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

Shayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scientifi...nflation-summer

In the full article the author more or less shows that inflation theory only works when you pick a certain prediction it made one time that no longer applies to the theory which currently exists. Even then it was a curve fitting exercise at best with a number of arbitrary parameters having no basis in physics - epicycles at best.

I had heard on alternative cosmology sites before that several Big Bang predictions rely on several different earlier versions of the theory depending on which prediction is being selected. The theory changes fast enough and often enough that the moving target means almost nothing as far as being an actual theory with actual predictions. The temperature of the background radiation is an example of something that was wrong in earlier

theories so the theory was altered to fit the observed temperature - then successful prediction was claimed.

The same can be said for how far back galaxies should be able to be seen. That is an ever changing number which is always wrong - fully formed old

galaxies in larger clusters can be seen no matter how far back you look.

The Big Bang is not a real theory - it is a cluster of arbitrary unconnected partial theories having no coherence and no ability to predict anything - based on bad physics held together with ever increasing numbers of arbitrary fixes.

It is unraveling at an ever increasing rate.

Dennis May

The Big Bang hypothesis predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium in free space where as Hoyle's theory did not.

All physical theories (at this juncture) are partial theories. There is no one theory which correctly describes and predicts both the gravitational interaction and the other three known interactions. Getting one theory to describe everything is one of the Holy Grails of physics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yet there are no first generation red dwarf's to be found to support the idea that the Big Bang has any connection to the proportions of hydrogen and helium. Those ratios are also part of the old arbitrary inflation theory which is no longer the current theory. Yet it is still claimed as supporting the theory - while no longer existing as a current part of the theory.

Expansion is inferred from the Red Shift. The further away an object is the greater the Red Shift.

You might want to have a look at the Hubble Deep Field images too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Expansion may be inferred but it is not the only possible explanation for the Red Shift - see the topic I posted before: Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory A Different Approach to Cosmology.

Since inflation can be inferred to be a case of epicycles at best and the statistical mechanics of dark matter are internally contradictory - that leaves General Relativity dead in the water as a valid theory of gravity or space-time on the scale of galaxies and larger. With no valid theory of spatial expansion how can you infer the Red Shit as spatial expansion? This is not to mention the observational fact that the angular size and luminosity of galaxies does not support the expansion model of red-shift.

The "stretching" of spacetime is a direct consequence of Einstein's field equations. He fudged his theory because he liked a steady state Cosmos better. In any case even his bad move was a good move because it can account for the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of spacetime (that fudge factor Einstein added was a tensor corresponding to so called "Dark Energy" (I dislike the term)).

So far General Relativity has not been falsified. If it is ever tested in a super dooper strong gravitational field like a black hole I suspect there will be problems for the theory.

In the mean time every time my Garmin ™ tells me to turn right in fifty feet it is also telling me that GTR is correct at least in a moderate gravitational field such as surrounds the earth.

GTR will remain the gold standard until such time as it is explicitly falsified by an adverse experiment or someone comes up with a better theory that makes every correct prediction made by GTR and predicts something that GTR doesn't which is upheld by experiment. Only adverse facts or a blatant mathematical contradiction can really falsify a theory. Philosophical objections do not matter one little bit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

The impossible statistical mechanics of dark matter is a matter of physics - not a philosophical objection. It is a blatant mathematical contradiction when dark matter needs to exactly track visible matter densities and distributions in visibly identical spiral galaxies but cannot track visible matter densities in other situations. This failure renders dark matter nothing more than an arbitrary fudge factor and not physics at all. This means General Relativity is a failed theory by observation on the scales relevant to cosmology. It may work on the scale needed for GPS but there are alternative theories that can do that. A replacement is needed and cosmological GTR predictions are without foundation.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

The impossible statistical mechanics of dark matter is a matter of physics - not a philosophical objection. It is a blatant mathematical contradiction when dark matter needs to exactly track visible matter densities and distributions in visibly identical spiral galaxies but cannot track visible matter densities in other situations. This failure renders dark matter nothing more than an arbitrary fudge factor and not physics at all. This means General Relativity is a failed theory by observation on the scales relevant to cosmology. It may work on the scale needed for GPS but there are alternative theories that can do that. A replacement is needed and cosmological GTR predictions are without foundation.

Dennis May

Produce the mathematical contradiction in mathematical notation here and now. Or hush up.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The impossible statistical mechanics of dark matter is a matter of physics - not a philosophical objection. It is a blatant mathematical contradiction when dark matter needs to exactly track visible matter densities and distributions in visibly identical spiral galaxies but cannot track visible matter densities in other situations. This failure renders dark matter nothing more than an arbitrary fudge factor and not physics at all. This means General Relativity is a failed theory by observation on the scales relevant to cosmology. It may work on the scale needed for GPS but there are alternative theories that can do that. A replacement is needed and cosmological GTR predictions are without foundation.

Dennis May

Produce the mathematical contradiction in mathematical notation here and now. Or hush up.

Ba'al Chatzaf

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts

From page 2 of this link:

"Instead, McGaugh says, the "baryonic tail wags the dark matter dog." In

other words, astronomers can predict just what the galactic rotation curves

will be from a given galaxy's stellar distribution. McGaugh makes the claim

that if dark matter is dominant, observers shouldn't be able to predict the

galactic rotation curves by what they see in normal luminous matter.

"Because each dark matter halo should be unique, you should see lots of

variation in rotation curves for the same galaxy," he says. "You don't

expect the kind of uniformity that we observe in hundreds of galactic

rotation curves."

Impossible statistical mechanics outcomes based on observation.

Dark Matter was an arbitrary fix to save GTR. Its failure to remain

internally consistent means there is no longer a fix for GTR.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark Matter was an arbitrary fix to save GTR. Its failure to remain

internally consistent means there is no longer a fix for GTR.

Dennis May

Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal.

A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it.

Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it.

I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark Matter was an arbitrary fix to save GTR. Its failure to remain

internally consistent means there is no longer a fix for GTR.

Dennis May

Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal.

A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it.

Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it.

I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have contacted Dr. McGaugh for his recommended sources for futher reading.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for a complete mathematical treatment of a competing and still-forming theory is ridiculous. It would be like asking Copernicus why he doesn't have a formula for gravity. Why don't you give us a complete and unequivocal math for dark matter and energy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark Matter was an arbitrary fix to save GTR. Its failure to remain

internally consistent means there is no longer a fix for GTR.

Dennis May

Where is the math? Either that or a reference to a mathematical article in a refereed journal.

A contradiction is a proposition of the form P & -P. Where is it.

Or are you saying there is an experimental refutation of GTR? If so give a reference to a refereed journal so we can see the claim and evaluate it.

I am no long interested in doubts. I want to see -results-. Hard mathematical and/or quantitative results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have contacted Dr. McGaugh for his recommended sources for futher reading.

Dennis May

Professor Stacy McGaugh replied the same day:

“…the formation of dark matter halos is well studied in numerical simulations, so that aspect of the statistical mechanics, as you put it, are well trodden in the literature. e.g., Navarro, J.~F., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 1039 -http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.349.1039N

There are many many more references on various apects of this.

The standard cosmology predicts that dark matter halos should have a so-called NFW form. The density profile can be approximated crudely as

rho_darkmatter® = rho_i/[r(1+r/r_s)^2]

This has nothing to do with the luminous matter. There, a crude approximation is the so-called exponential disk

S® = S0*exp(-r/Rd) Here S refers to surface mass density while rho is volume mass density.”

“One can compute the rotation curves on expects for these mass distributions with the help of the Poisson equation. To make a long story short, an exponential disk embedded in an NFW halo predicts a rotation curve that does not look like those that are observed.”

“What MOND does is tweak the Poisson eqn so that the rotation curve predicted by the luminous component alone matches those that are observed. That's what I mean about the baryonic tail wagging the dark matter dog. All you need to know is the distribution of the baryons. The much more massive dark matter component is unnecessary for predicting the rotation curve even though it should be dominant dynamically. The baseline prediction of the standard picture (NFW) is clearly inadequate. One can never completely falsify this hypothesis however, as one can always invoke ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter during galaxy formation. I think it absurd to imagine that this always ends up looking like MOND,..."

Additional information:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/

My comments:

The requirement to use “ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter” in order to fit observation whereas predictions using luminous matter alone produce better results - indicates an impossible statistical mechanics situation.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

My comments:

The requirement to use "ad hoc mechanisms to adjust the distribution of dark matter" in order to fit observation whereas predictions using luminous matter alone produce better results - indicates an impossible statistical mechanics situation.

Dennis May

It also sounds too much like epicycles and deferents to be comfortable.

Ad hocs are the early warning signs of trouble.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now