dennislmay

No. The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary. Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order. The theory may be un-necessary in that life could have evolved on Earth in any case many times over but your reasons for dismissal are all invalid and have been discussed for years. Space materials do migrate and ejecta do leave planetary and other bodies - the question of distances too great has been disproved. The speeds are not too slow - biologically active materials can survive the trip in the times available. There has been plenty of "metal" available and plenty of time for life to have evolved well before our solar system existed. The question of seeding from space doesn't change evolution except to illustrate that life is even heartier than previously believed and likely found in many unexpected places.

The main article: http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html What is Panspermia?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia A news link about the main article: Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/ He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is. “The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. But not all of them. “There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped.” Dennis May

I heard several months ago that there are already plans in the works to de-orbit [shit-can] the ISS. A very expensive joke. Dennis

Dennis, Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far ~ Shane Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory. In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see. If you don’t take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form. Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe. In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large. First Stars in Universe Were Not Alone http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204130908.htm "Unlike short-lived high-mass stars, low-mass stars may survive for billions of years. "Intriguingly," says Dr. Clark, "some low-mass primordial stars may even have survived to the present day, ..." This research indicates that first generation red dwarf stars should be even more common than previously thought. Though none are found. Dennis May

From your link: "If they have the same periods of rotation, then after any time, they will still be opposite, without any communication between them." J.S. Bell's proof requires supraluminal communication between particles to satisfy the minimum requirements for QM to exist in mechanical hidden variables models. de Broglie-Bohm QM is one such mechanical model which satisfies Bell's requirements. The work of Gregory S. Duane further outlines the properties of entanglement in mechanical QM models. Dennis May

In other words, you have substituted your definition of the word "innumeracy" for the definition that other writers on the subject use. What makes your definition right and other people's definition wrong? John Allen Paulos has written several books on the subject. Why is he wrong and you right? That sounds so, so ...... Objectivist....! It would not be fair to Objectivists to equate my methodology with those of Objectivists. I was intensely interested in innumeracy long before I first ever heard of Ayn Rand - when I was 30 years old. As a few regulars on Objectivist Living should be able to attest - I am interested in the ideas of Ayn Rand but I do not qualify as a little o or big O Objectivist.

Which no doubt furthers some particular intent and interest that YOU have. Ba'al Chatzaf Exactly.

In other words, you have substituted your definition of the word "innumeracy" for the definition that other writers on the subject use. What makes your definition right and other people's definition wrong? John Allen Paulos has written several books on the subject. Why is he wrong and you right? That sounds so, so ...... Objectivist....! See http://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Consequences-Vintage/dp/0679726012 for a review of his book on the subject. He is a blurb on the use of the term as defined by the people who coined the term in the first place: "Innumeracy is a neologism coined by analogue with illiteracy; it refers to a lack of ability to reason with numbers. The term innumeracy was coined by cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter and popularized by mathematician John Allen Paulos in his 1989 book, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences. Possible causes of innumeracy are poor teaching methods and standards and lack of value placed on mathematical skills. Even prominent and successful people will attest, sometimes proudly, to low mathematical competence, in sharp contrast to the stigma associated with illiteracy. [12]" The term belongs to Douglas Hofstadter who made it up in the first place. It is his word, not yours. Ba'al Chatzaf That's the beauty of language - it evolves to fit the need of users. I view the original intent as too narrow and self serving. Dennis

I thought it was something like that but the depth of the pan under it didn't seem right to me. It must catch a lot of meat dripping in addition to housing the heating element. George can handle the heat and dish it out as well. Dennis

I am curious about your avatar. What is it exactly? Dennis

Innumeracy is mathematical incompetence. You are confusing a difference in philosophy and interpretation with mathematical incompetence. Did you read any of Prigogine's papers on far from equilibrium thermodynamics? They are mathematically sound as far as I can tell. As to the science I am not sufficiently grounded in thermodynamics to give a good judgement. Ba'al Chatzaf I have not had issues with Prigogine's work except where he has made extraordinary claims. I am postulating that innumeracy is a great deal more complex issue than what is normally expressed as simply "mathematical incompetence". It is also important to understand one’s own limits as to numeracy. I am innumerate in several areas that I have observed others having great numeracy. For instance I cannot do square roots in my head like a professor I once had. I cannot memorize pages of numbers like a guy I knew in the Air Force. I cannot listen to a song one time and play it on the piano [and never had piano lessons] like a college student I once knew. Some forms of mathematical proofs entirely escape me as being proofs of anything. So numeracy and innumeracy form a large domain where it is unlikely anyone excels in all areas. I find visual/spatial innumeracy the one most interesting because it is the area in which I have personally observed the most radical disconnect between my own abilities and others who have mathematical backgrounds equal to or in many cases vastly superior to my own. The PhD or Nobel prize only gets you so far if you have a huge blind-spot. Dennis May

I am inclined to agree. Prigogine is engaging in a philosophic speculation. But that does not make him innumerate. He has a complete competent grasp of the mathematics. If he puts a strange interpretation on the math, that is not a mathematical error, that is a philosophical error. In science, philosophy (other than some basic epistemology) is ka ka. The best thing that happened to physics was parting company from metaphysics. To get good theories, follow Newton's rules as much as it is possible to follow them. The theories should flow from the phenomena, not some crack brain a priorism pulled out of one's mental rectum. Ba'al Chatzaf It would seem his philosophical inclinations drove him to where the math didn't really go - or at least the interpretation. His was likely a case of visual/spatial mathematical innumeracy and strong compartmentalization while still maintaining strong numeracy in other areas. I have seen this suprising kind of innumeracy many times since my undergraduate days and even more often when researching the history of physics. Dennis May

Aritcle Titles, Journal Names, volume, pages, authors and dates if you please. And von Neuman's error (a rather subtle error) did not outlive J.S. Bell pointing it out. Ba'al Chatzaf Three critical views I found required payment to read the entire text and I am not willing to do that. One was no longer on the Internet since the work is old. Another required payment but it was not clear what they thought of Prigogine's math. Here is one book review with some of the flavor of what I read at the time: http://www.quniverse.sk/buzek/zaujimave/p393_s.pdf Though this review does not go into the specifics of the error generating Prigogine's conclusions it does indicate a lot of fly by night mathematics going on. Other views I read at the time indicated the specific kind of error Bohm warned of – truncation of information while moving to continuous functions. A summary of why Prigogine's radical claims concerning indeterminism out of determinism hold no water – again inappropriate mathematics to reach a conclusion: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/UCL-IPT-96-03.pdf The author also notes - as a Google search will support - that interest in Prigogine's radical indeterminism claims are subjective – not objective - and primarily philosophical and religious – not scientific. Ba'al Chatzaf wrote: “And von Neuman's error (a rather subtle error) did not outlive J.S. Bell pointing it out.” The error itself maybe not – just the conclusions resulting from the error. I heard the error of the conclusion repeated when I was in undergraduate and graduate school and even in written discussion of the memorial physics gathering for J.S. Bell. I still hear it all the time in various Internet discussions. Dennis May

It has been several years ago since I last discussed this on Atlantis_II but my recollection is that nearly all US based journals panned his work while Europeans praised his work. It wasn't just one or two comments in the US there were reviews of his work on line and in magazines calling out his fundamental error in discarding information content when doing mathematically incorrect substitutions. I find it remarkable that anyone would take his work in this area seriously since it is so boldly and obviously incorrect on the face of it. It is clear that Prigogine was working toward a philosophical end by whatever means. Bohm saw these kinds of efforts before Prigogine and preemptively showed why they necessarily are incorrect in not taking all variables into account - effectively a truncation error. Prigogine’s work still being thought to be correct reminds me of von Neumann’s incorrect proof living long after it being successfully refuted because it had become part of the mainstream dialog for so long. Dialog lives long after the work or theory as been discredited. A very effective fact used in politics every day. Dennis May

Prigogine was correct. A discontinuous step or jump function can be the weak limit of a series of continuous functions. For example, the famous Dirac Delta Function (which is a distribution, not a function), is the weak limit of a series of gaussian normal functions. Please look at: http://en.wikipedia...._delta_function. Prigogine had some non-standard ideas, but he was never innumerate. What you call substitution (incorrectly, I might add) is in fact weak convergence of a series of functions. The error you saw was in your own head. Perhaps if you studied the mathematics more thoroughly you might not jump to such intemperate conclusions. Ba'al Chatzaf I suggest you read Bohm's book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" where he outlines why such efforts destroy information content and fail to address the basic issues. What Prigogine did is basic innumeracy and numerous researchers called him on it. It is not difficult to apply the wrong math to the question and assume that correctly done wrong math proves something it does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy It is my belief that the existence of various forms and degrees of innumeracy are central to understanding a whole host of disagreements on important issues. This is commonly understood in the context of people with lower levels of mathematical education but I believe this is a gross oversimplification. I contend that this problem also applies to many mathematically educated individuals - as some forms of innumeracy involve visual and spatial reasoning in addition to logical and formula based reasoning. There are also people with little formal mathematical education but exceptional visual and spatial reasoning who are largely immune from some types of innumeracy. The companion problem of innumeracy is the compartmentalization of innumeracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology) I have been caught off guard on many occasions throughout my life while encountering innumeracy. Looking back I can now see that I encountered innumeracy in the educational system going back as early as 5th grade science classes. I first specifically identified innumeracy as a significant issue when I was 17 years old attending a NSF summer camp on physics at Drake University during a heated argument with a applied mathematics professor. I had suspected there was a serious problem going back to when I was 15 but I had not actually encountered a PhD researcher displaying the symptoms until I was 17. A few other such encounters happened during my undergraduate years with other kinds of innumeracy. Over the years I have continued to encounter new twists and variations on innumeracy - the worst examples being when I was in graduate school. I have come to believe that a huge research effort to expand on the idea is long overdue. Such research would step on many toes because those who compartmentalize their innumeracy are largely immune from understanding they have a problem. Some of the really hard cases are those who are able to further cloak their problems in the “appeal to authority” granted them by advanced degrees, publication histories, and awards given by their peers. A clear example of innumeracy was displayed by Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine when took discontinuous functions – point particles – then substituted them with continuous functions to create indeterminism out of determinism on small scales – thus claiming small scale real objects are necessarily indeterministic. Someone with clear visual spatial reasoning would instantly understand the error. This is not an isolated case of this exact problem – I saw the same visual reasoning error repeated in graduate thermodynamics in a class of approximately 20 students – not just for a few minutes but over a several week period. I identified the underlying error in the first few seconds it was being discussed by the professor but could not get anyone else to recognize it for some 2-3 weeks. Someone finally confronted the professor outside of class and he quickly gave the answer and we moved on to other topics. The same error popped up again in a series of papers published as a result of work funded by the DOE and published in “Foundations of Physics” in the early 2000’s. The error took about 15 minutes to identify - but over 2 years and 12 PhDs researching it plus journal editors and many hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars cannot fix a basic innumeracy problem. I have not attempted to make a comprehensive list of innumeracy displays but here are some readily apparent ones – some are combined problems: Inability to properly reason about – Long spans of time Short spans of time Large distances Short distances Very fast speeds Very slow processes – slow speeds Large numbers of objects Large numbers of very small objects Small objects not requiring granularity Geometric and exponential growth and decay Internal versus external points of view and reference frames Continuous versus discrete formulations and their information content The information content and processing capability of large numbers of interconnected discrete objects Connecting formula and geometric representation to actual objects Finite versus infinite [open and closed systems] Real numbers versus whole numbers The traps inherent in assuming compact formulations contain the entire information content The traps inherent in computer modeling without adequate data and testing and the extent to which they provide insight Identifying cause and effect versus coincident, secondary, or parallel processes at work Identifying fundamental versus secondary processes Correctly identifying variables and naming them as such In a larger work on this subject it would be important to identify fundamental versus composite issues of innumeracy. Some composite issues include problems outside of innumeracy as well. There are some applications of this idea in many subject areas. I bring it up because it has been very important in my understanding of what has gone wrong in physics and cosmology. It is much easier to understand when applied to evolutionary biology – take for example cichlid fish which can create a new species in as little as 100 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid A huge neglected area is general understanding of feedback processes which spans many innumeracies issues - evolution being a prime example and cichlid fish being a very good specific example. Dennis May

http://www.universetoday.com/10075/youngest-galaxy-found/ "Further evidence for the youth of I Zwicky 18 is the fact that its interstellar gas is “nearly pristine,” Thuan said, and composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, the primary two light elements created in the Big Bang,..." This example is a new galaxy recently formed - not through the collision of older smaller galaxies. If you support the Big Bang theory it was created out of gas that somehow failed to condense until a billion years ago or less - no explanation given. In my theory the gas to create the galaxy is a combination of hydrogen and helium ejected out of other galaxies and matter redistributed in energetic non-linear QM reactions. Galaxy creation is a continual on-going process throughout the universe. Dennis May

If there is an award for funny avatars you win. It cracks me up every time I see it. Dennis May Yeah, I am actually much more a dog person but a big fan of Herbert's and the look on the cat's face is priceless. I am sorry I have been avoiding your physics posts. After George Smith's hysterical reaction to my posts recommending he simply try listening to Carl Sagan on the 4th dimension I have been reluctant to discuss the topic. I do have one question. How does Ockham's Razor allow us to substitute a speed of light slowing down from infinity for a universe expanding from a singularity? The former explanation for the red shift doesn't explain how we can step down from an infinite to a finite speed of light, while the latter simply requires expansion always at finite speeds over finite distances. I don't see any philosophical or empirical problem with the conventional big bang theory. In my theory there never was a physical singularity and the speed of light has never been infinite or zero. As you go further and further back in time you can still only view the universe from the inside [there is no outside]. Observers at any given time see their local speed of light much as we see it today and they see distant objects had a slower speed of light long ago. In the distant past things looked much as they do today - in the distant future they will continue to look much as they do today. In the Big Bang Theory the singularity followed by great density requires the existing laws of physics to be suspended a number of times. Where and when the laws of physics must be altered or suspended for the Big Bang to produce the numbers it needs is an ever-changing target. If you look at the history of predictions of the Big Bang they required fixes and serious updating every few years. The Big Bang fundamentally depends upon General Relativity. General Relativity cannot correctly predict the basic velocity profiles of galaxies. Dark matter was supposed to fix this but the latest research show it cannot simultaneously have the property of not interacting with conventional matter except through gravity – yet exactly track conventional matter to produce visibly identical galaxies having identical velocity profiles. Then they turn around and claim that because theory does not match observation concerning satellite galaxies there must be large numbers of invisible ones – composed mostly of dark matter - not precisely tracking visible matter as the other galaxies do. Dark matter is the Band-aid to fix everything – apply as needed in an arbitrary fashion. The empirical and scientific methodology problems with the Big Bang will fill volumes when the final obituary is written. As for the philosophical you must first decide which version of the Big Bang you support, the one with a singularity, ones that repeats boom and bust without a singularity [very popular – though with the “expansion” getting faster how to you repeat?], the one created by colliding unseen dimensions [popular right now] – which invites many other universes out there we can never see. What is meant by the Big Bang Theory is in flux every few years. The bets are being hedged in multiple directions without addressing many of the fundamental observational problems. If you go for the singularity version of the Big Bang where did the anti-matter go? How come no first generation red-dwarfs are seen? How can there be huge asymmetries in the early universe yet a very smooth CMBR exists? Why don’t the apparent size of galaxies and their brightness match their red-shift distance? Why are old galaxies seen as far as we can see? Why are huge structures seen as far as we can see? Inflation – then slowing – then an increasing speed of expansion – what evidence is there for Dark Energy other than it being a fix to observation for a theory based on General Relativity that fails in other basic predictions? Much of what you've said above contradicts what I remember about recent reading of mine, although I don't have the information at hand. I understand that the farthest galaxies tend to be more primitive, not to be spiral in form, that evidence has recently been found for the first generation stars - if not the red dwarves about which you ask. Other things such as the question of the missing antimatter don't seem to be a problem for the big bang, so much as symmetry, and I don't see how a steady state theory addresses this. The fact that big bang models change doesn't bother me a bit, since it is an empirical theory and our observations have been improving over time. I have a problem with both comprehending and answering you in that you bring in a huge slew of issues. Maybe you could explain in detail only one thing, what you think has been happening to the speed of light over time? A second favor. Could you respond to this post by cutting and pasting it into the original thread so we can continue the conversation there? Young galaxies with a great deal of star formation tend to be bright and metal poor. http://www.universetoday.com/10075/youngest-galaxy-found/ An example of nearby recent galaxy formation – I have read of others. Stars eject hydrogen and helium preferentially at high velocity providing material for new galaxy formation between existing galaxies. As you look further and further back and are still able to discern galaxy shapes there are still old spirals as far as you can see – the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Survey shows this clearly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field Once you get far enough out that you are only seeing the brightest galaxies but not necessarily their shape you are primarily seeing young galaxies with active star formation – other galaxies do not provide enough light to be seen and Einstein lensing distorts the shape of any bright enough to be seen in that manner. In my model the various large asymmetries seen are not an issue – it is a very old universe so large interacting systems have plenty of time to form. In my model the speed of light slowly increases over time because matter/energy and the aether of the universe form a thermodynamic system. The slight non-linearity of quantum mechanics creates a feedback where energetic systems cause a slight energy transfer to the aether which in turn causes the speed of light [the measure of time] to increase. Because the aether has supraluminal components this increase in the speed of time is spread over a wide area. Far away portions of the universe are seen to have slow luminal components of the aether so the feedback occurs in a very slow manner. At present there is no independent evidence that non-linear components to QM exist. My theory interprets the CMBR, the Hubble red-shift as well as other observations as supporting the existence of non-linear effects in QM. Ideally a ground based experiment will generate an independent verification of a non-linear QM effect. Once a single effect is verified QM, relativity, and gravitational theory will have to be rewritten. Dennis May http://www.universetoday.com/22335/the-neutral-hydrogen-gun-a-new-solar-flare-phenomenon/ This is not the source I had read before on this phenomenon but I couldn’t find my old source in a timely manner. Nature forms high energy neutral particle beams which preferentially send hydrogen into deep space. More research will need to be done to see the net composition sent into intergalactic space from all types of stars. Gas that gathers in regions between galaxies provides the material to form new low metal galaxies. Dennis May

If there is an award for funny avatars you win. It cracks me up every time I see it. Dennis May Yeah, I am actually much more a dog person but a big fan of Herbert's and the look on the cat's face is priceless. I am sorry I have been avoiding your physics posts. After George Smith's hysterical reaction to my posts recommending he simply try listening to Carl Sagan on the 4th dimension I have been reluctant to discuss the topic. I do have one question. How does Ockham's Razor allow us to substitute a speed of light slowing down from infinity for a universe expanding from a singularity? The former explanation for the red shift doesn't explain how we can step down from an infinite to a finite speed of light, while the latter simply requires expansion always at finite speeds over finite distances. I don't see any philosophical or empirical problem with the conventional big bang theory. In my theory there never was a physical singularity and the speed of light has never been infinite or zero. As you go further and further back in time you can still only view the universe from the inside [there is no outside]. Observers at any given time see their local speed of light much as we see it today and they see distant objects had a slower speed of light long ago. In the distant past things looked much as they do today - in the distant future they will continue to look much as they do today. In the Big Bang Theory the singularity followed by great density requires the existing laws of physics to be suspended a number of times. Where and when the laws of physics must be altered or suspended for the Big Bang to produce the numbers it needs is an ever-changing target. If you look at the history of predictions of the Big Bang they required fixes and serious updating every few years. The Big Bang fundamentally depends upon General Relativity. General Relativity cannot correctly predict the basic velocity profiles of galaxies. Dark matter was supposed to fix this but the latest research show it cannot simultaneously have the property of not interacting with conventional matter except through gravity – yet exactly track conventional matter to produce visibly identical galaxies having identical velocity profiles. Then they turn around and claim that because theory does not match observation concerning satellite galaxies there must be large numbers of invisible ones – composed mostly of dark matter - not precisely tracking visible matter as the other galaxies do. Dark matter is the Band-aid to fix everything – apply as needed in an arbitrary fashion. The empirical and scientific methodology problems with the Big Bang will fill volumes when the final obituary is written. As for the philosophical you must first decide which version of the Big Bang you support, the one with a singularity, ones that repeats boom and bust without a singularity [very popular – though with the “expansion” getting faster how to you repeat?], the one created by colliding unseen dimensions [popular right now] – which invites many other universes out there we can never see. What is meant by the Big Bang Theory is in flux every few years. The bets are being hedged in multiple directions without addressing many of the fundamental observational problems. If you go for the singularity version of the Big Bang where did the anti-matter go? How come no first generation red-dwarfs are seen? How can there be huge asymmetries in the early universe yet a very smooth CMBR exists? Why don’t the apparent size of galaxies and their brightness match their red-shift distance? Why are old galaxies seen as far as we can see? Why are huge structures seen as far as we can see? Inflation – then slowing – then an increasing speed of expansion – what evidence is there for Dark Energy other than it being a fix to observation for a theory based on General Relativity that fails in other basic predictions? Much of what you've said above contradicts what I remember about recent reading of mine, although I don't have the information at hand. I understand that the farthest galaxies tend to be more primitive, not to be spiral in form, that evidence has recently been found for the first generation stars - if not the red dwarves about which you ask. Other things such as the question of the missing antimatter don't seem to be a problem for the big bang, so much as symmetry, and I don't see how a steady state theory addresses this. The fact that big bang models change doesn't bother me a bit, since it is an empirical theory and our observations have been improving over time. I have a problem with both comprehending and answering you in that you bring in a huge slew of issues. Maybe you could explain in detail only one thing, what you think has been happening to the speed of light over time? A second favor. Could you respond to this post by cutting and pasting it into the original thread so we can continue the conversation there? Young galaxies with a great deal of star formation tend to be bright and metal poor. http://www.universetoday.com/10075/youngest-galaxy-found/ An example of nearby recent galaxy formation – I have read of others. Stars eject hydrogen and helium preferentially at high velocity providing material for new galaxy formation between existing galaxies. As you look further and further back and are still able to discern galaxy shapes there are still old spirals as far as you can see – the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Survey shows this clearly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field Once you get far enough out that you are only seeing the brightest galaxies but not necessarily their shape you are primarily seeing young galaxies with active star formation – other galaxies do not provide enough light to be seen and Einstein lensing distorts the shape of any bright enough to be seen in that manner. In my model the various large asymmetries seen are not an issue – it is a very old universe so large interacting systems have plenty of time to form. In my model the speed of light slowly increases over time because matter/energy and the aether of the universe form a thermodynamic system. The slight non-linearity of quantum mechanics creates a feedback where energetic systems cause a slight energy transfer to the aether which in turn causes the speed of light [the measure of time] to increase. Because the aether has supraluminal components this increase in the speed of time is spread over a wide area. Far away portions of the universe are seen to have slow luminal components of the aether so the feedback occurs in a very slow manner. At present there is no independent evidence that non-linear components to QM exist. My theory interprets the CMBR, the Hubble red-shift as well as other observations as supporting the existence of non-linear effects in QM. Ideally a ground based experiment will generate an independent verification of a non-linear QM effect. Once a single effect is verified QM, relativity, and gravitational theory will have to be rewritten. Dennis May

In my theory there never was a physical singularity and the speed of light has never been infinite or zero. As you go further and further back in time you can still only view the universe from the inside [there is no outside]. Observers at any given time see their local speed of light much as we see it today and they see distant objects had a slower speed of light long ago. In the distant past things looked much as they do today - in the distant future they will continue to look much as they do today. In the Big Bang Theory the singularity followed by great density requires the existing laws of physics to be suspended a number of times. Where and when the laws of physics must be altered or suspended for the Big Bang to produce the numbers it needs is an ever-changing target. If you look at the history of predictions of the Big Bang they required fixes and serious updating every few years. The Big Bang fundamentally depends upon General Relativity. General Relativity cannot correctly predict the basic velocity profiles of galaxies. Dark matter was supposed to fix this but the latest research show it cannot simultaneously have the property of not interacting with conventional matter except through gravity – yet exactly track conventional matter to produce visibly identical galaxies having identical velocity profiles. Then they turn around and claim that because theory does not match observation concerning satellite galaxies there must be large numbers of invisible ones – composed mostly of dark matter - not precisely tracking visible matter as the other galaxies do. Dark matter is the Band-aid to fix everything – apply as needed in an arbitrary fashion. The empirical and scientific methodology problems with the Big Bang will fill volumes when the final obituary is written. As for the philosophical you must first decide which version of the Big Bang you support, the one with a singularity, ones that repeats boom and bust without a singularity [very popular – though with the “expansion” getting faster how to you repeat?], the one created by colliding unseen dimensions [popular right now] – which invites many other universes out there we can never see. What is meant by the Big Bang Theory is in flux every few years. The bets are being hedged in multiple directions without addressing many of the fundamental observational problems. If you go for the singularity version of the Big Bang where did the anti-matter go? How come no first generation red-dwarfs are seen? How can there be huge asymmetries in the early universe yet a very smooth CMBR exists? Why don’t the apparent size of galaxies and their brightness match their red-shift distance? Why are old galaxies seen as far as we can see? Why are huge structures seen as far as we can see? Inflation – then slowing – then an increasing speed of expansion – what evidence is there for Dark Energy other than it being a fix to observation for a theory based on General Relativity that fails in other basic predictions?

If there is an award for funny avatars you win. It cracks me up every time I see it. Dennis May

The work of Gregory S. Duane provides a further foundation allowing a completely classical physics version of Bohmian Mechanics - supraluminal carriers still being required of course. Be sure to write us when superluminal waves are actually detected in a laboratory. And I do not mean phase velocity artifacts in a normal wave. Ba'al Chatzaf I will as long as someone doesn't use their mind to collapse my wavefront.

The work of Gregory S. Duane provides a further foundation allowing a completely classical physics version of Bohmian Mechanics - supraluminal carriers still being required of course.

An overview of Bohmian Quantum Mechanics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ The paper by Travis Norsen and Eric Dennis: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408178v1 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0408/0408178v1.pdf The lesson - those who claim to be doing physics without philosophical considerations are really doing physics using their philosophy while attempting to exclude competing philosophies.

Discussion of implications of new experimental results bearing on possible seventh neutrino: http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2007/04/after-miniboone.html Candidate for dark energy: sterile neutrino (above). Candidate for dark matter: neutralino (below). http://www.physorg.com/news134822510.html http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.2968v2.pdf Alternative to dark energy as explanation for acceleration of cosmic expansion, along with possible tests: <A href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist">Does Dark Energy Really Exist?</A> Clifton and Ferreira Sci. Am. April 2009 Another 2008 Article and a 2009 article - if we are in a special place the CMBR evidence for the Big Bang goes out the window.