The junk science of Cosmology

[Davy]

I was talking with some guys at my local astronomical society the other day, and the general consensus seemed to be that black holes, dark matter and energy and other hypothetical entitities are just fudges conjured up to fill gaps in the mathematical models. Modern cosmology doesn't do science the way it should be done; rather, it seems that the cosmologists have given themselves the licence to invent whatever mathematical abstractions they like in order the save the theory whenever the observations don't fit.

In this book, electrical engineer Don Scott sets out the case for an "electric sky":

The book contains sensible science for the experts written for the public, and represents the first substantial public exposition of the latest developments in the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology that is challenging the current “gravity only” system of thinking. It further undermines the “scientistic” cosmological mythology of the “big bang” and the “expanding” universe, while replacing it with confirmed electrical engineering and high energy plasma explanations.

[BaalChatzaf]

I was talking with some guys at my local astronomical society the other day, and the general consensus seemed to be that black holes, dark matter and energy and other hypothetical entitities are just fudges conjured up to fill gaps in the mathematical models. Modern cosmology doesn't do science the way it should be done; rather, it seems that the cosmologists have given themselves the licence to invent whatever mathematical abstractions they like in order the save the theory whenever the observations don't fit.

In this book, electrical engineer Don Scott sets out the case for an "electric sky":

The book contains sensible science for the experts written for the public, and represents the first substantial public exposition of the latest developments in the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology that is challenging the current “gravity only” system of thinking. It further undermines the “scientistic” cosmological mythology of the “big bang” and the “expanding” universe, while replacing it with confirmed electrical engineering and high energy plasma explanations.

Just like Newton give himself a license to invent a "force" that acts between any two masses. Newton punted on the matter of a cause for this "force". In the Third Book of "Principia Mathematica" he wrtoe (in Latin) "I feign no hypotheses" He wrote a formulate for this "force" given the masses (which could be measured) and the distance (which could be measured). What do you know? It worked pretty well. It was not falsified until about 280 years down the line.

Newton invented abstractions to define things not perceived.

By the way I invested a small fortune to learn how to parachute Jump. Why? I wanted to see if Einstein was right. He postulated that gravitation was a curvature in the spacetime manifold, and NOT a force. I jumped several times. For about the first 5 to 10 seconds after exiting the plane I felt no force (a push or a pull) whatsoever. Then I felt the drag of the air as I picked up speed. First hand observation. Einstein was right and and Newton was wrong. Gravitation is not a mechanical force.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Just like Newton give himself a license to invent a "force" that acts between any two masses. Newton punted on the matter of a cause for this "force".

Just as Einstein punted on the cause of how matter curves the hypothetical spacetime manifold - which Einstein gave himself a license to invent.

Newton's work stood for 280 years. Einstein's General Relativity requires Dark Matter to produce reasonable results. The work of McGaugh last year on the statistical mechanics of spiral galaxies removed Dark Matter as a reasonable model to fix General Relativity. Einstein's work stood for 95 years, next?

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Just like Newton give himself a license to invent a "force" that acts between any two masses. Newton punted on the matter of a cause for this "force".

Just as Einstein punted on the cause of how matter curves the hypothetical spacetime manifold - which Einstein gave himself a license to invent.

Newton's work stood for 280 years. Einstein's General Relativity requires Dark Matter to produce reasonable results. The work of McGaugh last year on the statistical mechanics of spiral galaxies removed Dark Matter as a reasonable model to fix General Relativity. Einstein's work stood for 95 years, next?

Dennis

Don't forget to recharge your GPS. Gravitation does red shift light and slow down clocks.

Here is the bottom line: Any abstract theory that predicts quantitatively and correctly is good science. Only the correctness of the predictions matter. Intuitively quantum field theory is nonsense, but it produced your computer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Any abstract theory that predicts quantitatively and correctly is good science. Only the correctness of the predictions matter.

And General Relativity fails quantitatively on the scale of galaxies.

Dennis

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dennis,

Any comments about the book -- The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott -- linked in the first post?

Ellen

[dennislmay]

Dennis,

Any comments about the book -- The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott -- linked in the first post?

Ellen

Since: Dark Matter is dead, string theory has produced nothing, I believe in an indefinitely old universe, and I reject the Big Bang theory it follows that many cosmological phenomemon are largely influenced by plasma physics on long time scales.

I had several plasma physics related courses in graduate school. The Big Bang theory cannot correctly account for plasma physics because its time scales are incorrect from the start.

Dennis

[Guyau]

Tests of General Relativity – 1 / 2 / 3

Of related interest:

Isaac Newton’s Scientific Method:

Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology

William L. Harper (2012 Oxford)

“Newton's method endorses the radical theoretical transformation from his theory to Einstein's. Harper argues that it is strikingly realized in the development and application of testing frameworks for relativistic theories of gravity, and very much at work in cosmology today.”

A reliable online reference for relativity, special and general, is Einstein Online.

[Brant Gaede]

When I visited my friend, the late Petr Beckmann in his home west of Boulder, CO in late 1989, for the first and only time, he was just getting ready to publish the first issue of his anti-Einsteinean publication, Galilean Electrodynamics. This when he knew his prostate cancer would likely kill him, which it did in 1993. While his earlier book, Einstein Plus Two, was of similar ilk, my layman objection was the simple reversion to classical Newtonian physics. He may have been right and I wrong, but not being a physicist I could not discuss the subject with a man who was something of a genius in this field. I mean, he was a friend of Edward Teller, for Christ's sake, a genius of a higher order, frankly. Teller did not reject Einstein. I do know that Petr was frequently wrong or not quite right about a lot of other things. Like many big brains there was a frequent unbalance in general considerations. Teller, for instance, wrote a book late in life, Better a Shield Than a Sword, which was nonsense, but a think piece. A lot to deal with Israel. He once calculated how long it would take the U.S. to recover from general thermonuclear war, also nonsense; nothing like the U.S. would ever exist again after that for a much longer time than the short time he came up with--which I've forgotten.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Any abstract theory that predicts quantitatively and correctly is good science. Only the correctness of the predictions matter.

And General Relativity fails quantitatively on the scale of galaxies.

Dennis

Then we will have to cook up a theory that works on galactic scales.

Do you have one? Has it been tested experimentally? Have the experiments been replicated? If so, where, when? Do give us properly vetted scientific references. Thank you.

Without experimental corroboration a would be wanna be scientific theory is not worth much.

Ba'alChatzaf

[dennislmay]

Any abstract theory that predicts quantitatively and correctly is good science. Only the correctness of the predictions matter.

And General Relativity fails quantitatively on the scale of galaxies.

Dennis

Then we will have to cook up a theory that works on galactic scales.

Do you have one? Has it been tested experimentally? Have the experiments been replicated? If so, where, when? Do give us properly vetted scientific references. Thank you.

Without experimental corroboration a would be wanna be scientific theory is not worth much.

Ba'alChatzaf

Working on it - even last night and again today. If it models galactic rotation curves better than the General Theory of Relativity it will be one of four theories so far doing so - but as you note there is much more required. The first step is to understand the present orthodoxy is no longer tenable - examine the problem again with everything on the table.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Working on it - even last night and again today. If it models galactic rotation curves better than the General Theory of Relativity it will be one of four theories so far doing so - but as you note there is much more required. The first step is to understand the present orthodoxy is no longer tenable - examine the problem again with everything on the table.

Dennis

I trust you will write to us about it when:

1. It is done.

2. Been experimentally corroborated.

3. Properly Published. No Pons and Fliescher bullshit please. Publish is a properly vetted scientific journal of venue like arXiv and make sure it is checked for error by professionals.

Until then all I see is hope and promises which = smoke and mirrors.

By the way, an eternally existing cosmos contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. How will you handle that? If the universe is infinitely old then we should all be cold and dead, but we are not. Do you like Fred Hoyle assume the "miracle" of matter being constantly created?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

I trust you will write to us about it when:

1. It is done.

2. Been experimentally corroborated.

3. Properly Published. No Pons and Fliescher bullshit please. Publish is a properly vetted scientific journal of venue like arXiv and make sure it is checked for error by professionals.

Until then all I see is hope and promises which = smoke and mirrors.

By the way, an eternally existing cosmos contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. How will you handle that? If the universe is infinitely old then we should all be cold and dead, but we are not. Do you like Fred Hoyle assume the "miracle" of matter being constantly created?

Ba'al Chatzaf

(1) I will post when I have updated the latest version of the paper.

(2) Experimental collaboration will take a great deal longer and lots of cash. After all the

largely inconclusive Gravity Probe B took decades of development and billions of dollars.

One of my undergraduate physics professors worked on theory for the project in the

early 80's.

(3) Properly published - unlikely any time soon since I have no avenue to publish in

ArXiv. Other "proper" publications often have a 2 or more year turn around. Many

publications will not accept work published elsewhere - which this has been/will be.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems - basic physics.

Something neglected in virtually all such discussions.

I have explained elsewhere [Physics_Frontier @ yahoogroups.com] that

non-linear QM provides the mechanism for matter/energy recycling. Matter

is not continually created but matter/energy continually recycled. Non-linear

QM prevents anything from being trapped anywhere indefinitely.

My gravity work is intimately integrated with my QM work which is also

continuing.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

I trust you will write to us about it when:

1. It is done.

2. Been experimentally corroborated.

3. Properly Published. No Pons and Fliescher bullshit please. Publish is a properly vetted scientific journal of venue like arXiv and make sure it is checked for error by professionals.

Until then all I see is hope and promises which = smoke and mirrors.

By the way, an eternally existing cosmos contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. How will you handle that? If the universe is infinitely old then we should all be cold and dead, but we are not. Do you like Fred Hoyle assume the "miracle" of matter being constantly created?

Ba'al Chatzaf

(1) I will post when I have updated the latest version of the paper.

(2) Experimental collaboration will take a great deal longer and lots of cash. After all the

largely inconclusive Gravity Probe B took decades of development and billions of dollars.

One of my undergraduate physics professors worked on theory for the project in the

early 80's.

(3) Properly published - unlikely any time soon since I have no avenue to publish in

ArXiv. Other "proper" publications often have a 2 or more year turn around. Many

publications will not accept work published elsewhere - which this has been/will be.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems - basic physics.

Something neglected in virtually all such discussions.

I have explained elsewhere [Physics_Frontier @ yahoogroups.com] that

non-linear QM provides the mechanism for matter/energy recycling. Matter

is not continually created but matter/energy continually recycled. Non-linear

QM prevents anything from being trapped anywhere indefinitely.

My gravity work is intimately integrated with my QM work which is also

continuing.

Dennis

The cosmos as a whole is closed. Try again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

I trust you will write to us about it when:

1. It is done.

2. Been experimentally corroborated.

3. Properly Published. No Pons and Fliescher bullshit please. Publish is a properly vetted scientific journal of venue like arXiv and make sure it is checked for error by professionals.

Until then all I see is hope and promises which = smoke and mirrors.

By the way, an eternally existing cosmos contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. How will you handle that? If the universe is infinitely old then we should all be cold and dead, but we are not. Do you like Fred Hoyle assume the "miracle" of matter being constantly created?

Ba'al Chatzaf

(1) I will post when I have updated the latest version of the paper.

(2) Experimental collaboration will take a great deal longer and lots of cash. After all the

largely inconclusive Gravity Probe B took decades of development and billions of dollars.

One of my undergraduate physics professors worked on theory for the project in the

early 80's.

(3) Properly published - unlikely any time soon since I have no avenue to publish in

ArXiv. Other "proper" publications often have a 2 or more year turn around. Many

publications will not accept work published elsewhere - which this has been/will be.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems - basic physics.

Something neglected in virtually all such discussions.

I have explained elsewhere [Physics_Frontier @ yahoogroups.com] that

non-linear QM provides the mechanism for matter/energy recycling. Matter

is not continually created but matter/energy continually recycled. Non-linear

QM prevents anything from being trapped anywhere indefinitely.

My gravity work is intimately integrated with my QM work which is also

continuing.

Dennis

The cosmos as a whole is closed. Try again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You need to read basic thermodynamics about what constitutes open and closed systems - try again.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

I trust you will write to us about it when:

1. It is done.

2. Been experimentally corroborated.

3. Properly Published. No Pons and Fliescher bullshit please. Publish is a properly vetted scientific journal of venue like arXiv and make sure it is checked for error by professionals.

Until then all I see is hope and promises which = smoke and mirrors.

By the way, an eternally existing cosmos contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. How will you handle that? If the universe is infinitely old then we should all be cold and dead, but we are not. Do you like Fred Hoyle assume the "miracle" of matter being constantly created?

Ba'al Chatzaf

(1) I will post when I have updated the latest version of the paper.

(2) Experimental collaboration will take a great deal longer and lots of cash. After all the

largely inconclusive Gravity Probe B took decades of development and billions of dollars.

One of my undergraduate physics professors worked on theory for the project in the

early 80's.

(3) Properly published - unlikely any time soon since I have no avenue to publish in

ArXiv. Other "proper" publications often have a 2 or more year turn around. Many

publications will not accept work published elsewhere - which this has been/will be.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems - basic physics.

Something neglected in virtually all such discussions.

I have explained elsewhere [Physics_Frontier @ yahoogroups.com] that

non-linear QM provides the mechanism for matter/energy recycling. Matter

is not continually created but matter/energy continually recycled. Non-linear

QM prevents anything from being trapped anywhere indefinitely.

My gravity work is intimately integrated with my QM work which is also

continuing.

Dennis

The cosmos as a whole is closed. Try again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You need to read basic thermodynamics about what constitutes open and closed systems - try again.

Dennis

I am conversant with classical thermodynamics.

The universe as a whole is closed. There is no energy source outside it. Eternity and 2LOT are somewhat at odds.

You might be able to fenagle a resolution. Do so. And SHOW THE MATH.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

I trust you will write to us about it when:

1. It is done.

2. Been experimentally corroborated.

3. Properly Published. No Pons and Fliescher bullshit please. Publish is a properly vetted scientific journal of venue like arXiv and make sure it is checked for error by professionals.

Until then all I see is hope and promises which = smoke and mirrors.

By the way, an eternally existing cosmos contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. How will you handle that? If the universe is infinitely old then we should all be cold and dead, but we are not. Do you like Fred Hoyle assume the "miracle" of matter being constantly created?

Ba'al Chatzaf

(1) I will post when I have updated the latest version of the paper.

(2) Experimental collaboration will take a great deal longer and lots of cash. After all the

largely inconclusive Gravity Probe B took decades of development and billions of dollars.

One of my undergraduate physics professors worked on theory for the project in the

early 80's.

(3) Properly published - unlikely any time soon since I have no avenue to publish in

ArXiv. Other "proper" publications often have a 2 or more year turn around. Many

publications will not accept work published elsewhere - which this has been/will be.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems - basic physics.

Something neglected in virtually all such discussions.

I have explained elsewhere [Physics_Frontier @ yahoogroups.com] that

non-linear QM provides the mechanism for matter/energy recycling. Matter

is not continually created but matter/energy continually recycled. Non-linear

QM prevents anything from being trapped anywhere indefinitely.

My gravity work is intimately integrated with my QM work which is also

continuing.

Dennis

The cosmos as a whole is closed. Try again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You need to read basic thermodynamics about what constitutes open and closed systems - try again.

Dennis

I am conversant with classical thermodynamics.

The universe as a whole is closed. There is no energy source outside it. Eternity and 2LOT are somewhat at odds.

You might be able to fenagle a resolution. Do so. And SHOW THE MATH.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What is closed? - what boundary value within classical thermodynamics implies a closed system to a universe infinite in time - past and future and spatial extent large and small? Show the math.

I have no need to prove a negative - you have made an assertion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to the universe because it is a closed system - some models of the universe are closed systems - an infinitely old and infinite spatial extent universe is an open system and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply. There is no math to show when the law does not apply. Show your math demonstrating that the 2nd law does apply - it can't be done.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system."

In an infinitely old system is there is no "tendency over time" - hence there is no application of the 2nd law. The static situation already exists at all times.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system."

In an infinitely old system is there is no "tendency over time" - hence there is no application of the 2nd law. The static situation already exists at all times.

Dennis

The links and quotes in the rest of Wikipedia stuff neglects discussion of an infinitely old universe - I will see if I can find the discussion elsewhere.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system."

In an infinitely old system is there is no "tendency over time" - hence there is no application of the 2nd law. The static situation already exists at all times.

Dennis

The links and quotes in the rest of Wikipedia stuff neglects discussion of an infinitely old universe - I will see if I can find the discussion elsewhere.

Dennis

Here is a representative discussion of the issue [simlar to those I've read for 30 years]:

http://www.rationals...age-t21716.html

"So, in summary, to see significant spontaneous reductions in entropy you need either a) very small systems or b) extremely large timescales. Because an infinitely old universe by definition exhibits the latter requirement, it cannot be asserted that entropy will always be increasing [...], and as such it is entirely possible for a universe with an infinite past to exhibit the degree of entropy observed in ours."

There is a second issue somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion: relative entropy and frames of reference in entropy. In my cosmology there is a universal slowly increasing rate of time - mediated by non-linear QM supraluminal thermodynamics. From the frame of reference inside the universe this produces a static degree of entropy. From a frame of reference in static rate of time this could be viewed as increasing entropy.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

An interesting way to look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics is to see what happens when more and more detail is added to a closed black box being modeled for thermodynamics.

In the simple case often used for illustration in classes you have a cube containing an ideal gas. Place two such cubes side by side with a hole connecting the two and if the temperature or pressure differs between them you have a problem to solve.

Analyzing that problem or similar gets you a great deal of the way through undergraduate thermodynamics. Throw in heat traveling through solids with various boundary conditions and you have some difficult math/physics problems to solve. In graduate school you thrown in quantum effects on the two boxes with different gas properties among other things.

What you don't hear much talk about is what happens when you start throwing in more forces and more physics into the gases in boxes. When your physics is limited to an ideal gas or a gas plus quantum radiation/heat transfer the options are limited.

Throw in chemcial species, gravity, and nuclear forces - the description of entropy for various time scales and distances for forces becomes quite complicated.

In the Big Bang universe you have one force [gravity] defining the boundaries in time and spatial content - thus making the discussion of entropy tractable and individual details relatively unimportant.

In an infinitely old infinitely large universe the discussion becomes one of how do all of the various forces and interactions produce what we see and how is that maintained over infinite space and infinite time - individual details are important. To me the key to unlocking the problem is non-linear QM with supraluminal interactions.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Where is the Math?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Where is the Math?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Show me the math that changes in entropy apply to an infinitely old infinite in size universe? It is an open system - the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply.

Dennis

[Selene]

Nice...a duel!

Gentlemen this means slide rules at twenty (20) paces...choose your weapons...

[dennislmay]

I choose FORTRAN.

Dennis