Jordan » You're telling me that the cosmic microwave background radiation is observed, and the most probable/sensible conclusion is that it came about from a matter/anti-matter holocaust that was produced from nothingness spontaneously, then was redshifted by some hypothetical field called 'dark energy' which expanded space and the universe itself faster than the speed of ight then mysteriously slowed down, and is now speeding up again... I am supposed to regard such a conclusion to be so certain of being true that any other proposed cosmology models should be mocked and intimidated out of the spotlight by ruining people's careers? I'm sorry, I can't swallow that, I have to spit it back out...
Jordan » I have only a sparse idea of Alfven's 'Plasma Cosmology' but the idea is that the universe is eternal, and that on the large scale the universe is affected both by gravity and electrodynamic forces. This would neatly explain the large scale filamentary structure of the universe, as magnetic fields in plasmas create filamentary structures. Why is this idea so preposterous that no serious academic would dare study it, and the Big Bang is so irrefutably true that it is all we should study?
Jordan » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology The wikipedia article gives a neat summary, but has a blatant bias in it that attempts to intimidate and destroy the credibility of the theory.
Jordan » This link sums it up nicely: http://cosmologystatement.org/ In what other field of respectful science would such a methodology as employed by big bang cosmologists be allowed?
Spud » But, the expansion/inflation of the Universe, as witnessed by redshifts, can be explained without any mention of dark anything. It's a simple Doppler effect. And to contest that, would be to contest that light has a finite speed, among other things.
Spud » Now I have heard plenty of scientists talk about dark matter and dark energy, and every one of them that I've heard basically ends up saying "We don't know." Which makes me very happy, since that's exactly what a scientist should say when they don't know.
Jordan » But you are already making the assumption that a measurement of red doppler-shifts, or actual velocities, means the universe itself is expanding. An expanding universe is hardly the simplest possible explanation for why galaxies are moving apart, especially when it requires fundamental hypothetical assumptions (a field that is responsible for the expansion of the universe).
Jordan » Regardless of all of this, I reject the big bang on metaphysical grounds. Any idea of the universe being created from nothingness is preposterous, and at best just creation myth intertwined with some physics. How does existence 'expand' into non-existence? How does existence expand? Existence doesn't posses spatial measurements or finite spatial expansion, those are properties of entities within existence, within space.
Jordan » Just let me put it this way, and seriously introspect on it. Let's just say you have never heard of the big bang in your life, and suddenly someone tries to sell it to you. Forget about Hawking and all the 'experts' that give it impressive weight--would the information they present be convincing, or would it just sound ridiculous?
Jordan » http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_congo_democratic_witchcraft
Jordan » Also, dust clouds in the interstellar medium preferentially scatter shorter wavelength light more than longer wavelengths, so stars can look redder than they should if their light passes through enough material on their way here.
Jordan » "The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [4] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [5]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature." Is that not a very sensible explanation for the CMB? It is a prediction from real, proven Physics that matches the temperature of CMB astonishingly well, yet the explanation offered by the Big Bang is more sensible? (an explanation that requires the invoking of bizarre unprovable/unproven assumptions?)
Spud » Sorry that I'm taking so long to reply, but I'm having to do a lot of research before I can even hope to begin to try to make a devil's advocate reply. :) But I can say that I am not as cynical about the scientific community as you. Most importantly, I remain very open-minded about the subject, as I would hope most reasonable people do. You could be absolutely right, and that'd be awesome, because then I'd know the guy that turned the astrophysics/cosmology/astronomy of the 21st century completely on its head. But I don't think I have the same metaphysical hangups about the possibility of the Universe expanding from a single point as you. It seems plausible to me, so I go with it.
Spud » As far cosmology is concerned, I maintain my initial (metaphysical) position that
if the Universe expanded from a single point, then every point in the Universe must be the center of the Universe. If you consider yourself to exist, then did you not yourself arise from non existence?
I'm not sure really, because even if I could say for sure that I exist, I don't think I could for sure say that I arose from non-existence... and if I did not arise from non-existence, it becomes
very hard for me to rationalize determinism, and my subsequent free will.
Spud » And if my free will comes into question, then I find it very hard to really give a shit about anything.
Spud » And despite laughter -- laughter is never a platform from which to argue the truth. As Nietzsche said, let nothing pass as truth that is not accompanied by at least one laugh. :)
tript » I'll be honest with you, I love his music, I do, I'm a Michael Bolton
fan. For my money, I don't know if it gets any better than when he sings "When a Man Loves a Woman".
Alicia » Maybe that'll buy you a new stapler... ;)
Jordan » On a sidenote, Texas kicks ass: "The economy of Texas is a dominant force in the economy of the United States. One of the largest growing economies in the nation, Texas is, as of 2006, home to six of the top 50 companies on the Fortune 500 list and 56 overall, more than any other state. [1] Texas has an economy that is the second largest in the nation and the 15th largest in the world based on GDP (PPP) figures. As the largest exporter of goods in the United States, Texas currently grosses more than 100 billion dollars a year in trade with other nations.
In 2006, Texas had a gross state product of $1.09 trillion,[1] the second highest in the U.S.[2] Gross state product per capita as of 2005 was $42,975"
Alicia » "Listen. This is going to be one hell of a bowel movement. Afterwards, he'll be lucky if he has any bones left."
Alicia » cough *Futurama* cough
Dick » Parasites Lost. Season 3 episode 2.
Alicia » Wow, that's awesome!. Ryan and I were watching that on Comedy Central the other night thinking, "Ben's prolly watching this episode right now too!"
Dick » I haven't watched any serious TV since I moved to Austin. Decided not to get cable back then. I miss Mythbusters and History Channel though. :(
tript » I think this potato community needs some Brad Mehldau
Dick » Install it on a virtual machine and see if it tries to break out of its holding cell.
Spud » It would actually be really awesome if it even kinda' worked. Sorry to say, it's still a beta or even alpha project. I just had to see for myself.
Spud » Ironically, it was quite adequate in burning an Ubuntu64 ISO.
