FWD (SK) Re: The bottom two-thirds of a cosmological iceberg ?

From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 14:23:57 MST

  • Next message: scerir: "la grandeur"

    BCC to Tom Van Flandern

    At 09:09 PM 3/6/2003 -0700, Terry Colvin forwarded:

    >Forwarding the private reply of Tom Van Flandern - twc:
    >
    >*****
    >Terry,
    >
    > Thanks for your e-note. The "logic" of Ron Ebert ["re" below] is
    >amusing. Most of these complaints arose because he did not read the
    >original article with citations, but only the capsulized summary of four
    >points that struck someone's fancy in "Science Frontiers". Apparently
    >Ebert's rebuttal, which makes unsubstantiated claims about four points
    >from a list of 30, is supposed to imply that the whole list is
    >defective. That itself is invalid reasoning. And none of these four
    >points were among the top 10 in the list. Here are my specific comments
    >on the Ebert message:

    I replied to what was forwarded by Terry to the Skeptic list. Science
    Frontiers is not recognized as an academic journal or general interest
    journal and our university library doesn't carry it. I have nothing to say
    about the other points that were not posted since I don't know what they
    are. They cannot make the four points that were posted "true" in their
    specific claims, and unless the capsized summaries were greatly
    misrepresented, reading the full points won't show them to be true either.

    > >[re]: first let's see the credibility of the person making the claims.
    >[citing totally unrelated matter of artificial structures on Mars]
    >
    > This is the unscientific technique called "discrediting by
    >association". If you can't win an argument on merit, attack your
    >opponent on some other issue where he/she seems vulnerable. Note that
    >the merits of that side issue are not raised either. This is an attempt
    >to discredit an opponent purely by association, without any
    >consideration of the merit of either issue. Recognize the tactic for
    >what it is.

    You conveniently didn't quote the first part of my sentence:

    >The specific claims must be addressed, but first let's see the credibility
    >of the person making the claims.

    The claims have to stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of the
    person making the claims. But by showing you have already made patently
    false claims about artificial structures on Mars, it demonstrates that your
    credibility is so low that anything you say has to be independently
    verified before anyone can believe it. It is like the difference between
    what Consumer Reports claims for a car and what a car salesman claims for
    it. We do not trust the latter without independent verification.

    > >>[sf article]: The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and
    > >>antimatter were created. If so, we don't know what happened to all the
    > >>antimatter.
    >
    >[re]: The Big Bang makes no such prediction. The BB says nothing about
    >this. You may as well complain that the BB fails to explain why Mars is
    >red. The resolution of the problem will be in an as yet undeveloped
    >unifying theory like a Grand Unified Theory. We already know that the
    >nuclear weak force is asymmetric. The weak force is probably involved
    >with the resolution of the problem.
    >
    > The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and
    >antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the
    >present universe apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as
    >CP violation asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with
    >matter, but left much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of
    >this asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can't be
    >antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with
    >the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not
    >seen. [Sources: Sci.News 158, 86 (2000); Science 278, 226 (1997).]

    The basic Big Bang theory, in and of itself, is an incomplete theory. This
    has long been recognized. It is the reason why auxiliary theories to fill
    in the missing details, like inflation, were developed. There are a few
    other competing ones to inflation as well, such as ekpyrotic universe, fast
    speed of light, and complicated superspace universe. All of these make
    specific predictions that can be verified or falsified. And they in turn
    rely on some auxiliary theories, particularly those governing the behavior
    of matter and energy at extremes well removed from everyday life or even
    anything going on in the universe today.

    The resolution of the problem of the matter-antimatter asymmetry is to be
    found in one of these auxiliary theories, not the BB. There is no mechanism
    outlined in the BB that addresses the point. For that reason it is a false
    and deceptive claim that this asymmetry falsifies the BB.

    The BB can be falsified on its specific mechanisms and predictions. For
    example, there is a period in time early in the history of the universe
    where the temperature range that is coupled with the expansion due to the
    BB allows for the formation of the hydrogen, helium and their isotopes that
    we see in the universe today. Their ratios to one another are predicted by
    the calculations done for this nuclear synthesis era. These predicted
    ratios have been verified by observations. Had they not been, the BB would
    have been falsified.

    Your reasoning is like someone coming upon burnt remains on a lot and
    complaining that there cannot have been a house there that burned down
    since the remains are of a circular structure and houses are always square.
    Houses can be built square but they don't have to be. The lack of
    squareness doesn't mean there was no house because squareness is not an
    invariant prediction of houses. Likewise matter-antimatter symmetry is not
    an invariant prediction of the basic BB, and its lack doesn't mean there
    was no BB.

    > >>[sf article]: The Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
    > >>by requiring that new space in the expanding universe be filled with
    > >>"zero-point" energy.
    >
    >[re]: Another false claim. The conservation of energy has to hold in
    >local conditions. There is no requirement under general relativity that
    >it has to hold under global conditions. See
    >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html. As
    >for zero point energy, if by that term you mean the net energy balance
    >provided by virtual particles, as above the BB says nothing about it.
    >
    > The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that
    >energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new
    >space filled with "zero-point energy" (the Casimir effect) be
    >continually created between the galaxies. Wherever that new space and
    >energy appears is "local" to that place, and clearly violates the first
    >law. [Source: B.R. Bligh, "The Big Bang Exploded!" (2000),
    ><brbligh@hotmail.com>.]

    You either haven't read the reference link I provided or you didn't
    understand it. The Casimir effect isn't zero point energy, it is an
    imbalance in zero point energy and it only comes into play under the
    special condition when two metal objects are placed extremely close to one
    another. The Casimir effect isn't found otherwise. The quantum fluctuations
    that provide the background for the Casimir effect cancel out in normal
    local conditions and provide zero net energy. For this reason there is no
    violation of the first law locally. Globally there could be a violation of
    the conservation of energy, but this is allowed under General Relativity.
    Provide a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal where it isn't
    allowed under General Relativity.

    > >>[sf article]: Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies and quasars,
    > >>as are some other properties of the galaxies. All this is verboten under
    > >>Big Bang rules.
    >
    >[re]: Yet another false claim. Redshifts are not quantized. This is
    >from the December 2002 Sky and Telescope:
    >
    > The fact that redshifts are quantized for nearby galaxies had
    >already been confirmed in an earlier independent study. The new study
    >(quoting a news article dated *after* the top 30 list was published)
    >does not distinguish between these two conflicting results.
    >
    > Quantization also occurs for quasars and for properties of
    >galaxies other than redshift. None of these should happen under Big Bang
    >premises. [Sources: Astrophys.J. 393, 59-67 (1992); Guthrie & Napier,
    >Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 12/1 issue (1991); Astron.J. 121, 21-30 (2001);
    >Astron.&Astrophys. 343, 697-704 (1999).]

    This is a sterling example of why your credibility is zero and you are not
    to be believed without independent verification. Let's take these one by one.

    Astrophys.J. 393, 59-67 (1992)

    This is the only reference you've given that supports your claim in some
    fashion. The trouble is, this is old news. The analysis is of a few hundred
    or so galaxies out of a prior 1983 data set. In contrast, the 2dF redshift
    surveys of galaxies and quasars recently done analyses 1,647 galaxy-quasar
    pairs, with no sign of any quantized redshifts. It's an old trick of cranks
    to use obsolete data to support their claims.

    Guthrie & Napier, Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 12/1 issue (1991)

    Invalid reference. The volume, page number and year don't give any match
    for this journal in the library database, and physically checking the
    journal shows this is an invalid format.

    Astron.J. 121, 21-30 (2001)

    Invalid reference. The volume, page number and year don't give any match
    for this journal in the library database, and physically checking the
    journal shows this is an invalid match.

    Astron.&Astrophys. 343, 697-704 (1999)

    This is a paper about discrete states of galactic *rotation curves*, NOT
    radial redshifts.

    All in all, your evidence for quantized redshifts is zero.

    > >>[sf article]: Big Bang theory requires that the fine-structure
    > >>constant must vary with time; a claimed but controversial phenomenon.
    >
    >[re]: See? It's a whole list of make believe claims. The BB says
    >nothing at all about the fine structure constant.
    >
    > Under Big Bang premises (specifically, if quasars are at their
    >redshift distances), the fine structure constant must vary with time.
    >[Source: Phys.Rev.Lett. 9/03 issue (2001).]

    And all houses must be red or they're not houses. Your argument is false
    for the reasons given above.

    >[re]: This is the guy who also insists that gravity doesn't travel at
    >the speed of light and can't get out of a black hole. See [two links]
    >for the refutations.
    >
    > But why neglect to cite the latest publication on this matter,
    >which (unlike the two web sites) is peer-reviewed?

    The web sites are written for general public use by mathematical physicists
    who have their own numerous publications in peer reviewed journals and who
    are generally highly respected by their peers. And there are reference
    citations to papers in peer reviewed academic journals.

    >This article not only
    >answers those objections to the satisfaction of reviewers and editors,
    >but does the same for every objection raised to date, and concludes with
    >unchallenged reasoning that the "universal speed limit" is no longer in
    >effect in physics. See ["Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for
    >Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T. Van
    >Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002)].

    I guess that's supposed to be Foundational Physics. If so, like Science
    Frontiers it is not an academic journal and the University of California
    library doesn't carry it. Whatever reviewers you are referring to, it is
    highly likely that they are not mathematical physicists or general
    relativists with positions at academic institutions in those fields. If one
    crank peer reviews another crank, it means nothing.

    > Now if I have grasped the essence of Ebert's reasoning, I should
    >be able to apply his same type of arguments to my own advantage: A
    >respected, senior physicist has joined me as a co-author of a carefully
    >scrutinized publication in a prestigious mainstream physics journal
    >containing a result of importance to physics. Because that result has
    >the weight of undisputed authority, everyone should now pay attention to
    >my Big Bang arguments, and can safely conclude that there probably *are*
    >artificial structures on Mars. Right? :-) -|Tom|-

    You haven't published in any mainstream physics journal, let alone a
    prestigious one, on this subject. I understand you are respected as a
    celestial mechanic who is able to accurately work out comet, asteroidal and
    planetary orbits, but your understanding of relativity and quantum
    mechanics is infantile and you have no hope of getting your claims on them
    published in an academic physics journal.

    Ron Ebert

    -- 
    Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com >
         Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com >
    Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
    Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
          U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
    ------------
    Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
       TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
    Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 14:31:33 MST