From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 19:05:50 MST
At 08:30 AM 2/10/2003 -0700, Terry Colvin forwarded:
>On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 11:28:24AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Are there reputable cosmological theories that allow
> > within our own universe infinitely many galaxies?
>
>When one wonders about "reputable" theories versus "fringe" theories, it
>helps to consider the current STRENGTH of the consensus that modern science
>has on a given topic. At the moment, the Big Bang theory is THE theory of
>the evolution of the universe.
That's because it's now so strongly supported by evidence, that not to
believe it would be perverse.
>It is also generally regarded as being fatally
>flawed in a number of different ways.
>That is, we know that, as currently stated, its wrong. Since documentaries
>and teachers alike prefer to teach a mature theory (even a wrong one) than
>admit to ignorance, the Big Bang still gets taught.
It isn't wrong and it isn't fatally flawed. What's fatally flawed are all
of the alternative theories, which have now all been falsified by the
observational evidence of the past several years.
> Stirling Westrup
>
>--------------------------
>
>On 10 Feb 2003 at 0:55, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Stirling writes
> >
> > > At the moment, the Big Bang theory is THE theory of
> > > the evolution of the universe. It is also generally
> > > regarded as being fatally flawed in a number of different ways.
> > > That is, we know that, as currently stated, it's wrong.
> >
> > Do you think that more than half of the professional
> > physics community would agree with your statement that
> > the Big Bang theory is wrong?
>
>What a fascinating question! I would love to say yes, but I rather suspect
>not. What I WOULD say is that if you surveyed the best and the brightest of
>current cosmologists (leaving aside the question of how you choose them),
>well over 50% would agree with the statement: "The Big Bang theory, as
>currently accepted, is inconsistent with one or more observations of the
>universe".
I bet the figure would be as close to zero percent as never mind.
>The big problem in the sciences is that scientists are only human. 90% of
>them are dull-witted sheep. (An observation that seriously rattled me when I
>first started having dealings with professional scientists.) Of the
>remainders, the actual innovators, there are always going to be a fair
>percentage that have a vested interest in the current theory, either because
>they helped invent it and have gained status thereby, or because they have a
>grant or other money source tied to particular lines of investigation of the
>current theory.
>
>As a result, even in the presense of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
>an old theory keeps going until the number of dissenting voices reaches some
>critical mass, after which the global scientific perspective changes, almost
>overnight.
>
>This makes such questions as "would 20% of scientists agree..." a poor
>measurment of theory credibility, since (most) scientists do not
>independantly hold opinions, but do so in consensus.
You obviously don't understand how science works. Emotion, prejudice, and
gut feelings may play an important role early on, but eventually, all of
that gets burned off in the crucible of science. Solid (and preferably
replicable) evidence is absolute king in the scientific world. NOTHING
stands against that for
very long.
And that and only that is why virtually all cosmologists today accept the
big bang as the correct theory of the origin of the universe. We now have
the specific evidence in hand predicted by the big bang and no other
theory. They include time dilation in the decay curves of distant type Ia
supernova, an increase in temperature of the cosmic background radiation
(CMB) in the distant and early universe compared to today's universe, the
fundamental peak and its acoustic harmonic overtones in the anisotropy
spectrum of the CMB, including the predicted dampening tail, and partial
polarization of the CMB of just the right kind that the big bang predicts.
Once the upset over the Columbia disaster settles down, NASA will release
findings from the Microwave Anisotropy Probe that are sure to strengthen
these findings even more.
Ron Ebert
----------------------
Well, well well. This just came in on the astro list.
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.uww.edu: majordom set sender to
owner-astro-l@listserv.uww.edu using -f
From: Ron Baalke <baalke@zagami.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: [astro-l] Microwave Antisotropy Mission Featured At Space Science
Update
To: astro-l@listserv.uww.edu (Astronomy List)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:23:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2003 16:23:36.0168 (UTC)
FILETIME=[C311D680:01C2D120]
Sender: owner-astro-l@listserv.uww.edu
Reply-To: astro-l@listserv.uww.edu
Nancy Neal
Headquarters, Washington February 10, 2003
(Phone: 202-358-2369)
NOTE TO EDITORS: 03-011
MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY MISSION FEATURED AT SPACE SCIENCE UPDATE
One of the most eagerly anticipated cosmological
findings in years is the topic of the next Space Science
Update (SSU), scheduled for 2:00 p.m. EST, Tuesday, Feb. 11.
The results are from NASA's Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP)
mission.
The SSU is in the NASA Headquarters auditorium, 300 E St. SW,
Washington.
Panelists:
* Dr. Charles L. Bennett, principal investigator for MAP,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
* Dr. David Spergel, co-investigator for MAP, Princeton
University, N.J.
* Dr. John Bahcall, professor of natural sciences, Institute
for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.
* Dr. Anne Kinney, director of astronomy & physics division,
NASA Headquarters; panel moderator
The briefing will be carried live on NASA Television with
two-way question-and-answer capability for reporters covering
the event from participating NASA centers.
NASA TV is broadcast on the GE-2 satellite, Transponder 9C,
at 85 degrees west longitude, with vertical polarization,
frequency 3880.0 MHz, audio 6.8 MHz. Audio of the broadcast
will be available on voice circuit at NASA's Kennedy Space
Center, Fla., by calling 407/867-1220/1240/1260.
For more information about NASA, visit us on the Internet at:
www.nasa.gov
------------------
The initial results have finally been released. They mostly confirm what we
know or thought to be the case. The Big Bang is yet even more strongly
confirmed than before. I expect to see more detailed information about the
results in a few days or so. (The instrument has been renamed and is now
called WMAP in honor of Dr. David Wilkinson, a Princeton University
cosmologist and leader of the MAP project who died last September.)
From http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html
We use our new detailed picture to ask: "What happened earlier to make this
picture happen?" We now begin to probe the earliest moments of the
universe: Inflation (the rapid expansion of the universe a fraction of a
second after its birth.). We have ruled out a textbook example of a
particular inflation model. But others will be supported with this new
evidence.
Starting from the time of our picture we can ask: "What must have happened
later?"
We have compared and combined the new WMAP data with other diverse cosmic
measurements (galaxy clustering, Lyman-alpha cloud clustering, supernovae,
etc.), and we have found a new unified understanding of universe:
Universe is 13.7 billion years old with a only a 1% margin error.
First stars ignited 200 million years after the Big Bang.
Light in WMAP picture from 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Content of the Universe:
4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark energy.
The data places new constraints on the dark energy. It seems more like a
"cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called
"quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of
structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of
gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict
with the new WMAP data.
Expansion rate (Hubble constant) value: Ho= 71 km/sec/Mpc (with a margin of
error of about 5%)
New evidence for Inflation (in polarized signal)
Fate of the Universe: it will expand forever...
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 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 19:08:53 MST