The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 176206 times)

Offline caboose17

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« on: 26/05/2008 04:05:25 »
what do you believe?


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #1 on: 26/05/2008 09:55:55 »
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant.  See my evolutionary cosmology topic in the new theories section for a bit more explanation.  I do not believe there is any significant prospect of ever communicating with or observing one of these other universes so we will have to do without confirmation of their existence.

I also consider it very likely that our universe itself creates new universes as part of its normal existence.  These new universes are probably what we call black holes.

To my answer would be a tick in three of your boxes  big bang yes,  constant universe(multiverse) yes.  other yes. 

The concept of"scientific" creationism is a load of total rubbish.  The creation myths in ancient writings contain a great deal of wisdom about life and human nature and are valuable for that reason only.  To regard them as a basis for scientific actuality is totally batty.

It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings. This reduces their value and causes many modern people to ignore them and the true wisdom that they contain.  Please note I include the myth of Jesus Christ in that category and am a practicing Christian myself.
« Last Edit: 26/05/2008 10:03:33 by Soul Surfer »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #2 on: 26/05/2008 10:44:24 »
Quote
It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings.
Yes, indeed.
The existence of alternative opinions and 'explanations' doesn't imply that they have equal weight and are equally likely to be true.
The popular ideas about probability and 'odds' are partly to blame for the fact that people seem to think that any alternative idea should be treated on an equal footing with well established theories which are supported by a body of evidence.
The relative probability of two alternatives is not necessarily 50-50.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #3 on: 26/05/2008 14:01:48 »
Quote
It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings

Ian - I agree with you totally. However, it is interesting that in proper Qabbalism (not that deranged nonsense proselytised by such as Madonna) Ein Soph Aur equates rather nicely to quantum foam. It is the "Great Nothingness" from which everything ultimately emerges.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #4 on: 26/05/2008 23:16:24 »
I can't vote in that poll because a) for me it's not a question of belief, and b) because it doesn't include the one answer I know is correct.

I know that I don't know whether the BB is correct or not, so I can't 'believe' any of the options given - that would just be wishful thinking.

The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.

However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all ;)
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #5 on: 27/05/2008 10:11:08 »
I voted a constant Universe because that was the only option for me. By voting I mean that the Universe is without an end or beginning and is therefore the medium for all astral events, a minuscule proportion of which we are privileged to have witnessed. But from which we cannot make assumptions about because we have and always will have insufficient data!

I believe that every single planet grows and ultimately decays when it becomes too greater a mass to remain stable and that the immense pressures caused by every single atomic particle pushing against opposing particles generated at the core of the Earth will eventually cause our own planet to heat up and become a sun and inevitably decompose sending the atoms once again to migrate across an infinite Universe.

Andrew K Fletcher
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #6 on: 27/05/2008 12:57:10 »
Quote
I believe that every single planet grows and ultimately decays when it becomes too greater a mass to remain stable and that the immense pressures caused by every single atomic particle pushing against opposing particles generated at the core of the Earth will eventually cause our own planet to heat up and become a sun and inevitably decompose sending the atoms once again to migrate across an infinite Universe.
That's bizarre. Where did you get that idea from?
Where is the gravitational potential energy to  make that happen?
Where does all this extra mass come from?
Even Jupiter doesn't have enough mass for that.
Stars are the objects which are big enough to sustain that sort of behaviour.
Would you expect the Moon to do it, of a piece of rock?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #7 on: 27/05/2008 18:44:52 »
The concept is my own.
The energy from gravity comes from the alignment of all of the particles on the Earth pushing against opposing particles that are aligned on the opposite side of the planet, each particle adds to the pulling force of the planet and this increases the attractive force of the planet enabling the larger planets to capture the lions share of the particles of decay from space, many, including the larger more visible objects decompose and then recompose on entry into the Earth’s field. The pushing / repelling forces of the particles are by no means lost in this equation they are the source of the heat at the core due to the friction generated by the immense pressure causing the particles to be in close proximity with other particles and this causes tremendous friction as the particles try to move away from each other but are confined to the molten chamber at the core.   

Jupiter does not have enough mass yet but it is slowly getting there and will become another sun long before the Earth does.

I expect the moon to decay into the Earth’s mass when the attractive forces become great enough to strip away the moon’s surface and cause tremendous upheaval with the moons gravitational field-giving rise to huge distortion and friction on the moon, as is the case with Jupiter’s own Moons

Stars are planets that have reached critical mass and become suns themselves

Andrew K Fletcher
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #8 on: 27/05/2008 20:18:00 »
"I'd much rather be happy than right any day" - Slartibartfast.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #9 on: 29/05/2008 18:43:19 »
AKF
Have you read any books on standard ideas about Cosmology? Your model is well out of kilter with accepted Science. The fact is that the present models do an extremely good job of explaining our observations and have been confirmed again and again. I seriously recommend that you find out about the existing theories before you go too far out on a limb; can you seriously think that 'they' have got it so wrong?
'They' didn't just wake up one morning with the present Cosmology running around their heads, you know.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #10 on: 29/05/2008 22:25:58 »
The thing about lots of people going in the same direction does not mean the direction they are going in is the correct one. Take a shoal of fish for example, they circle in harmony as each of them tries not to end up as the lunch of a predator. Now all of those fish could argue that they are safe in a shoal. Except the ones that get eaten! And indeed for now they are definately safer inside the tightly packed shoal so long as the pack sticks together. Whales have learned how to exploit this habit of its prey forming a tight ball. It has learned to blow bubbles all around the swirling frightened prey as it brings them closer and closer to the surface and then scoops up the whole shoal proving that safety in numbers may not be as safe as we think it is.

Andrew K Fletcher "Out on a Limb"

« Last Edit: 29/05/2008 22:49:43 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #11 on: 29/05/2008 23:28:15 »
1. What evidence do you have to fit your theory?
2. Do you know just how much evidence there is to fit 'theirs'?

And they're not fish.
btw, the behavior of each fish is in its favour. It stands the greatest chance of surviving by staying in the shoal. If another pattern were more favorable they would have evolved to follow it. They aren't all that dumb! The fish that stays out on its own is just drawing attention to itself and will get eaten PDQ.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #12 on: 30/05/2008 11:02:49 »
Once the astronomers had figured out the mass of Gliese 581 C, they then used one of Kepler's laws to figure out its distance from the star. That gave them a rough estimate of the planet's temperature—anywhere from 0 to 40 degrees Celsius. Where the true temperature lies along that spectrum depends on how much light the planet reflects, which in turn depends on its composition. But you can't tell what a planet's made of unless you know how dense it is. To get the density, you have to figure out the volume, which usually requires watching the planet "transit" across its star—a partial eclipse that lets you measure its size. Astronomers can then compare the measured density to the known values for substances like rock, iron, and hydrogen. A good sense of the planet's composition helps them make a better guess about its temperature, and the likelihood that it can support life. However, it's very unlikely that we'll ever see Gliese 581 C transiting across its star, so scientists may not be able to determine its composition.
Explainer thanks David Charbonneau and Dimitar Sasselov of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Dr. Jo Pitesky of NASA.
Correction, April 26, 2007: This article originally stated that Jupiter is 100 times the mass of Earth. (Return to the corrected sentence.) http://www.slate.com/id/2165044/

Note the word Guess regarding temperature of planets.
This is very important, because at present the model predicts a hot planetary birth and a gradual cooling, so guesses will obviously be loaded in favour of the current model of planetary evolution.

The Earth for example is believed by the majority of people to be gradually cooling down. So models are developed around this assumption to emphasise how slowly a planet might be cooling down, when in reality with a surface covered mostly with a very efficient coolant H2O, coupled with the water cycle to assist its effectiveness, the Earth over many billions of years should not be still spewing out molten lava onto it’s surface and have lakes of hot water a geezers gushing from the floor. Yet, this is exactly what we find with our both feet firmly on the ground. Now, if our model for the Earth is completely wrong and the Earth is gradually getting warmer due to it’s slowly but surely increasing mass, which is transmitted to the core as additional atomic friction, a whole different set of predictions might be in order as we guesstimate the temperatures of other planets.

The point is no matter how sure we are of the current paradigm it is at best a wild guess, nothing more and nothing less The eminent scientists above are humble enough to admit this.

To create an explosion in a swirling ball of dust and have it forming into a molten mass and then cooling down over billions of years sounds a little absurd if you think about it for a little while. What caused the ignition? Why didn’t the material hurtle away from the violent explosion rather than it forming a homogenous mass? Where did all of this energy suddenly spring from? What evidence do we have for this?

It makes more sense that we have a gradual seeding of a planet as atoms form into a mass and then gradually attracts more atoms until they are large enough to attract solid objects. The moons surface shows this to have some merit with all of the impact craters and stellar / moon dust on it’s surface. Here we do not see a hot planet but a cold planet with little instability on its surface. It certainly fits the pattern of a gradually growing planet rather than a hot planet cooling down!

What about the sun? Could this be the formation of another planet from a dust cloud too? Or is this a planet that has become unstable and reached the point where it decays over many billions of years sending out its atomic particles to settle on other emerging planets? Could it have been H20 that became unstable as the planets mass increased that fuels the enormous energy of the sun? Was this water once the life-bringer to a planet teaming with life very much like our own that gradually warmed up until it grew hot enough to turn the fluids into volatile gasses? Could it be that as the sun ultimately cools down and again becomes stable and begins to grow?

What about Jupiter?

Jupiter has several unique characteristics: http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/jupiter.html
·   The first one is its immense size. It is indeed, as its name suggests, the king of the planets. About 1,320 Earths could fit inside of it.
·   The second characteristic is the Great Red Spot. This is a gigantic (three Earth diameters) storm that has existed for more than three centuries (Galileo discovered it in the seventeenth century). It will probably continue to exist for hundreds or thousands of years, for it is constantly being fed by smaller eddies surrounding it, such as the white spots in the picture at the right.
·   The third characteristic is its many moons. Jupiter has the most moons of any planet in the solar system: 63.
·   Another interesting property of Jupiter is how it generates heat. As seen in the table below, the average temperature of Jupiter is approximately 160 K. However, due to the equation for thermal equilibrium (below), it should only be about 100 K. This extra heat is generated due to gravitational contraction - the planet is slowly shrinking in diameter. This way, by compressing by only a few millimeters every year, it can generate heat by increasing the pressure of its constituent gas.
Again we see that the observed temperatures do not fit with the maths so we add that the “planet must be shrinking” in order to generate more heat? When logically the planet must be growing and the core must be getting hotter in order to explain the higher temperature levels than expected. 

What about other planets? How does their size compare to the temperatures and how much of this heat relates to activity at the core? 

What happens to gas and liquids under extreme compression? Hot Ice?

The multipurpose Z machine, whose main use is to produce data to improve the safety and reliability of the US nuclear deterrent, has compressed spherical capsules of hydrogen isotopes to release neutrons — the prerequisite for controlled nuclear fusion and essentially unlimited energy for humanity.

But it has potential practical value. The work, which appears online March 11 in Nature Physics, was undertaken partly because phase diagrams that predict water’s state at different temperatures and pressures are not always correct — a fact worrisome to experimentalists working at extreme conditions, as well as those having to work at distances where direct measurement is impractical. For example, work reported some months ago at Z demonstrated that astronomers’ ideas about the state of water on the planet Neptune were probably incorrect. http://www.physorg.com/news93200439.html


« Last Edit: 31/05/2008 08:51:43 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #13 on: 31/05/2008 12:14:39 »
The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.

Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt” but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles. Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?

It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.

I look forward to your reply with interest.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #14 on: 31/05/2008 18:01:51 »
I must qualify my vote for the Big Bang that my view is that our universe is only one of a quasi infinite number and the Big bang will be followed by the Big Crunch add infinitum.
It is well established that the minimum mass for a star to maintain nuclear fusion of Hydrogen is 80 times that of Jupiter all though relatively short lived fusion of Deuterium can occur at 15 Jupiter masses
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #15 on: 01/06/2008 00:59:29 »
Quote
The point is no matter how sure we are of the current paradigm it is at best a wild guess, nothing more and nothing less The eminent scientists above are humble enough to admit this.
Not "a wild guess' but an informed estimate with upper and lower limits (not usually stated in the Press but an essential constituent of any Scientific publication).

What possible mechanism can you suggest for the Earth (and presumably every other object in space) gaining mass?

Liquid water is a good medium for heat transfer but have you any idea of the proportion of the depth of the Oceans is of he total Earth's diameter ?  It corresponds to no more than the 'bumps' on the surface of an orange skin. What difference is that likely to have on the cooling rate in the interior?

The Earth is not thought to be just cooling down but there are thermonuclear reactions going on inside it which account for a significant amount of internal heating. Remember that the rocky planets have a very different composition from that of the stars; there are many  other radioactive heavy isotopes in the Earth's core than Hydrogen isotopes, the majority constituent of stars. That is because they have been formed in a Supernova.

What sort of fringe literature do you read for your strange picture of the World? Have you no idea of the completeness of the current views?
 Whilst I would be the first to concede that we do not have a Theory of Everything, the theories we currently accept have a huge body to support them and their relevance to what we observe. It has been possible to predict and verify so much of what is going on around us by using current theories. Merely pointing out some possible exceptions doesn't invalidate the whole of Science.
A new theory, such as your own  must satisfy and improve on the present state of knowledge. It needs evidence - not just 'fancy' and must include and explain all presently known facts and evidence.
I have to question your real understanding of the accepted theories if you are so set on your own versions.
Science is a very disciplined and conservative business, you know. Every step has to be based on as much verification as possible and not on personal whim. That's why the peer review system works so well. It leads to a number of brilliant ideas being rejected at first but also prevents thousands of loony ones leading us up blind alleys. Personal feelings have to come second, I'm afraid but the 'truth' will always come out in the end.
The 'giants' of Science have all gone through the mill of conventional Science before arriving at their theories. None of them woke up one morning with an independent complete view of things and invented a completely new model. True greatness is, actually, very humble, when it comes to Science.

« Last Edit: 01/06/2008 01:01:08 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #16 on: 01/06/2008 14:58:42 »
I can't vote in that poll because a) for me it's not a question of belief, and b) because it doesn't include the one answer I know is correct.

I know that I don't know whether the BB is correct or not, so I can't 'believe' any of the options given - that would just be wishful thinking.

The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.

However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all ;)


As a figment of Lee's imagination, I have to agree with him. I am a firm believer in the statement "Everything we know is wrong", err, including that statement. I think I've just disappered in a puff of logic.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #17 on: 01/06/2008 15:19:35 »
More seriously, I think there is some danger in being wholly logical. It can be better to take a "positivist" view in order to be able to say anything at all without a trainload of caviats. As a physicist it is better to accept a theory as a reality for the purposes of conversation but just keep in the back of your mind that the whole edifice may crumble at the drop of a self contradictory hat. So I would tend to say that there was "probably" a big bang and work from there, at least, compared with the other options on offer.

This is rather more speculative than other theories that do not stretch the physics quite so far. When it comes to questions such as is the earth older than 4000 or so years, I am inclined to be very much more robust in saying yes to this. Adding caviats here simply weakens an overwhelmingly strong argument to one on an equal footing to a creationist one - at least in some people's minds. I note that in New Scientist (April) it quotes a survey showing only 40% of Americans think that "human beings, as we know them, developed from an earlier species of animals", 20% were not sure, and 40% though that this was true. Scientists are clearly not communicating very well.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #18 on: 01/06/2008 21:01:04 »
Say a diesel engine requires 10 litres of water to maintain its temperature and there are no leaks or pressure loss to the atmosphere. The Truck does 1 million miles for arguments sake (more common than one would think) and does 8 miles per gallon, so we divide 1 million by 8  = 5682500 litres X 10 kwh / Kg = 5682500KWH cooled by 10 Litres of water with no overall loss of water, because the water does not vanish. Add to this the water returned to the atmosphere when the diesel is burned and we begin to see the true value of this thin layer of water you doubt would have any effect on the cooling of the planet due to its mass.

1 litre of water will quench a 20 mil x 20 x 60 mil white-hot steel bar in 2 minutes, or put out a substantial fire.

Objects gaining mass in space happens whether you acknowledge it or not. I have argued this point before on here and no one can deny that particles of atoms, atoms, meteors and even comets have added to the mass of Earth over billions of years. The force is gravity that attracts mass and Gravity after all is a result of mass so it must follow that the more mass our planet attracts the greater the attractive force becomes, so it follows that the larger planets in our system attract the larger objects and this was observed when the meteors were absorbed by Jupiter for all to see during the recent collisions.

Not a wild guess but an informed guess with upper and lower limits? Who has the arrogance to put limits on the Universe? Who says the guesses are informed guesses?

As for the peer review system, it is not the perfect vehicle you profess it to be. May I draw your attention to the peer reviewed Fraud being investigated in the drug cartel’s corner as we debate this and what about the debunked eminent scientist who fiddled the aspirin breast cancer scam? What about the DNA rip off where they stole Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray photographs claiming it to be their own? So please don’t use the Peer review system to back you out of a corner. Quote: “It leads to a number of brilliant ideas being rejected at first”.

Quote: “The Earth is not thought to be just cooling down but there are thermonuclear reactions going on inside it which account for a significant amount of internal heating. Remember that the rocky planets have a very different composition from that of the stars; there are many  other radioactive heavy isotopes in the Earth's core than Hydrogen isotopes, the majority constituent of stars. That is because they have been formed in a Supernova.”

The thermonuclear reactions at the core are caused by what action?
For every action there must be a reaction right?

Formed in a supernova? Who was there to see this?

Is the Earth shrinking? Is the Earth Growing? Is the Earth stable?

Andrew K Fletcher
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #19 on: 01/06/2008 22:40:04 »
Don't quote what was clearly a commercial-corruption-inspired fake peer review as a reason for rejecting the system. The system doesn't always work, of course, but, as in your quoted case, the failures get revealed. Was the DNA information incorrect, then? Peer review is not there to protect individuals- it's there to maintain stability. Would you expect someone to fund your particular ideas as research topics on the basis of the opinions you have presented?

You are mis-quoting the 'action and reaction' thing, actually, but the 'action' in this case is due to the presence of radioactive isotopes.

Water 'quenching' hot steel is due to the latent heat of vaporisation. When the vapour condenses, the heat is transferred to the atmosphere. Are the oceans boiling? Is the rate of vaporisation significantly more than you would expect from 1kW per sq metre of Solar energy.? In any case, the only mechanism by which 'heat' can be lost from the Earth can only be radiation so that local bit of transfer is not relevant to the final temperature balance. (See Stefan's Law and a few other well established principles to see that the Earth's effective surface temperature is determined more by Solar radiation than anything else.

You can tell what elements are present / being formed in Supernovae by looking at the spectrum of light from such events.

The history of day-length indicates that the rate of accretion has been pretty small as far back as they can see. If it were significant, the moment of inertia would have changed and so would the day length.

If you so vehemently doubt the Science that you read, how can you square that opinion with the fact that technology constantly draws on the Sciences (and often in the very latest theories) and manages to show that they work. You wouldn't be on this forum if quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory, relativity and chemistry hadn't got things pretty much right.
Or is it just in a few instances that you find fault?
Perhaps if you read some more reputable sources you might be better informed.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #20 on: 02/06/2008 10:19:37 »
RE: Peer review and it's purpose
I quoted the clearly commercial corruption to show that the system is not as robust and infallible as we are led to believe it is.

What is the Peer Review System? Who are the peers of Non-Academic scientists? The Peer Review System is designed to keep out the “Fringe scientists” and safeguard the jobs of academia. It is run by Academia so all it has to do to ensure it’s own perpetuation is to publish papers by Academia and reject papers by people outside of Academia, “who according to your own words are on the fringe of science”. And to which I wholeheartedly agree! Because it is the fringe of science that moves science forward. Swimming around with the shoal of Academics and trying to avoid being singled out is never going to move science forward and never has! It takes a “Fringe Scientist” who thinks differently to challenge the safety of the shoal!

http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/news/call-for-papers-legal-security-and-privacy-issues-in-it-lspi/

Read and learn: The conference committee is seeking submissions of papers for oral presentations at the conference in two major categories:
·   Academic, peer reviewed papers - these papers will be peer reviewed by members of the program committee and other independent reviewers (where necessary) and will be published under a non-exclusive copyright agreement in the edited conference proceedings with ISBN. Selected papers will also be published in several leading international law journals. Case studies, abstracts of research in progress, as well as full research papers will be considered for the conference program for presentation purposes. However, only complete papers wil l be published i n the proceedings. Previously published peer-reviewed papers will also be considered, provided the authors(s) are granted license from the publisher and publication information are noted in the article.
·   Non-academic papers - these papers will not be peer reviewed. These papers will be selected on merit by the program committee. This category covers corporate papers, best practices, new technologies, policy issues, etc.
Why do you think there are no Peer Reviewers attached to the “Non-Academic Papers”
Could it be “The Not Invented Here Syndrome” “Or the jobs for the boys Syndrome”? Jobs in Academia are safe providing they corner the market on publications and with the Peer Review System in place, they have done just that!

But in doing so have already sealed their own fate, because they are stifling the original thought and in doing so are strangling the progress of science and calling into question their own validity. And this is why theories like big bangs, Black Holes, have a huge backing, not because they deserve a second glance but because if you write a paper to demolish these and make these false theories transparently obvious, then the whole of academia who perpetuated and endorsed them is going to look pretty damned stupid and obsolete.

Science is about truth not politics!

I am not mis-quoting the action and reaction thing! If it is due to the presence of radioactive isotopes, which I have already stated it is earlier. What is causing the action that forces the isotopes to become too close to each other and then become unstable? Could it be the immense pressure that I stated earlier? Or is there some quirk in science we are all overlooking?

I mentioned the Diesel Engine analogy to show how water can transfer heat into the atmosphere and in doing so showed how the atmosphere can also transfer heat into the Universe.

The oceans are boiling where the heat from the core is transferred directly to the water. So the answer is yes, there is significant heat being transferred to the oceans from the ocean floor! See deep ocean smokers. We are talking about the thermal nuclear energy from the core of the planet, the energy that provides Iceland with it’s central heating and Japan with hot pools that are frequented by its monkey population, The energy that has been said would provide the entire Human Population with all the power it could ever need. The same energy that transformed Lanzarote into a wasteland and poured molten rock into the oceans.

I mentioned the diesel engine and water cooling because like the earth’s core and indeed the hot steel bar it transfers its heat to the atmosphere, where it dissipates. The oceans also provide a method of dissipating the heat, both from solar energy and thermal energy from the core, And you are right to state that the heat can be radiated from the Earth’s surface and thermals obviously rise and transfer their heat into the universe and the cooling of this thermal energy causes downdraft and this circulation of air over deserts is called the Hadley Cell. So we have described a very efficient means of transferring heat from the planet to the Universe. So why is our planet taking so long to cool down? You have stated thermal nuclear reaction may have something to do with it. And Eminent scientists have stated when confronted by odd temperatures on other planets that there is another source of heat!

My theory is not at odds with the current theory that much. In fact it is pretty damned close except for the timescales involved. Mine also includes particles coming together and fusing into a planet., However not the violent beginning perpetuated with zero evidence but a stable seeding and gradual infinitesimally slow growth that began with a stable surface evolving to a surface like our own moon and progressed, increasing its mass to the point where the pressure at the core was capable of holding the atomic particles close enough to generate thermal nuclear reaction. Here Pressure from the mass is the action that causes the reaction as the pushing / repelling force of every single particle on Earth is focused towards and opposing particle, while the attractive forces combine together to attract more and more mass!

Along the way, our planet became large enough to cause atoms to bind together in many ways, non-more important than the binding of hydrogen and oxygen to make water. Water then provides the surface with an atmosphere and due to the fact that water has a habit of flowing to the lowest land surface it gave rise to oceans and rivers in the familiar water cycle we see today. But again at an infinitesimally slow rate as the building blocks arrive from the decay of other planets as they become stars in an endless conveyor belt of composition and decomposition. Scientists are studying the tails of comets to find out more about the building blocks of the Universe. This does not sound like people who are absolutely sure they have all of the answers does it?

You refer to the history of day length…. The history of the arrival of mankind, the dinosaurs and even the trilobites is insignificant in the history of a planet. I tried to point this out in another thread about Is the Earth Continually recycling it’s surface. It was stated that it would take approximately 1 million years to erase all traces of human existence given the turn over at the surface.

You cannot rely on ice cores to date events if there is no ice to rely on that stretches back far enough. You cannot rely on fossils if they have been recycled a billion times into rock, sand, sandstone, lava…

In order to understand the Universe we have to stop trying to put limits on events that are in a completely different timescale to what we are capable of imagining. And contrary to popular belief the Universe does not revolve around the Earth. The Earth is not even an insignificant atom from a particle of sand compared to the Universe!

If I read the Bible enough do I also become a believer?
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #21 on: 02/06/2008 10:40:24 »
What about the DNA rip off where they stole Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray photographs claiming it to be their own?

I think it's worth pointing out that they didn't claim her work to be their own.  Certainly, she didn't get the credit she deserved, but it's not like they were racing to work it out and then stole her work.  They were shown the x-ray crystallography results by Rosalind's superior, and integrated them into the other evidence they had in order to work out the structure of DNA.  Rosalind was not trying to find the DNA structure (and anyway, didn't have the other results they had collected), so it's not like they stole her work and then beat her to it.

I'm not getting involved in the rest of this debate, but thought it was worth clearing that one up.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #22 on: 02/06/2008 11:22:28 »
Good point Ben, which I accept. However I was merely showing that the peer review system is far from being bullet proof, so please accept the following as a replacement and there are many replacesments> Academic article scrapped over plagiarism
In an unusual move an academic publisher has withdrawn an online article because of apparent plagiarism

By Peter Williams 03 Mar 2008
Michael J Dunn, editor-in-chief of the journal Proteomics, said the article ­ Mitochondria, the Missing Link between Body and Soul: Proteomic Perspective Evidence, by Mohamad Warda and Jin Han ­ published online on Wiley InterScience had been retracted and would not appear in print.

“The article has been retracted because it contains apparently plagiarised passages from several previously published articles,” said Dunn.

Ian Russell, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, told IWR: “Accusations of plagiarism in academia are pretty rare. Academics are about as honest as they come, although clearly plagiarism does happen even among academics.”

Dunn said: “We are fully aware of the considerable interest and controversy that the article by Warda and Han has engendered, both with respect to the issue of plagiarism, as well as the controversial viewpoints expressed by the authors.

“Clearly, human error has caused a misstep in the normally rigorous peer review process that is standard practice for Proteomics and should prevent such issues arising.”

Dunn said he had acted as soon as the problems with the article had been brought to his attention.

The episode comes at a time of increasing disquiet in education over student cheating and plagiarism; it will also highlight concerns over the peer review process.

Russell said: “Plagiarism is difficult to detect and the peer review process is not there to detect it. Historically, there have been no tools available to editors and publishers to root out this problem, although there are technology solutions being worked on which automatically cross-reference.”
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2211253/academic-article-scrapped-3851673

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=thousands-of-copycat-articles
A new computerized scan of the biomedical research literature has turned up tens of thousands of articles in which entire passages appear to have been lifted from other papers. Based on the study, researchers estimate that there may be as many as 200,000 duplicates among some 17 million papers in leading research database Medline.

The finding has already led one publication to retract a paper for being too similar to a prior article by another author.

Andrew K Fletcher "Still Out on a Limb"
« Last Edit: 02/06/2008 11:36:30 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #23 on: 02/06/2008 13:34:10 »
If you want to set up an alternative network of 'Your Science' then no one will stop you.
If you want to be funded (which is what it's all about) then you need to convince people with money that their money has at least an even chance of not being wasted.
The only way to convince them is to demonstrate a reliably working model of Science and I am not aware of an honest alternative one which 'works'.
There is a network of charlatans who rip people off with magnetic bangles, snake oil, magic beads and wonder tools. That system 'works' for them because it makes a lot of money for some but I guess you would not support  that sort of practice.
So how do you get a system which is best value for all of society? You have a system which involves, as you say, jobs for the boys (just the same as the fringe commercial non-Science industry) but which has a built-in mechanism of conservatism to avoid the wildest excesses  and waste which a free for all would involve.
Instead of getting all upset by the fact that 'they' won't listen to what you have to say you have to learn to talk the right language with the right amount of rigour and from a truly informed standpoint.
If you make a statement which doesn't hold water, then you have to rethink it and back it up with more evidence. Don't get mad - get even.
When you complain of the system failing I think what you are complaining about is cynical exploitation and corruption - not the system, as such. Where commercial interests are at work, the risk is highest.
But, in most of the fora on most of the Internet Science sites, the issues are not commercial - they are about people trying to 'get Science right'. An invalid idea will be criticised, not for commercial reasons, but because a disinterested reader has spotted an error in thinking or a wrong 'fact'.
Because there is little commercial interest in Cosmological matters - far too blue skies for investors to be interested - the majority of people involved are in it for genuine interest and, of course, ego polishing.  Money has to come from Governments. You are more likely to get a fair deal (but not a lot of money) in that direction than in Pharms etc., where the real money lies.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #24 on: 02/06/2008 16:21:57 »
What has become of the voting system?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #24 on: 02/06/2008 16:21:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums