info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Farewell Perfect Cosmological Principle?
87 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jul 3, 2015, 2:21:02 AM7/3/15
to
The standard cosmological principle assumes statistical homogeneity
and isotropy.
A new preprint posted to arxiv.org presents empirical evidence that
this fundamental principle is violated in the messy real world of
nature, as opposed to Platonic idealizations thereof.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00675
Mandelbrot argued that a new and fractal-friendly cosmological
principle might one day be required. Perhaps he was right.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
and isotropy.
A new preprint posted to arxiv.org presents empirical evidence that
this fundamental principle is violated in the messy real world of
nature, as opposed to Platonic idealizations thereof.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00675
Mandelbrot argued that a new and fractal-friendly cosmological
principle might one day be required. Perhaps he was right.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jul 3, 2015, 1:01:40 PM7/3/15
to
In article <cfece355-4796-4097...@googlegroups.com>,
things would look like in such a universe. (Some brave souls also
investigated anisotropic models.)
These days, isotropy is an OBSERVATIONAL FACT.
> A new preprint posted to arxiv.org presents empirical evidence that
> this fundamental principle is violated in the messy real world of
> nature, as opposed to Platonic idealizations thereof.
Of course it is violated on small scales. The interesting question in
cosmology is whether at large scales, smaller than the horizon, the
universe is isotropic and homogeneous. This appears to be the case,
despite a handful of people who have been claiming the opposite for
decades.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00675
There, one can read:
The recent discoveries of structures significantly exceeding the
transition scale of 370 Mpc pose a challenge to the cosmological
principle.
This is just wrong. One looks for a scale at which homogeneity and
isotropy dominate, i.e. the scale of the largest structures. This is
the transition scale. Obviously, if one finds something new which is
larger, then the transition scale is larger. As long as it is
significantly smaller than the horizon scale, there is no "challenge".
There is nothing magic about 370 Mpc. It's like discovering a new
species of ape which is bigger than previously known ones: it is new
information, but nothing fundamental. (What WOULD be interesting would
be, say, an ape the size of King Kong, since this would violate
fundamental principles.)
Of course, one can also ask whether "a ring with a diameter of 1720 Mpc,
displayed by 9 gamma ray bursts" is really a structure.
Note that there have been several claims in the literature recently
about the discovery of large objects in the universe, though some of
these "objects" are voids. Note also that almost all of these have been
debunked. Often, bad statistical analyses have been used. There is a
real problem that people call attention to interesting claims, but
hardly anyone cites the papers which debunk them. Just yesterday, I was
reading an article by Jan Conrad in Nature pointing this out.
> Mandelbrot argued that a new and fractal-friendly cosmological
> principle might one day be required. Perhaps he was right.
Do you have a reference where Mandelbrot talks about cosmology, as
opposed to coastlines or snowflakes?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> The standard cosmological principle assumes statistical homogeneity
> and isotropy.
Yes and no. A long time ago, people did assume it, and worked out what
> The standard cosmological principle assumes statistical homogeneity
> and isotropy.
things would look like in such a universe. (Some brave souls also
investigated anisotropic models.)
These days, isotropy is an OBSERVATIONAL FACT.
> A new preprint posted to arxiv.org presents empirical evidence that
> this fundamental principle is violated in the messy real world of
> nature, as opposed to Platonic idealizations thereof.
cosmology is whether at large scales, smaller than the horizon, the
universe is isotropic and homogeneous. This appears to be the case,
despite a handful of people who have been claiming the opposite for
decades.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00675
There, one can read:
The recent discoveries of structures significantly exceeding the
transition scale of 370 Mpc pose a challenge to the cosmological
principle.
This is just wrong. One looks for a scale at which homogeneity and
isotropy dominate, i.e. the scale of the largest structures. This is
the transition scale. Obviously, if one finds something new which is
larger, then the transition scale is larger. As long as it is
significantly smaller than the horizon scale, there is no "challenge".
There is nothing magic about 370 Mpc. It's like discovering a new
species of ape which is bigger than previously known ones: it is new
information, but nothing fundamental. (What WOULD be interesting would
be, say, an ape the size of King Kong, since this would violate
fundamental principles.)
Of course, one can also ask whether "a ring with a diameter of 1720 Mpc,
displayed by 9 gamma ray bursts" is really a structure.
Note that there have been several claims in the literature recently
about the discovery of large objects in the universe, though some of
these "objects" are voids. Note also that almost all of these have been
debunked. Often, bad statistical analyses have been used. There is a
real problem that people call attention to interesting claims, but
hardly anyone cites the papers which debunk them. Just yesterday, I was
reading an article by Jan Conrad in Nature pointing this out.
> Mandelbrot argued that a new and fractal-friendly cosmological
> principle might one day be required. Perhaps he was right.
opposed to coastlines or snowflakes?
jacobnavia
Jul 3, 2015, 6:14:34 PM7/3/15
to
Le 03/07/2015 19:01, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
> One looks for a scale at which homogeneity and
> isotropy dominate, i.e. the scale of the largest structures. This is
> the transition scale. Obviously, if one finds something new which is
> larger, then the transition scale is larger. As long as it is
> significantly smaller than the horizon scale, there is no "challenge".
OK, let's see the facts.
> One looks for a scale at which homogeneity and
> isotropy dominate, i.e. the scale of the largest structures. This is
> the transition scale. Obviously, if one finds something new which is
> larger, then the transition scale is larger. As long as it is
> significantly smaller than the horizon scale, there is no "challenge".
We have a ring of 1.72 GigaParsecs, i.e. 5.6 BILLION light years. This
is more than 40% of the age of the Universe as proposed by current
theory (13.7 Billion years).
Is 40% of the horizon scale *significantly* smaller?
Personally I have some doubts.
With all respect to the professionals here this is an atomic bomb
exploding the LCDM framework. The mass of this behemoth is around 10^18
sun masses!
In principle however you are right Mr Helbig.
"Obviously, if one finds something new which is larger, then the
transition scale is larger."
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jul 4, 2015, 2:35:39 AM7/4/15
to
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 6:14:34 PM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote:
>
> Sure. Till the next behemoth that will be even larger!
The first predicted "transition to homogeneity" in the modern era
>
> Sure. Till the next behemoth that will be even larger!
was supposed to occur at about 30 Mpc.
Between then and now it has been repeatedly revised upwards by over
a factor of 10 to about 370 Mpc.
Empirical observations of inhomogeneities on the 1,000 Mpc scale
have been published in the best journals several times in recent
decades.
[[Mod. note -- Perhaps you could clarify which observations you're
talking about? -- jt]]
I would say the writing is on the wall, so to speak.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jul 4, 2015, 4:40:58 PM7/4/15
to
In article <mn6lvl$49i$1...@dont-email.me>, jacobnavia
<ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> We have a ring
9 gamma-ray bursts.
> of 1.72 GigaParsecs, i.e. 5.6 BILLION light years. This
> is more than 40% of the age of the Universe as proposed by current
> theory (13.7 Billion years).
>
> Is 40% of the horizon scale *significantly* smaller?
Yes, because your calculation is wrong. The current distance to the
horizon is more like 40 or 50 billion light years. Due to the expansion
of the universe, you can't just multiply the speed of light by the age
of the universe to calculate the horizon size.
> With all respect to the professionals here this is an atomic bomb
> exploding the LCDM framework. The mass of this behemoth is around 10^18
> sun masses!
9 gamma-ray bursts. A gamma-ray burst is probably a hypernova. So, we
are talking about a few dozen solar masses at most.
<ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> We have a ring
9 gamma-ray bursts.
> of 1.72 GigaParsecs, i.e. 5.6 BILLION light years. This
> is more than 40% of the age of the Universe as proposed by current
> theory (13.7 Billion years).
>
> Is 40% of the horizon scale *significantly* smaller?
horizon is more like 40 or 50 billion light years. Due to the expansion
of the universe, you can't just multiply the speed of light by the age
of the universe to calculate the horizon size.
> With all respect to the professionals here this is an atomic bomb
> exploding the LCDM framework. The mass of this behemoth is around 10^18
> sun masses!
are talking about a few dozen solar masses at most.
jacobnavia
Jul 4, 2015, 4:41:31 PM7/4/15
to
Le 04/07/2015 08:35, Robert L. Oldershaw a ecrit :
present data for objects of enormous size discovered in the last years.
Objects that reach the 1240 MPC, i.e. 4.2 BILLION light years...
Read that paper Mr Helbig, it is really mind blowing.
> [[Mod. note -- Perhaps you could clarify which observations you're
> talking about? -- jt]]
For a very short review see the cited paper pages 1 and 2. There, they
> talking about? -- jt]]
present data for objects of enormous size discovered in the last years.
Objects that reach the 1240 MPC, i.e. 4.2 BILLION light years...
Read that paper Mr Helbig, it is really mind blowing.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jul 4, 2015, 4:42:13 PM7/4/15
to
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 2:35:39 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> [[Mod. note -- Perhaps you could clarify which observations you're
> talking about? -- jt]]
>
I have a massive file of reprints on the topic of deviations from "homogeneity" and/or "isotropy". Here are a few recent additions that apply to your question.
>
> [[Mod. note -- Perhaps you could clarify which observations you're
> talking about? -- jt]]
>
Szapudi et al, "Detection of a supervoid...", MNRAS, 2015.
Hutemekers et al, "Alignment of quasar polarizations...", A&A, 2014 0r 2015.
Horvath et al, "Possible structure in the GRB sky distribution..." (structure on the 2,000 to 3,000 Mpc scale), A&A, 2014 or 2015.
Copi et al, "Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck", MNRAS, 2013.
...
Going way back, I cannot find the reprint immediately, but I remember that Broadhurst et al published a paper in Nature decades ago on empirical evidence for inhomogeneities on the 1,000 Mpc scale.
Older works are discussed in: http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/LOCH.HTM
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
jacobnavia
Jul 5, 2015, 1:12:17 PM7/5/15
to
Le 04/07/2015 22:40, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
> In article <mn6lvl$49i$1...@dont-email.me>, jacobnavia
> <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>
>> We have a ring
>
> 9 gamma-ray bursts.
>
That illuminate the ring, whose presence is revealed by the GRBs.
> In article <mn6lvl$49i$1...@dont-email.me>, jacobnavia
> <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>
>> We have a ring
>
> 9 gamma-ray bursts.
>
>> of 1.72 GigaParsecs, i.e. 5.6 BILLION light years. This
>> is more than 40% of the age of the Universe as proposed by current
>> theory (13.7 Billion years).
>>
>> Is 40% of the horizon scale *significantly* smaller?
>
> Yes, because your calculation is wrong. The current distance to the
> horizon is more like 40 or 50 billion light years. Due to the expansion
> of the universe, you can't just multiply the speed of light by the age
> of the universe to calculate the horizon size.
>
It is still 10% of the Universe as proposed by the curreent model!
>> With all respect to the professionals here this is an atomic bomb
>> exploding the LCDM framework. The mass of this behemoth is around 10^18
>> sun masses!
>
> 9 gamma-ray bursts. A gamma-ray burst is probably a hypernova. So, we
> are talking about a few dozen solar masses at most.
>
it visible!
[[Mod. note -- The article reports observations of the GRBs. The article
does not report any observations of an underlying structure -- that's a
hypothesis requiring further investigation (assuming that the "ring of GRBs"
is in fact confirmed by further analysis & observation).
-- jt]]
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jul 5, 2015, 1:12:42 PM7/5/15
to
In article <56a6200b-11e9-4c88...@googlegroups.com>,
Please, take a few minutes to read
http://blankonthemap.blogspot.de/2015/04/supervoid-superhype-or-publicity.html
Yes, it's a link to a blog post, but there are links to refereed-journal
papers which you should read.
The point of the post is the following: Some sensational claim, which
had not even appeared in a refereed journal, is hyped by the press,
various independent researchers, and even some scientists. It is highly
cited. It is then shown to be wrong by a refereed-journal paper. And
this less "interesting" result is ignored.
Sound familiar?
If you disagree with Seth, please say why, quantitatively, or otherwise
quit citing debunked results as support for your claims.
> Szapudi et al, "Detection of a supervoid...", MNRAS, 2015.
Just your first example has been totally debunked by Sesh Nadathur.
Please, take a few minutes to read
http://blankonthemap.blogspot.de/2015/04/supervoid-superhype-or-publicity.html
Yes, it's a link to a blog post, but there are links to refereed-journal
papers which you should read.
The point of the post is the following: Some sensational claim, which
had not even appeared in a refereed journal, is hyped by the press,
various independent researchers, and even some scientists. It is highly
cited. It is then shown to be wrong by a refereed-journal paper. And
this less "interesting" result is ignored.
Sound familiar?
If you disagree with Seth, please say why, quantitatively, or otherwise
quit citing debunked results as support for your claims.
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
Jul 7, 2015, 12:40:37 AM7/7/15
to
It seems to me that there are two key questions in thinking about the
Balazs et al result.
First, is their result truly "surprising"? That is, is their post-hoc
probability estimate 2e-6 valid? Post-hoc probability estimates -- and
their interpretation -- are always a bit dubious, because it's hard to
estimate how many other "equally surprising" patters there might be
which noone has thought to look for.
[If I flip a (fair) coin 10 times in a row, and it
comes up heads every time, that seems rather surprising.
But if you then learn that I'm an insomniac, and do a
dozen or so sets of 10-coin-flippings every night when
I can't sleep, then it's easy to see that I can expect
to get a 10-heads-in-a-row outcome every few months...
so getting one last night wasn't so surprising after all.
In other words, with frequentist statistics, to assess
an experiment we don't just have to know about the
experiment, we also have to know about all the other
things the authors tried that "didn't work"!
This is of course one of the main arguments for taking
a Bayesian perspective. Offhand I'm not sure what a
Bayesian analysis of the Balazs et al input catalog
would look like...]
Second, their result is based on finding 9 "ring" GRBs in a catalog
of 361 GRBs with known redshifts. Since more GRB redshifts are being
measured all the time, if there is truly a physical overdensity of
GRBs in the universe in the region of the sky found by Balazs et al,
then in a few years (when we'll have a much larger GRB-redshift catalog
available) the Balazs et al result should be confirmed in a much more
convincing manner.
And since Balazs et al have pointed to a specific sky region, if we
re-check that specific region with a new GRB-redshift catalog
[I.e., if we re-check using a catalog which does NOT
contain any of the 361 GRBs analysed by Balazs et al]
a few years from now, we won't suffer from the post-hoc-statistics
problem any more.
So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched
at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable
that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984"
Balazs et al result.
First, is their result truly "surprising"? That is, is their post-hoc
probability estimate 2e-6 valid? Post-hoc probability estimates -- and
their interpretation -- are always a bit dubious, because it's hard to
estimate how many other "equally surprising" patters there might be
which noone has thought to look for.
[If I flip a (fair) coin 10 times in a row, and it
comes up heads every time, that seems rather surprising.
But if you then learn that I'm an insomniac, and do a
dozen or so sets of 10-coin-flippings every night when
I can't sleep, then it's easy to see that I can expect
to get a 10-heads-in-a-row outcome every few months...
so getting one last night wasn't so surprising after all.
In other words, with frequentist statistics, to assess
an experiment we don't just have to know about the
experiment, we also have to know about all the other
things the authors tried that "didn't work"!
This is of course one of the main arguments for taking
a Bayesian perspective. Offhand I'm not sure what a
Bayesian analysis of the Balazs et al input catalog
would look like...]
Second, their result is based on finding 9 "ring" GRBs in a catalog
of 361 GRBs with known redshifts. Since more GRB redshifts are being
measured all the time, if there is truly a physical overdensity of
GRBs in the universe in the region of the sky found by Balazs et al,
then in a few years (when we'll have a much larger GRB-redshift catalog
available) the Balazs et al result should be confirmed in a much more
convincing manner.
And since Balazs et al have pointed to a specific sky region, if we
re-check that specific region with a new GRB-redshift catalog
[I.e., if we re-check using a catalog which does NOT
contain any of the 361 GRBs analysed by Balazs et al]
a few years from now, we won't suffer from the post-hoc-statistics
problem any more.
So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched
at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police
plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable
that they watched everybody all the time." -- George Orwell, "1984"
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jul 9, 2015, 1:10:57 AM7/9/15
to
On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:40:37 AM UTC-4, Jonathan Thornburg [remove -=
animal to reply] wrote:
>=20
It is interesting to compare the general responses to empirical
evidence in the case of particle dark matter and the case of
cosmological inhomogeneity/anisotropy.
Forty years of experimental searches have failed to find evidence
for particle dark matter, and yet the general consensus is still
that the dark matter is some kind of subatomic particle.
Over the same period of time there have been published observational
findings that indicate that the inhomogeneity/anisotropy that is
so common on less than cosmological scales continues up to the
largest scales that we can adequately sample. Yet in this case, the
general attitude is to be skeptical of the empirical results and
to assume that the more idealistic models will be vindicated.
Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
animal to reply] wrote:
>=20
> So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
> result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
> without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
> that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.
>=20
> result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
> without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
> that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.
It is interesting to compare the general responses to empirical
evidence in the case of particle dark matter and the case of
cosmological inhomogeneity/anisotropy.
Forty years of experimental searches have failed to find evidence
for particle dark matter, and yet the general consensus is still
that the dark matter is some kind of subatomic particle.
Over the same period of time there have been published observational
findings that indicate that the inhomogeneity/anisotropy that is
so common on less than cosmological scales continues up to the
largest scales that we can adequately sample. Yet in this case, the
general attitude is to be skeptical of the empirical results and
to assume that the more idealistic models will be vindicated.
Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
Martin Hardcastle
Jul 9, 2015, 6:20:09 PM7/9/15
to
In article <81ac2015-7c30-4e4e...@googlegroups.com>,
that we interpret individual results in the framework that
successfully incorporates other observations. This is certainly likely
to be more productive than ignoring all other observations and
developing a novel ad hoc explanation for every individual phenomenon
(the standard approach of the internet crackpot). Of course, sometimes
the framework (paradigm) is simply wrong, but new paradigms are
successful only when they can incorporate the old observations as well
as the new ones. In the specific case of dark matter, there is no
direct evidence that dark matter is particles, but particle physics is
one of the great intellectual successes of the last century and it
makes a lot of sense to use the resources and techniques that it makes
available, *in parallel with* other observational tests. Most working
astrophysicists are probably pretty agnostic about the expected outcome.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me
Robert L. Oldershaw <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
>appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
>prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.
Nor should there be. 'Theoretical bias' is a pejorative way of saying
>Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
>appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
>prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.
that we interpret individual results in the framework that
successfully incorporates other observations. This is certainly likely
to be more productive than ignoring all other observations and
developing a novel ad hoc explanation for every individual phenomenon
(the standard approach of the internet crackpot). Of course, sometimes
the framework (paradigm) is simply wrong, but new paradigms are
successful only when they can incorporate the old observations as well
as the new ones. In the specific case of dark matter, there is no
direct evidence that dark matter is particles, but particle physics is
one of the great intellectual successes of the last century and it
makes a lot of sense to use the resources and techniques that it makes
available, *in parallel with* other observational tests. Most working
astrophysicists are probably pretty agnostic about the expected outcome.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jul 9, 2015, 6:20:23 PM7/9/15
to
In article <81ac2015-7c30-4e4e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Over the same period of time there have been published observational
> findings that indicate that the inhomogeneity/anisotropy that is
> so common on less than cosmological scales continues up to the
> largest scales that we can adequately sample.
I posted an example where the first such of your examples was refuted.
You haven't replied to that, but continue to make claims which have been
disproved.
> Yet in this case, the
> general attitude is to be skeptical of the empirical results and
> to assume that the more idealistic models will be vindicated.
>
> Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
> appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
> prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.
Are you any different in this respect, apart from having things switched
around? One could just as well say that you ignore arguments ruling out
your dark-matter candidate and are too accepting of isolated claims of
large structures.
When you make an argument, and someone points out a flaw (such as citing
a paper which refutes the paper you cite), you at least have to explain
why the refutation is wrong.
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
> > result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
> > without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
> > that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.
>
> > So, my reaction to Balazs et al is basically "wait and see". If the
> > result is genuine, within a few years we should have a confirmation
> > without post-hoc statistics. And if we don't get that confirmation,
> > that will imply that the result was basically a statistical fluke.
>
> It is interesting to compare the general responses to empirical
> evidence in the case of particle dark matter and the case of
> cosmological inhomogeneity/anisotropy.
>
> Forty years of experimental searches have failed to find evidence
> for particle dark matter, and yet the general consensus is still
> that the dark matter is some kind of subatomic particle.
Because essentially all other candidates have been ruled out.
> evidence in the case of particle dark matter and the case of
> cosmological inhomogeneity/anisotropy.
>
> Forty years of experimental searches have failed to find evidence
> for particle dark matter, and yet the general consensus is still
> that the dark matter is some kind of subatomic particle.
> Over the same period of time there have been published observational
> findings that indicate that the inhomogeneity/anisotropy that is
> so common on less than cosmological scales continues up to the
> largest scales that we can adequately sample.
You haven't replied to that, but continue to make claims which have been
disproved.
> Yet in this case, the
> general attitude is to be skeptical of the empirical results and
> to assume that the more idealistic models will be vindicated.
>
> Bottom line: How empirical evidence, and the lack thereof, is judged
> appears to depend on the answer that is expected on the basis of
> prevailing theoretical bias. No surprise there.
around? One could just as well say that you ignore arguments ruling out
your dark-matter candidate and are too accepting of isolated claims of
large structures.
When you make an argument, and someone points out a flaw (such as citing
a paper which refutes the paper you cite), you at least have to explain
why the refutation is wrong.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jul 10, 2015, 2:40:42 AM7/10/15
to
On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 6:20:09 PM UTC-4, Martin Hardcastle wrote:
>=20
But you imply that there are only two extreme choices: have a high
degree of faith and trust in currently popular models or "ignoring
all other observations and ..." Talk about "pejorative"? That's a
nice example. There is a middle path that does not ignore well-tested
observations, but questions assumptions that are used to explain
them, and keeps an open mind about new conceptual/theoretical
frameworks that might better explain the existing observations and
make predictions about what will eventually be observed.
> but particle physics is
> one of the great intellectual successes of the last century=20
I have posted a list of 7 serious shortcomings of the standard model
that even its proponents say make the SM clearly a provisional model
of how nature works, and therefore not how it actually works. I
have posted this so many times to different sites that everyone has
probably seen the list, but I would be happy to post it to SAR if
there is an interest in it and it will not be summarily rejected
as outside the SAR purview (even though some members freely talk
about it on SAR with impunity and treat it as virtually infallible.
An open-mind is all I really ask for or could hope for, given that
we are all humans.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
[[Mod. note --
1. Our newsgroup charter forbids "excessively speculative"
material. I usually interpret this as (roughly) the union of
"not even wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
and "wronger than wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
2. I think our charter is silent on whether philosophy-of-science
material is acceptable. In the past I think Martin has often rejected
it, but I am more inclined to accept it.
3. \begin{philosophy-of-science}
Saying that the SM is "clearly a provisional model of how nature
works, and therefore not how it actually works" is entirely consistent
with it being "one of the great intellectual successes of the last
century". With a change in the time period, the same can be said of
the theory/model that the Earth is is spherical -- this is briefly but
very clearly discussed in the wronger-than-wrong Wikipedia page.
\end{philosophy-of-science}
-- jt]]
>=20
> Nor should there be. 'Theoretical bias' is a pejorative way of saying
> that we interpret individual results in the framework that
> successfully incorporates other observations. This is certainly likely
> to be more productive than ignoring all other observations and
> developing a novel ad hoc explanation for every individual phenomenon
> (the standard approach of the internet crackpot).=20
> that we interpret individual results in the framework that
> successfully incorporates other observations. This is certainly likely
> to be more productive than ignoring all other observations and
> developing a novel ad hoc explanation for every individual phenomenon
But you imply that there are only two extreme choices: have a high
degree of faith and trust in currently popular models or "ignoring
all other observations and ..." Talk about "pejorative"? That's a
nice example. There is a middle path that does not ignore well-tested
observations, but questions assumptions that are used to explain
them, and keeps an open mind about new conceptual/theoretical
frameworks that might better explain the existing observations and
make predictions about what will eventually be observed.
> but particle physics is
> one of the great intellectual successes of the last century=20
I have posted a list of 7 serious shortcomings of the standard model
that even its proponents say make the SM clearly a provisional model
of how nature works, and therefore not how it actually works. I
have posted this so many times to different sites that everyone has
probably seen the list, but I would be happy to post it to SAR if
there is an interest in it and it will not be summarily rejected
as outside the SAR purview (even though some members freely talk
about it on SAR with impunity and treat it as virtually infallible.
An open-mind is all I really ask for or could hope for, given that
we are all humans.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
[[Mod. note --
1. Our newsgroup charter forbids "excessively speculative"
material. I usually interpret this as (roughly) the union of
"not even wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
and "wronger than wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
2. I think our charter is silent on whether philosophy-of-science
material is acceptable. In the past I think Martin has often rejected
it, but I am more inclined to accept it.
3. \begin{philosophy-of-science}
Saying that the SM is "clearly a provisional model of how nature
works, and therefore not how it actually works" is entirely consistent
with it being "one of the great intellectual successes of the last
century". With a change in the time period, the same can be said of
the theory/model that the Earth is is spherical -- this is briefly but
very clearly discussed in the wronger-than-wrong Wikipedia page.
\end{philosophy-of-science}
-- jt]]
0 new messages