Messages 11-20 from thread From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 11 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/02 On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:55:26 -0700, J. Scott Miller wrote: >He goes on to point out that there are still lots of questions as to the >formation processes and also mentions the roll that collisions between >galaxies may have had in the formation of spiral arms. It would be >correct to say that we still have more questions than answers to this >particular topic. The above is a commendable equivocation which is the mark of a true professional. The only way that the current Big Bang theory can be made to fit observation is by positing a model of galactic evolution which explicitly fits those observations. Since galaxies at z=4 appear much smaller than they would if you put today's galaxies at those presumed distances/times, the evolutionary model therefore holds that only "protogalaxies" existed in those days, which were of just those (smaller) sizes. The fact that those distant/long-ago galaxies look just the same as today's galaxies is cause for the occasional expression of surprise, without any revision in thinking. Occam's razor says eliminate all unnecessary concepts. If you place those z=4 galaxies at further (i.e. correct) distances, then the whole concept of cosmological evolution can be thrown out -- a substantial and satisfying simplification. J. Scott Miller is saying we can't yet close the book on our cosmological theories, which is laudable clarity in thinking in these days of a science which thinks it is near the end of all truth (shades of previous generations!). Eric Flesch From: lamontg@bite.me.spammers (lamontg@bite.me.spammers) Message 12 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/02 eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: Are we going to do this *again*??? >On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:55:26 -0700, J. Scott Miller wrote: >>He goes on to point out that there are still lots of questions as to the >>formation processes and also mentions the roll that collisions between >>galaxies may have had in the formation of spiral arms. It would be >>correct to say that we still have more questions than answers to this >>particular topic. > >The above is a commendable equivocation which is the mark of a true >professional. > >The only way that the current Big Bang theory can be made to fit >observation is by positing a model of galactic evolution which >explicitly fits those observations. Since galaxies at z=4 appear >much smaller than they would if you put today's galaxies at those >presumed distances/times, the evolutionary model therefore holds that >only "protogalaxies" existed in those days, which were of just those >(smaller) sizes. The fact that those distant/long-ago galaxies look >just the same as today's galaxies is cause for the occasional >expression of surprise, without any revision in thinking. The theta-z relationship is inconclusive, with errorbars on the apparent sizes of galaxies at that redshift which preclude the adoption of any particular cosmology. Furthermore, the evolution of galaxies is a complicated mess of gravity + hydrodynamics and nobody has any particular faith in how they form. If it turns out that there are spiral arms on galaxies in the early universe, that is simply evidence that spiral arms probably form from gravitational collapse rather than from interactions. The fact that some people might suddenly change their opinions from favoring the formation of spirals via interactions is not surprising and certainly not evidence that scientists are changing theories on a whim to protect the Big Bang model. Those theories of galaxy formation were *adopted* on whims in the first place. >Occam's razor says eliminate all unnecessary concepts. If you place >those z=4 galaxies at further (i.e. correct) distances, then the whole >concept of cosmological evolution can be thrown out -- a substantial >and satisfying simplification. Oh yeah, that's so much more satisfying when you can't explain the cosmic abundances of elements with that. Neither can you explain the CMBR, neither can you explain the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. >J. Scott Miller is saying we can't yet close the book on our >cosmological theories, which is laudable clarity in thinking in these >days of a science which thinks it is near the end of all truth (shades >of previous generations!). It's fine not to close the book, but it's dishonest to support 'simplifying' theories in the face of facts that make those 'simple' theories either substantially more complex or at simple odds with experiment. -- Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu) ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W "It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from Perl5/toke.c) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 14 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/04 On 2 Oct 1997 22:20:16 GMT, lamontg@bite.me.spammers wrote: >Are we going to do this *again*??? Oh come on, convivial conversation is no cause for alarm! :-) >eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >>Occam's razor says eliminate all unnecessary concepts. If you place >>those z=4 galaxies at further (i.e. correct) distances, then the whole >>concept of cosmological evolution can be thrown out -- a substantial >>and satisfying simplification. > >Oh yeah, that's so much more satisfying when you can't explain the cosmic >abundances of elements with that. Neither can you explain the CMBR, neither >can you explain the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. Now now, explanations are not so hard to come by. It's just a question of where most of the work has been done so far. Just because we've gone 20 rungs up a ladder doesn't mean it's leaning against the right wall. The CMBR is just a black-body type radiation which certainly is explainable by theories other than the Big-Bang. One such theory (which I do not support but am simply recounting) is that E-M energy lost by a non-expansionary red-shift is re-emitted as the CMBR. Of course "new physics" is required by such explanations, but that's just a way of saying that another theory is the better one. The SZ effect is just an artifact of the CMBR. It is interesting how it shows that the CMBR is intimately influenced by the galaxies etc. If we didn't know better, we might've thought that there was a link there, eh Lamont? :-) As for the cosmic abundances of elements, we've had lots of time and theorists' energies to fine-hone the theories to "produce" just the elemental mix that we in fact find today. A shame that every time new information comes to hand, the theories need to be revised. >It's fine not to close the book, but it's dishonest to support 'simplifying' >theories in the face of facts that make those 'simple' theories either >substantially more complex or at simple odds with experiment. Experiment is not the issue here, of course, but observation is. We agree with Occam that the simpler the (complete) theory, the better. You say that the current theories are the simplest one, and I say that there are simpler complete theories available. Therein lies the acid test. cheers, Eric Flesch From: lamontg@bite.me.spammers (lamontg@bite.me.spammers) Message 15 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/04 eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >As for the cosmic abundances of elements, we've had lots of time and >theorists' energies to fine-hone the theories to "produce" just the >elemental mix that we in fact find today. A shame that every time new >information comes to hand, the theories need to be revised. You still need either something like a Big Bang to get it all rolling, or else you need to find a mechanism to create more hydrogen, and you need to explain the abudances of metallicities in different populations of stars. And the fundamental predictions of Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis have not been changed, only fine-tuned. If suddenly we found new information which suggested that carbon or maybe lead was formed in BBN, I'd start to agree with you. But you might as well throw out nuclear fusion as a possible energy source for the Sun if you think that the tinkering that has been done on BBN is sufficient grounds for skepticism. I mean look at the solar neutrino problem -- with a gaping hole like that, who would think that hydrogen fusing to helium could ever be a plausible theory of heat generation for the Sun? >Experiment is not the issue here, of course, but observation is. We >agree with Occam that the simpler the (complete) theory, the better. >You say that the current theories are the simplest one, and I say that >there are simpler complete theories available. Therein lies the acid >test. Which simpler theories? They all seem to require some kind of "New Physics" which seems to be nothing other than the old "...and then a miracle occurs..." cartoon ("I think you need to be more specific here in step 2"). Those aren't theories -- they're barely even conjectures. -- Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu) ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W "It all comes from here, the stench and the peril."--Frodo (from Perl5/toke.c) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 16 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/05 On 4 Oct 1997 17:17:27 GMT, lamontg@bite.me.spammers wrote: >eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >>As for the cosmic abundances of elements... > >You still need either something like a Big Bang to get it all rolling >or else you need to find a mechanism... and you need to explain... Ultimately, yes. But Galileo could find fault with Ptolemy without having to know all the Newtonian principles. Every last nail doesn't have to be hammered in for a theory to look good. >But you might as well throw out nuclear fusion as a possible energy source >for the Sun if you think that the tinkering that has been done on BBN is >sufficient grounds for skepticism. I mean look at the solar neutrino >problem -- with a gaping hole like that, who would think that hydrogen >fusing to helium could ever be a plausible theory of heat generation for the >Sun? Good example. Nobody doubts fusion even though the neutrinos won't co-operate. Your comments about the "tinkering" being the "grounds for skepticism" shows you understand the problem that the scientific method seems to gotten lost along the way of the development of the standard theory. This is why there is so much skepticism. When you read about Guth's (inflation "theory" -- ha ha) and Smoot's (chief perceiver of COBE wrinkles -- or were they smudges on the lenses? :-) Christian predilections, then you know that the lemmings are in charge. >>(Simplicity is) the acid test. > >Which simpler theories? They all seem to require some kind of "New Physics" >which seems to be nothing other than the old "...and then a miracle occurs..." The Big Bang features the greatest miracle of all (read the writings of the Belgian Jesuit (Lemaitre) who promulgated it :-)). I favor a miracle-free pure steady-state theory. I'll summarize it and make a few salient points. The broad picture is that of a mature Universe which has no beginning or end -- time is perhaps a varying commodity in such a universe. Thus we will see galaxies in all stages of evolution no matter where we look -- which we do. Matter recycles, presumably by energy causing virtual particles to become real particles. One objection you would have, Lamont, would be the CMBR -- where does it come from? Some twenty years ago, Hoyle and Narkilar put forth a theory which seemed just silly, that carbon fibers in space absorb EM and re-emit the energy as the low-frequency CMBR. Carbon fibers, (49 more lines) From: lamontg@bite.me.spammers (lamontg@bite.me.spammers) Message 17 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/05 eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >Ultimately, yes. But Galileo could find fault with Ptolemy without >having to know all the Newtonian principles. Every last nail doesn't >have to be hammered in for a theory to look good. Yeah, but you don't even have any nails. >Good example. Nobody doubts fusion even though the neutrinos won't >co-operate. Your comments about the "tinkering" being the "grounds >for skepticism" shows you understand the problem that the scientific >method seems to gotten lost along the way of the development of the >standard theory. This is why there is so much skepticism. When you >read about Guth's (inflation "theory" -- ha ha) The theory is really only good up to the point where radiation and matter decoupled. Again, when you start talking about inflation you're entering areas which are equivalent to the solar neutrino problem. It's a detail. >and Smoot's (chief >perceiver of COBE wrinkles -- or were they smudges on the lenses? :-) >Christian predilections, then you know that the lemmings are in >charge. So, they're bad (IMHO) philsophers. That doesn't mean that they can't be correct in the physics. >>>(Simplicity is) the acid test. >> >>Which simpler theories? They all seem to require some kind of "New Physics" >>which seems to be nothing other than the old "...and then a miracle occurs..." > >The Big Bang features the greatest miracle of all (read the writings >of the Belgian Jesuit (Lemaitre) who promulgated it :-)). I favor a >miracle-free pure steady-state theory. I'll summarize it and make a >few salient points. Here we come down to the basic point. You're against the Big Bang for philosophical reasons and opposition to Christianity. Not based on any science. And even here, there's no reason to. So, Lemaitre has some bad philosophy which led him to some right physical results by accident. Just because his philosphy was IMHO completely wrong, doesn't mean that physically he can have come to some correct conclusions. To take another example, I think that Einstein was a much better philosopher than Bohr, and that Bohr's defense of Quantum Mechanics quite frankly stunk and was not very well thought out at all. Unfortunately Nature doesn't give a damn about philosophical (76 more lines) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 18 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/09 On 5 Oct 1997 17:36:52 GMT, lamontg@bite.me.spammers wrote: >eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >>When you read about Guth's (inflation "theory" -- ha ha) > >...when you start talking about inflation you're entering areas which >are equivalent to the solar neutrino problem. It's a detail. Oh rubbish, Lamont, there's no comparison. Fusion has a clear place in the experimentally-tested scheme of things, while "inflation" is just a supernatural fantasy. >>...then you know that the lemmings are in charge. > >So, they're bad (IMHO) philsophers. That doesn't mean that they can't be >correct in the physics. It's the scientific process we're talking about here. I liken ideas like inflation/big-bang to crystallization in a supersaturated solution. Hubble et al were perfectly aware that the red-shift observations could be interpreted as expansion from a point of origin. They did not commit themselves because they were good physicists and understood that they had no basis for such conclusions. Along comes a bad philosopher like Lemaitre, jumps on the obvious, and other bad philosophers resound in a chorus of agreement. Supersaturation, but it's a cheap shot and bad physics. The same for "Inflation theory". A gap existed in the big-bang fantasy, and so it remained for a bad philosopher to pick up a magic wand and exclaim "Alakazam!". >...I think that Einstein was a much better philosopher than Bohr... >Nature doesn't give a damn about philosophical argument and >Bohr turned out to be correct about the physics of Quantum Mechanics. I think most physics professionals would disagree with you here. Bohr's philosophy was advanced, elegant, and *original*. Einstein was a fuddy-duddy by comparison. And Bohr laid down a physical basis for free will. That's a monumental achievement. >You're against the Big Bang for philosophical reasons and >opposition to Christianity. Not based on any science. >...there's no reason why (Big Bang) should necessarily support any kind >of Christian theology. ... Furthermore, even if you got your wish for a >steady-state infinite Universe Christians are still just going to marvel at >the infinite extent of God's creation and similar B.S. I'm rooting for you all the way here, Lamont, but you're wrong -- I'm opposed to the Big Bang because it's cheap thought, not because of opposition to Christianity. (90 more lines) From: lamontg@bite.me.spammers (lamontg@bite.me.spammers) Message 19 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/10 eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >On 5 Oct 1997 17:36:52 GMT, lamontg@bite.me.spammers wrote: >>eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >>>When you read about Guth's (inflation "theory" -- ha ha) >>...when you start talking about inflation you're entering areas which >>are equivalent to the solar neutrino problem. It's a detail. > >Oh rubbish, Lamont, there's no comparison. Fusion has a clear place >in the experimentally-tested scheme of things, while "inflation" is >just a supernatural fantasy. So does the big bang theory have a clear place in the experimentally-tested scheme of things, while "neutrino oscillations" were thought by many to be supernatural fantasies -- as recently as 1992 or so, i've seen physicists get up and leave from colloquia on neutrino oscillations in disgust over such a silly idea. >It's the scientific process we're talking about here. I liken ideas >like inflation/big-bang to crystallization in a supersaturated >solution. Hubble et al were perfectly aware that the red-shift >observations could be interpreted as expansion from a point of origin. >They did not commit themselves because they were good physicists and >understood that they had no basis for such conclusions. That happens with a lot of theories, where initially the physicists involved are cautious, but later what they are suggesting becomes accepted. That is a perfectly acceptable social phenominon in the annals of science and certainly doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on if the theories are correct or not. >Along comes a >bad philosopher like Lemaitre, jumps on the obvious, and other bad >philosophers resound in a chorus of agreement. Supersaturation, but >it's a cheap shot and bad physics. The same for "Inflation theory". >A gap existed in the big-bang fantasy, and so it remained for a bad >philosopher to pick up a magic wand and exclaim "Alakazam!". Then come up with another theory which explains what the big-bang does without any of the "...and then a miracle occurs..." bits. >>...I think that Einstein was a much better philosopher than Bohr... >>Nature doesn't give a damn about philosophical argument and >>Bohr turned out to be correct about the physics of Quantum Mechanics. > >I think most physics professionals would disagree with you here. >Bohr's philosophy was advanced, elegant, and *original*. Einstein was >a fuddy-duddy by comparison. And Bohr laid down a physical basis for >free will. That's a monumental achievement. (27 more lines) From: T. Joseph W. Lazio (lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu) Message 20 in thread Subject: Re: Shape of galaxies. Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics Date: 1997/10/10 >>>>> "EF" == Eric Flesch writes: EF> On 4 Oct 1997 17:17:27 GMT, lamontg@bite.me.spammers wrote: >> eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes: >> But you might as well throw out nuclear fusion as a possible energy >> source for the Sun if you think that the tinkering that has been >> done on BBN is sufficient grounds for skepticism. I mean look at >> the solar neutrino problem -- with a gaping hole like that, who >> would think that hydrogen fusing to helium could ever be a >> plausible theory of heat generation for the Sun? EF> Good example. Nobody doubts fusion even though the neutrinos EF> won't co-operate. Your comments about the "tinkering" being the EF> "grounds for skepticism" shows you understand the problem that the EF> scientific method seems to gotten lost along the way of the EF> development of the standard theory. What tinkering? The standard model---the Universe was hotter and denser in the past---has withstood a variety of tests and made a number of successful predictions. There have been attempts to go beyond the standard model, of course. These attempts haven't been as successful, but why should they be? EF> This is why there is so much skepticism. When you read about EF> Guth's (inflation "theory"...) and Smoot's (chief perceiver of EF> COBE wrinkles...) Christian predilections, then you know that the EF> lemmings are in charge. Why should Guth or Smoot's religion mean that their scientific work is not correct? [...] EF> The broad picture is that of a mature Universe which has no EF> beginning or end -- time is perhaps a varying commodity in such a EF> universe. Thus we will see galaxies in all stages of evolution no EF> matter where we look -- which we do. [...] No, we don't. More distant galaxies (i.e., galaxies in the past) show more evidence for evolution than nearby galaxies (i.e., galaxies today). EF> One objection you would have, Lamont, would be the CMBR -- where EF> does it come from? Some twenty years ago, Hoyle and Narkilar put EF> forth a theory which seemed just silly, that carbon fibers in EF> space absorb EM and re-emit the energy as the low-frequency CMBR. EF> Carbon fibers, imagine that! Where do they get these ideas from! EF> But now, it seems these carbon fibers *do* exist, and *are* very EF> common in space, .... I don't know about silly, but it's certainly not very plausible. The CMBR is not just some low-frequency radiation, it's a black-body spectrum. One has to contrive a way that these carbon fibers would re-emit a blackbody spectrum, even though they are being irradiated with a non-blackbody spectrum. Further, people have observed the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (a distortion of the CMBR caused by clusters of galaxies). The observation of the SZ effect means that the CMBR must originate beyond those clusters of galaxies. Thus, one has to postulate that there are lots of C fibers at great distances which somehow convert a non-blackbody spectrum into a blackbody spectrum. -- Cornell knows I exist?!? | e-mail: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu Lt. Lazio, HTML police | http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/ STOP RAPE | ICBM: 42:29:56 N 76:28:53 W 305 m alt. sci.astro FAQ at http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/sci.astro.html Prev 10 Next ©2002 Google