h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

{<

I don't think anyone says this, Dr J.>

The big bang says exctly this, and I also have a problem with space originating at some central point. }

Still not so, Dr J. In fact, the remains of the big bang are now spread round the outer periphery of the universe, hence the fossil microwave radiation that now comes at us from all directions. http://www.rugbyschool.net/sub/phusion/articles/cmb.htm

Consider this: if the universe were expanding from a central point, then it would now be a hollow shell like a tennis ball. This is not what we observe. Hence this model of its expansion is plainly false.

toxx

Have you seen 'Have I Been Here Before?, Weekdays at 1.30pm on ITV1

http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=3419


alji

Toxx, Dr J, if you are given two competing theories where one theory fits the observations and the other has to be tweeked to fit, which one would you choose to believe?


alji

Maybe a theory has a long history and has already been amended once or twice, while another is more recent, and turns out now to require amendment.

The question is almost unanswerable, but a simple theory is preferable to one with many arbitrary add-ons and 'magic numbers'. A theory that makes good predictions is better than one that only fits already known facts.

The theories of the planets' orbits is an interesting historical case. They were first believed to be circular, with the Earth at the centre. When retrograde motions were observed, epicycles were introduced. These were arbitrary but predictive up to a point.

When it became accepted that the planets orbit the Sun, it was back to circular orbits. Tycho's observations caused Kepler to question this theory and led to his insight that the orbits are elliptical, and the orbital speeds variable. Then Newton gave us the gravitational equations. Finally, Einstein added theoretically important but, in this context, observationally marginal ideas.

My history is shaky, so don't completely trust me on this. Nevertheless, it illustrates that there's no simple 'rule of thumb' for deciding between theories. The process is a heuristic one, and a creative one also, since hypotheses are human constructs.

toxx

I'd have to lean toward the one that fits without 'tweaks'.

The plasma theory predicted that the background temperature of the universe should be 2.8°K. Predictions from BB theory ranged but most were higher (up to 7°K). Observed temperature is 2.7°K.
Plasma theory explains why the observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is possible if the red shift puts it ninety times farther away than the galaxy.


alji

marking

An argument against that can be found in my earlier example, Dr J. The data appeared to fit the 'circular planetary orbit' theory - until Tycho's careful observations showed mismatches. Kepler's 'elliptical orbit' theory explained the mismatches.

Was Kepler's theory a 'tweaked' version of the circular orbits theory? We still accept it today. After all, circles are only ellipses with both foci at the same point.

I can provide a purely mathematical example too, if you like. Hence no new 'observation' required the tweak to make it fit.

toxx

Toxx, Kepler's theory didn't require the suspension of the laws of physics!

Apple, have a look at Zionism & Judaism...Comparing Apples To Rocks @ http://www.rense.com/general65/compare.htm


alji

Fair enough, Alji, although I guess 'circular orbits' was a sort of law of physics at the time. I read what the plasma folks say about BB, and I take your point. What I need now is something by a BBer about the plasma theory. I also read that the BB get political support, unlike the PT. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't do the maths for myself.

I have some broad questions in mind about PT. Why does the universe appear to be expanding and what is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doing to things? Shouldn't 2nd Law have resulted in everything having run out of usable energy by now?

toxx

<

An argument against that can be found in my earlier example, Dr J. The data appeared to fit the 'circular planetary orbit' theory - until Tycho's careful observations showed mismatches. Kepler's 'elliptical orbit' theory explained the mismatches.>

Well now we're being specific when the question I answered was nebulous [pun fully intended]:

You're also bringing up theories that we were not entertaining since they've been busted, and it's Copernicus that gets my gold start for having the guts to stand up to the rest of the "scientific community" and say they were all wrong about what orbits what.

Here's another theory put forth by my mentor-since the population of the universe is zero [not all planets are populated thus there must be a finite number of populated planets and anything divided by infinity "is as near to zero as makes no odds"] this is all just a product of a deranged mind.


I have seen some of each that resemble the other: anyone who's ever mowed the lawn under an apple tree will know what I mean.

Toxx - I'm not convinced it's expanding [the universe]; there are pundits on both sides and far too much math in between.

And I should clarify that I meant too much mathematics, not Matholwch

Thanks, alji, that's an interesting article!

Hi Dr.J

"....there are pundits on both sides and far too much math in between."

Sounds like my normal role here actually

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

A bit late, but here goes...

Divine Command
100%
Existentialism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
60%
Utilitarianism
55%
Kantianism
35%
Hedonism
5%
Strong Egoism
0%
Apathy
0%
Nihilism
0%

Well, the Egoism score might be deceptive.

"Those who believe in such a deity [the triple-O god concept] also believe that their beliefs should control how the rest of the world lives their lives."

Not necessarilly. I'll get back to this.

TRiG.

Yes, I recognise that I'm a long way behind. I'm trying to catch up. I won't post a great deal as I do so because

a) that takes time and I'll never catch up
and
b) I don't want to ressurect dead debates.

TRiG.

Hi Andrew. Good to see that someone else has sufficiently definite views to get 100% on something.

We've revisited quite a few themes on this thread, TRiG. Some of us like mostly to keep the original heading though, for continuity. I think bookmarks is a tiny bit off topic - even for us.

toxx