|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
 Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 20:27 Post subject: Lambda CDM Model |
|
 |
As requested in the secret area of this forum 
What are your thoughts on the correctness of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmological Model, in your view, do you consider the evidence to be overwhelmingly clear or do you consider the evidence to be highly questionable, most likely product of faulty observational data or missing knowledge about some still unknown mechanical aspect of the universe?
No time to make a stronger case at the moment, just posting the seed of doubt! 
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hierofan
Banned
Posts: 3807
Location: Internets
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 20:53 Post subject: |
|
|
what lambda shenanigans ..
GOD DID IT
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 20:56 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hierofan
Banned
Posts: 3807
Location: Internets
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 21:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| garus wrote: | Any source on that?  No idea what you taking about, really... |
It's acutally related to the big bang theory aka nothing appeard from nowhere and it exploded thu farting out me you and this whole board in after a huge fucking diarrhea marathon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 21:30 Post subject: Re: Lambda CDM Model |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | As requested in the secret area of this forum
What are your thoughts on the correctness of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmological Model, in your view, do you consider the evidence to be overwhelmingly clear or do you consider the evidence to be highly questionable, most likely product of faulty observational data or missing knowledge about some still unknown mechanical aspect of the universe?
No time to make a stronger case at the moment, just posting the seed of doubt! |
W00T! Astrophysics!
I think the problem with it is that it is defined by primarily hypothetical entities which are only assumed to exist in order to account for certain observed phenomena. Cold Dark Matter and Cosmically Inflating Dark Energy are the primary of these, and both are conjectured to exist beyond the galactic event horizon. The only problem with this is that intergalactic space is notoriously difficult to observe in any fashion, only very tenuous tertiary observation is possible through the aeon old radiation that limps in emitted from distant (and long gone) galaxies. Thus they're trying to account for the dynamics of radiation that in terms of it's existence period we have no other galactically local prescient for.
My point is; in this cosmological model there are massive presumptions being made about these extra-galactic observations, if you can even call them that. Then based on this presumption as the only evidence, we're further speculating on the existence of phenomena that ZOMG what a coincidence, cannot be observed directly themselves.
There is more assumption based on conjecture; such as the universe being homogeneous, that the universe has linear spatial geometry across it's origin of expansion, that there was and is only a single initiating singularity (often referred to as The Big Bang) which is based on observation hugely compounded by the cosmic microwave background... There are more, but my favourite is the conceit that Dark Matter can only interact with both other matter and energy through gravitational dynamics, which obviously violates one of the principle properties of matter and therefore is grounds to not even call it dark matter at all for fuck sake!
Ok, so what I like about it is that it gets a few basics right, such as adopting the isotropy model of the origin of observation (earth relative). Also that the obvious conclusion from it is that the universe is larger then the observable particle horizon. Finally it's partial basis on the independence of E=MC2 from cosmic inflation. These are things that I personally think it definitely gets right. 
I will elaborate on alternative theories, and possibly divulge my own (which isn't wholly original of course, I'm no genius) once a few more people have responded and I can gauge the interest in this thread. Ronhrin, would like your opinion on it's accuracy, and what you personally believe.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 21:42 Post subject: Re: Lambda CDM Model |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | As requested in the secret area of this forum
What are your thoughts on the correctness of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmological Model, in your view, do you consider the evidence to be overwhelmingly clear or do you consider the evidence to be highly questionable, most likely product of faulty observational data or missing knowledge about some still unknown mechanical aspect of the universe?
No time to make a stronger case at the moment, just posting the seed of doubt! |
Pff, as far as I know its neither overwhelmingly clear nor highly questionable at the moment, but current data mostly seems to support ΛCDM. But like Animal said, much of it is based on presumptions and observation is close to impossible. The ΛCDM as well as the standard model of particle physics have a bunch of freely assigned constants and it remains to be explained what exactly they are (dark energy, dark matter) and why they have these specific values.
Only recently I read Lee Smolins book Trouble with Physics and one whole chapter was about problems with ΛCDM, inflation and current paradigmas of theoretical physics.
Don't remember the details but he talked about physical anomalies on the distance scale over which the universe is curved by Λ.
He also mentioned interesting aspects of VSL (variable c) theories and modified newtonian dynamics.
Also special relativity still hasn't been properly tested on planck scales.
Post more stuff guys, Animal, I could use some food for my brainz.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010 22:25 Post subject: Re: Lambda CDM Model |
|
|
| Shocktrooper wrote: |
Don't remember the details but he talked about physical anomalies on the distance scale over which the universe is curved by Λ.
He also mentioned interesting aspects of VSL (variable c) theories and modified newtonian dynamics.
Also special relativity still hasn't been properly tested on planck scales.
Post more stuff guys, Animal, I could use some food for my brainz. |
To the first sentence; yep I mentioned the assumption about linear spatial geometry across the origin of expansion, it's almost like they ignored some of the evidence because it all fits better if we just close our eyes and stick our fingers in our ears shouting LALALA when anyone mentions it. 
Well variable C is a fact when we consider cosmic inflation relatively observed from shallow concentric space, but I suppose technically that shouldn't even be considered C in the first place . But I think you're referring to amplitude confinement lacking acausal information propagation, which in pragmatic terms is essentially true, and of course when considering planck relations the wave-particle duality photonic model breaks down pretty quickly. I think photonic models only have negligible relevance at that order of magnitude anyway, since special relativity is based on a reliable C I think it's safe to assume it doesn't apply. I mean there are so many quantum foam phenomena that are dependent on state change more rapid then planck time it kinda precludes relativity theory altogether. Fuck space time yo!
You mention variable Newtonian dynamics, ok so I'm assuming you're excluding higher-dimensional space because that's a given. Otherwise your imagination can run wild with thoughts of exotic space-time that would make Newton have an aneurysm lol. But realistically I don't think our universe would maintain cohesion if this were possible, who knows. 
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bxrdj
Posts: 1469
Location: Far from Home
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010 00:31 Post subject: |
|
|
If the big bang theory is correct, and I am not saying it is not, assuming that the expansion of the universe is equal in all directions I would love to see two things: the very center of the universe where the the big bang and further expansion originated from and the borderline of expansion (im assuming that if the universe is expanding at all times that it has and "end" and in that case, what is it expanding through? What is on the other side of expansion?
I am sure that we will never have an answer to this question and i may be totally off by even asking it but it always puzzled my mind.
fuck ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010 02:02 Post subject: |
|
|
You still owe me an answer on the thread you started about extraterrestrial life of non-carbon based lifeforms AM 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010 04:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Have you not noitced he just likes to talk?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010 09:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| bxrdj wrote: | If the big bang theory is correct, and I am not saying it is not, assuming that the expansion of the universe is equal in all directions I would love to see two things: the very center of the universe where the the big bang and further expansion originated from and the borderline of expansion (im assuming that if the universe is expanding at all times that it has and "end" and in that case, what is it expanding through? What is on the other side of expansion?
I am sure that we will never have an answer to this question and i may be totally off by even asking it but it always puzzled my mind. |
The thing is, there is no center of the big bang, because space and time as we know it started with it. It's not like there was a space (well we do not know if there is something 'outside') and then you have an explosion in it.
That's why this subject isn't easy to talk about. You need to be open partly to philosophy, but you have to bear in mind the physical constrains that we currently know (which is wast).
To my knowing Lambda CDM isn't the only model.
There are some interesting articles out there, to ones who like to read, and look at the pretty pictures at the same time:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0211/0211331v1.pdf
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010 16:30 Post subject: Re: Lambda CDM Model |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | As requested in the secret area of this forum
What are your thoughts on the correctness of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmological Model, in your view, do you consider the evidence to be overwhelmingly clear or do you consider the evidence to be highly questionable, most likely product of faulty observational data or missing knowledge about some still unknown mechanical aspect of the universe?
No time to make a stronger case at the moment, just posting the seed of doubt! |
W00T! Astrophysics!
I think the problem with it is that it is defined by primarily hypothetical entities which are only assumed to exist in order to account for certain observed phenomena. Cold Dark Matter and Cosmically Inflating Dark Energy are the primary of these, and both are conjectured to exist beyond the galactic event horizon. The only problem with this is that intergalactic space is notoriously difficult to observe in any fashion, only very tenuous tertiary observation is possible through the aeon old radiation that limps in emitted from distant (and long gone) galaxies. Thus they're trying to account for the dynamics of radiation that in terms of it's existence period we have no other galactically local prescient for.
My point is; in this cosmological model there are massive presumptions being made about these extra-galactic observations, if you can even call them that. Then based on this presumption as the only evidence, we're further speculating on the existence of phenomena that ZOMG what a coincidence, cannot be observed directly themselves.
There is more assumption based on conjecture; such as the universe being homogeneous, that the universe has linear spatial geometry across it's origin of expansion, that there was and is only a single initiating singularity (often referred to as The Big Bang) which is based on observation hugely compounded by the cosmic microwave background... There are more, but my favourite is the conceit that Dark Matter can only interact with both other matter and energy through gravitational dynamics, which obviously violates one of the principle properties of matter and therefore is grounds to not even call it dark matter at all for fuck sake!
Ok, so what I like about it is that it gets a few basics right, such as adopting the isotropy model of the origin of observation (earth relative). Also that the obvious conclusion from it is that the universe is larger then the observable particle horizon. Finally it's partial basis on the independence of E=MC2 from cosmic inflation. These are things that I personally think it definitely gets right.
I will elaborate on alternative theories, and possibly divulge my own (which isn't wholly original of course, I'm no genius) once a few more people have responded and I can gauge the interest in this thread. Ronhrin, would like your opinion on it's accuracy, and what you personally believe. |
I don't really have a [il]theory[/i], I only have doubts about some aspects of nature that are nothing more than conjectures based on hypothesis, wishful thinking and personal opinion by some people in the scientific community that feel more comfortable holding on to their unchangeable views than to actually participate in the scientific process.
Some of those are, like you said, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and in my opinion Dark Energy is nothing more than an extension of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, in which it was a value that in all honesty he pulled out of his ass with the mere objective of making his calculations work.
We're in the outer arm of a galaxy surrounded by trillions of particles, from gas so small bodies, comets and asteroids, among the things we can't really see with our limited equipment.
On top of this we really don't understand all the complexity of Solar dynamics, even such an apparent simple calculation as to why we are experience the well known anomaly happening to the Pioneer spacecrafts, we still can fully understand the intricacies of the mechanics that are slowing them down.
When it comes to intergallactic space, where the full dynamical extent of what's really happening has to take into account galaxies that cross the light path of other galaxies, extra galactic bodies and/or black holes that we can't really detect because there is no light emitting sources anywhere near those singularities, and everything else that we can't take into account.
I honestly believe that the current path of cosmology has less to do with science and more to do with politics (within the scientific community), in the sense that, "well if you agree with my theory/views you will have the funding for that project you've been talking about"
This in all honesty is what I personally feel is happening to cosmology and astrophysics.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Last edited by Ronhrin on Sat, 11th Dec 2010 17:05; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010 17:01 Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, we simply do not know enough to give a reasonable explanation for this. Both the arguments that god did it and that Hierofan did it with a diarrhea marathon are just as likely as any other. All we can do is speculate and even in our speculation we are limited.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
