Is Cosmology in Crisis?

a reply to: Aedaeum

There is absolutely positively any evidence consiousness is more then thought. So you have to start assuming it's a product of the brain.

a reply to: neoholographic

It appears to be correlated with the earths axis, not is correlated with the earths axis. All of the debunking sites science or other wise have pages specifically for electric theory....

a reply to: ArtemisE

There's plenty of evidence (assuming you want to believe it) that supports consciousness outside of the brain. In my personal opinion, it's common sense based on what I know to be true about the brain, as well as how humans perceive themselves.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Again, this makes no sense.

This has nothing to do with the standard model or the Copernican Principle.

It's like saying you have two pairs of dice and all you predictions tell you that you will roll a 1-12 because the outcome is just random.

You then look at the data and it starts off random on a quantum level according to predictions but then on a classical level, you find a 13. How did a 13 get there if the rolls of the dice are random?

Again, if you start out with a random distribution according to theory and then find correlation of structure to the earth, then you have a problem.

You can't just say, well anything can happen. This is because the random distribution on a quantum level matches your predictions.

You then have to show how the random distribution on a quantum level gave rise to this correlation. You can't just say, duh it must be the case.

You have to show how it started with a random distribution that matched your predictions and then took a turn that doesn't match your predictions on a classical level.

It's like if you had a box of random letters and you then shook up the box and passed it around a circle of 5 people. You predict a random distribution of letters in the box, but you find the words, "Hey look at the earth please." You would then have to try and explain why it didn't follow your predictions.

It's even worse on Cosmology level, because their predictions start with initial conditions that predict what we should observe from a quantum to a classical level. It doesn't match and that's called a problem in science.

a reply to: neoholographic

Come back once they have eliminated Fore Ground Contamination and Coincidence.

I'll even take just the removal of Fore Ground Contamination. Once that's gone and discounted, then I think you and this year old article will have a better leg to stand on.

a reply to: eriktheawful

What???

It would be easier for you to actually read about the standard model and the Copernican Principle and learn something. You will then know why Scientist labeled it the axis of evil.

Do you even know what Planck Satellite and WMAP is? Fore Ground Contamination? You have no idea what you're talking about and sadly you will just keep saying these ignorant things without trying to learn about what you're trying to debate.

Everybody is ignorant of something. The question is will you try to learn and understand what you're talking about or will you continue to let ignorant statements lead your conversation.

There's nothing wrong with debating these things and they should be debated. They shouldn't be debated out of ignorance because you read these things might not be random according to the predictions of the standard model and then your belief kicked in and all you saw was the word random.

This is the problem. People think everything must be random no matter what and damn the evidence. This is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand in the face of information that may not agree with your pre-existing beliefs.

It's funny, I just got through reading a book called The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver and he described this exact same thing. People are so sure about their beliefs they can't comprehend any new information that comes along that may contradict what they already believe. Sad but true.

a reply to: neoholographic

And, unfortunately, some people think they know everything, and that everyone else must be ignorant, and that they are smarter than everyone else.

I find normally it's people that have a little bit of knowledge, but lack the years of education and field research.

You say I don't know what I'm talking about? Very well:

Cosmic Microwave Background

With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions.[82][83][84][85] The most longstanding of these is the low-l multipole controversy. Even in the COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupole (l =2, spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared to the predictions of the Big Bang. In particular, the quadrupole and octupole (l =3) modes appear to have an unexplained alignment with each other and with both the ecliptic plane and equinoxes,[86][87][88] an alignment sometimes referred to as the axis of evil.[83] A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales; other groups suspect systematic errors in the data.[89][90][91] Ultimately, due to the foregrounds and the cosmic variance problem, the greatest modes will never be as well measured as the small angular scale modes. The analyses were performed on two maps that have had the foregrounds removed as far as possible: the "internal linear combination" map of the WMAP collaboration and a similar map prepared by Max Tegmark and others.[59][64][92] Later analyses have pointed out that these are the modes most susceptible to foreground contamination from synchrotron, dust, and Bremsstrahlung emission, and from experimental uncertainty in the monopole and dipole. A full Bayesian analysis of the WMAP power spectrum demonstrates that the quadrupole prediction of Lambda-CDM cosmology is consistent with the data at the 10% level and that the observed octupole is not remarkable.[93] Carefully accounting for the procedure used to remove the foregrounds from the full sky map further reduces the significance of the alignment by ~5%.[94][95][96][97]

Recent observations with the Planck telescope which is very much more sensitive than WMAP and has a larger angular resolution, confirm the observation of the axis of evil. Since two different instruments recorded the same anomaly, instrumental error (but not foreground contamination) appears to be ruled out.[98] Coincidence is a possible explanation, chief scientist from WMAP, Charles L. Bennett suggested coincidence and human psychology were involved, "I do think there is a bit of a psychological effect, people want to find unusual things." [99]

Foreground contamination still has not been ruled out....nor coincidence.

For someone that just posted that I am ignorant and do not know what I'm talking about.......I find it very, VERY interesting that you........had no idea what I was talking about, but should have been something known to someone that is versed in this area......

But that's okay. I'm done here.

Can't stand to debate or talk to someone that act's (quite literally): "Holier Than Thou"

Have fun with your thread.

a reply to: eriktheawful

You should have read your own post. You said they haven't ruled out foreground contamination and that's just silly.

This is why I asked did you know about WMAP and Planck. Foreground contamination was put forth before data came back from Planck. Then the signal from Planck was even stronger. There isn't any foreground contamination.

First, you need to actually read articles linked to on Wiki. If you go to the article, it doesn't say foreground contamination hasn't been ruled out.

Here's what they say in the article:

Cosmologists can't pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck's map has also confirmed the presence of a mysterious alignment of the universe. The "axis of evil" was identified by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck's detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP's, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. "We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features," said Efstathiou.

Who is George Efstathiou?

He is a member of the Science Team for the European Space Agency Planck Satellite, launched in May 2009, which is mapping the temperature and polarization anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background to unprecedented precision.

Here's what others have said:

“The fact that Planck has made such a significant detection of these anomalies erases any doubts about their reality; it can no longer be said that they are artefacts of the measurements. They are real and we have to look for a credible explanation,” says Paolo Natoli of the University of Ferrara, Italy.

“Imagine investigating the foundations of a house and finding that parts of them are weak. You might not know whether the weaknesses will eventually topple the house, but you’d probably start looking for ways to reinforce it pretty quickly all the same,” adds François Bouchet of the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris.

“Our ultimate goal would be to construct a new model that predicts the anomalies and links them together. But these are early days; so far, we don’t know whether this is possible and what type of new physics might be needed. And that’s exciting,” says Professor Efstathiou.

THIS IS FROM GEORGE EFSTATHIOU WHO WORKS ON THE PLANCK SATELLITE TEAM.

He's saying exactly what I said. You have to construct a new model because the old model doesn't match observations. This is science.

Like I said, you need to actually read the links that are posted on Wiki. Whoever added the (but not foreground contamination) was just making things up.

Here's more and this is from ESA where Planck is being ran:

The view of the Universe presented in the standard model may not be able to fully explain the richness of detail present in the CMB at the largest scales on the sky, as cosmologists revealed a number of 'anomalies' in the all-sky CMB map that do not fit very well with this model's predictions. While the observations on small and intermediate angular scales agree extremely well with the model predictions, the fluctuations detected on large angular scales on the sky – between 90 and six degrees – are about 10 per cent weaker than the best fit of the standard model to Planck data would like them to be. Another, perhaps related, anomalous signal appears as a substantial asymmetry in the CMB signal observed in the two opposite hemispheres of the sky: one of the two hemispheres appears to have a significantly stronger signal on average. An additional peculiar element in the data is the presence of a so-called 'cold spot': one of the low-temperature spots in the CMB extends over a patch of the sky that is much larger than expected.

The lack of power at large angular scale is convincingly revealed by Planck for the first time, but the hemispheric asymmetry and the cold spot had already been found in the data of Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). However, there were lingering doubts about their cosmic origin. With WMAP, in fact, it was not possible to confirm that the anomalies were genuine features in the CMB, rather than the imprint of either data processing or foreground emissions. The fact that these anomalies are also present in the more precise Planck data clears up any doubt about their cosmic origin.

sci.esa.int...

So you're hearing it from George Efstahiou and the European Space Agency website. It's not foreground contamination and that's why I asked you do you know the difference between WMAP and Planck.

a reply to: neoholographic

There was a big discovery of gravitational waves that was supposed to support cosmic inflation. Not so fast.

Cosmic Deflation: Doubts Raised Over Blockbuster Big Bang Study

A major new study claimed to find direct evidence of the Big Bang and the theory of cosmic inflation. But now scientists aren't so sure. It was just weeks ago that astronomers announced a major, double-barreled discovery: using a super-sensitive microwave telescope known as BICEP2, they had seen evidence of gravity waves that roiled the cosmos before it was a billionth of a trillionth of a second old. That was part one; part two was that the observed gravity waves strongly confirmed the theory of cosmic inflation—that the entire universe went into warp overdrive, expanding faster than the speed of light for the tiniest fraction of a second.

It was Nobel-level work, no doubt about it—provided it was true. But from the moment it was announced at a high-profile press conference, outside scientists had their doubts. There was reason to suspect, they said, that the Harvard-led team might actually have detected nothing more exciting than interstellar dust in the Milky Way. And now a paper expected to go online today, written by Raphael Flauger, of New York University and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, puts those doubts in writing.

The signal may still be from the dawn of time, he writes. But it might equally well be what Princeton University astrophysicist David Spergel calls “schmutz” (in precisely that language: it’s what the Urban Dictionary defines as the Yiddish term “used by Jewish mothers to identify that you’ve got some kind of crap on your face.”) “At this point,” says Spergel, “I’m convinced that they haven’t made a discovery.”

time.com...

We will know more later this year and it could be gravitational waves or it could be dust. I'm personally hoping for gravitational waves.

Cosmic smash-up: BICEP2′s big bang discovery getting dusted by new satellite data

Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation!

So now what? I was never big on inflation theory to begin with, but what does this mean in the grand scheme of things if gravitational waves won't be detected.?

a reply to: Aedaeum

There is no evidence for consciousness living outside the brain. All of the scientific evidence points to it being an emergent property of the brain. A neurologist's take on the matter

The “easy problem” and “hard problem” of consciousness are more meaningfully described as the scientific questions and philosophical questions of consciousness. The context of my prior article was the scientific question – what causes consciousness. The materialist hypothesis – that the brain causes consciousness – has made a number of predictions, and every single prediction has been validated. Every single question that can be answered scientifically – with observation and evidence – that takes the form: “If the brain causes the mind then…” has been resolved in favor of that hypothesis.

For example, if the brain causes the mind then: there will be no documented mental function in the absence of brain function; altering the brain biologically will alter the mind functionally; mental development will correlate with brain development; and mental activity will correlate with brain activity (this holds up no matter what method we use to look at brain activity – EEG to look at electrical activity, PET scanning to look at metabolic activity, SPECT scanning to look at blood flow, and functional MRI to look at metabolic and neuronal activity).

This evidence cannot be dismissed as the “easy problem” nor as mere correlation. Brain function correlates with the mind in every way we would predict from the hypothesis that the brain causes the mind. From a scientific point of view, the mind is a manifestation of the brain.

theness.com...

People who claim cosmology is in crisis are usually those who working to shift your paradigm toward a nwo one... Take for instance the occult shift from a "gravity only" cosmology to an "Electric Universe" model..
Thunderbolts Project

Over and over lucistrust.org tell you what's wrong ie. gravity... then tell you the solution ie. an electric universe

..we have to revise current gravity based cosmology and replace it with an electric one.

"The Electric Gods –Crisis and Revelation in Astrophysics"

ONE OF THE MAIN PREMISES of the Ageless Wisdom teachings as given to the world by Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey is that electromagnetism is the fundamental source and cause of all phenomena on every plane of manifestation–subtle and gross. This necessarily includes the physical plane and as such, this premise varies widely from that of standard gravity-based astrophysics. In fact, an ever-increasing catalogue of problems exists for the conventional science as 96% of the matter/energy needed to support the standard theory of the universe’s birth and functioning is missing. Exotic varieties of so-called dark matter and dark energy have been theorised to account for this, but to date, these hypothetical phenomena still exist solely in the minds and mathematical equations of astrophysicists. In order to maintain the principle cornerstones of their gravity-only model, i.e., the Big Bang, General Relativity, Black Holes and an Expanding Universe, astrophysicists need ever more complex theories. And meanwhile, space telescopes are sending infrared, ultraviolet and x-ray evidence that is making the standard theory more and more untenable.
This crisis in astrophysics is a welcome one from the angle of spiritual philosophy, for its complex and erroneous view of the universe and man’s position in it needs updating to reflect the elegant synthesis of reality...

Since the time of Isaac Newton, conventional science has been doggedly pursuing a ‘gravity only’ model of the universe, currently regarding it as a tomb of lifeless matter that exploded into being out of nothing and which is expanding at an accelerating rate in all directions without aim or purpose. These suppositions have been supported with increasingly exotic theories such as the Big Bang, General Relativity, Black Holes, Dark Matter/Energy and the like. Meanwhile, evidence to the contrary is steadily accumulating which supports instead the esotericist’s view of the universe as a living, stable organism, electrical in nature and function.

Wallace Thornhill gave a very complete review of the cosmology based on the primacy of the electric force in nature, rather than gravity-only cosmology. He clearly urged science to focus on real physics, i.e. physics one can experiment with in the laboratory, rather than the beauty of mathematical formulae, which despite their beauty simply cannot be verified by laboratory experiments here on Earth. In its appeal to direct evidence and common sense, the electric universe paradigm requires a broad field of view: the human story cannot be excluded.

etc..

You'll be surprised how many people even 'truthers' walk right into the problem(cosmology!) reaction solution -trick of the nwo.

a reply to: eriktheawful


A common problem with understanding the difference between the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics is that in the case of Quantum Mechanics? One can pretty much throw out the proverbial, "Window". Pretty much any idea of numbers as we generally understand it.


Time is an aspect of the Standard Model and as a Dimension perhaps more a part of that aspect and/or perhaps related to Chaos in theory.

I do not feel time should be ignored.

The term "Barrier" is relatable to the term "Surface".

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
How many threads are you going to create on this same topic? Dark energy and dark matter pose a much bigger crisis for cosmology than this nonsense ever will.

I would differ on that point. Any scientific research that quantifies and backs up the theoretical quantum nature of the universe is a worthy endeavor. It support the assumptions of many physicists that interactions in a quantum universe can have endless possibilities.

It make sense to conclude that given a Black Hole emits "Hawkins Radiation", is indicative of black holes not actually being perfect or ideal in perspective.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: neoholographic

Grab six dice.

Roll them, while telling me that not one of them will EVER come up with a 5.

Now get a million dice with 360 faces, and tell me that never will one pop up with 0 (or 360) degrees.

Now make that a billion dice with 360 faces.

now make it 10 billion, a hundred billion, a trillion, a hundred trillion (should I keep going on?)

And tell me and others that never....never, ever, ever, will any of them land on 0 or 360 degrees.

If you (and this scientist) can do that with a straight face, then you both are in the wrong line of work.

You should both be politicians or lawyers.

Sounds like you should be actually.

You're pitting the odds of one aspect of a thing against the odds of everything. That's simply wrong.

Look up the Shannon Number.

Chess has rules, just like the universe has proven to have. If you remove the rules from chess, the number of possible positions exceeds the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe.

But why remove the rules? They are the nature of the universe.

Nothing is random. It is all generated. Randomness that is perceived is perceived only because of ignorance of an event.

If any aspect of the universe is governed, all of it must be governed, for all other things perform around that aspect of order.

In chess, though there are so many possibilities, even taking until account all rules, the Ruy Lopez is one of the most observed positions. Why is that?

Because the game begs that position by its rules.

One could play chess by rolling dice, but it would be a much more chaotic game and someone is likely to lose quite quickly actually, because positions will open up to allow quick checkmates. Ironically, playing chess with dice would generally end up causing games to take much less time because of that.

If you want to introduce chance into an ordered universe, you're actually decreasing the possibilities, NOT increasing them. With chance, more goes wrong much more quickly, effectively rendering the continued existence of this universe at all nothing short of a miracle.

As well, you're rolling dice on everybody instead of only earth. It's simply 1/360 if you roll once and assume the CMB was never out of alignment before.

Of course, science shouldn't be rolling dice, and neither should you.

If you must though, you also should perform the calculations to determine the odds of earth being the only with life as we know it, with all of its consistencies, combined with the odds of all of evolution, combined with your reasoning abilities, then factor in the fact that the CMB is in alignment with earth if you want to truly roll the dice on the universe, and that's only a start.

I bet you'll find those numbers easily make your "How many on 360" comparison seem silly.

But with respect to your analogy, the very fact that there is enough order in the universe to offer up the finite 360 abstract is enough to show that there is order in rolling dice with only 360 sides for trillions of bodies, for chances would reveal that then there should be the number of bodies divided by 360 whose alignment will be at any degree between 1 and 359. This means, according to your logic, we should find that there are three same number of bodies at inclination 1 degree as there are at 2, and 3, and so forth.

When you prove that there are the number of bodies in the universe, divided by 360, bodies in the universe that are aligned with the CMB, then you will have justified your position.

Until then, dice are a finite part of the universe, not the other way around. Probabilities are abstract, but the dice have been rolled already. The chance of the CMB aligning with Earth is 100% because that is the fact now. Determining WHY, because of the laws, is the question now.