Ray Peat On Alternative Views In Cosmology

Discussion in 'Science' started by haidut, Mar 25, 2014.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,962
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I did not know where to post this since the forum does not have a "Cosmology" section. That's understandable given that we are debating mostly biochemical issues:):
    However, Ray's interests span a wider area and in one of his articles he hints that the popular view on certain cosmological ideas is wrong. Namely, we hear everyday about the expansion of the Universe, increase of entropy, etc. In this article, Ray talks about Halton Arp, and his "alternative" explanations of experimental observations.

    http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/estrogeninaging.shtml

    "...Doctrines are admitted into the "scientific canon" by those who have the power of censor-ship. In astronomy, Halton Arp's discovery of "anomalous" galactic red-shifts is practically unknown, because the journal editors say the observations are "just anomalies," or that the theories which could explain them are unconventional; but the actual problem is that they are strong evidence against The Big Bang, Hubble's Law, and the Ex-pan ding Universe. American science, since the 1940s, has probably been the most censored and doctrinaire in the world."

    I thought the forum would like to read more about Dr. Arp's work, which (as expected) proves to be rather fascinating.

    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles
     
  2. Mephisto

    Mephisto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Gender:
    Female
    His books are also worth reading :)
     
  3. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Hi haidut,

    Recently astronomers found evidence of the inflation to within 5 sigma or some other statistical guarantee.

    I just read this article:

    "http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe"

    Sounds like nonsense to me. Inflation theory perfectly describes why we seem like we have a special place in the centre of the universe. And every other point in the universe has the exact same perspective. All one has do to is look at our position in the Milky Way to see we are not really special.

    To be fair, I haven't bothered looking at any of his other articles because the one I did read reeked of bull****, so I may be unfairly judging his views on cosmology.
     
  4. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,962
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I think you may be misunderstanding Arp's article. He is not claiming that we have a special place in the Universe, he is saying that if you look at the data that would be the most logical conclusion, but the anomaly is explained by the intrinsic redshift he claims is a feature of young galaxies.
    Also, the "discovery" of cosmic inflation from a few days ago is already being disputed. Here is something in regards to that.
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/56c8050f60db
     
  5. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    Apparently there is no evidence to support Mr. Arp's quasar-redshift theory:

    http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticint ... redshifts/

    Is there anything that Mr. Arp's theory explains that the standard model cannot? To a layman like myself, his theory seems like a more credible version of the creationist idea that God created fossils to test human faith. It is possible I guess, but why would you assume that if the standard model makes more sense?

    Edit: He says below that the Hubble Constant is incorrect because of higher redshifts in younger galaxies. That seems like a big wrench in the standard theory. Is there a source to back this up?

    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_ ... ue_pacific

    Edit 2: Arp also claims the following:

    "Advantages: The Earth does not spiral into the Sun.
    Relativistic gravity is assigned an instantaneous component as well as a component that travels with the speed of light, c. If gravity were limited to c, the Earth would be rotating around the Sun where it was about 8 minutes ago. By calculating under the condition that no detectable reduction in the size of the Earth's orbit has been observed, Tom Van Flandern arrives at the minimum speed of gravity of 2 × 1010 c. We could call these extremely fast, extremely penetrating particles gravitons."

    Again, I'm too much of a layperson to comment on the technical aspects of what he is writing, but it does sound like bs. I find it hard to imagine modern cosmologists sweeping such a problem under the rug. And using Tom Van Flandern does not bolster his position. From wiki:

    "During the mid-1970s, Van Flandern believed that lunar observations gave evidence of variation in Newton's gravitational constant (G), consistent with a speculative idea that had been put forward by Paul Dirac. In 1974, his essay "A Determination of the Rate of Change of G" was awarded second place by the Gravity Research Foundation.[19][20] However, in later years, with new data available, Van Flandern himself admitted his findings were flawed, and the conclusions were contradicted by more accurate findings based on radio measurements with the Viking landers.[21][22]"

    And to speak to the type of out-there person Van Flandern is:

    "Van Flandern was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia", are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extra-terrestrial life, probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had exploded 3.2 million years ago.[36] "

    To me it seems like the mainstream view is correct on this one.
     
  6. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,962
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe

    There is another model that also explains the observations, and he talks about it in one of the articles:

    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/is_physics_changing

    "...M 87 is just one example but there are now dozens of galaxy/quasar/redshift observations which tell the same story6. The cry that has always gone up is that there is no viable theory to explain the redshift anomalies. But more than 20 years ago I left my office at Santa Barbara St. and went down to campus to ask **** Feynman his opinion. After a considerable talk, not all of which I understood, he summed up by saying: "The Hoyle-Narlikar theory is a complete theory and is not contradicted in any respect. But we do not need it because our present theory explains everything." There is always the chance he was putting me on a bit but I feel strongly that he could see the evidence today he would say we need it."

    So, he is referring to the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity, which predicts un-expanding Universe:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%E2%8 ... of_gravity

    So, assuming both theories are consistent - namely, the inflationary model and the steady-state model (Hoyle-Narlikar) of the Universe - I think Arp is supporting the Hoyle-Narlikar model b/c it is in a sense "simpler" - i.e. it does not invoke "creation" events like the Big Bang, as well mysterious forces like dark matter and dark energy. So, Arp's views in my view are a lot less creationist than the Big Bang theory, which seems taken straight from the Bible.
    Btw, there is another theory that explains away dark energy and dark matter and I am currently reading up on it. Here is some info if you are interested:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics

    The reason it is interesting to me is that it provides some explanations about how particles would gain mass/energy over time (e.g. by interaction with the ZPE field). Believe it or not, NASA is heavily invested in that theory:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-the-zer/
    I can send you more info if you are interested, but I think you have enough starting points to dig.
    The theory also does away with the Second Law of Thermodynamics b/c it basically says that the ZPE contains an infinite amount of energy and since no system is isolated from its effects, there are no true closed systems. Pretty close to Ray's statement "There are no closed systems, anywhere". An infinite Universe with an infinite amount of background energy in the ZPE field cannot have truly closed systems and as such ever-increasing entropy, Heat-Death, and other such nonsense. Here is another article on the subject:
    http://www.zmescience.com/space/most-ac ... rse-0r424/

    I am not saying the above are all true, I am just saying that there are some very serious alternatives to the commonly advanced cosmological views and organizations like NASA and Los Alamos Labs are heavily invested in researching them. For one reason or another we don't hear about these things in the mainstream news.
     
  7. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,035
    For someone who admits his limited understanding on the topic, Mr. Arp is sure certain others are incorrect. Kinda like me posting ITT ;)

    Thanks for that detailed reply haidut. I still don't give the Hoyle-Narlikar tog much weight compared to the standard model (which is more than the 0 weight I gave it when I was unaware of it's existance), as that red-shift stuff seems to have been disproven, and the wiki for the H-N model says that it does not fit WMAP data. Other than that, it's tough to find anything online about the M87 redshift controversy which leads me to believe that there is a general consensus and not really an issue there. Perhaps I naively assume that if model A in physics that doesn't fit an observable phenoma, an model B can explain everything that model A does plus the observable phenomena, it would be relatively easy to get model B adopted.

    I am a little surprised Richard Feynmann expressed such a flippant view towards a competing, consistent theory. It seems to me that the more theories physicists have in their back pocket the better for when they encounter inevitable road blocks.

    Skimmed that zpe field stuff. Fascinating! I'm looking forward to reading more about it over the coming weeks.
     
  8. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,962
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    I concur, sometimes it seems there are too many theories and a lot of them seem developed to fit the latest observational abnormality. Btw, here is an attachment describing in more detail the ZPE research NASA is doing.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Wilfrid

    Wilfrid Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Messages:
    669
    Interesting post.
     
  10. Mr. God of Cars

    Mr. God of Cars Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2016
    Messages:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    thunderboltsproject.info for a deep understanding of the real (electric) nature of our universe, and for understanding how the standard cosmology is flawed.
     
  11. lollipop

    lollipop Guest

    Rock on with EU theory! Love it...
     
  12. keith

    keith Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Is it actually www.thunderbolts.info? The link above doesn't seem to be right.
     
  13. lollipop

    lollipop Guest

  14. Queequeg

    Queequeg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,191
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that Big Bang theorists have had to invent the ludicrous idea of dark matter and dark energy to make there models work should be enough to tell you that we are in need of a new theory. Dark energy and matter are said to make up over 96% of the universe and yet nobody has been able to detect it. That is quite a fudge factor. My vote is for the electric universe as well.
     
  15. chispas

    chispas Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Messages:
    354
    Physicists often flaccidly employ literary troupes to convey their supposedly illustrious discoveries, and articulate them to a broader audience than they would otherwise receive if described entirely by tortuous maths. Some well known examples:

    The elegant universe
    The God particle
    Chaos theory/string theory

    Just because you read the Big Bang theory as being vulnerable to creationist interpretations, does not add any weight to your criticism of the theory as a theory of physics. Maths is maths, but literature is literature.

    And on a related point: the universe has been around a long time. Any "new discovery" is only going to be about what has always been the case, it's not going to supply you with a new and novel reason for getting out of bed in the morning.

    My theory of the universe: It chronically attracts the attention of the dull and self-important.
     
  16. lollipop

    lollipop Guest

    Right. Here is the latest "not finding evidence" for dark matter:

    No trace of dark matter in gamma-ray background

    No trace of dark matter in gamma-ray background
     
  17. dibble

    dibble Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    56
  18. lollipop

    lollipop Guest

  19. nikolabeacon

    nikolabeacon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    326
    In my opinion this fits the best with views of Raymond Peat, Victor Schauberger, Buckminster Fuller and many other Great Minds ...about us and about Universe...And interaction between the two.. Here in Serbia there are People who talk about this....one Is Velimir Abramovic( he Is I think best cognoscente about life of Nikola Tesla...he wrote several Books about this subjects) .
     
  20. nikolabeacon

    nikolabeacon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    326
    Summation of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity. It was never published.Tesla published a prepared statement on his 81st birthday (July 10, 1937) critiquing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. The following is a portion of that statement:"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."
    "My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." — Nikola TeslaWhile this statement asserted that Tesla had "worked out a dynamic theory of gravity" that he soon hoped to give to the world, he reportedly died before he publicized the details. It was a real loss for us that he could not publicized the details. Tesla was not the only one with a dynamic theory, and not just gravity either. Look at Einstein's and Kaluza's unified field theories, a series of sixteen very complex tensor equations integrating the electromagnetic and gravity forces into a 4th dimension. We would view this dimension as a series of waves with an associated force today. What is interesting in these equations, ten are for gravity, and six for the electromagnetic. All the gravity equations can stand alone, meaning gravity does not need electromagnetic equations, however, just the opposite exists for the electromagnetic equations all six requires the gravity equations to exist. This implies, gravity is a requirement for matter to exist, versus matter determining gravity.


    The strong force was not included in the original equations, it was not even discovered until years downstream. One might argue that the UFTs were never completed since the strong force could not be included. Possibly, but maybe also because we don't have everything right today either. Remember Einstein's UFT was engineered by Gabriel Kron in 1934 for General Electric to solve and use the mysterious energy that was unaccountable by current scientific thinking. We still have this problem today, even with the sun and its energy.


    As far as Tesla and Einstein, I will hang my hat on Tesla any day, reason being he was a 'thinker and a doer', Einstein was only a 'thinker' both were geniuses during their time and we have 'NO ONE' today that could even come close to their capability. Both men, both geniuses, stated before their death that our science (then and today) is wrong. Even John Wheeler, is quoted in saying: "Someday we will understand the whole thing as one simple marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we will say to each other: Oh, how could we been so stupid for so long? How could it been otherwise?"


    I believe both Tesla & Einstein theories were right, and everything reversed engineered and proven is correct also. What is missing, being what Wheeler, Tesla & Einstein was alluding to, the simple explanation that ties it all together. Tesla believed and stated the way to achieve that simplicity:

    "the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true nature of the universe, one must think it terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
     
Loading...