Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You have a dry way of recalibrating us... ouch.

Was hoping there was some shred of proof there...thx




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
In response Penrose prepared this...



New analysis confirms our earlier claim [1], [7] of circles of notably low temperature variance, often in concentric sets, in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), discernable in WMAP data. Their reality can be interpreted as evidence of supermassive black-hole encounters in a previous aeon, as predicted by conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) [2]. Counter arguments [4-6] pointed out that such circles arise, at similar frequency, also in simulated data using WMAP's CMB power spectrum, plus random input. We responded [7] that if such circles contribute to CMB, this influences the power spectrum, enhancing such circles in simulations. We confirm this here, but show that if the theoretical LCDM power spectrum is used instead, then the low-variance circles disappear. This is evidence that the LCDM model gives an incomplete explanation of the CMB, missing crucial information, which is provided by incorporating low-variance circles of CCC. The excellent agreement between theoretical LCDM and observed power spectrum, even for fairly large l-values, does not reveal this discrepancy, of relevance only at larger l-values where agreement is weak. We point out various non-random aspects of the circles, seen both in the true data and in simulations with WMAP power spectrum, but not with the theoretical LCDM spectrum. We also show the spatial distribution of concentric circle sets to be very non-random in the true WMAP data (perhaps owing to large-scale mass inhomogeneities distorting CCC's circle shapes), in complete contrast with simulations with WMAP power spectrum, where such circle sets are much sparser and closer to average temperature. These features are fully consistent with CCC (and with an earlier analysis [8] that the random Gaussian component in the CMB is only around 0.2 in the total CMB signal) but do not readily fit in with the random initial fluctuations of standard inflation.


arxiv.org...

These issues are more the result of Penrose's detractors trying to apply the standard model/ Lambada CDM and not getting the same results..



So as they say, you free to "worship at the church of your choice" :-D

[Update: Nov. 14, 2010]

... but if these (1, 2) references to papers by David Wiltshire have anything to say about the question of "apparent" vs. "actual" cosmic acceleration, it would appear that many in the cosmology community have been worshipping the false god of "dark energy" !




physics.stackexchange.com...

Here is the original PDF file

arxiv.org...

Any thoughts?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 

Yes. They failed to address the fact that others demonstrated that their model showed any statistical validity.

Thus, Gurzadyan and Penrose's new claims are just as wrong as those made in the first paper, and for the same reason: The simulations are not based on an appropriate power spectrum. Still, while this story is of little physical interest, it may have some important implications in terms of scienctific sociology: Looking back at the background papers leading up to the present series by Gurzadyan and Penrose, in particular one introducing the Kolmogorov statistic, we believe one can find evidence that a community based and open access referee process may be more efficient at rejecting incorrect results and claims than a traditional journal based approach
arxiv.org...

edit on 12/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, based upon the standard model.

Particle physicists are almost complacent about deviations and are willing to assume that any problem is merely a statistical fluctuation that will eventually resolve itself.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 

This is astrophysics not particle physics. This is about the CMB not quantum mechanics.
There are differences.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Nonetheless your citations claims statistics as a factor.

edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   


In general we can't solve the Standard Model exactly. We use approximations.


milesmathis.com...



Astronomy and astrophysics

Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray[2] Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high (the so-called OMG particle), given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth? Why is it that (apparently) some cosmic rays emitted by distant sources have energies above the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit?[2][12]


List of unsolved problems in physics

Any thoughts?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Phage
 



Nonetheless your citations claims statistics as a factor.

edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content

Gurzadyan and Penrose used statistics to attempt to support their hypothesis.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 




Any thoughts?

Yes.
I wonder what that has to do with the topic or the validity of Gurzadyan and Penrose.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


They used a different model, the differences would be statistical. Ergo, the variance is a relationship inherent in the differences in models.

The disagreement is over which model to use in relation to the data and if the Standard Model actually can resolve such an issue.

Phage this is cool...

Any thoughts?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


The disagreement is over which model to use in relation to the data and if the Standard Model actually can resolve such an issue.

You didn't read this, did you? It has nothing to do with the standard model.
arxiv.org...



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually I read the 4th response about 5 hours ago.
I was anticipating that you would bring it up.

This does not change the fact that the protagonist are applying the standard model in there conclusions. I actually found the fourth response to engage in a fallacy in relation to the social issues it brings up.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 



This does not change the fact that the protagonist are applying the standard model in there conclusions.

No they aren't.


I actually found the fourth response to engage in a fallacy in relation to the social issues it brings up.
They used this case as a good example of where the referee process can utterly fail by allowing invalid articles to be published.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Then why are simulations not based on an appropriate power spectrum?



They used this case as a good example of where the referee process can utterly fail by allowing invalid articles to be published.


Why because conservative science is not yet ready to consider it?


edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Phage
 


Then why are simulations not based on an appropriate power spectrum?

Why do you think that has anything to do with the standard model? What do you think a power spectrum is?


The problem was simply that Gurzadyan and Penrose had based their simulations on an inappropriate power spectrum, effectively assuming that the CMB consists of uncorrelated white noise in pixel space.
They assume that the CMB has no structure. Incorrect.


Specifically, they claim that if the random simulation is built from the “observed WMAP spectrum”, ie., the realization specific spectrum as directly measured by WMAP, the statistical signficance of the rings is low, in agreement with the results of the three independent reanalyses. However, if the simulations are instead based on a theoretical (smooth) ACDM spectrum, they claim that the rings are significant.
They claim their critics used the wrong spectrum. But...

First, as clearly stated in each of the three reanalysis papers, the simulations used in each case were in fact based on the best-fit ACDM spectrum, not the realization-specific WMAP spectrum.
The critics used the spectrum that Penrose said they should have.
arxiv.org...
 


Why because conservative science is not yet ready to consider it?

No. Because the referees were sloppy.

Please read the document carefully and try to understand it.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




One way to look at a signal is in the discrete time domain, which puts a series of values consecutively in time. In this way we can tell something about the behavior of the signal at every moment in time, and can also make some simple statements about its long-term behavior. However, it is rather difficult to say anything about how the long-term behavior is related to the short-term development of the signal.


crca.ucsd.edu...

But they used a different model

Any thoughts?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Any thoughts?

Since you aren't listening...no. No thoughts. What you have quoted and have been saying is completely irrelevant to the discussion.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And your basis?

Keep in mind that in reality the Standard model is not a God and niether is any permutation.

In fact it is incorrect....you seem to not understand that the basis for the argument is valid in science...
and we were just getting started...please provide evidence that this universe was not created by another one...
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by definity
Finally a decent post that not talking about bloody guns! or some idiot trying to piece the most abstract clues to make some sort of "Sign"


Pl elaborate on abstract clues.
Good thread Op



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


said it before them.....I always thought this. The universe is an expanding and contracting bubble with material flowing inside and back out....

----------------------
from another thread


holy crap man. That is my theory almost to a T! Well, mine......, it is what I believe! I guess if it is true then it is everyone's.

I see space time as a sphere as well. I first noticed this while studying the lives of stars.

You know how when they burn all of their fuel and are not hot enough to burn what is left, the force of gravity pulling on them to collapse becomes greater than the reaction expanding them, ?

Well the way I see it, since gravity and time are directly related, a black hole is not a "hole" but rather is just perceived as one. It is actually a very localized point where all of time is accessible. The entire sphere is able to receive what is sucked in and it is distributed everywhere all over the whole sphere of time.

It is like a distribution center, not a rip in space time. IMO THAT is where everything is made from.

What I think is happening is that the universe fluxuates. That the "sphere" expands and contracts as it fights collapsing in on itself, JUST LIKE THE CORE OF A STAR!

As it expands the perceived center becomes unaware of its size. When it contracts the entire picture becomes clear. I see our perception of time being very influenced by the gravitational hold our planet holds over us and the distortion its mass creates. How time progresses here on earth might be perceived differently than if we were on mars or say, Pluto. The less mass our planet holds, the less the distortion we are subjected to, and so the more of the "sphere" we see. If we were to venture out far enough away from all mass in our solar system I think we will reach a point where time dilation is not present.



well kind of. What I argue is not very comprehensible from the standard model of the physical universe. What I say is that when the iron core of a star becomes so compressed that it forms a black hole, that it crosses the barrier of the "sphere" of space time. It then becomes both an exit and the actual WHOLE space time sphere. That each black hole is an exit into the whole universe.

Like if you could run water on a ball, it would not go through it in a stream, or spread down its side in one direction. It would go in all directions, flowing over the curvature of the ball. Well if the ball was a bubble of space time and the stream, of water was instead the intake of material gathered by black holes, they would collect the material from within the sphere and their aperture would be on the other side of the membrane of the sphere, the material would then flow over the curvature of the universe and deposit all along the membrane of space time.

The center of the sphere is where all matter collects. The actual membrane of the sphere we speak of is all matter. on the interior there is the known universe of galaxies where the material gathers, until it grows too dense and makes an aperture to the exterior of the membrane.

The big thing about my idea of this is that the whole "bubble" or sphere is made into a figure 8 when too much mass is collected in the interior. When this happens, in the localized area it does, the outer membrane and the interior center of the sphere are actually the same space. Like making a bubble in a bubble. The point where both loops meet make a sort of figure 8 connecting the interior material that is collected in the middle to the exterior material. The interior material is lighter and less dense than the outer material. So when you make a super heavy point in the middle of the bubble you create a sort of weighted down section that connects the interior of the bubble and the exterior of it in a sort of loop of space time.

The more material in the interior, the middle of the sphere, the weaker the outer membrane is and the larger the sphere. This is why there is a corrective force to suck up excess material from the inside and deposit it evenly over the whole sphere. SO the thing cant "pop". When the exterior has more mass than the interior, the sphere is smaller and more compact. When it is larger and more stretched out, the interior has more material.


I also think that sometimes it does expand too far and the corrective force is not able to keep up with the material from gathering in the middle until the outer membrane collapses. When this happens a new sphere is formed. The "big bang" as it were is just a "hollowing out" of a ball of everything. Like the nuclear reaction of a star giving the initial push against gravity trying to collapse it more.

I see it like a star in a way. The interior is trying to expand while the exterior is trying to collapse. The equal balance from both make the harmony a star would enjoy in an active state. Thus we have a universe.

I see stars as a perfect model for the laws of the universe and time.

I hope that makes sense.

EDIT:

A black hole is Like making a bubble within a bubble, then when the interior bubble pops all that is left is the outside bubble. The interior bubble just connects the outer membrane and the new lighter inner membrane of the sphere. The figure 8 I speak of would be where the two meet bubbles meet in the middle. We see it as a hole since its flow is towards the outer collection of material (mass). The outer membrane would be made of the same stuff a collapsed stars core is made up. Ultra dense infinitely compact star dust.....something heavier than infinitely dense Iron.



edit on 18-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join