i believe it says neither actually

merely that you should not for fear of being targeted yourself

Ohaidar

Energy is only conserved if the system is time-translational invariant (compare my above post, keyword noether theorem), which is the case in the local system called earth. It does not hold true in general, it is especially not the case in an expanding universe. I highly recommend reading an introductive textbook on classical mechanics ...


lol? plasma cosmology contradicts many well known facts about the universe and does not explain important measured features (clumping,background radiation, dark matter). I don't see how anyone could take this approach serious. Any significant nontrivial predictions that I am not aware of? Lmk.

Again, give me an experiment that violates the law of conservation of energy, then I might believe it.




Dark matter hasn't been found yet, there are only sparse observational assumptions that allow for the hypothesizing of the existence of dark matter. The cosmic background radiation can be explained by plasma cosmology, and has been. I'm not sure what 'clumping' you're talking about.

Fairie dust is what the big bang is composed of.

Fairie Dust : Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories


If the big bang is true then why does the universe looks very similar at high redshifts, and therefore billions of years ago, as it does today, in sharp contraction to the Big Bang idea that a younger universe will look far different? The large scale structures that exist today also existed at redshifts corresponding to three billion years after the hypothetical date of the Big Bang. Such structures had only one quarter as much time to grow, posing even sharper contradictions for the BB. In addition, galaxies from that 10-billion-years-ago epoch appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar amount of chemical elements produced by stars as our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang had really happened, galaxies should appear much younger, with little heavy metals and mostly young stars. Instead they look much the same as today--yet another black eye for the idea that the universe had an origin in time.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Sep 28 2010 12:57pm

i thought ths was interesting as well. we have found thousands of "first generation" stars (no heavy metals) but they arent necessarily at high redshifts. we have also found stars with heavy metals at high redshifts (meaning they are far away/very old). this further proves that we dont actually know anything.

the confusing thing is: galaxies are all travelling or expanding outward, wouldnt they have to have been in some super cluster of superclusters at some point in history?

This post was edited by juliusjuice on Sep 28 2010 02:05pm

bump.

tldr

A trivial experiment can't be performed due to our limited experimental resources, that should be pretty obvious
I think you are confusing something here, there is no "law of conservation". If you question the validity of Noether theorem you pretty much question well established and well understood classical physics. You can't discuss modern cosmology if you have not understood physics from 200 years ago on which everyone serious agrees.


There are a whole lot of phenomena which can not be explained with 'conventional physics', so people introduce dark matter but it's of course under debate what it actually consists of. I partially agree with you that dark matter is kind of over-used these days, for example lot of guys claim to explain the excess in PAMELA data with exotic dark matter (WIMPs and Kaluza Kein particles were proposed) which is imo rubbish and it seems that you can explain it with conventional, but more involved, physics (nishina cross-section). But you can't argue the well measured gravitational effects of particles which cannot be seen away. And 'clumping' refers to the clumped large scale structure of matter distribution in the universe, which btw apparently cannot be reproduced without dark matter.



Wrong! Actually we see all these things: the older the star, the lighter its constituent atoms, much more baby galaxies in the past etc etc

There is no law of conservation of energy? I guess then we don't need to worry about thermodynamics and throw it out the window, considering that there is no law of conservation of energy. I question the validity of anything that isn't experimentally and empirically tested and proven, if it be the noether theorem then so be it. It's quite pointless to say that there is such a thing as no conservation of energy in a open system when we can't even experimentally verify that such a situation can even exist.



Most astrophysicists haven't even stopped to think that galaxies or other large scale structures can be held together by electromagnetism. Additionally, even if it were gravity that held together galaxies and large scale structures, there are even alternatives that don't require dark matter, e.g. MOND.





"The heavy elements observed in the solar system, and in other stars and galaxies, require at least one previous stellar cycle.(20,21)The formation of those stars, their life time, their collapse, explosion and dispersal, and the subsequent formation of our galaxy, sun and planets might well have required a period considerably greater than 8 billion years. Because of the high probability of more than one previous stellar cycle in this process, an age of at least tens of billions of years may have been required."

20. S. Gilkis, P. M. Lubin, S. S. Meyer, and R. F. Silverberg, Sci. Am. (January 1990).
21. D. Hegyi, "Interstellar Medium" in Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd ed. (VCH Publishers, NY, 991).



This post was edited by AEtheric on Oct 28 2010 07:45pm

There is either the Big Bang Theory
or the Steady-state Theory