Thought2Much Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Why don't they ban pantheory? Because there isn't any formal rule here against spouting bullshit and having a massive ego. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 So, the speed of light would remain constant? Let me guess more papers that reference Wikipedia that cannot get through proper peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerenelyBlue Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I'm here to learn about mainstream science. The type that is widely accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I'm here to learn about mainstream science. The type that is widely accepted. One way to do that is to 1. Put pantheory on ignore, and 2. Read the responses of the people here that know the mainstream science. I learn a lot by reading everyone's responses to pantheory when they correct his bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I'm here to learn about mainstream science. The type that is widely accepted. One way to do that is to 1. Put pantheory on ignore, and 2. Read the responses of the people here that know the mainstream science. I learn a lot by reading everyone's responses to pantheory when they correct his bullshit. Yes. The world is full of people like him. It's important to develop the skills at evaluating ideas to distinguish the science from the pseudoscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 So, the speed of light would remain constant? Let me guess more papers that reference Wikipedia that cannot get through proper peer review? Yes, the speed of light would remain constant but from our perspective it would appear to have been faster in the past. Why sarcasm? . One of the two papers, posting #24, was translated from German, University of Heidelberg, stored in Cornell university library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Yes, the speed of light would remain constant but from our perspective it would appear to have been faster in the past. I don't think those two ideas fit together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I did some checking on the Lithium problem. Hello Doctor Izzo. My name is __________ and I'm an amateur astronomer who's fascinated with cosmology. I therefore read two articles (on IFLScience and Forbes magazine) about you and your team's work on lithium in Nova Centauri 2013 with great interest. However, I couldn't quite understand what seemed to me to be a disparity in the claims made by these two articles and was wondering if you could help me out please? The IFLScience site appeared to take a tentative line, like this. "It is a very important step forward,” said co-author on the study Massimo Della Valle from INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Naples, and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy in astatement. “If we imagine the history of the chemical evolution of the Milky Way as a big jigsaw, then lithium from novae was one of the most important and puzzling missing pieces. In addition, any model of the Big Bang can be questioned until the lithium conundrum is understood.” Whereas the tone of the Forbes article strongly suggested that the lithium problem has been solved, quoting you like this. “It is very exciting,” said Luca Izzo, “to find something that was predicted before I was born and then first observed on my birthday in 2013!” So, if you'd be so kind, could you please help me understand just where cosmological science stands on the lithium problem? Can it be considered 'solved' or should this be seen as a step towards the solving the problem? Also, I presume the prediction you refer to was the one made by Alan Guth about the primordial abundances of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang? Any clarification given would be very much appreciated. With thanks, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Here's Dr. Izzo's reply. Dear __________, thank you for your interest in our result. There is a misunderstanding in your mail: what we have found is not a possible solution of the well-known “cosmological Lithium problem” - which is about the matching between the lithium produced during the Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and the lithium observed in old stars. Since the age of these old stars can be compared (but obviously lesser than) with the age of the universe, they should contain a quantity of lithium which should match with the one produced during the BBN. Indeed, the well-known "Spite diagram" shows that the lithium abundance observed in old stars (metal-poor) clusters around a value of 2.2-2.3 (logarithmic value - for more informations I suggest to give a look at our paper and references therein). However, the most recent observations made by the Planck satellite, suggest that the lithium abundance produced during the BBN is about 2.7 (Coc et al. 2014). This means that the lithium observed in old stars is almost half than the one produced during the BBN. This is known as the cosmological lithium problem - and a possible solution was also proposed very recently (see e.g. 2015MNRAS.452.3256F ) Our study is different. It relies on young stars, where the observed abundance of lithium can reach values larger than the one produced during the BBN (up to 3.3 and more). This automatically implies that in our Galaxy (because these young stars are all in our Galaxy) there is an astrophysical mechanisms which provides lithium into the interstellar medium but that started not with the beginning of the universe (otherwise we should see this “new” lithium also in old stars…) In 1978 (before I was born) Starrfield and co. published a work where they predicted that lithium can be produced in novae and with time they can enrich the Galaxy with this important element/metal. This is the prediction that I was referring in the interview with the journalist Indeed, from the observed lithium in Nova Centauri 2013 (it was he first time that a direct detection of lithium was done in a nova system) we have estimated the mass of lithium ejected and assuming an average rate of novae in our Galaxy we have obtained the result that novae can explain the observed over-abundance of lithium (over- in respect the one from the BBN) in our Galaxy. But as everything in astronomy…we have to confirm and confirm our result ! I hope that now something is more clear than before, to you. Apart my english Thank you very much for your question. Cheers, Luca 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 And my reply to him. Ah thanks for clearing that up for me, Luca. Looking back I can now see how I misinterpreted what the Forbes article meant about lithium in the universe, the lithium problem itself and the prediction you referred to. Btw, your English is far superior to my Italian! Thanks again, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Well folks, it looks like I misread and misunderstood the linked article in the opening post of this thread. That's what can sometimes happen to an enthusiastic amateur. Fortunately there are helpful scientists who are quite ready to point the way to the facts. So my thanks go out to Dr. Izzo. BAA. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Well folks, it looks like I misread and misunderstood the linked article in the opening post of this thread. That's what can sometimes happen to an enthusiastic amateur. Fortunately there are helpful scientists who are quite ready to point the way to the facts. So my thanks go out to Dr. Izzo. BAA. That is what makes science superior to religion (and pseudoscience). Always check ourselves to see where we are wrong. Keep testing, keep going back to the drawing board, keep making real progress. I greatly appreciate you sharing your effort and your results on this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Well folks, it looks like I misread and misunderstood the linked article in the opening post of this thread. That's what can sometimes happen to an enthusiastic amateur. Fortunately there are helpful scientists who are quite ready to point the way to the facts. So my thanks go out to Dr. Izzo. BAA. No doubt these findings still somehow support the pan-theory. Everything does, after all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Well folks, it looks like I misread and misunderstood the linked article in the opening post of this thread. That's what can sometimes happen to an enthusiastic amateur. Fortunately there are helpful scientists who are quite ready to point the way to the facts. So my thanks go out to Dr. Izzo. BAA. That is what makes science superior to religion (and pseudoscience). Always check ourselves to see where we are wrong. Keep testing, keep going back to the drawing board, keep making real progress. I greatly appreciate you sharing your effort and your results on this. And if you see me straying from this line MM, I'll greatly appreciate it of you keep me honest. For the record, I take this scientist's example as something to aim for. He put his career on the line by fessing up to having made a mistake. Kudos to him for having the integrity to say, "I was wrong." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne Andrew Lyne and Matthew Bailes thought that they had made a remarkable discovery in 1991, when they reported that they had discovered a pulsar orbited by a planetary companion;[5] this would have been the first planet detected around another star. However, after this was announced, the group went back and checked their work, and found that they had not properly removed the effects of the Earth's motion around the Sun from their analysis, and, when the calculations were redone correctly, the pulse variations that led to their conclusions disappeared, and that there was in fact no planet around PSR 1829-10. When Lyne announced the retraction of his results at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, he received a standing ovation from his scientific colleagues for having the intellectual integrity and the courage to admit this error publicly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Well folks, it looks like I misread and misunderstood the linked article in the opening post of this thread. That's what can sometimes happen to an enthusiastic amateur. Fortunately there are helpful scientists who are quite ready to point the way to the facts. So my thanks go out to Dr. Izzo. BAA. That is what makes science superior to religion (and pseudoscience). Always check ourselves to see where we are wrong. Keep testing, keep going back to the drawing board, keep making real progress. I greatly appreciate you sharing your effort and your results on this. And if you see me straying from this line MM, I'll greatly appreciate it of you keep me honest. For the record, I take this scientist's example as something to aim for. He put his career on the line by fessing up to having made a mistake. Kudos to him for having the integrity to say, "I was wrong." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lyne Andrew Lyne and Matthew Bailes thought that they had made a remarkable discovery in 1991, when they reported that they had discovered a pulsar orbited by a planetary companion; this would have been the first planet detected around another star. However, after this was announced, the group went back and checked their work, and found that they had not properly removed the effects of the Earth's motion around the Sun from their analysis, and, when the calculations were redone correctly, the pulse variations that led to their conclusions disappeared, and that there was in fact no planet around PSR 1829-10. When Lyne announced the retraction of his results at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, he received a standing ovation from his scientific colleagues for having the intellectual integrity and the courage to admit this error publicly Informative postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts