Monday, June 21, 2004

On Jun 21, 2004, at 9:34 AM, michael ibison wrote:

"HI Victor

That I don't embrace BB is an accurate description. I do not hold a strong
view on whether or not the currently accepted view is correct. That makes me
a radical. Not because I say it is wrong, but because I am an agnostic.



That's only because you have not kept up with advances in the field. I agree that prior to say end of 2002 the position held in that May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter was slightly plausible and defensible as a long shot - but no longer. Without applying a double standard, the Baysean probability that the standard model with chaotic inflation, dark energy/matter is essentially correct is very close to 100% and getting closer all the time as new data comes in. What we have here is a debate on how to weigh the new data that you admit you are not very up on. I have been to 2 APS meetings on this topic in 2003 and listened closely to Mike Turner and Saul Perlmutter - the experimental work is beautiful - some of the best in the history of physics. This is a real turning point. It also explains the saucers, the emergence of Einstein's gravity from the cohering of random noise ZPF not from its friction, the stability of electrically charged elementary particles as spatially extended structures that shrink when hit hard, the stability of the galaxy, the universal Regge slope, Ken Shoulder's charge clusters, the Arrow of Time and even the emergence of consciousness in the many worlds. What more do you want? This is grand!

Strong prediction that can falsify my idea: Dark matter detectors cannot click, in principle, with the right stuff to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23 any more than the motion of the Earth through the Galilean ether can be detected with a Michelson-Morley interferometer in the domain of validity of special relativity where the scale of the relative phase measurements are small compared to the radius of curvature that the Sun makes at the position of the Earth in its orbit.

PS How do Marshall Trevor/Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole et-al explain observed sub-Poisson statistics of photon anti-bunching in laser light which requires negative probability if you use SED?

No comments: