It starts here. I have looked at IMAP and MAST and other data bases. I need to have a frame of reference for the data and so now I will do my own research into the current state of opinion in theoretical physics, which seems to be quite diverse for a scientific system.
BBN predicts 25% helium-4 by mass, About 1 neutron to 7 protons (allowing for some decay of neutrons into protons). So out of every 16 nucleons (2 neutrons and 14 protons), 4 of these (25%) combined into one helium-4 nucleus. WTF clumpy? Calculations that show that a universe made mostly of protons and neutrons would be far more clumpy than is observed. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP. It seems that it is a f5g mess of wild speculation based on incompletely analyzed data. The data is inconsistent with prediction and theory changes to meet the data. Bad theory, bad naughty theory. There is no inherent information that I have seen in the laws of physics that would suggest the big bang, but that does not rule it out. I understand nuclei-synthesis and the energies required as well as the systematically consistent decay mechanisms like alpha (α He++) or beta(β +|-) or gamma(γ λ).
What I hoped would reveal some more useful information is a very odd collection of ifs and buts that includes "dank matter" and "dank energy" as a catch all excuse for every thing different than what is predicted by speculation exceeding the grasp of data.
I hate looking at crap like this. It is a kludged up mess of speculation that is not scientific at all. It is pure entertainment science and by that I mean mostly fiction. Every good science fiction must contain some grain of truth, and so I suppose it is good science fiction. I will do my own analysis of the Markov relations of the data and let the data tell me what has happened within the scope of the observable universe as it exists at the moment. It is more scientific to place a method which links the data and make it solid and observable. I will write a program that lists the methods and the products that would be expected in a system in the same way that the 14 models of crystals was created. Given a set of beginning known objects, it is possible to determine the possible lowest energy configuration and its dimensional organization, of that I am certain, even if it is a Penrose.
Certainty is not a word I personally would use in conjunction with the BB. I am not sure how I can be persuaded to believe any theory when even those who are held in high regard in the field cannot even agree among themselves. It isn't like it has to be solved by next Tuesday or else, but one would hope there was more insight in the data than just idle speculation on "Genesis" which seems to be a recurrent myth throughout history. What comes before understanding? How can I understand if I did not before? There must be an understanding bang that created my ideas, yes and there were three turtles and two Egyptian gods standing there, and the dog with seven heads ate the cats and became 25% lion......
I am skipping this analysis until the tools and a program are complete as there is no way to know what is happening unless it comes from a consistent organization of the data. I can imagine several scenarios that would account for the data I have seen so far and so I will wait until I can solve the relationships with some high degree of certainty in the results.
0 comments:
Post a Comment