Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 1 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Redshift | Kanitscheider | I 222 Redshift/Theory: ambiguous: one thought earlier that the redshift of the spectral lines of the light of the distant galaxies is a Doppler effect. This is wrong! Not the galaxies move through the space, but the space itself expands. (Therefore it is also possible that the expansion can assume superluminal speed). But then the galaxies themselves are in rest. I 223 Theory/Empirical/Kanitscheider: nevertheless, here was a real support of the theory by theory-neutral empirical data: because the linear Hubble law (whatever value the Hubble constant may have) is logically firmly connected with the uniformity of the world at large. An empirical connection was discovered without the help of those theories for which this connection should be supporting instance. From such a law of expansion follows that every galaxy can be regarded as center of such an expansion. >Universe/Kanitscheider, >Cosmological principle/Kanitscheider, cf. >Olbers paradox, >Relativity theory. I 225 Redshift/Kanitscheider: for the cosmological interpretation the wavelength independence is important. Only then the statement can be made that the measured value of z = 1 is due to a doubling of the size of space. Since Rem approaches zero at (time-inverse) approach to the initial singularity, the redshift of very old and distant objects can go beyond all limits. At t = 0, z is infinite. However, no observable corresponds to this, since redshift is also accompanied by a slowing down of all processes. Around the big bang the physical events appear frozen. I 226 Redshift/Kanitscheider: It is important to recognize that the different interpretations are not based on relationist Vs absolutist conception of space! The interpretation, according to which the redshift is caused by the expansion of space, is of course the relativistic one, but it is not only a facon de parler, but has also empirical consequences: if the redshift would be really a velocity and not an expansion effect, the energy flux S, which is measured from a galaxy of luminosity L on the earth, not S = L / 4πR²(1 + z)², but S = L / 4πr²(1 + z)². However, this is not valid for an overlapping area with very small distances, where both theories give equal values. Redshift/Kanitscheider: there is a third explanation: light fatigue by gravitational effect. Photons experience an interaction on their way, be it with atoms or with electrons, which triggers an energy loss and thus a frequency decrease. Or the photon decays into a lower energy photon and a vector boson. Vs: One can exclude such hypothesis only by comparing the consequences with the empiric: Bsp It would have to accompany by interaction with intergalactic matter also a smearing of the pictures of distant objects. This has never been observed. Even quasars are always sharply point-like. Likewise, the spectral lines would have to become broader, which has also never been observed. Moreover, the fatigue phenomenon would have to occur depending on the wavelength, that the radiophotons decay faster than the light photons. Moreover, the static universe - which is implied by this assumption - would have no place for the background radiation. |
Kanitsch I B. Kanitscheider Kosmologie Stuttgart 1991 Kanitsch II B. Kanitscheider Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empiricism | Kanitscheider Vs Empiricism | I 392 Particle Horizon: also generates the causality paradox in the Big Bang models: in the past, two galaxies were unconnected until their particle horizon touched. If, however, they have the same inner composition, this would have to be regarded as a coincidence. I 394 Horizon/Kanitscheider: Question whether the horizons represent real boundaries of knowledge. They certainly do not concern theoretical knowledge. Empiricism/Kanitscheider: the limitation by the horizon is not an ontological one. VsEmpiricism: if one model has an event horizon, all galaxies drift bit by bit across the border, which were previously visible, on the other hand another object remains eternally visible, because its history is infinitely delayed when approaching the event horizon. Optically frozen with infinite redshift. For the observer on the object, however, this phenomenon does not exist. On the other hand, more and more objects are entering the visible region of the particle horizon. This shows that both horizons are not physical barriers but optical boundaries. I 395 Kanitscheider: a galaxy drifting over the horizon does not change its ontological status, only its epistemic one. (>epistemic/ontological). This also makes the concept of a "total universe" meaningful, since the boundaries of the visible world do not represent the boundaries of the world. The expression is constituted by the existence of a continuous law-like connection. Objects outside this context must be understood as unresearchable. But there is also no reason for their postulation. They are not a scientific problem. |
Kanitsch I B. Kanitscheider Kosmologie Stuttgart 1991 Kanitsch II B. Kanitscheider Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996 |
| Steady State Theory | Verschiedene Vs Steady State Theory | Kanitscheider I 359 Steady State Theory/SST/Bondi/Kanitscheider: Thesis: Priority of cosmology over local physics. Bondi's Thesis: the unclear complexity of the phenomenon world is only one property of the mesocosm. I 360 VsSST: incompatible with our empiricism: a static universe has long been in thermodynamic equilibrium. All development would already have reached its final state. It would no longer be possible to determine the direction of the time flow. Of the two types of motion allowed by Perfect Cosmological Principle, expansion and contraction, contraction is already eliminated because the necessary excess of radiation in relation to matter is lacking. For expansion, however, the steady state theory now needs the assumption of constant additional generation of matter. But this overrides the important principle of hydrodynamic continuity! I 361 However, at the current values for density and recession constant (distance movement of galaxies from each other), the origin of matter would only be one H atom per litre every 5x10 exp 11 years. Conservation of Matter/BondiVsVs: he even believes he can save the conservation of matter. He says that in a certain, observable area, seen globally, the observable amount of matter does not change, i.e. that in a constant eigenvolume matter is preserved, in contrast to the relativistic models, where the conservation applies rather to the coordinate volume. The Def Eigenvolume is the part of space that is fixed by a fixed distance from the observer, while the Def coordinate volume is given by the constancy of the com mobile coordinates. I 362 Steady State Theory/SST: here there is always the same amount of matter within the range of a certain telescope, while here the relativity theory assumes a dilution, i.e. the matter remains the same in the expanding volume. At the SST, the new formation ensures that the total amount of all observable matter remains the same. Observer/SST: when investigating motion, each observer can perceive a preferred direction of motion apart from local deviations, whereby he determines the constant relationship between velocity and distance completely symmetrically within a small range. In relativistic cosmology this was the starting point for the Weyl principle. Def Weyl-Principle: Postulate: the particles of a substrate (galaxies) lie in spacetime on a bundle of geodesists that start from a point in the past (Big Bang) and never intersect except at this point. From this follows the existence of a family of hyperplanes (t = const) orthogonal to these geodesists and the only parameters possessing cosmic time. I 362/363 Bondi/SST/Steady State Theory: doubts now that in view of the scattering of the fog movement these hyperplanes exist secured. Because of its stationary character, SST does not need Weyl's postulate and can define homogeneity without cosmic time. Thermodynamic imbalance/universe/SST: Explanation: a photon emanating from a star has a very long free path and reaches areas with strongly changed local motion. This shifts its frequency to red. However, the thermal energy it gives off on its way to the surrounding matter is only a very small part of that lost by its original star. Thus the universe represents a kind of cosmic sink for radiant energy. According to the Perfect Cosmological Principle, sources must exist that make up for the loss. Perfect Cosmological Principle: is logically compatible with three types of universes: 1. Static, without new creation of matter, 2. Expanding, with new development I 364 3. Collapsing, with destruction of matter SST/Bondi: believes in the strict relationship between distance and speed R'(t)/R(t) = 1/T. This results in R as an exponential function and the metric of the SST takes the form of the line element of de Sitter. (see above). Already the self-similarity of the scale function shows the basic metric properties of this model. It is not possible for us to recognize at which point of the curve R = et/T we are. The universe has no beginning and no end. I 365 Age/Universe/SST: Advantage over relativistic theories where the inverse Hubble constant led to a too low age. Metric/SST: while the de Sitter metric is unusable in Einstein's representation because it can only be reconciled with vanishing matter, this problem does not occur in the SST: here there is no necessary connection between physical geometry and matter content of space! According to the de Sitter structure, the world has an event horizon, i.e. every clock on a distant galaxy follows in such a way that there is a point in its history after which the emitted light can no longer reach a distant observer. If, however, a particle has formed within the range that can in principle be reached with ideal instruments, then it can never disappear from its field of view. I 367 Perfect Cosmological Principle: Problem: lies in the statistical character, which applies strictly on a cosmic scale, but not locally, whereby the local environment only ends beyond the galaxy clusters. Steady State Theory/SST/Hoyle: starts from the classical field equations, but changes them so strongly that all Bondi and Gold results that they have drawn from the Perfect Cosmological Principle remain valid. Hoyle/SST: Thesis: In nature a class of preferred directions can obviously be observed in the large-scale movements, which makes a covariant treatment impossible! Only a preferred class of observers sees the universe in the same way. I 368 Weyl Principle/Postulate: defines a unique relationship of each event P to the origin O. It cannot be a strict law of nature, since it is constantly violated in the local area by its own movements! Hoyle: (formula, tensors, + I 368). Through multiple differentiation symmetric tensor field, energy conservation does not apply, matter must constantly arise anew. Matter emergence/SST/Hoyle: there is an interpretation of matter origin caused by negative pressure in the universe. It should then be interpreted as work that this pressure does during expansion! VsSST: the synchronisation of expansion and origin is just as incomprehensible from theory as the fact that it is always matter and not antimatter that arises. (...+ formula, other choice of the coupling constant I 371/72). I 373 Negative Energy: it has been shown to cause the formation rate of particle pairs to "run away": infinite number in finite region. VsSST/Empiricism: many data spoke against the SST: excess of distant and thus early radio sources, redshift of the quasars indicating a slowdown of expansion, background radiation. |
Kanitsch II B. Kanitscheider Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996 |
| Various Authors | Poundstone Vs Various Authors | I 238 Olbers' Paradox/Solution: The solution can only lie in the premises. I 239 Charlier: when assuming an endless chain of hierarchies, it is possible to escape the paradox even if the number of stars is infinite. E.g. There could be a super super star cluster that would be so far away that its light disappeared behind the tiny disk of a star. In this model (Charlier) we could continue indefinitely in any direction without encountering a star. VsCharlier: Does not describe the actual geometry: there are nearby galaxies that appear larger than the stars. I 240 The Virgo cluster that is invisible to the naked eye is spread over the entire constellation! Modern Solution: redshift. I 241 Olbers' Paradox: if one assumes "cases" around the earth for the universe, and the light intensity decreases with the square of the distance, then the light from each case should be equally intense: Reason: each area section from a remote case holds four times as many stars. Then there is a sum of x + x + x + x ... which adds up to infinity! Red shift changes everything. x + 0.9x + 0,81x + 0,729x + 0,6561x ... I 68/69 VsNicod: E.g. all humans are less than 100 feet tall. Every person you saw confirms that. In the circus you see a man who is 99 feet tall. Surely, when you walk out of the circus you are no longer quite so convinced that all humans are less than 100 feet tall. Why? The man in the circus was only an additional confirmatory example! This paradox arises from two sources: 1) a) We do not always say exactly what we say. b) The exact number of 100 was not important at all! 2) Suppose this is a bet where there is no way to recognize irrelevant information. Then the circus man would not have made the bet more unlikely! The problem arises in the same way in the study of genes and subatomic particles. |
Poundstone I William Poundstone Labyrinths of Reason, NY, 1988 German Edition: Im Labyrinth des Denkens Hamburg 1995 |
| |||