|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2006 : 12:55:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Do you realize michael that Einstein never accepted quantum theory? The idea that gravitons having anything at all to do with General Relativity is laughable.
Wait a minute. First you guy critisize me for talking about "old" Big Bang theory, and then you chastise me again for moving beyond Einstein and into quantum mechanics? Come on!
What is it about your personality that makes you unable to admit you are wrong?? You should become a politician you are a pro at the bob, weave, deflect, change the subject.....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 13:25:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave, QM is what demands that you define spacetime in terms of mass and energy. You can't take the mass and particles and fields out of QM then continue to use terms that relate to QM. The term "spacetime" has no meaning without gravitational fields.
You aren't even trying to make sense anymore, Michael, because General Relativity is not a quantum theory, and it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.quote:
Think about it Dave. The ruler won't tell us that anything has "expanded" unless we have measured the distance between two "points" and take another measurement between these two points at a later time. Since you've offered me no particles or reference points inside your "space" (not spacetime), it's impossible to measure anything.
You asked me to define space, Michael. You didn't ask me to describe how to take a measurement of that space. You're just moving the goalposts. If we agree on a frame of reference within spacetime, we can talk about measurements. But we can't do that until we agree on the geometry of spacetime, which is what Einstein defined in General Relativity as a four-dimensional, non-Euclidian Lorentzian manifold. Just like working within a Cartesian space in high school geometry class doesn't require that there actually be "mass" within the space (though mass might be represented by little #2 pencil dots on a piece of paper), the spacetime defined by Einstein doesn't actually have to contain anything to be a valid model.
But to skip to the more important points:quote:
quote:
No, spacetime is a metric, Michael, completely independent of the presense or absence of any material thing.
Boloney!
Okay, show us how a geometry needs to be physical in order to provide answers - I'm sure many mathematicians will be surprised.quote:
But there's a problem, specifically t=0. You have a "singularity" Dave with all the mass/energy of the unviverse packed together tightly.
No, because Big Bang Theory doesn't address t=0.quote:
So what was the size of the universe at t=10 Dave?
T=10 whats?quote:
Gah! When I tried to suggest that spacetime had particles in it or fields in it, you balked.
No, Michael, I balked at your demands that spacetime be defined only by particles or fields - I've agreed every step of the way that spacetime has particles and fields in it.quote:
It has to contain mass for the concept of "spacetime" to apply Dave.
Where is that written in General Relativity? Who came up with that requirement?quote:
So you just toss that little "need" of quantum theory right out the window?
What "need?" Is there someone claiming that the "theory of everything" which melds Quantum Mechanics and Relativity will itself be quantum in nature? Quantum Loop Gravity is certainly a quantum theory of gravity, but I'm not sure that M-Theory could be considered such.quote:
That is utterly illogical Dave, since "spacetime" is defined by the mass and the carrier particles in it. You can't have "spacetime" without mass and gravitational forces and carrier particles. There is no "spacetime" without gravitational fields Dave, it's as simple as that.
Fine, show me how that works! I know how General Relativity works, but you're describing something else.quote:
And when it's demonstrated that Arp is 100% wrong about the causes of redshift and when it's been demonstrate that there are no other ways to explain this redshift, then maybe that will matter to me.
I don't see any way for Arp to be proven wrong, since he doesn't make any actual predictions which could be falsified. He just assumes that objects have an intrinsic redshift, without actually showing that they do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 14:15:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
If you are going to ask that question, then you obviously don't agree with just about anything I said.
Actually I fully agree with your description of how it currently works Ricky. My question was ultimately aimed at pointing out the scientfic bias that you so succinctly describe below.
quote:
Once a theory is accepted by the scientific community, the only way to get it out is to replace it, not falsify it directly.
What astronomy has done then is created it's own unique set of "sacred cows". We've created an artificially unlevel playing field where old ideas can no longer be falsified, whereas new ideas can be falsified and are expected to be "tested". No matter how flimsy the evidence for an "old school" idea, it is held to a completely different set of standards than any new ideas. There has to be a way to falsify *all* ideas, even if doing so means that we go back to simply saying "we don't know".
This is particularly important when talking about how the universe got here, and things we don't understand very well, and can't test in the first place.
If something cannot be falsified, it technically is outside the scope of science and we should stop treating it as science. If it's inside the scope of science then it can be falsified, and we should acknowledge and test for that possibility.
quote:
We can poke holes in it, notice that there is some sort of problem, but that's about it. Now there are exceptions. If we falsify something that must be true in order for our theory to work or make any sense at all, it is possible we will throw out the theory completely and go back to, "We don't know." But it is such a rare event that it is negligible. I can't think of one example where this has happened in scientific history.
I can't think of an instance of this occuring either frankly. The problem with this attitude IMO is that it makes the process entirely subjective, and highly baised. When is there "compelling enough" evidence to "jump ship"? Every individual will have to decide for themselves, especially since the old ideas are always held to different set of standards. Then we get into the politics of human interaction, and what used to be a scientific search for truth becomes an unfasifyable idea that has become quagmired in politics as usual.
I can (arguably) explain all the data we see in the universe, using the laws of physics, *without* resorting to any sort of "creation event" that requires me to explain the existence of all matter. I don't have to explain then how we get from "energy" to a "quark". I don't have to resort to any metaphysical concepts of "inflation" or "expansion", and my explanation falls *within* the laws physics.
There is no viable way to explain a "creation event" without running headlong into Robbs first question about how we get from "energy" to "matter". That issue has never been explained by BB theory anyway so what makes it attractive? The main thing that seems to be attractive about the BB theory is that it creates the illusion of a "complete creation myth". By "myth" here I mean it's a "story" about what we think might have happened "before" our physical universe began. More importantly it's a "myth" in the sense that it "singularizes" the event into a "complete creation story", allowing us to envision a time when no matter existed prior to this single event. It allows us to envision a "beginning".
The problem with this creation story is that we have no idea if it's true. We don't know if this was an isolated event, we do not posess the technological sophistication to even test very much about these creation ideas in the first place. Even if we could test for a variety of agreed upon predictions made by BB theory, there is no data that the astronomical community will accept as "falsification" for the idea anyway. It's a closed feedback loop from the outside looking in. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 14:27:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
What is it about your personality that makes you unable to admit you are wrong?? You should become a politician you are a pro at the bob, weave, deflect, change the subject.....
What a load of hogwash. I have admitted to being wrong when I've been wrong, but this is not such an instance.
You are simply nitpicking and insisting that I see things your way and view GR and QM independently. I do not. Because of my age, I never have seen them independently. I'm not going to start now just because you do. I realize there are areas where GR and QM come into conflict, but they fit together very well from my perspective. You still need gravitational fields (and therefore mass) in GR regardless of whether or not you believe in QM theory, particle theory and carrier particles.
What I find most frustrating is that you are getting squeemish about me talking about a particle for which there *is* scientific evidence and theoretical support for, meanwhile not one of you will explain how we get from "energy" that isn't evidently a particle and isn't evidently a force and isn't evidently a field of any kind to "quark soup".
What was the material made of that that produced the quark soup that ultimately became matter. That's really the nucleus of Robb's question and after 17 pages of dancing, no one's identified the particles, the fields or the forces involved. It's one big creation myth with nothing defined in any tangible way. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 14:31:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 14:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave, QM is what demands that you define spacetime in terms of mass and energy. You can't take the mass and particles and fields out of QM then continue to use terms that relate to QM. The term "spacetime" has no meaning without gravitational fields.
You aren't even trying to make sense anymore, Michael, because General Relativity is not a quantum theory, and it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.
They only "seem" incompatible for the time being Dave.
I'm not going to do this line by line dance with you again.
Here's a list of questions you haven't answered yet:
What *form* of energy existed at instant of "bang"?
How did that energy manifest itself in "spacetime" during the inflation stage? How did it inflate?
How did that "form" of energy become "matter"? How did we get from "energy" to "quarks"?
What was the force of inflation?
What is the force of expansion?
What *tangible" thing is expanding, and why is the expansion so selective?
quote:
You asked me to define space, Michael. You didn't ask me to describe how to take a measurement of that space. You're just moving the goalposts.
Arrgh! You have been shifting the goal posts since we started, and you've failed to define anything! Grr!
quote:
quote:
And when it's demonstrated that Arp is 100% wrong about the causes of redshift and when it's been demonstrate that there are no other ways to explain this redshift, then maybe that will matter to me.
I don't see any way for Arp to be proven wrong, since he doesn't make any actual predictions which could be falsified. He just assumes that objects have an intrinsic redshift, without actually showing that they do.
You mean kind of like the way you define inflation and expansion without actually naming any forces or defining any 'particles' or fields?
Arps theory is that redshift isn't *strictly* a function of velocity and distance, but rather it is influenced by the gravitational forces that make up the object and the medium that's being traversed by the photons themselves. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 14:52:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 17:06:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I never ridiculed your suggestion that the Sun is in motion, Michael. In fact, in the very first thread you participated in, I calculated how much the speed of the Sun is affecting its mass due to Relativistic effects, based on the measured speed of our star. Your brand new assertion that I'm ridiculing the idea that the Sun and solar system moves is just one more rationalization of yours to avoid the difficult subjects which you are clearly unprepared to face.
I really wanted to keep these topics separate, but this statement warrants mention here anyway, and I missed it earlier. It's not the "velocity" that matters or affects anything to a great degree Dave, it's the "acelleration" that affects our sense of absolute density. It's that little "coasting expansion metaphysical thingy" you seem to be ignoring in your solar density calculations, not the current speed of travel. It's the force of acelleration that matters the most Dave, not the current velocity. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 17:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here's a list of questions you haven't answered yet:
Let me also answer this simple list of questions from a "Big Slam" perspective so we can tally up the points later and decide which theory is more viable. We'll give one point for every tangible answer that is quantifyable in real phyiscal terms.
quote:
What *form* of energy existed at instant of "bang"?
Two black hole *systems*, one made of anti-matter and slightly larger one made of matter. Think in terms of maga-sized galaxy collisions where some matter interacts and some does not.
quote:
How did that energy manifest itself in "spacetime" during the inflation stage? How did it inflate?
That would be the annihillation phase of matter and anti-matter where everything went "boom" as matter and anti-matter dispersed energy from the space between the intersecting event horizons and from other intersecting objects in each of the two "systems".
quote:
How did that "form" of energy become "matter"? How did we get from "energy" to "quarks"?
Matter existed eternally. Never was there a time when matter did not exist. Iron and quasars predated the events and existed in the systems long before they interacted, and some materials passed right on through the event relatively unscathed.
quote:
What was the force of inflation?
Explosive interaction between matter and antimatter.
quote:
What is the force of expansion?
Electromagnetic fields.
quote:
What *tangible" thing is expanding, and why is the expansion so selective?
Everything that is metallic and every conductive plasma is affected by the electromagetic waves that permiate spacetime.
Now we'll listen to your answers and we'll see how many of these you can explain with real forces and real objects and we'll see how you do.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 17:25:44 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 17:46:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I can (arguably) explain all the data we see in the universe, using the laws of physics, *without* resorting to any sort of "creation event" that requires me to explain the existence of all matter.
This is just too good to be true. You don't mind do you Michael, if I pass on your contact details to the other physicists and engineers I know? I'm sure some of them may have a question or two about something that may just fit into the set defined by "All the data we see in the universe". The oracle has been revealed, and I was one of the first to see it! Hallelujah!
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I suggested that the mostly metallic universe sits in the middle of a "large elecromagnetic field" that continues to accelerate the universe.
Have you actually modelled this universe that sits in the "middle" of some larger, meta universe which contains the "large electromagnetic field"? It sounds a little bizarre to me, but my degree only included "regular" physics, so maybe I'm missing something. All that pesky consistency, reason and mathematics sometimes gets in the way, I know.
I've resisted posting in this thread thus far, because I'm a little time-poor at the moment, and it would seem that attempts to inject actual physics into the discussion by others has failed, and I have no delusions that my own would suffer a different fate, but I just couldn't resist. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 07/06/2006 17:54:02 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 18:14:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Have you actually modelled this universe...?
Of course he hasn't.
If michael were to offer a scientific "model" a television, he would say something along the lines of "a box out of which moving pictures shine." If you were to try and press him about how the television actually works, you'd get a bunch of gibberish that stretches on for 15 pages and says nothing. In short, he quite fond of simplistic explanations and quite adverse to ever fleshing them out into any sort of testible form.
For instance, he thinks the driving force behind the Universe's expansion is "electro-magentism" and feels completely justified in leaving it at that. QED.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/06/2006 18:14:52 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 19:35:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What astronomy has done then is created it's own unique set of "sacred cows". We've created an artificially unlevel playing field where old ideas can no longer be falsified, whereas new ideas can be falsified and are expected to be "tested". No matter how flimsy the evidence for an "old school" idea, it is held to a completely different set of standards than any new ideas. There has to be a way to falsify *all* ideas, even if doing so means that we go back to simply saying "we don't know".
You've contradicted yourself in that paragraph. It was subtle, but you did it.
All old ideas had to have been new ideas at one point. So if new ideas can be falsified, it must be that an old idea can be falsified. Just because it passed its tests to be accepted by the scientific community doesn't make it any less falsifiable. Even if there are no more tests that we can come up with.
And yes, old ideas are held to a different standard than new ones. That is because old ideas have already been through the harsh tests that science demands.
Not being able to falsify an old idea, but instead, being required to replace it is a very good thing. You seem to think there is something wrong with it. I provided several reasons why this is so, and two examples where it benefited science. If you would like me to reiterate, just ask.
quote:
The problem with this attitude IMO is that it makes the process entirely subjective, and highly baised. When is there "compelling enough" evidence to "jump ship"? Every individual will have to decide for themselves, especially since the old ideas are always held to different set of standards. Then we get into the politics of human interaction, and what used to be a scientific search for truth becomes an unfasifyable idea that has become quagmired in politics as usual.
There are subjective parts to science. But as Kuhn points out, this isn't really a bad thing. We don't want every scientists using the same logic and following the same ideas. Instead, we want scientists to think crazy far out ideas, and try to see if they are right. By doing this, science expands its knowledge in different ways.
As for how much evidence for is needed for theory change, it depends on the situation. But when there is enough, a vast amount of scientists will change all at once. The prediction and verification of something that we didn't even know existed is normally enough.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 19:46:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
This is just too good to be true. You don't mind do you Michael, if I pass on your contact details to the other physicists and engineers I know? I'm sure some of them may have a question or two about something that may just fit into the set defined by "All the data we see in the universe". The oracle has been revealed, and I was one of the first to see it! Hallelujah!
Hi John. Welcome to the party. :) Great. Feel free to pass this theory along to anyone you wish. While you're at it, you might ask them to answer the questions that I answered and make sure to post them here.
Now that you've been "saved", don't forget to pass along the offering basket and ask for some grant money so "we" can focus on this theory full time, ok? 
quote:
Have you actually modelled this universe that sits in the "middle" of some larger, meta universe which contains the "large electromagnetic field"?
Ya, in between work, family life and overturning current solar theory, I'm working on it slowly but surely. :)
quote:
It sounds a little bizarre to me, but my degree only included "regular" physics, so maybe I'm missing something.
Maybe. I don't really know. Can you answer any of those lists of questions using "regular" physics without resorting to metaphysics? :)
quote:
All that pesky consistency, reason and mathematics sometimes gets in the way, I know.
It just seems a little premature to be pulling 13.7 billion year (or some other) figure out of math formula I pretty much made up as I went. If it's math that makes the theory viable, perhaps you could show me the math that demonstrates how particles with mass (quarks) formed from this unidentified "energy" source of BB theory.
quote:
I've resisted posting in this thread thus far, because I'm a little time-poor at the moment, and it would seem that attempts to inject actual physics into the discussion by others has failed, and I have no delusions that my own would suffer a different fate, but I just couldn't resist.
I just hope you won't resist answing that list of questions yourself using "regular" physics. I also hope you don't resist posting the answers of your experts as well. :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 20:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
You've contradicted yourself in that paragraph. It was subtle, but you did it.
Well, anything is possible. We'll see.
quote:
All old ideas had to have been new ideas at one point.
Not in my lifetime they haven't been. BB theory was around long before I became aware of it, and gas model solar theories are also older than I am.
quote:
So if new ideas can be falsified, it must be that an old idea can be falsified.
Well, I agree, but that isn't what you suggested, and that isn't how it currently works.
quote:
Just because it passed its tests to be accepted by the scientific community doesn't make it any less falsifiable.
I agree 100 percent.
quote:
Even if there are no more tests that we can come up with.
Well, we should be looking for some tests and means of falsification. We should also be looking for some other ways to explain what we see and doing some comparisons. That's why I answered my own list of questions using my favorite theory.
quote:
And yes, old ideas are held to a different standard than new ones. That is because old ideas have already been through the harsh tests that science demands.
Not necessarily. The BB theory is no more "viable" today in terms of identifying the forces of "inflation" or "expansion" than they were when Guth presented his ideas. No one knows the answers to these questions, not today, not then, and maybe never.
quote:
Not being able to falsify an old idea, but instead, being required to replace it is a very good thing.
That depends. If you present me with evidence that falisifies an old idea and I refuse to acknowledge that the idea has been falsified and should be abandoned, then maybe it's not such a good thing (for me).
quote:
You seem to think there is something wrong with it. I provided several reasons why this is so, and two examples where it benefited science. If you would like me to reiterate, just ask.
I would be inclined to agree that there are examples where it benefits science, but there are an equal number of instances where it didn't. Galileo had a tough time convincing folks that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, and a few dot's moving around in the sky in "funny ways" wasn't "good enough" for some people.
Sooner or later observation and laws of physics have to be our guides, and we have to be willing to acknowledge when an old idea has been falsified, and we should be willing to point out ways *to* falsify an idea.
quote:
There are subjective parts to science. But as Kuhn points out, this isn't really a bad thing. We don't want every scientists using the same logic and following the same ideas. Instead, we want scientists to think crazy far out ideas, and try to see if they are right. By doing this, science expands its knowledge in different ways.
So what exactly makes a "big slam" idea a "crazy" idea, and how will we see if it's right?
quote:
As for how much evidence for is needed for theory change, it depends on the situation. But when there is enough, a vast amount of scientists will change all at once. The prediction and verification of something that we didn't even know existed is normally enough.
Well, I agree that prediction and verification through observation is the key to determining the usefulness of any theory. I can say however from following BB theory since I was a child that it's track record for accurate predictions is pretty dismal. So far I can't say it's impressed me much. As soon as someone can answer the list of questions I asked about BB theory without resorting to metaphysics and unknown forces, I'll be happy to consider it. At it is, I see no theoretical or physical basis for any of the pretty mathematical presentations I've seen to date.
Just try pinning someone down to a mathematical and physical model that demonstrates how "energy" turns into "quarks" and you'll see what I mean. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 20:09:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 20:26:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
They only "seem" incompatible for the time being Dave.
Talk about dodging the issues! For the last 90 years, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have been incompatible, and there is no functional quantum theory of gravity at this time. There may never be a quantum theory of gravity. But rather than admit that you screwed up when you said that gravitons are necessary for General Relativity to work (they clearly are not needed at all), you pin your faith instead upon our ignorance, and you wind up praying that someday, someone will figure out a way to merge the two systems.quote:
I'm not going to do this line by line dance with you again.
Here's a list of questions you haven't answered yet:
Oh, you'd rather play that game? I've got a list of questions you've never answered, too.quote:
What *form* of energy existed at instant of "bang"?
Don't know, and the Big Bang Theory doesn't address that question, since it's untestable.quote:
How did that energy manifest itself in "spacetime" during the inflation stage?
As waves, since there was far too much of it in too small a space to be cool enough to form particles.quote:
How did it inflate?
You're going to have to look at Lamda-CDM theory yourself for that answer. I barely understand it myself, but it's to do with the universe slowly following the inflaton field to a lower-energy state.quote:
How did that "form" of energy become "matter"? How did we get from "energy" to "quarks"?
This is easy: E=mc2, coupled with what we know of quantum mechanics.quote:
What was the force of inflation?
I already told you, there was no force of inflation, it's due to a field.quote:
What is the force of expansion?
Also due to a field, though I'm not sure if it's the same field as the inflaton field or not (it would have had to have flattened rather dramatically).quote:
What *tangible" thing is expanding...
How many times do I have to answer this question by pointing out that it isn't even wrong?quote:
...and why is the expansion so selective?
Apparently you won't understand that mass curves spacetime (that's the important explanation in General Relativity), no matter how many times it's explained to you.
Okay, my turn:- Where is your Nobel Prize for the discovery that acceleration affects our measurements of mass?
- What is the relationship between acceleration and mass, anyway?
- Since when is kinetic energy a force?
- Since when is evolution a theory describing the relationships between mass and energy?
- Where, precisely, in General Relativity are gravitons described?
- How is Arp's "theory" falsifiable?
- How much mass turned into "quark soup" in the Big Slam?
- How can two colliding masses provide the uniformity of the CMBR?
- How can electromagnetic acceleration due to a field the size of the universe create a scenario in which we happen to see all distant galaxies expanding away from us?
- How far away is the next-nearest universe?
- Where did the masses which went into the Big Slam come from?
- What is causing the electromagnetic field which you claim permeates all of the universe?
I'm sure I'll think of more, later.quote:
Arrgh! You have been shifting the goal posts since we started, and you've failed to define anything! Grr!
No, Michael, I haven't shifted any goalposts at all, I'm merely telling you how your questions betray your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. You puffed yourself up as well-versed in these sorts of physics, but now that you've shown that you don't know the difference between energy and forces, you've got too much ego invested in the discussion to admit your mistakes.quote:
You mean kind of like the way you define inflation and expansion without actually naming any forces or defining any 'particles' or fields?
I not only mentioned fields, but showed you where you could find more information on them.quote:
Arps theory is that redshift isn't *strictly* a function of velocity and distance, but rather it is influenced by the gravitational forces that make up the object and the medium that's being traversed by the photons themselves.
And how is that a "theory?" What could falsify it? What phenomena does it explain better than plain old redshift and an expanding universe?
You also wrote:quote:
I really wanted to keep these topics separate...
But you can't seem to drag yourself back to the other thread to even answer one simple question.quote:
...but this statement warrants mention here anyway, and I missed it earlier. It's not the "velocity" that matters or affects anything to a great degree Dave, it's the "acelleration" that affects our sense of absolute density.
How so? Describe the physics, please. I've only been asking you to do so for eight months or so.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 20:27:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not in my lifetime they haven't been. BB theory was around long before I became aware of it, and gas model solar theories are also older than I am.
I fail to see your point.
quote:
That depends. If you present me with evidence that falisifies an old idea and I refuse to acknowledge that the idea has been falsified and should be abandoned, then maybe it's not such a good thing (for me).
No, it is still a good thing. Just because a theory appears to have a problem doesn't mean it has to be falseified. Theories can be saved by modifying supporting theories. If we were to completely throw out a theory which can still explain a great deal of many things and replace it with "I don't know", the explanitory power of science would decrease, not increase. By holding on to a theory until it can be replaced, the explanitory power of science is always increasing.
quote:
The BB theory is no more "viable" today in terms of identifying the forces of "inflation" or "expansion" than they were when Guth presented his ideas. No one knows the answers to these questions, not today, not then, and maybe never.
It isn't the job of a theory to explain everything. All it has to explain is more than we knew before it came along.
quote:
I would be inclined to agree that there are examples where it benefits science, but there are an equal number of instances where it didn't. Galileo had a tough time convincing folks that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, and a few dot's moving around in the sky in "funny ways" wasn't "good enough" for some people.
You lost me here. You were trying to provide an example where an idea is just falsified and not replaced. Galileo however, replaced the Earth as the center with the Sun. So as such an example, it fails miserably.
quote:
So what exactly makes a "big slam" idea a "crazy" idea, and how will we see if it's right?
What makes it a crazy idea is that it is not part of accepted science (at least yet). That is what I mean by crazy. The same way GR and SR were crazy ideas at a time. As for how we will see if it's right, that is up for those who propose it to decide. They must come up with a way in which to severly test it that will convince the scientific community. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/06/2006 20:28:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 20:35:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
At it is, I see no theoretical or physical basis for any of the pretty mathematical presentations I've seen to date.
That's because you're blind to them. For instance, you don't understand that the CMBR is necessary to Big Bang theory, and its existence doesn't matter one little bit to Big Slam theory (the BS theory wouldn't change at all if the CMBR were unknown).quote:
Just try pinning someone down to a mathematical and physical model that demonstrates how "energy" turns into "quarks" and you'll see what I mean.
We've already got a great example of the impossibility of pinning someone down to a mathematical and physical model that demonstrates how there's a solid surface within the Sun.
By the way, you do know that the mass of a quark is given in electron-volts, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
