|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2006 : 20:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
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.
His point seemed to be that if an idea was "old" before he existed, then it always existed and was never "new." |
- 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 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 21:06:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I fail to see your point.
My point is that we have gained an enormous amount of information about our universe through satellites and telescopes in the past 50 years. Most of these theories however predated this direct "observation" altogether. They just got grandfathered in.
A case in point is the timeline of galaxy formation first proposed by early BB advocates. The early predictions suggested that galaxies would not form for "billions" (plural) of years after the event. Hubble and Spitzer have demonstrated however that galaxies formed very early and were perhaps "fully formed" from day one for all we know. Instead of this information being used to falsify the BB model, the BB model was simply "modified" to fit the data. I have no doubt that a modified BB theory will survive even if Hubble's replacement shows entire galaxies where nothing should exist according to current BB theory. Once it got "granfathered" into the system, there's no way to get rid of some modified frankenversion of the BB theory!
On the other hand a Big Slam model is equally viable IMO, and it gets no air time at the colleges, and its never mentioned in any high school class. In a debate, any and all data is used against this new theory to attempt to falsify it, but hardly a thing is ever meantioned about why early BB theories failed so miserably to predict galaxy formation. There's a major double standard here as it relates to falsification and determining the "value" of any theory. There is a strong desire to dismiss or devalue a new theory based on a percieved flaw, whereas that same scrutiny is almost never applied to current theory.
quote:
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.
There comes a time when you have to ask yourself if the theory is worth "saving" in the first place, or whether it's become a frankenhybrid beyond repair. One starts to wonder when it's a good thing to try to "save" a bad idea and when it's time to look for rational alternatives.
quote:
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.
Here we seem to have some fundamental differences of opinion that are worth exploring. If we were to present *many* ideas to our children and talk about the good and bad scientific aspects off all the ideas, then the explanitory power of science is always increasing. If however we hold up a flawed theory on a false pedestal and teach our children falsehoods, then we stifle scientific understanding and we only prolong our ignorance.
quote:
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.
How does bang theory help explain any of the questions I asked and answered using slam theory? What do we know more by knowing BB theory than we know by knowing slam theory?
quote:
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.
My point is that it took Galileo a *very long* time to convince Europe that he was right. Galileo went through many years of effort to try to get folks to listen to him, and I'm sure lots of poeple lived and died and never believed a word he said. My example was intended to demonstrate this resistance to change. During that transitional period there was a strong desire to "keep" the old idea and to try to make the evidence "fit" into the earlier model.
I have no doubt that BB theory will one day give way to a "better" theory, but I don't to wait till I'm dead to see that happen.
quote:
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.
I understand that you meant no offense. My point is that "accepted" ideas aren't necessarily "right" ideas, and even accepted ideas can be falsifyable. By the same token a new idea can be "right" and still not be accepted by the majority, particularly when the idea is first presented.
quote:
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.
Well, I can think of ways to test my solar theories and ways to try to falsify them using the STEREO satellite data. I have no idea however how I might try to tackle the creation mythology of astronomy using current technology. I've learned to pick my battles over the years. For the time being I've chosen to focus my attention on trying to demonstrate the things I can demonstrate using current and future technologies. The rest of this creation debate will have to wait till the solar debate is settled. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 21:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
You completely dodged my point by pointing fingers the other way. How cute Dave. I take it that means you can't do it either? You mean you have "faith" that someone will do it for you someday?
quote:
By the way, you do know that the mass of a quark is given in electron-volts, right?
You mean the universe is electric Dave? :) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 21:18:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How does bang theory help explain any of the questions I asked and answered using slam theory? What do we know more by knowing BB theory than we know by knowing slam theory?
Thank you once again for demonstrating my point that you don't know what you're talking about, by showing that you don't even know what it is that Big Bang theory explains.
Big Bang theory explains the presence of the CMBR, it explains the observed cosmological redshift (universal expansion), and it explains the observed abundance of lighter elements. Big Slam theory doesn't actually explain any of those things (because none of them are necessary predictions of a "Big Slam"), which is - I'm sure - why you didn't ask about them with your little list of questions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 21:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You completely dodged my point by pointing fingers the other way. How cute Dave. I take it that means you can't do it either? You mean you have "faith" that someone will do it for you someday?
Your precious quantum theory has already done it, Michael. Particles are little packets of energy. You chose to make a joke instead of try to grasp the import of the units of mass of quarks.
Are you going to answer my questions or not? |
- 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 : 21:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point is that we have gained an enormous amount of information about our universe through satellites and telescopes in the past 50 years. Most of these theories however predated this direct "observation" altogether. They just got grandfathered in.
A case in point is the timeline of galaxy formation first proposed by early BB advocates. The early predictions suggested that galaxies would not form for "billions" (plural) of years after the event. Hubble and Spitzer have demonstrated however that galaxies formed very early and were perhaps "fully formed" from day one for all we know. Instead of this information being used to falsify the BB model, the BB model was simply "modified" to fit the data. I have no doubt that a modified BB theory will survive even if Hubble's replacement shows entire galaxies where nothing should exist according to current BB theory. Once it got "granfathered" into the system, there's no way to get rid of some modified frankenversion of the BB theory!
On the other hand a Big Slam model is equally viable IMO, and it gets no air time at the colleges, and its never mentioned in any high school class. In a debate, any and all data is used against this new theory to attempt to falsify it, but hardly a thing is ever meantioned about why early BB theories failed so miserably to predict galaxy formation. There's a major double standard here as it relates to falsification and determining the "value" of any theory. There is a strong desire to dismiss or devalue a new theory based on a percieved flaw, whereas that same scrutiny is almost never applied to current theory.
I argued why the above is actually a positive thing in science. You never disagreed. In fact, you said you agreed with most everything I said. Please, if you disagree with my reasoning, state why. The only reason I can find is because my reasoning means that your theory won't get as much support as you would like it to.
Oh, and what the hell does this have to do with then you were born?
quote:
There comes a time when you have to ask yourself if the theory is worth "saving" in the first place, or whether it's become a frankenhybrid beyond repair. One starts to wonder when it's a good thing to try to "save" a bad idea and when it's time to look for rational alternatives.
Exactly right. In my opinion, the BB is not in this state yet. With our advancements, it could soon be. But I'll have to wait for the future to decide that. As I said before, the decision that a theory needs to be replaced is largely subjective.
quote:
Here we seem to have some fundamental differences of opinion that are worth exploring. If we were to present *many* ideas to our children and talk about the good and bad scientific aspects off all the ideas, then the explanitory power of science is always increasing. If however we hold up a flawed theory on a false pedestal and teach our children falsehoods, then we stifle scientific understanding and we only prolong our ignorance.
No, because you make the mistake in thinking that science has to always be right. It doesn't. It just has the be to the best of our knowledge. If there is no better knowledge, then even a theory with problems is better than no theory at all, as long as you teach that the theory has problems and that it is tentative.
quote:
My point is that it took Galileo a *very long* time to convince Europe that he was right. Galileo went through many years of effort to try to get folks to listen to him, and I'm sure lots of poeple lived and died and never believed a word he said. My example was intended to demonstrate this resistance to change. During that transitional period there was a strong desire to "keep" the old idea and to try to make the evidence "fit" into the earlier model.
I have no doubt that BB theory will one day give way to a "better" theory, but I don't to wait till I'm dead to see that happen.
Resistance to change is another good thing, as long as you are skeptical and not cynical. We need science to be cautious. What is most beneficial for science is an open an environment to suggest new ideas, but that same environment to be resistant to the acceptances of those ideas. |
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 : 21:51:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
And everyday people put ideas on the table as to how we might tie these things together. That's the goal of every grand unified field theory ever proposed.
quote:
There may never be a quantum theory of gravity.
And then again there may be, and I have "faith" that science will illuminate a viable explanation sooner or later.
quote:
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),
Woah! You don't know that! If there is a QM explantion of gravity that can be demonstrated, the relativity *is* dependent upon carrier particles Dave. You don't know the outcome, you only presume it just like I do.
quote:
you pin your faith instead upon our ignorance,
No, I pin my faith on QM and the advancement of science over time.
quote:
and you wind up praying that someday, someone will figure out a way to merge the two systems.
Talk about pots and kettles Dave. You pin your faith on someone answering that list of questions you seem so reluctant to give straight answers to. You pin you faith on the hope that someone will one day demonstrate that QM is wrong.
quote:
Oh, you'd rather play that game?
It's not a "game" Dave, they are straight forward questions about the nature of the proposed BB.
quote:
I've got a list of questions you've never answered, too.
Let's not go there since I can't get a straight answer from you about the temperature of the coronal loops vs. the rest of the corona, not to mentional a rational gas model explanation for running difference images. My list is *way* longer.
quote:
Don't know, and the Big Bang Theory doesn't address that question, since it's untestable.
0 for 1. Big slam theory is more quantifyable.
quote:
As waves, since there was far too much of it in too small a space to be cool enough to form particles.
Waves of what? How did they "cool" into "particles" of mass?
quote:
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.
I've looked at several variations of inflation theories, and none of them defined the force of inflation. Evidently neither can you. That's .5 out of a possible 3 points since you attempted to answer only one question but it requires some additional info.
quote:
This is easy: E=mc2, coupled with what we know of quantum mechanics.
.5 for 4. That was a handwave and a half. Explain how "energy" formed into particles of matter Dave. I'd like a physical model with some supporting math if you don't mind.
quote:
I already told you, there was no force of inflation, it's due to a field.
Oh joy, we're playing name that field. Ok, I'll bite, what field?
quote:
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).
Name that field Dave.
quote:
How many times do I have to answer this question by pointing out that it isn't even wrong?
Huh?
quote:
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.
Um, nice handwave, but how what's "curving" space Dave, and why does that affect expansion, and why didn't it effect expansion during the quark soup phase? Why is space still expanding and yet presumably we don't even have to factor in this expansion into solar density measurements?
quote:
Okay, my turn:[list][*]Where is your Nobel Prize for the discovery that acceleration affects our measurements of mass?
Since I never claimed such a thing, I have no idea why anyone would give me a prize for something I never claimed. Do you mean "percieved density"?
I'll save your solar questions for the other thread when I'm ready to go back to the solar debate.
quote:
I don't agree to those terms.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 22:17:24 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 21:56:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Big Bang theory explains the presence of the CMBR,
That seems to be it's only claim to fame as far as I can tell. It's certainly the only relatively "accurate" prediction it ever made.
quote:
it explains the observed cosmological redshift (universal expansion),
The slam does that too Dave.
quote:
and it explains the observed abundance of lighter elements.
Since these measurements are base on a non mass separated model of suns, that's not much reassurace from where I sit.
quote:
Big Slam theory doesn't actually explain any of those things (because none of them are necessary predictions of a "Big Slam"), which is - I'm sure - why you didn't ask about them with your little list of questions.
It certainly has more explanative qualities than a big bang theory where none of the fields are even defined Dave. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 22:13:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I argued why the above is actually a positive thing in science. You never disagreed.
I did actually agree that it *can* be positive thing, but I also pointed out it can have negative effects as well. You seem to only be hearing the positive side of my comments.
quote:
In fact, you said you agreed with most everything I said. Please, if you disagree with my reasoning, state why.
I certainly do agree with your reasoning of *how it currently works* in practical application. I do not believe it *should* work that way. We should be able to falsify an old idea *without* even finding a replacement. Sometimes an honest "I don't know" is better than pure mythology, or herding the crown into a miopic viewpoint.
quote:
The only reason I can find is because my reasoning means that your theory won't get as much support as you would like it to.
I seriously doubt that a big slam theory (or any other theory) will see any great support in my lifetime. BB theory is entrenched into cosmology today. It would take a matter/antimatter explosion to unseat it, and even then it may take 13.7 billion years to be fully accepted since the old model seems to defy falsification. :)
quote:
Oh, and what the hell does this have to do with then you were born?
Well, I'm old enough to remember the early failures of BB theory for one thing.
quote:
Exactly right. In my opinion, the BB is not in this state yet. With our advancements, it could soon be. But I'll have to wait for the future to decide that. As I said before, the decision that a theory needs to be replaced is largely subjective.
Actually, I'm not advocation "replacing" anything. At worst case I'm suggesting we should be offereing alternative explanations and letting future generations decide for themselves which ideas have merit and which do not. It's not that advocate "removing" options or "replacing" options, rather I'm advocating *expanding* the list of 'acceptable" options.
quote:
No, because you make the mistake in thinking that science has to always be right. It doesn't. It just has the be to the best of our knowledge. If there is no better knowledge, then even a theory with problems is better than no theory at all, as long as you teach that the theory has problems and that it is tentative.
Well, I do see your point to some degree. There may be instances where this is true, but it this instance I don't believe it is true. I would much rather have prefered that someone point out the "flaws" in the current theories (plural) rather than having to discover the flaws in the only model I was provided and then having to improvise one of my own and then be riduculed for even trying to come up with a "better" explanation.
quote:
Resistance to change is another good thing, as long as you are skeptical and not cynical.
And likewise embracing change can be a good thing as long as you are openminded and not naive. I'm not sure however that there a specific rule you can apply in every circumstance.
quote:
We need science to be cautious. What is most beneficial for science is an open an environment to suggest new ideas, but that same environment to be resistant to the acceptances of those ideas.
Yes, but in the case of Birkeland, his theories about electrical flow between the sun and the earth took nearly 60 years to verify via satellite. I don't want to wait around another 60 years to find out his solar model was accurate too. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/06/2006 22:32:08 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2006 : 22:23:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your precious quantum theory has already done it, Michael.
No Dave. QM only works on defined particles and defined forces and defined fields. You've not defined any of these things in any tangible way. The laws of entropy suggest that it is a lot easier to "break down" mass and convert it into energy than it is to "force" energy to form into matter. Since you've not defined anything to this point in time, you'll have to explain how energy forms into matter, somthing I don't even have to do.
quote:
Particles are little packets of energy. You chose to make a joke instead of try to grasp the import of the units of mass of quarks.
The fact that the units of mass of quarks are measured in terms of electrical potential is not evidence that "undefined energy" converts itself into quarks. Get over it.
quote:
Are you going to answer my questions or not?
Man, you are impatient. I answered all the questions you asked that that were relevant to this thread. Are you every going to name that (those) field(s) Dave? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 05:27:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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 am flaberghasted!?! Michael do you really think it is just my view that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are independent?? This is an astoundingly stupid statement. You do realize that these are different theories, don't you?
It is not that I 'view' them as separate - they are separate.
You stated that because of your age you have never viewed them as separate - what the fuck does that mean???
Because of your ag do you think the Theory of Evolution and Quantum Mechanics are not independent also. Holy crap, based on some of your post you may not see them as independant...
I will just state this one last time (I don't know why).
Gravitons are not a part of General Relativity.
This is a fact. This is not my opinion. It does not matter if a future theory combines GR and QM. When you said gravitons were part of GR you were wrong. End of story.
Let me demonstrate how to say you were wrong;
I stated that "you are probably smarter than me". After following this thread and viewing your logic, I am now sure I was wrong when I stated that.
|
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 - 07/07/2006 : 05:30:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I answered all the questions you asked that that were relevant to this thread.
A blatant falsehood. Here is the rest of the list again:- 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?
- Since when is kinetic energy a force?
- Since when is evolution a theory describing the relationships between mass and energy?
|
- 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 - 07/07/2006 : 06:53:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I certainly do agree with your reasoning of *how it currently works* in practical application. I do not believe it *should* work that way. We should be able to falsify an old idea *without* even finding a replacement. Sometimes an honest "I don't know" is better than pure mythology, or herding the crown into a miopic viewpoint.
Again, I have stated reasons as to why how you think it should work is wrong. You have yet to provide reasons on why either my reasons are wrong, or why you are right. You have only repeated the same statement over and over again, without ever backing it up.
quote:
At worst case I'm suggesting we should be offereing alternative explanations and letting future generations decide for themselves which ideas have merit and which do not. It's not that advocate "removing" options or "replacing" options, rather I'm advocating *expanding* the list of 'acceptable" options.
Who are we talking about? Surely not scientists who are part of the scientific community, as they already have that option. But I'm afraid that you may be talking about college students, or even worse, high school students. While I really wish we could do that, the simple answer is that we can't. They don't have enough understanding to be able to make that informed choice. Now astronomy and physics majors may be a different story. I don't know to what extent they learn about GR and quantum physics at an undergrad level. But it needs to be the scientific community that dictates theory change, not the public. That, I hope, is obvious.
quote:
I would much rather have prefered that someone point out the "flaws" in the current theories (plural) rather than having to discover the flaws in the only model I was provided and then having to improvise one of my own and then be riduculed for even trying to come up with a "better" explanation.
Are you saying that the scientific community knows about flaws in current theories but keeps them hidden? Evidence?
quote:
Yes, but in the case of Birkeland, his theories about electrical flow between the sun and the earth took nearly 60 years to verify via satellite. I don't want to wait around another 60 years to find out his solar model was accurate too.
So you would rather just accept theories without verification? |
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 09:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael Mozina:
At worst case I'm suggesting we should be offereing alternative explanations and letting future generations decide for themselves which ideas have merit and which do not. It's not that advocate "removing" options or "replacing" options, rather I'm advocating *expanding* the list of 'acceptable" options.
I, for the life of me, cannot differentiate this statement from one often made by “Intelligent Design” advocates. In fact, many of your complaints about how science works are exactly the complaints that are regularly made by all of those who are pushing for the legitimacy of some fringe (pseudo) science. The underlying idea put forth in the above statement is that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to withhold useful information for the purpose of maintaining a shaky status quo in order to protect less then honest scientists who care more about their agenda than good science.
Your complaint is nothing new. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to check out the company you're keeping when making such statements…
Edited: because my spell checker failed me again...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
