|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2006 : 10:11:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
No kidding. What makes you think that a working GUT will be quantum in nature?quote:
And then again there may be, and I have "faith" that science will illuminate a viable explanation sooner or later.
And what if the GUT isn't itself a quantum theory?quote:
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!
Yes, I do, since General Relativity works just fine without itself positing gravitons. You are, once again, mistaking a theory for reality.quote:
If there is a QM explantion of gravity that can be demonstrated, the relativity *is* dependent upon carrier particles Dave.
No, it would mean that Einstein's theory of gravity can explain a quantum phenomenon without actually using quantized values itself. Just like Newton's F=ma doesn't depend upon quanta of force.quote:
You don't know the outcome, you only presume it just like I do.
No, I'm not even presuming any particular outcome, Michael, while your argument depends upon one.quote:
No, I pin my faith on QM and the advancement of science over time.
That's unscientific.quote:
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.
No, your questions have been answered already, you just reject the answers for irrational reasons.quote:
You pin you faith on the hope that someone will one day demonstrate that QM is wrong.
Where did that nonsense come from?quote:
It's not a "game" Dave, they are straight forward questions about the nature of the proposed BB.
No, they're not, since you're demanding answers to questions that Big Bang theory doesn't even try to answer.quote:
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...
My questions about acceleration came first.quote:
...not to mentional a rational gas model explanation for running difference images.
That's an irrational question in the first place.quote:
My list is *way* longer.
That may be true, but if it's like the "running difference images" question, your list is full of garbage.quote:
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.
You're going to take points off for a theory being unable to answer questions outside its scope? Okay, that's several trillion points off "Big Slam" theory for being unable to explain the popularity of "American Pie," for being unable to explain the taste of Apple Jacks, for being unable to explain the gold standard, etc., etc., etc..quote:
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?
Why are you asking questions about basic Quantum Mechanics? I thought this was a discussion of Big Bang theory.quote:
I've looked at several variations of inflation theories, and none of them defined the force of inflation.
You're being unreasonable, Michael: nobody defines a force of inflation because there is no force, it's a field.quote:
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.
Obviously, Michael, every one of these concepts require more information, as your next response shows.quote:
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 "e |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 10:56:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Then how does the Big Slam explain the CMBR?
All the material that emitted the photons we see today came from objects that were accelerating away from our present location.
That isn't an explanation of the CMBR, it's an explanation that there's some sort of light somewhere. Besides that, how is it we occupy a privileged location in the universe, a place from which everything is "accelerating away" from us? Just coincidence?
Dave, I think this is the crux of the hole in Michael's big slam logic. He won't understand of course because he thought (and I assume he still does) that you can point to an area and say, "that is the direction that the big bang originated from".
He does not understand that if a "big slam" emitted radiation it would travel at the speed of light away from the origin and we would never see it.
He also doesn't understand that if we are on an expanding shock wave (if you will) from the big slam then galaxies should be red shifted to different degrees depending on which direction you looked into space.
But then there is alot that Michael doesn't 'get'.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 11:19:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
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.
Well, I thought I expressed my concerns adequately, but obviously that wasn't the case. Let me try again.
If we do not entertain and explore the possibility that the most popular current theories can be falsified, and we offer no choices in our classrooms, and we treat the old theories differently than new theories, then there is no level playing field. If we present only one idea in a college classroom, then there is only limited information made available to students and they cannot make informed decisions.
Even though the "status quo" theories may seem "comfortable" for the time being, that comfort is not a measure of "truth". An old idea is not necessarily right by virtue of being older or because it was the only option offered in a classroom. Each theory has to be tested against every new observation as they become available, and there should be some competition in the classroom IMO. Furthermore, each competing theory has to be "graded" in some objective manner that isn't based on a popularity contest. If there aren't multiple theories even being offered, then it is unlikely that there ever can be any sense of neutrality or any "informed" choice.
A good case in point is how do we grade various "creation concepts"? What makes a "bang" explanation quantifyably "better" than a "slam" explanation? If BB theory can't even name the force or the "field" that drives something as critical to the theory as inflation and expansion, then what good is it in any non metaphysical sense? At best it's a woefully "incomplete" theory.
I have tried to demonstrate that there is at least one additional (I know of another one too by the way) "scientific" way to explain the observations we see in satellite images, using real objects, and known laws of physics. There is no "force" or field that is left "undefined" in my version of a slam theory. More importantly there is no need to explain how "matter" formed from "unknown energy" in and "undefined way" using a slam theory. There is no evidence that suggests that quasars and iron did not predate and survive the events at 0,0,0,0. Few questions that could be answered are left unanswered in a slam theory, and all the forces and fields are on the table for everyone to inspect. It's a much more "complete" theory in that way.
To then herd every student of astronomy for the next 20 years into an "old idea" only because it is "comfortable" regardless of what parts are left undefined is scientifically indefensible. You have favoritism being shown to an "incomplete" theory, over one that leaves no fields or forces undefined. That isn't logical, nor is it fair to the students.
What objective grading system shall we apply then, particularly when some theories leave highly critical forces and fields, and processes completely and utterly undefined? What exactly makes the maliable yet undefinable bang theory so much more attractive than a modifyable slam theory that puts all the forces on the table?
quote:
Who are we talking about? Surely not scientists who are part of the scientific community, as they already have that option.
Sure, as long as one wishes to be considered a "rebel" and risk their funding and their professional standing with their peers, sure, they can go right ahead and champion any cause they might believe in. Of course this path typically leads to alienation and meaningless ridicule because the system was never really "open" to competition and therefore it doesn't foster competition in the classroom and it loathes dissent in the workplace.
If the system were more "open" in the first place, it could "nurture" many ideas and more easily adapt to new information. You can't do that however if you don't "trust" students to make informed decisions and give them choices.
quote:
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.
I'm suggesting that the astronomical community needs to "open itself up", become more transparent, and admit that we don't actually know how the universe got here. We have some *rough* ideas, but each of these ideas has it's own strengths and weaknesses. By miopically "shoving" students into a single viewpoint because we distrust them to make informed decisions, we never give them they critial information they will need to make "informed" decisions. You've effectively sacrificed the amount of information given to students, simply to gain some sense of "simplicity" in the field. I don't think that's a good trade off. I'd rather give them several options, show them which things are areas of concern in each model, and look for ways to openly falsify each and every one of them, maybe even all of them. As I said, an honest "I don't know" is better than herding a crowd into a single idea that may or may not be valid.
Most areas of science are very much "hands on" areas of science. We can put microprocessors under a microscope and examine them carefully. We can create physical tests to answer any questions that arise. Astromony however is quite a different field of science. Everything we see in space is million of miles, if not light years away. The objects that are many light years in distance do not even actually look like we see them today. In some cases this is simply the way it looked billions of years earlier. It's a lot harder to test new ideas, and it's a lot more difficult to do precision work with objects that are 10 billion light years away. Astronomy more than any field of science *owes* it's students a sense of objectivity, neutrality and multiple choice. Instead the educational system miopically herds it's students into *one* possibility that may or may not be true, and the rest of the theories are relagated to be debated in cyberspace under pressure of ridicule and distrust. That isn't reasonable or rational, expecially since no one seems to be able to explain what drives inflation or expansion, and the explanations that are offered are generally metaphysical in nature.
quote:
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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 11:37:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I, for the life of me, cannot differentiate this statement from one often made by “Intelligent Design” advocates.
Well, for one thing the subject matter is quite different, and I'm not the one suggesting that we need a creation myth. :)
quote:
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.
It would be pointless to deny that there is some similarity. The primary difference however is that I'm not trying to introduce anything that is "metaphysical" in nature. More importantly the theory that is currently "accepted" does have a metaphysical description of inflation and expansion.
quote:
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.
I don't really see a giant conspiracy and I don't think anyone is trying to be "dishonest". Ricky's sentiments are more along the lines of what occurs in the classroom. In an effort to minimize the introduction of psuedo-science, they present the "majority" viewpoint. Unfortunately in case of BB theory, the theory itself is psuedo-science IMO.
quote:
Your complaint is nothing new. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to check out the company you're keeping when making such statements…
What company are you trying to suggest I'm keeping? Birkeland? Bruce? Alfven? Guilty as charged.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 11:48:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I am flaberghasted!?! Michael do you really think it is just my view that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are independent??
[sarcasm]Ya, that's exactly what I think furshur. [/sarcasm]
quote:
This is an astoundingly stupid statement.
Yes it was a very stupid statement on your part. Do you know any other tricks besides strawmen and pety insults?
quote:
You do realize that these are different theories, don't you?
Really? Ya think?
quote:
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???
It means that GR predated QM and Einstein never really had the chance to get comfortable with QM. I don't have to take that same path. Just because *you* want to compartmentalize GR and QM into separate things, they aren't necessarily separate. The holy grail of physics is the search for a grand unified field theory that would tie the two together.
quote:
Gravitons are not a part of General Relativity.
So what? Neutrino are not a part of general relativity either and you didn't say a word about those particles. Why did you selectively get uptight about gravitons and not neutrinos?
quote:
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.
So we should not even be seeking a grand unified field theory because you say so? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 11:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
A blatant falsehood. Here is the rest of the list again:
In this thread, we're debating the merits of BB theory Dave, not slam theory. I'll be happy to get into these mostly rhetorical questions the moment you start naming the mystery fields of your inflation and expansion stages. The only legitimate questions on your list involve red shift issues and I've given you some ideas already. I'll be happy to continue answering the qustions I can answer the moment you start answering some of my direct questions.
You're essentially attempting to divert the attention away from the gaping holes and unidentified fields in BB theory by looking for something that remains unanswered in a slam theory. I'll play your game Dave. This thread has nothing to do with my theories or my beliefs, only BB theory. I only provided a slam idea to show that there are alternatives to a bang theory. You can't support BB theory by attacking another theory Dave, you can only support your own theory by defining the fields and moving the theory out of the realm of metaphysics. See how this game works now Dave?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/07/2006 12:03:06 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:46:58 [Permalink]
|
After your last reply to me Michael, I can only conclude that you are not aware of what you are writing, you forget what you write immediately after writing it, or you are a barking lunatic.
Trying to have any sort of dialog with you is an exercise in futility. Yet it is strangely fun to poke holes in your outlandish theories - it is very odd....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:47:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In this thread, we're debating the merits of BB theory Dave, not slam theory.
Sorry, Michael, but you closed off that escape hatch all by yourself by proclaiming that we should see which theory answers more questions with "real" data.quote:
I'll be happy to get into these mostly rhetorical questions the moment you start naming the mystery fields of your inflation and expansion stages.
I did already. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?quote:
The only legitimate questions on your list involve red shift issues and I've given you some ideas already.
I don't want ideas, I want answers, just like you demand.quote:
I'll be happy to continue answering the qustions I can answer the moment you start answering some of my direct questions.
I've answered all of your questions, you just refuse to acknowledge that.quote:
You're essentially attempting to divert the attention away from the gaping holes and unidentified fields in BB theory by looking for something that remains unanswered in a slam theory.
No, I've answered your questions by identifying the field. I've even demonstrated that many of the "gaping holes" you're pointing to aren't even a part of Big Bang theory. You're just attempting to renege on the "contest" you set up with your list of questions and answers.quote:
This thread has nothing to do with my theories or my beliefs, only BB theory.
That is blatantly false, or will you admit to making a completely irrelevant post when you answered your own questions?quote:
I only provided a slam idea to show that there are alternatives to a bang theory.
It's only an alternative if it explains the same observations. BS theory doesn't do any such thing.quote:
You can't support BB theory by attacking another theory Dave, you can only support your own theory by defining the fields and moving the theory out of the realm of metaphysics.
And you can't poke holes in Big Bang theory by demanding that there be a "force" when Big Bang theory doesn't posit a force, Michael.quote:
See how this game works now Dave?
And I thought you said that insults were illustrative of an argument in crisis, Michael. I guess you prove yourself correct by being so condescending. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:49:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If we do not entertain and explore the possibility that the most popular current theories can be falsified, and we offer no choices in our classrooms, and we treat the old theories differently than new theories, then there is no level playing field.
Since when does reality provide a level playing field?quote:
If we present only one idea in a college classroom, then there is only limited information made available to students and they cannot make informed decisions.
Informed decisions about what, exactly? What is it, precisely, that an English History grad student gains by having been exposed to more than one "cosmic origins" theory in a class taken only to get a required credit? What need does anyone who isn't interested in cosmology have in doing the hard work required to gain enough knowledge to make a truly informed decision? Are you suggesting that not only should all college undergrads be exposed to lots of ideas (which is why liberal arts majors still require some science credits), they should all become polymaths within four years?quote:
Each theory has to be tested against every new observation as they become available, and there should be some competition in the classroom IMO.
The proper place for scientific competition is in the appropriate science journals and conventions, because college undergrads are unlikely to make any significant additions to the knowledge base. Scientific theories aren't generally created in any classroom, anyway.quote:
A good case in point is how do we grade various "creation concepts"? What makes a "bang" explanation quantifyably "better" than a "slam" explanation?
Its predictions follow necessarily from its premises.quote:
If BB theory can't even name the force or the "field" that drives something as critical to the theory as inflation and expansion, then what good is it in any non metaphysical sense?
It does name the field, you just refuse to accept that fact.quote:
I have tried to demonstrate that there is at least one additional (I know of another one too by the way) "scientific" way to explain the observations we see in satellite images, using real objects, and known laws of physics. There is no "force" or field that is left "undefined" in my version of a slam theory.
So what? The CMBR doesn't follow necessarily from BS theory premises. You can't even tell us how much mass turned into "quark soup," so that's one gigantic undefined quantity.quote:
More importantly there is no need to explain how "matter" formed from "unknown energy" in and "undefined way" using a slam theory.
There isn't any unknown energy or unknown mechanisms in Big Bang theory, either, you just refuse to accept that fact.quote:
There is no evidence that suggests that quasars and iron did not predate and survive the events at 0,0,0,0.
I have no evidence to suggest that you predate 1992 - does that mean you're necessarily only 14, Michael? Besides which, the CMBR is evidence that the entire universe was at 3,000 K and cooling down, and that at that time, no heavy elements existed, as we've discussed before. You just handwave all that away with talk about undefined gravitational effects on the CMBR.quote:
Few questions that could be answered are left unanswered in a slam theory...
How much mass was in each supermassive black hole, Michael? How much was converted to heat at the time of the BS? How does BS theory necessarily predict a highly uniform CMBR? Why do we see the CMBR at all? Where was the center of the BS? What will become of our universe?quote:
...and all the forces and fields are on the table for everyone to inspect. It's a much more "complete" theory in that way.
It may be more complete, but since it doesn't require there to be a CMBR, then it doesn't explain the CMBR.quote:
To then herd every student of astronomy for the next 20 years into an "old idea" only because it is "comfortable" regardless of what parts are left undefined is scientifically indefensible. You have favoritism being shown to an "incomplete" theory, over one that leaves no fields or forces undefined. That isn't logical, nor is it fair to the students.
What's not fair to students is to claim that any scientific theory is complete. The reason that there's lots of research going on today into Big Bang theory and inflation is because the theory isn't complete - and never will be. That must be the reason that there's little (if any) "Big Slam" research happening: because the theory is "complete," all of our questions can be answered. So let's hear some answers.quote:
What objective grading system shall we apply then, particularly when some theories leave highly critical forces and fields, and processes completely and utterly undefined?
You only think that, Michael, because you refuse to listen to what we've been saying to you.quote:
What exactly makes the maliable yet undefinable bang theory so much more attractive than a modifyable slam theory that puts all the forces on the table?
Because BS theory doesn't actually explain the CMBR.quote:
Sure, as long as one wishes to be considered a "rebel" and risk |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:50:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
BS theory
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:51:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I am flaberghasted!?! Michael do you really think it is just my view that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are independent??
[sarcasm]Ya, that's exactly what I think furshur. [...] It was a very stupid statement on your part. Do you know any other tricks besides strawmen and pety insults?[/sarcasm]
And then in the very same post:
quote:
Just because *you* want to compartmentalize GR and QM into separate things, they aren't necessarily separate.
Michael, you first deny believing the fact that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are independent of one another is merely a matter of opinion, and then in the next breath claim it is merely a matter of opinion.
How much more confused and muddled can your statements be?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:52:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Neutrino are not a part of general relativity either and you didn't say a word about those particles. Why did you selectively get uptight about gravitons and not neutrinos?
You didn't claim that neutrinos were necessary for General Relativity. You did state that about gravitons, however. It's completely wrong, and your refusal to acknowledge that is a symptom of your inability to admit mistakes. Just like how you go silent every time I mention the fact that you were wrong in calling kinetic energy a force. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 12:56:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
BS theory
I'd just like to note that I didn't chose the words "Big Slam" to describe Michael's speculation, he did that all by himself. |
- 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 - 07/07/2006 : 13:15:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No kidding. What makes you think that a working GUT will be quantum in nature?
Because the rest of the universe is quantum and electromagnetic in nature. Even when we talk about photons, we speak in terms of "electromagnetic spectrum". Everyting travels as a wave of particles, including light.
quote:
And what if the GUT isn't itself a quantum theory?
Then it would be the single exception in a quantum universe and I would have to reconsider my beliefs. I do however have the advantage of time as it relates to Einstein and his theories. I can see how QM has made inroads at every level of science, including computer science. I have "faith" in QM I suppose.
quote:
quote:
Woah! You don't know that!
Yes, I do, since General Relativity works just fine without itself positing gravitons.
That is ultimately irrelevant. GR still requires mass. You can't take the mass out of "space" and call it "spacetime" anymore. GR is an excellent functional method to explain gravitational fields and the behavior of time in the presense of gravitational fields. You can't take the gravitational fields out of GR still discuss "spacetime". "Spacetime" does not become "flat" when you remove all mass, it becomes non existent. You can't talk about a theory that relates mass to time and then try to remove all the mass. If ceases to apply the moment you remove all the mass Dave. It really matters very little whether or not you believe that gravitons exist. You still cannot remove all the mass of the universe from the universe and then try to apply GR to it. It simply won't function without mass, regardless of your position on the carrier particle issue.
quote:
No, it would mean that Einstein's theory of gravity can explain a quantum phenomenon without actually using quantized values itself. Just like Newton's F=ma doesn't depend upon quanta of force.
I'd say that is true as well.
quote:
No, I'm not even presuming any particular outcome, Michael, while your argument depends upon one.
No it doesn't. It only depends on the fact that you need mass in order to apply GR. GR won't function without mass. You're the one trying to remove all the mass and particles from space and still trying to call it "spacetime", not me. There is no such thing as "spacetime" in the absense of mass and energy, and GR will not function without them.
quote:
quote:
No, I pin my faith on QM and the advancement of science over time.
That's unscientific.
No, it's not "unscientific" in the least. I've seen computer sciences benefit from QM. I have every reason to put "faith" in the idea. Many individuals, not just me, put faith in the notion of a GUT at the end of the QM rainbow. I'm an optimist, but it's not "unscientific", or Wiki wouldn't even mention gravitons at all.
quote:
No, your questions have been answered already, you just reject the answers for irrational reasons.
Dave, if you never identify the fields, then it is not irrational from me to reject the handwave of "unknownfieldsdidit". That isn't even a valid answer from my point of view. There is no answer to reject. You are essentially saying "I dunno". Ok, I see that you don't know. It's not surprising mind you since it's not personal. No one seems to know. Since no one seems to know, I'd rather go with an theory I can actually explain.
quote:
No, they're not, since you're demanding answers to questions that Big Bang theory doesn't even try to answer.
It doesn't even try to determine the kinds of fields and forces that drove inflation and expansion? How is that a valid theory then at all?
quote:
My questions about acceleration came first.
What really bugs me about the coronal loop issue is that I know that you know that I am right and you just refuse to admit it out of pure spite. I can't even get into a serious discussion of satellite image interpretation with you without first identifying the light source of the images and without talking about the heat distrubution in the solar atmsophere. We can't even discuss satellite images in earnest until we cross that bridge. You however are just standing on the bridge, and you won't commit one way or the other. It's utterly aggravating behavior since my only real skills are related to satellite image analysis, and we can't go there because you don't want to go there. Instead you want to go *anywhere* else.
quote:
quote:
...not to mentional a rational gas model explanation for running difference images.
That's an irrational question in the first place.
It is not! I've got calls to make. I wade through the rest later to see if there is anything specific worth responding to that isn't just another round of rehash.
[Formatting: Quoting-hierarchy fixed. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/08/2006 14:14:14 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:19:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You didn't claim that neutrinos were necessary for General Relativity.
Actually what I claimed was that you can't take all the mass and particles out of space and talk about "spacetime". GR relates to "real" things Dave, not metaphysical entities.
Your refusal to acknowledge this point is making this conversation pointless. You won't define the metaphyscial "fields" in any way. You won't define timelines or sizes of anything. You won't admit that you need mass for QM to function. You refuse to acknowledge any of that. Instead you're both nitpicking over whether or no gravitons exist, never mind the fact that without real particles of some sort, GR is meaningless as a field of study. The irrational behavior around here is simply off scale. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
