|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:21:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Well, since you're unwilling to take the time to read a post all the way through before responding, it's no wonder that you're still whining that I "won't identify the field!" You're a real piece of work, Michael, effectively demanding respect for your ideas, but then pulling stunts like this which show that your respect for others - despite your protestations otherwise - is zero.
 and |
- 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 : 13:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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?
If you're confused, you have no one to blame but yourself. Folks have been looking for Grand Unified Theory for a very long time now furshur in an effort to tie these two ideas together. As I've explained to Dave already, I do have "faith" they'll find an answer, and I believe that answer and that theory will involve electromatic forces and carrier particles.
It's absolutely and utterly irrelevant to main point I was making, specifically that you can't take all the particles and mass and fields of the universe out of "space" and call it "spacetime". Neither QM or GR will apply under such conditions. Instead of acknowledging this point, you're utterly fixated on the differences between QM and GR and you're ignoring the main point entirely. No mass, no fields, no particles, no GR.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:41:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Well, since you're unwilling to take the time to read a post all the way through before responding, it's no wonder that you're still whining that I "won't identify the field!" You're a real piece of work, Michael, effectively demanding respect for your ideas, but then pulling stunts like this which show that your respect for others - despite your protestations otherwise - is zero.
and
You are utterly amazing at the lows you will stoop to in an effort to go "personal" when your arguements fall apart. You're simply Amazing. I did read it through once Dave. I just didn't happen to recall where I stopped or if you'd said anything useful after that particular sentence. Since you *never* defined the fields, and you refuse to do so, there is nothing "tangible" or "physical" or useful in your arguement Dave. It's pure smoke and mirrors. You don't even know if there is one force to explain both inflation and expansion, or if it requires two. You're one piece of work Dave, and your professionalism is zip. You've got no right to critisise me in any way.
quote:
It does name the field, you just refuse to accept that fact.
Then what is it Dave? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:42:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
I have given reasons why there shouldn't be a level playing field. You have only stated that there should. Please, I ask you again, back up your statements with reasons.
A classroom is responsible for teaching what is currently accepted by the scientific community. In turn, it is the scientific community that is responsible for considering different theories. Don't mix the two up. You can't expect students to be able to make informed decisions about theories until they fully understand what is currently known and accepted.
quote:
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.
Older theories are given an edge simply because doing so will ensure that our knowledge is always increasing. A level playing field does not. It is better to always be improving than to be flipping back and fourth between theories. It is only when we are absolutely sure that one theory beats another can we feel safe to replace it. If a new theory can beat and old on an unlevel playing field, we can be sure.
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.
Why do you insist we put this burden on college students? That's what there is a scientific community for.
quote:
Furthermore, each competing theory has to be "graded" in some objective manner that isn't based on a popularity contest.
If you can do so, you would solve the problem that every philosopher of science has been having for the past 70 years. Good luck with that.
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? 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.
What theory isn't incomplete, Michael?
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. 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.
Great! Can you test it? Rather, can you test it in such a way that other scientists will accept it? You see, science doesn't revolve around one person thinking that they're right. You must also convince others that you are right.
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.
If you want to change science, you must change it in the scientific community. Not the students. |
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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:49:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you're confused, you have no one to blame but yourself.
But any confusion on your part about the BB theory is due to it being a metaphysical theory with no grounding in reality that has simply been adopted by the scientific community due to intellectual lassitude. My lord, you are some piece of work.
quote:
Folks have been looking for Grand Unified Theory for a very long time now furshur in an effort to tie these two ideas together.
But they aren't connected yet, as you claimed. And I'm not furshur.
quote:
As I've explained to Dave already, I do have "faith" they'll find an answer, and I believe that answer and that theory will involve electromatic forces and carrier particles.
Also irrelevant to the claim that QM and GR are not currently independent.
quote:
It's absolutely and utterly irrelevant to main point I was making, specifically that you can't take all the particles and mass and fields of the universe out of "space" and call it "spacetime". Neither QM or GR will apply under such conditions. Instead of acknowledging this point, you're utterly fixated on the differences between QM and GR and you're ignoring the main point entirely. No mass, no fields, no particles, no GR.
Michael, when you attempt to make a point using facts that are completely erroneous, then it makes sense to correct your errors before continuing. It's as if someone states "Because Quebec is in California, then Californians should learn to speak French." And when it is pointed out that Quebec is not in California, the person irritably replies "but you are ignoring my main point that Californians should be bilingual."
The notions that GR requires gravitons or that Evolution is a theory of physics are false statements. They are untrue. You need to stop whining that people aren't letting you spout nonsense and get away with it and start owning up to such errors.
|
"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 07/07/2006 13:54:12 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:49:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, so your theory makes one testable prediction. Got it.
That line really pegged the irony meter considering the only prediction that seems to be have born any fruit in BB theory is the presense of redshifted background radiation. From that one testable prediction you seem to think we can exclude every other possible explanation in the universe. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 13:50:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Because the rest of the universe is quantum and electromagnetic in nature.
So what? A GUT can be a theory which explains quantum behaviour without itself relying upon quanta.quote:
Even when we talk about photons, we speak in terms of "electromagnetic spectrum". Everyting travels as a wave of particles, including light.
No, light doesn't travel as "a wave of particles." You don't even understand Quantum Theory, but you've got "faith" in it. What's wrong with its competitors, anyway? Have you just been brainwashed by your teachers in college, who only presented the one theory? Poor Michael.quote:
Then it would be the single exception in a quantum universe and I would have to reconsider my beliefs.
No, such a hypothetical GUT would be the second exception, since General Relativity was the first.quote:
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.
Yes, and now you're falling victim to scientism. Pity, that.quote:
That is ultimately irrelevant. GR still requires mass. You can't take the mass out of "space" and call it "spacetime" anymore.
Then tell me how much mass there is in a centimeter.quote:
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 is just a metric used to describe things, Michael. It is precisely analogous to the Cartesian coordinate system used in highschool geometry.quote:
"Spacetime" does not become "flat" when you remove all mass, it becomes non existent.
Quote Einstein's theory showing that you are correct, Michael.quote:
You can't talk about a theory that relates mass to time and then try to remove all the mass.
The theory doesn't relate mass to time, it relates mass to spacetime. It shows the relationships between these two independent entities.quote:
If ceases to apply the moment you remove all the mass Dave.
Yes, we have no need of General Relativity when no mass exists, but that doesn't mean squat for the usefulness of the spacetime model proposed within General Relativity.quote:
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.
Once again, you've forgotten what's being discussed. You asked me to define space. Einstein defined spacetime for use in his General Relativity theory. I define spacetime the same way.quote:
It simply won't function without mass, regardless of your position on the carrier particle issue.
And that is, yes, irrelevant.quote:
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.
You're really good at destroying the context, because "your argument" in my sentence above, was your argument that a GUT will be quantum in nature. Nothing to do with mass and spacetime. I make no presumptions about what a working GUT will look like, either quantized or not. You certainly have made such presumptions, and your argument requires them.quote:
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...
Would you also say that there's no such thing as a Cartesian graph without a math function drawn in it? Because that's exactly what it looks like you're saying.quote:
...and GR will not function without them.
Nobody disputes that.quote:
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.
Your faith that science will progress in a certain way is what's unscientific, Michael. History is full of counterexamples.quote:
I'm an optimist, but it's not "unscientific", or Wiki wouldn't even mention gravitons at all.
Wikipedia agrees that gravitons are speculative, Michael.quote:
Dave |
- 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 : 14:01:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You are utterly amazing at the lows you will stoop to in an effort to go "personal" when your arguements fall apart.
My arguments haven't fallen apart - you haven't even been critical of my arguments. You've been critical of something else you've invented out of thin air.quote:
You're simply Amazing. I did read it through once Dave.
Then you should have seen the place where I mentioned the inflaton field.quote:
I just didn't happen to recall where I stopped or if you'd said anything useful after that particular sentence.
Just admit you didn't actually read it, Michael, and it'll be done with. You're just prolonging your misery.quote:
Since you *never* defined the fields...
Yes, I did, Michael. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact just makes you look like an ass.quote:
...and you refuse to do so...
How can I refuse to do so after I've done so?quote:
...there is nothing "tangible" or "physical" or useful in your arguement Dave.
You're projecting again.quote:
It's pure smoke and mirrors. You don't even know if there is one force to explain both inflation and expansion, or if it requires two.
At least I admit to the limits of my knowledge, and at least I don't think that kinetic energy is a force.quote:
You're one piece of work Dave, and your professionalism is zip. You've got no right to critisise me in any way.
I've got a right to criticize whomever I please, in any way I please, just as you've got a right to do the same. I try to avoid making unjust criticisms, and I don't see where I've made any criticisms of you that you didn't both deserve and serve up yourself. If, on the other hand, you're trying to claim that I'm a hypocrite, then you'll have to do better than to claim that I never named a field which I did, indeed, name.quote:
Then what is it Dave?
How many times do I need to repeat it for you, Michael? |
- 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 : 14:05:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That line really pegged the irony meter considering the only prediction that seems to be have born any fruit in BB theory is the presense of redshifted background radiation. From that one testable prediction you seem to think we can exclude every other possible explanation in the universe. Sheesh.
You're showing your ignorance again, Michael. Even after we've discussed them in this very thread, you're just covering your eyes every time someone corrects you. Cosmological redshift is one Big Bang prediction. The CMBR is a second prediction. And the cosmological light-element abundances are a third. There are more, but the evidence for them isn't as well established. |
- 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 : 14:28:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I have given reasons why there shouldn't be a level playing field. You have only stated that there should. Please, I ask you again, back up your statements with reasons.
I've tried to do so for you Ricky. There are some things in science we know with nearly complete confidence. Other things in science we "think" we know the right asnwers. In BB theory however, its more of a wild guess rather than being based on overwhelming amounts of direct evidence. There is a distinct difference between teaching "accepted" electronic principles, that have been tested time and time again, vs. a creation story that can't seem to even identify the fields nor even the required number of fields to explain inflation and expansion.
I backed up my statements with "reason" by supplying you with a reasonable alternative model that also warrants consideration. If current BB theory cannot identify the fields or forces involved in inflation and expansion, then surely a few "minor" hickups in an unrefined slam theory is also acceptable. Logically you have no overwhelming reason to favor one over the other yet you do. Why?
quote:
A classroom is responsible for teaching what is currently accepted by the scientific community.
So you your opinion a classroom is responsible for indocrinating them into the "dogma" so to speak?
quote:
In turn, it is the scientific community that is responsible for considering different theories.
Why aren't they doing that in the classroom?
quote:
Don't mix the two up.
Particularly as we get to college level discussion, I fail to see the value of separating the two in the first place. Can't we simply admit we don't really know and go from there into "most probable" and "least probable" scenarios?
quote:
You can't expect students to be able to make informed decisions about theories until they fully understand what is currently known and accepted.
Nor can you expect them to be able to make informed decisions about theories they've never been introduced to in a formal setting.
quote:
Older theories are given an edge simply because doing so will ensure that our knowledge is always increasing.
I think you're trying to put two ideas together that don't necessily go hand in hand. If the theory is wrong it's wrong, and no amount of teaching a wrong theory is going to "ensure" our knowledge is always increasing. In fact a false idea that is taught as "truth" may ensure that new knowledge cannot increase. There is no guarantee that the old theory was right by virue of being old.
quote:
A level playing field does not. It is better to always be improving than to be flipping back and fourth between theories.
But how do you know it's an "improvment" to write more papers based on a bad idea? I don't follow the connection you seem to be making between being "open" about other possibilities, and some sort of "decrease" in knowledge. I don't see a direct connection between teaching possibly bad ideas and an increase in knowledge.
quote:
It is only when we are absolutely sure that one theory beats another can we feel safe to replace it. If a new theory can beat and old on an unlevel playing field, we can be sure.
Well, here's were things get *really* subjective in a hurry and they get skewed instantly. When did "we" become absolutely sure that bang theory is more viable than than slam theory? What level of confidence is necessary? If I can sufficently address the CMBR, would you immediatly support it's inclusion into the classroom evironment?
quote:
Why do you insist we put this burden on college students? That's what there is a scientific community for.
Why are you removing this freedom from college students?
quote:
quote:
Furthermore, each competing theory has to be "graded" in some objective manner that isn't based on a popularity contest.
If you can do so, you would solve the problem that every philosopher of science has been having for the past 70 years. Good luck with that.
Herein lies the rub. If there is no tangible grading system, then everyone decides for themselves and everything is utterly subjective. If BB theory cannot identify the fields or forces of expansion, then surely it's "incomplete" in comparison to the model I offered. About the worst you could complain about is that my CMBR explanations to date are a bit "vague", but that's nothing compared to the "vagueness" of how energy forms into quarks in BB theory, or what drives inflation and/or expansion in BB theory. Other than the CMBR issue, my explanation is far bettter "defined" in tanglible terms than any BB theory. What then makes a theory "acceptable"?
quote:
What theory isn't incomplete, Michael?
My theory is more complete however. The one phenomenon that could use a bit of tweaking would be the redshift explanation, but I can think of several ways to explain it my way, I just can't choose which one I like best. I'll think about it and post something after work. Assuming I "nail" that explanation, will you consider teaching a slam theory along side of a BB theory?
quote:
Great! Can you test it?
Sure. The predominance of matter over antimatter is one prediction that can be tested. The expected redshifting from galaxies is anot |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/07/2006 14:50:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 14:41:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're showing your ignorance again, Michael. Even after we've discussed them in this very thread, you're just covering your eyes every time someone corrects you. Cosmological redshift is one Big Bang prediction.
Ok, but that this is also predicted in slam theory. No advantage there.
quote:
The CMBR is a second prediction.
It's not really a necessary prediction to slam theory, but I'm sure there is a way to explain the background radiation with slam theory too. I need to think about the shockwaves and and scattering effects in any slam scenario as well. I'm sure it's a logical prediction in slam theory as well.
quote:
And the cosmological light-element abundances are a third. There are more, but the evidence for them isn't as well established.
That last prediction hasn't been well established yet. That abundance number is completely predicated on the faith that plasmas will not "substancially" mass separate in suns. Once we remove that assumption, your abundance numbers fall apart. That leaves you with exactly two predictions that have been "tested" and proven to be right.
It seems to me that slam theory as it stands now has at least two testable predictions that have been verified as well. One prediction is that matter should dominate over antimatter, and the second is that we should see galactic redshift. All I need to do now is explain the GMBR and I should be ahead by one. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 14:43:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Then you should have seen the place where I mentioned the inflaton field.
First you'd need to show that inflation actually is a field Dave. Then you can take the next step and define a field as "inflation". As it is, you have a circular definition that winds in on itself and has no factual evidence to support it. You might as well call it the tooth fairy field. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 15:49:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, I did, Michael. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact just makes you look like an ass.
Your arrogance evidently knows no bounds Dave. Not only will you go out of your way to call me an ass for no useful purpose other than to pump up your frail little ego, but you have the complete audacity to call me an ass while trying to claim that you actually defined the "inflation field".
You created nothing but a circular feeback label here Dave. When I said "name" the field, I expected you to pick an existing field, something we all know exists like an electromagnetic field. I was even open to explosive discharges or a pressure driven inflation models. I didn't expect you to simply make something up that had never been demonstrated to exist in the first place!
Like I said, you first have to demonstrate in a lab that inflation actually exists as a field. Then you need to explain how it affects particles and "spacetime" as we understand it. Preferably your answers would involve a lot of math and would be based on the principles of QM. It would have repeated tests that verify the observation of inflation. Then you could logically tell me that inflation actually exists. At that point you would have a logical reason to suggest that "inflation" is a "field". As it is, you simply *assumed* that inflation actually exists as a field and pretended that nobody was looking. I was looking Dave. You can't do that! You can't inteject the notion that "inflation" exists, or that inflation exists as a "field" unless you have evidence to demonstrate the existence of inflation. Prove inflation exists. Then prove it exists as a field Dave. Then you can swear a me some more if it makes you feel better. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/07/2006 15:52:03 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 16:07:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The notions that GR requires gravitons
Why do you keep harping on gravitons instead of neutrino? My *REAL* arguement was that *mass* and *particles* and *fields* are required to describe "spacetime" and for GR to be useful. You cannot take the mass and particles and fields out of GR and still have GR. That was my real arguement. That strawman trivia arguement is my "assuption" that gravitons were a part of GR. As I have already explained repeatedly however, even if you can take gravitons out of GR, you cannot define "spacetime" in the absense of gravity and matter. That was my real arguement, and the rest of this is just a difference of how you and I view the universe. I view it as a quantum phenomenon, up and down the spectrum, at every level, including gravity. I can't explain the mechanics yet, but I have faith that there is a grand unified field theory to be found, and it will most likely (IMO) involve electromatic fields and carrier particles.
Whether or not gravitons are a part of GR, you can't remove matter and gravity and fields from GR and have anything useful. You certainly can't call "nothing" "spacetime". That was my original complaint, and that was the original debate. The graviton thing is a pure distraction IMO.
Fine, if it suits you to hear me say it, "gravitons are not a part of GR". Ok?
Care to address anyting of any real substance here HH? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 16:43:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Your arrogance evidently knows no bounds Dave. Not only will you go out of your way to call me an ass for no useful purpose other than to pump up your frail little ego, but you have the complete audacity to call me an ass while trying to claim that you actually defined the "inflation field".
Dave did define it. Your refusal, reluctance, or inability to recognize and/or to acknowledge it is what makes you look like an ass.
quote:
You created nothing but a circular feeback label here Dave. When I said "name" the field, I expected you to pick an existing field, something we all know exists like an electromagnetic field. I was even open to explosive discharges or a pressure driven inflation models. I didn't expect you to simply make something up that had never been demonstrated to exist in the first place!
Dave didn't make up anything.
quote:
Like I said, you first have to demonstrate in a lab that inflation actually exists as a field. Then you need to explain how it affects particles and "spacetime" as we understand it. Preferably your answers would involve a lot of math and would be based on the principles of QM. It would have repeated tests that verify the observation of inflation. Then you could logically tell me that inflation actually exists. At that point you would have a logical reason to suggest that "inflation" is a "field". As it is, you simply *assumed* that inflation actually exists as a field and pretended that nobody was looking. I was looking Dave. You can't do that! You can't inteject the notion that "inflation" exists, or that inflation exists as a "field" unless you have evidence to demonstrate the existence of inflation. Prove inflation exists. Then prove it exists as a field Dave. Then you can swear a me some more if it makes you feel better.
Dave didn't suggest that inflation exists as a field.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
And yes, that's spelled correctly.
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
