|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2006 : 17:08:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Fine, if it suits you to hear me say it, "gravitons are not a part of GR". Ok?
Nice.
Now say, "kinetic energy is not a force."
Because at this point, the validity of Big Bang theory is no longer the subject of this thread. Clearly, the subject of the thread for everyone posting here but you, Michael, is your failure to present good science in a thread which you say should be about good science. As far as I'm concerned, my purpose in posting here is not to defend Big Bang theory (I haven't been, anyway, because you haven't been able to criticize it), but to demonstrate the impossibility of having a serious science discussion with someone who makes claims like:- kinetic energy is a force,
- light travels as a "wave of particles,"
- some undefined "acceleration" may distort our measurements of "density,"
- "You can't take gravitational fields and gravitons out of GR Dave!,"
- evolution is a theory of physics,
- I [Dave] attempted to explain the existence of mass using General Relativity,
- Big Bang theory should explain things at t=0,
- General Relativity relates mass to time,
- etc.
Now you've "fixed" one of those claims, but how about the rest?
Really, there's no reason for me to do any work here to demonstrate the correctness of any claim I might make when you refuse to do the same, and even try to present convoluted "logic" to defend your unscientific statements, 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 17:25:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Your arrogance evidently knows no bounds Dave.
Arrogance is a pretense to knowledge one does not possess. You are projecting.quote:
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".
I never claimed that, I said I named the inflaton field, but apparently you can't distinguish the lack of a letter I.quote:
You created nothing but a circular feeback label here Dave.
What the heck is a "circular feedback label?"quote:
When I said "name" the field...
Yes, first you asked me to name it. As soon as I did, you then claimed that I never defined it (even though I told you where it was defined). Now, you're demanding that I prove its existence. Move the goalposts much, Michael?quote:
...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!
I didn't make it up. Much smarter people than I are working on models of the inflaton field, which you would know if you'd followed the links to the Lambda-CDM model information.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".
Okay, if that's your standard of behaviour for this thread, let's see you do all that yourself for the existence of electromagnetic fields. "Preferably your answers would involve a lot of math and would be based on the principles of QM."quote:
As it is, you simply *assumed* that inflation actually exists as a field and pretended that nobody was looking.
Not at all. You asked about what Big Bang theory posits as the driver of inflation, and I told you. It's like you're trying to imply that I invented Big Bang theory, and am presenting it fresh to the world in this thread.quote:
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.
Since the flatness and horizon of the universe don't make any sense without an inflationary period, what more do you want? How does BS theory cope with the flatness and horizon problems?quote:
Prove inflation exists. Then prove it exists as a field Dave.
Prove electromagnetism exists, Michael. Then prove it exists as a field. Otherwise, you won't be able to claim that electromagnetism drives expansion in your BS theory.quote:
Then you can swear a me some more if it makes you feel better.
What, a slang word for "donkey" is swearing now? Geez, you're really delicate. |
- 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 - 07/07/2006 : 21:30:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok, but that this is also predicted in slam theory. No advantage there.
No, BS theory does not predict the cosmological redshift we see, it obviously predicts motion away from (more or less) a point source somewhere in space. Only if you assume that Earth resides at that location does BS theory predict our observations of cosmological redshift. Not only that, but since you claim that galactic motions are caused by some magnetic field throughout the universe, you're going to have to explain the geometry of a magnetic field such that galaxies are rather uniformly accelerated away from us. Is it some sort of monopole (which has never been detected)?quote:
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.
If it's not a necessary condition for the BS to have happened, then it doesn't support BS theory if BS theory can "explain" it. It is only those phenomena which would necessarily be seen which support a theory.quote:
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.
Ah, you've got "faith" rather than science going for you.quote:
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.
Utter nonsense. Cosmological element abundances aren't based on any solar model, they're measured on a galactic basis. Sure, sure, you'll cough up that old "photon count" nonsense again, despite the fact that Dr. Manuel's "corrections" to solar abudnances are based upon photon counts.quote:
Once we remove that assumption, your abundance numbers fall apart.
No, once we remove your assumption, your argument is seen to be based upon wishful thinking.quote:
That leaves you with exactly two predictions that have been "tested" and proven to be right.
No, still three major ones. Especially since the CMBR is so precisely predicted, and BS theory can't account for it at all.quote:
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...
BS theory doesn't actually explain that, it just assumes that a couple of mythical, magical blackholes had the correct matter/antimatter proportions (where the heck did they come from, a magical universe where matter and antimatter don't annihilate each other?) to result in this universe. At least Big Bang theorists have the honesty to say "we don't know why there's so much more matter than antimatter, it's a serious issue and we're looking into it," instead of inventing a scenario which doesn't make any sense whatsoever and fails to match all other observations. It's not good enough to explain these various things in isolation, Michael, your explanations have to be consistent (or at least non-contradictory) with each other, too.quote:
...and the second is that we should see galactic redshift.
No, because to claim the redshift that we do observe as a prediction of BS theory, you need to plead that we occupy a special place in the universe: right smack dead center. Anywhere else, as furshur noted, and we'd see more redshift in some directions than in others.quote:
All I need to do now is explain the GMBR and I should be ahead by one.
And you won't be able to explain the CMBR without asking us to believe that (A) the light is so old that it's been bouncing around the universe many, many times and so appears to be coming at us from all directions (think Rayleigh scattering), and thus (B) it isn't actually redshifted, but whatever caused it actually was a near-perfect blackbody at 3.5 Kelvin.
Actually, I've done your work for you, Michael: under BS theory, we necessarily occupy the spot at which the "explosion" occured, and the CMBR isn't redshifted light at all, but instead some leftover radiation that was emitted septillions of years ago from an object which no longer exists. All that's left for you to do is explain how we are so lucky to be at the center of the BS, how the center of the BS happened to coincide with the center of the tremendously huge magnetic monopole suggested by BS theory, and to make some guesses as to what might possibly have emitted so much 3.5 K radiation.
Oh, and you've also got to explain, if the universe is infinitely old, why there are any lighter elements left in it at all, and also how the universe has avoided succumbing to the laws of thermodynamics. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 21:37:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
and
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
In turn, it is the scientific community that is responsible for considering different theories.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Why aren't they doing that in the classroom?
Making informed decisions requires more than just being presented with multiple options. Those making the decisions need the tools and knowledge to make these decisions. To imply that high school students could do so would be abusrd. For college students, only slightly less so. This is not a personal attack Michael, but have you personally attended university/college in order to achieve a physics qualification? I have, and I can tell you there were huge gaps in my knowledge after graduating (in fact, there still are). There's scarcely enough time to cover the basics, and most students can't even get properly comfortable with those, and I'm talking about students who are specialising in physics. It's orders of magnitude worse for students taking physics as an aside/prerequisite for other areas of specialty.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Who are we talking about? Surely not scientists who are part of the scientific community, as they already have that option.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Funding is a real problem for scientists, regardless of "popularity", even (in fact, especially) in fields of study that are "flavour of the month", competition is fierce. However, true scientists will respect the scienctific method and science itself more than their "professional standing". In fact, paying too much attention to one's professional standing, to the detriment of the science, will usually result the diminishing of the former.
Being a "rebel" who turns out to be correct would be a very positive scenario for most scientists. If all you want to do is maintain some pre-determined status-quo, why be a scientist at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
So you would rather just accept theories without verification?
At this point, why not? His electrical theories about the aurora were proven right.
He was right about one thing, so you believe it's safe to assume he will be right on others? What if it turns out he was wrong on some issues, would you immediatelty assume he'll be wrong on others? Would you care to take that premise for a spin?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Read your own words there Michael. You don't know if "slam theory" supports this premise, you haven't modelled, or seemingly even seriously considered the various mechanisms that may do so, but you're sure it's a logical prediction of your favourite theory. That's about as un-scientific as it gets. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2006 : 22:09:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
He was right about one thing, so you believe it's safe to assume he will be right on others? What if it turns out he was wrong on some issues, would you immediatelty assume he'll be wrong on others? Would you care to take that premise for a spin?
Actually, we already know the results.
From the same pages Michael directed us to for evidence of Birkeland's "solar model" (from a book by Birkeland), we also found out that Birkeland considered coronium to be a new element (found only in the Sun's corona, hence the name), but it turned out that the spectral lines upon which the existence of coronium were hypothesized were actually those of highly ionized iron and nickel.
Also (from those same pages), we learned that Birkeland thought that it was possible that Saturn's rings were an electrical discharge through a gas, since he was able - through clever manipulation of the magnetic field around his non-ferric conductor - to make images which look like Saturn's rings. (That is, of course, the same basis upon which Michael claims that Birkeland presented a "solar model," but most of us know - Michael excluded - that models are not based upon sheer similarity of appearance.)
So, from what we know today, and including Birkeland's masterful deduction of the cause of Earth's aurorae, Birkeland was batting 1-for-3, at best. Bring up his two blatant failures, though, and Michael goes strangely silent.
But on that basis - sheer probability from prior history - Birkeland's alleged solar "model" can't be granted more than a 33% chance of being true. Luckily for Birkeland, he wasn't actually presenting a solar model, but instead basically just said, "based on what I see here, if the Sun were a giant conductor, some of its electrical properties would have to be thus-and-such." It is only Michael (at least here on the SFN) who has taken such humble speculation and elevated it to a "theory." |
- 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 - 07/08/2006 : 09:22:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Making informed decisions requires more than just being presented with multiple options. Those making the decisions need the tools and knowledge to make these decisions.
Absolutely. By all means, teach them math and physics and elecronics and art.
quote:
To imply that high school students could do so would be abusrd.
My 13 year old daughter will be just starting high school this fall. She already knows more about *different* types of solar models, and creation concepts than most kids that are finishing high school. It's absurd to believe that children cannot make intelligent choices and even make their own discoveries John. We can't limit their information to what *you* think we should teach them and then expect them to be outrageously creative in the future. If we expose them to enough ideas, they can make up their own minds *with the guidance* of their teachers. What I resent is that only *one* creation story is proposed in astronomy and only one possible solar model is presented in astronomy, as though we can arrogantly kick back already and assume we know how it all began and how the universe works. Come on!
Ya, maybe there is some mythical, magical inflation field that can't be demonstrated because it's somehow shy around matter, even while it somehow manages to move stars. Then again, maybe the unverse is electric, and electromagnetic in nature, and electromagnetism drives expansion. Maybe redshift can't be *completely* defined by velocity and distance. These are things that our children should know as they try to understand our unviverse. By herding them into one mindset, it begins to appear that we have everything all figured out already. That is dangerous IMO.
quote:
For college students, only slightly less so.
I think this is so arrogant, it's sad. College students may not have all the "history" and "baggage" and some knowledge that accumulates over time, but that can be both good and bad. It's a time of exploration, of interest at a professional level. There is creativity and intelligence galore in college students. If anyone is going to figure out a theoretical way to provide evidence to demonstrate "inflation", it's going to be these kids. I think you're selling people short and "assuming" that age always brings wisdom. It doesn't always work like that.
quote:
This is not a personal attack Michael, but have you personally attended university/college in order to achieve a physics qualification?
I've sat in college physics classes, sure. Computer science was really my first "love" at the time. I also had a pretty strong background in math. I also took some classes in electrical engineering, and some art classes as well. What exact or single skill makes one "qualified" to interpret satellite images and images of space?
quote:
I have, and I can tell you there were huge gaps in my knowledge after graduating (in fact, there still are). There's scarcely enough time to cover the basics, and most students can't even get properly comfortable with those, and I'm talking about students who are specialising in physics. It's orders of magnitude worse for students taking physics as an aside/prerequisite for other areas of specialty.
I freely admit that I know much more today about science in general than I did when I was in college over 20 years ago. On the other hand I've probably forgotten some of the math and some of the physics I was taught in college. Life has a way of working both ways, and human memory isn't perfect. Again, however, I think you're selling students short. Why should I have to figure out *after college*, that nobody has actually *demonstrated* "inflation" or "expansion" in a lab and these are not forces, or fields, or real, and therefore BB theory is based on metaphysics? Someone should have bothered to mentioned that in college, or mentioned it in their papers when they presented these ideas to begin with. I would have had a much smaller chip on my shoulder today.
quote:
Funding is a real problem for scientists, regardless of "popularity", even (in fact, especially) in fields of study that are "flavour of the month", competition is fierce.
Sure, the funding is the "leash" that keeps everyone "in line".
quote:
However, true scientists will respect the scienctific method and science itself more than their "professional standing". In fact, paying too much attention to one's professional standing, to the detriment of the science, will usually result the diminishing of the former.
I understand. That is why I'm out here in cyberspace putting these ideas out there. I don't really have a professional standing, so I could really care less if "professional" astronomers respect me. I don't much respect metaphysics, and a lot of them seem to. Most of them have almost no understanding of electricity and couldn't even wire a house, let alone figure out how a circuit works. Are they really qualified to undersand and describe an electric universe? I don't think so. The great part of being on the outside is I don't care about the funding, so I can't be controlled that way.
quote:
Being a "rebel" who turns out to be correct would be a very positive scenario for most scientists. If all you want to do is maintain some pre-determined status-quo, why be a scientist at all?
I hear you on that point John, but I've seen first hand the ridicule and stupidity one has to put up with in order to present new ideas to this miopic minded little "club" that passes for "modern professional astronomy".
quote:
He was right about one thing, so you believe it's safe to assume he will be right on others?
If the two things were not related in any way, I would have more skeptism toward the second idea. Since the models whe worked with produced the effects he was looking for, that makes me a lot more curious about his work and his models. When I found solar satellite images that looked nearly identical to his lab models, then I gained confidence in his |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/08/2006 09:34:37 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 09:29:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]Nice.
Now say, "kinetic energy is not a force."
Right after you say "inflat(i)on is not a field" and "spacetime doesn't exist without mass or particles or fields". How about "coronal loops are hotter than the darker areas of the corona?" What an arrogant child you are at times Dave.
At least I have the common decency to admit my mistakes like a man Dave. This one was even trivial and had nothing to do with my points and I copped to it. For crying out loud! Who are you to talk? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/08/2006 09:49:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 09:32:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Thanks, John. Don't know quite how I missed this, I thought I was up to date with everything in this topic:
quote:
quote:
So you would rather just accept theories without verification?
At this point, why not? His electrical theories about the aurora were proven right.
If that's your opinion, Michael, then I'm done talking to you about science.
Have you even read the first page of my website?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 09:37:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Thanks, John. Don't know quite how I missed this, I thought I was up to date with everything in this topic:
quote:
quote:
So you would rather just accept theories without verification?
At this point, why not? His electrical theories about the aurora were proven right.
If that's your opinion, Michael, then I'm done talking to you about science.
What actual "verification" do you have to demonstrate that the current solar model is accurate Ricky? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 09:50:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I didn't make it up. Much smarter people than I are working on models of the inflaton field, which you would know if you'd followed the links to the Lambda-CDM model information.
Ah, the old standby arguement. And now we all know that you have faith in metaphysical concepts with fancy names. How cute. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 11:02:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Dave did define it. Your refusal, reluctance, or inability to recognize and/or to acknowledge it is what makes you look like an ass.
No, Dave did *not* define it, and I do not have to "acknowledge" a thing that has never been observed, and has never been demonstrated in a lab. Your reluctance to acknowledge this point makes you look like a bully, expecially when you use the term "ass".
If you and Dave want to believe in unobserved metaphysics, that is your perogative of course, and I cannot stop you. If however you expect me to accept that such a field exists, you have to demonstrate it's existence and demonstrate how it manifests itself in nature. Furthermore you need to tell me how to duplicate your *test results* in a lab so I can check your work. Until you do that, I'm not obligated to agree to anything. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 12:31:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
No, Dave did *not* define it, and I do not have to "acknowledge" a thing that has never been observed, and has never been demonstrated in a lab. Your reluctance to acknowledge this point makes you look like a bully, expecially when you use the term "ass".
Since up until this very moment you had never even made this point, I certainly couldn't have been reluctant to acknowledge it. You demonstrate some pretty lousy reading comprehension skills, Michael. In fact, your ability to communicate effectively in general is severely sub-par, especially for a person who seems intent on convincing the scientific world that your lunatic fantasies are worthy of legitimate consideration.
You read completely non-existent things into people's comments, and you totally ignore the things they actually do say. It took you a day and a half to stop misreading the word "inflaton", and even then you didn't have the balls to simply admit you misread the word. Oh, and I use the term "ass" because, as Dave pointed out, your refusal to acknowledge things which have been clearly and repeatedly communicated to you makes you look like an ass.
quote:
If you and Dave want to believe in unobserved metaphysics, that is your perogative of course, and I cannot stop you. If however you expect me to accept that such a field exists, you have to demonstrate it's existence and demonstrate how it manifests itself in nature. Furthermore you need to tell me how to duplicate your *test results* in a lab so I can check your work. Until you do that, I'm not obligated to agree to anything.
You've invented the completely new, never before seen phenomena of matter and anti-matter black holes. It is impossible for you to demonstrate that they exist or how they manifest themselves in nature. Oddly enough you have the audacity to hypocritically insist others apply this criteria to every component of a theory which you clearly don't understand, yet seem intent on debunking.
Although the inflaton field may only be a theoretical construct at this time, how it manifests itself in nature is demonstrated by the way it fits appropriately within the current working Big Bang theory. And it fits because calculations applied to known data, redshift and CMBR for example, bear out the possibility, even the likelihood of its existence. So far this cannot be said about your unsupported notion of the BS collision between two totally new kinds of black holes.
And when repeatedly asked how your silly notion might actually explain the apparent movement and background radiation, you completely ignore the questions, probably because the answers simply do not exist. And all the while you continue to claim that your unsupported opinion should be taught as a valid scientific option to school children? You're crazy as a loon, Michael. 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 16:42:26 [Permalink]
|
Wow...
My work load of finishing up for my vacation demands that I turn the attention away from the forum for a few days and look what happens:
Michael's lack of comminucation skills (and pride) turns the thread into a pissing contest.
Strawmen abound.
And Michael, an Appeal to Authority is appropriate if the Autority named is a specialist in the very field in which he is referenced. A PhD in mechanical engineering cannot be considered an authority in the field of evolution. However, when I name Steven Hawking as an authority on Black Holes and Big Bang theory, then my appeal is appropriate.
Ricky has already stated his opinion of this discussion, and I temped to agree.
When I first read your response to my last post, I was thinking of answering it. Then I considered how many more pages had been posted, and after spending several hours reading them I came to the conclusion that anything I say would be either superfluous or ignored by you. I have better ways to spend my time.
One final observation though.
During these two threads arguing Big Bang and Big Slam, I notice that there has been many linked references to works about the Big Bang, while I can't recall one single proper reference or link to support any of the assertions, hypothesis, or ad-hoc explanations provided for the benefit of the Slam.
A google search for "Big Slam" gets me 23000 hits, and the first hit on cosmology was at the bottom of the fourth page. Refining the search by adding "Big Slam" +cosmology I got 35 hits. After the Skeptic Friends Network links, where is another forum where someone is arguing a Big Slam, with similar misconceptions about BB as Mozina.
The only reference on the first page to anything remotely like the scenario Mozina propose is the Ekpyrotic which is the hypothesis that involves Brane cosmology.
Like I said, now that my holiday has started, I'm finding better ways to waste my time. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2006 : 19:46:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Right after you say "inflat(i)on is not a field"...
InflatIon isn't a field, but it may be the result of the universe interacting with the hypothesized inflaton field, which - if it's found to be true through experiment and observation - will explain the flatness of the universe and its horizon. Don't forget, Michael, that you asked me about what Big Bang theorists say drove inflation. I'm not making this stuff up, nor do I have any "faith" in it.quote:
...and "spacetime doesn't exist without mass or particles or fields".
Why would I say something so blatantly false? Spacetime is a geometry, Michael, just like Newton's 3-D space (with separate time) or Cartesian coordinates. As an abstract metric, of course it exists independently of anything it might contain, just like anyone can talk about a cubic centimeter of hard vacuum.quote:
How about "coronal loops are hotter than the darker areas of the corona?"
I don't know that they are.quote:
What an arrogant child you are at times Dave.
Once again, you are projecting.quote:
At least I have the common decency to admit my mistakes like a man Dave.
Then why won't you admit that kinetic energy is not a force?
Besides which, I know I've made mistakes in this thread. The really telling part, though, is that you don't know enough about the science you claimed to have studied to call me out on the mistakes I really made, and instead all you've done is shred strawman versions of a theory you don't understand.quote:
This one was even trivial and had nothing to do with my points and I copped to it.
No, Michael, the point is that for someone who claims to want to discuss science seriously, you are unable to do so. And when you blurt out unscientific nonsense, it takes lots of people lots of posts to get you to admit to your mistakes. You are the antithesis of a serious scientist, Michael.
Here's that list again, minus the one you've "copped to," with the addition of a few more:- kinetic energy is a force,
- light travels as a "wave of particles,"
- some undefined "acceleration" may distort our measurements of "density,"
- evolution is a theory of physics,
- I [Dave] attempted to explain the existence of mass using General Relativity,
- Big Bang theory should explain things at t=0,
- General Relativity relates mass to time,
- Big Slam theory can explain the CMBR,
- Big Slam theory can explain cosomological redshift,
- Cosmological light-element abundances are based on stellar elemental abundances,
- It's okay to accept a theory without any verification,
- Astronomical results must be duplicated "in a lab" before they can be considered true,
- The "inflation field" has "moved stars,"
- Birkeland "had no idea how to equate a wavelength to an ion of an element like we do today,"
- Birkeland has presented a solar model,
- the fact that I [Dave] mentioned the inflaton field means I have "faith" in it,
- etc.
When are you going to correct these mistakes, Michael?quote:
For crying out loud! Who are you to talk?
One who will admit to mistakes whether or not they're "trivial" or had anything to do with my "points." I'll even admit to spelling mistakes, instead of myopically blundering on. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
