|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/09/2006 : 01:03:35 [Permalink]
|
| So there you have it Robb. You can expect to be treated like a child, belittled, chastised, and ridiculed, the moment you dare to point out that there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory, simply metaphyics wrapped up in fancy wording and pure smoke and mirrors. It's all one giant creation myth. Evidently the astronomy community is has it's own "Holy Book" of mythology, it's own "High Priests" of funding, it's deacons of dogma, and of course the ever popular attack dogs to keep everyone in line. Like I said in the beginning Robb, 's one big fat creation myth based on nothing but pure metaphysics. Evidently if you drop the letter "i" from "inflation", write a theoretical paper or two, and viola, that counts as a "field". Never mind the fact inflaton", with or without the i, has never been demonstrated to exist..... |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 03:57:31 [Permalink]
|
Has anyone else received their cheque from the "Foundation for the Protection Of Science From Anything New"? Mine must have got lost in the mail.
 |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 11:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So there you have it Robb. You can expect to be treated like a child, belittled, chastised, and ridiculed, the moment you dare to point out that there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory, simply metaphyics wrapped up in fancy wording and pure smoke and mirrors. It's all one giant creation myth. Evidently the astronomy community is has it's own "Holy Book" of mythology, it's own "High Priests" of funding, it's deacons of dogma, and of course the ever popular attack dogs to keep everyone in line. Like I said in the beginning Robb, 's one big fat creation myth based on nothing but pure metaphysics. Evidently if you drop the letter "i" from "inflation", write a theoretical paper or two, and viola, that counts as a "field". Never mind the fact inflaton", with or without the i, has never been demonstrated to exist.....
Michael, I've tried to follow along in this debate civilly and to fairly consider your position. I've also done some reading on the Big Bang-- both on-line and in more conventional media (like these things called "books"). Having done that, I find the assertion that "there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory" to be completely incorrect. The best explanation for things like red shift is the Big Bang. And CMBR was, as I noted previously, something predicted by the Big Bang theory. Its discovery earned a Nobel Prize. There are other examples that have been brought up here, as well.
That isn't to say that the Big Bang is the answer. However, it is clear that it is the best way to explain the data observed. You've attempted to argue against these-- red shift, for example-- but I haven't found such arguments particularly compelling.
Clearly there are some difficult topics that are either a) still unanswered, or b) so damned complex that lay people like us are going to have a hard time explaining it, let alone understanding it when it's explained by other lay people-- especially in this format! But I don't think that the case has been made that the Big Bang is an inadequate theory. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 13:17:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael, I've tried to follow along in this debate civilly and to fairly consider your position.
Yes you have. You and John and Ricky and Dr. Mabuse and a few others have all tried to be fair and civil. I appreciate and respect your maturity and your personal self dicipline very much.
quote:
I've also done some reading on the Big Bang-- both on-line and in more conventional media (like these things called "books").
Of course that comment could be considered a bit of a putdown, as though insinuating I've never read any books on the subject.
quote:
Having done that, I find the assertion that "there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory" to be completely incorrect.
Then you should be able to show the *tangible* evidence that demonstates the existence of this mythical "inflaton" field. You should also be able to explain what drives expansion in non metaphysical terms. I'm not asking you for anything I didn't require of myself.
quote:
The best explanation for things like red shift is the Big Bang.
How do you know that?
quote:
And CMBR was, as I noted previously, something predicted by the Big Bang theory.
Ya, but background radiation might be "predicted" in a lot theories, and any theory can be modified to "predict" it now anyway. I fail to see why that single predictions warrants such a big fuss, since nobody can define an "inflaton" field or demonstate one *ever* existed.
quote:
Its discovery earned a Nobel Prize. There are other examples that have been brought up here, as well.
Alfven was also awarded a Nobel prize, and he favored a cosmic model more in line like the one I favor. A Nobel prize is not a guarantee that a Big Bang occurred as you noted below:
quote:
That isn't to say that the Big Bang is the answer. However, it is clear that it is the best way to explain the data observed.
This is where you and I disagree. You seem to *insist* we interpret background radation a single way. I see no evidence that this background radiation can't be explain in terms of a static universe in a "Arp-centric" understanding of redshift. I see no reason it can't be explained in a slam concept as well. To suggest something is the "best" way to interpret the data, we have to look at all the data.
The data you speak of demonstrates no evidence that inflaton fields ever existed. The data demonstrates that expansion has not been explained in BB theory. The data demonstrates that BB theory remains a "creation myth" as these forces and fields remain undefined and unevidenced. To then label a metaphysical explanation as the "best" explanation for the observed data is simply illogical and irrational from my perspective. I didn't rely upon any sorts of unidentified fields or forces. A static universe theory would not do so either. Only BB theory rests on a "creation necessity" that explains how matter formed. Most of the other theories don't even require this.
quote:
You've attempted to argue against these-- red shift, for example-- but I haven't found such arguments particularly compelling.
I'm not really argueing against redshift of galaxies. In fact a slam theory would require such galactic redshift. A static universe theory would not require movement, and therefore it would require a "different" explanation for redshift. I've personally not yet seen Arp's concept of redshift quantified very well yet. I'm therefore willing to "skeptically" lean toward Hubble's explanation of redshift for the time being, but I'm not ingoring or discounting Arps work, or his observations. I'm ultimately trying to leave *more* options on the table, preferably at least three or four options on the table. I'm specifically trying not to "choose sides" prematurely. There may be some merit to Arps objections, and there may be *many* ways to explain the phenomenon we see.
quote:
Clearly there are some difficult topics that are either a) still unanswered,
Well, the "biggies" as it relates to BB theory are the lack of evidence for "inflaton fields" or expansion fields as they are defined by what I will call "average" BB theories. I've actually seen some far "better" explanations for the inflation stage than the one's I've seen here on this forum by the way.
quote:
or b) so damned complex that lay people like us are going to have a hard time explaining it,
I don't really have a hard time explaining a slam model. I can identify the energy sources, the forces that drive the original "explosiveness" of the so called "inflation" stage and I can explain the "electromagnetic acelleration" we see in the expansion stage. I see nothing about my explanation that was metaphysical in nature. The only aspect of a static universe theory that remains "undefined" (not necessarily metaphysical) is a quantified explanation of redshift. I've acually heard some pretty good theoretical attempts at doing that with gravitational effects on photons over a distance. I therefore would not discount a static universe model either at this point in time. In fact the only creation myth I've seen that attempts to explain how matter got to this point in "spacetime" that is truly metaphyiscal in nature is the BB theory. That is because it is one of the few theories I've read that attempts to suggest there was a time when no atoms existed.
quote:
let alone understanding it when it's explained by other lay people-- especially in this format! But I don't think that the case has been made that the Big Bang is an inadequate theory.
That's the attractive thing about creation myths however. Nobody likes ambiguity. We'd all li |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 13:18:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 13:45:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Has anyone else received their cheque from the "Foundation for the Protection Of Science From Anything New"? Mine must have got lost in the mail.
That was pretty clever John. :)
IMO, Astronomy is a unique area of science actually. It's not like a lot of other areas of science. It's very much still a "hands off" type of science. We can't study the bang/slam event (assuming there actually was one) in real time. We can't demonstrate any evidence suggesting the existence of an "inflaton" field.
Unlike the computer science field where competitition drives almost daily changes and improvements, in astronomy change is often measured in years if not decades. For instance, it took almost six full decades to confirm that Birkeland currents existed between the sun and the earth from the time that Birkeland first proposed the idea. It personally took me 15 years of analysing satellite images to even "begin" to put together a working model of the sun. Changes in astronomy tend to be much more gradual, and only after a great deal of debate. Testing various models requires that we make and test predictions. Sometimes verifying or falsifying these predictions takes a great deal of time and effort. Unlike computer science where you can put things under a microscope and poke and prod at them with instruments, building satellites to look at the stars and the galaxies is intensely difficult, and increadibly complex, and even still we can't poke and prod at anything very easily when it's millions of miles if not billions of light years away.
Science as a whole is very different from astronomy IMO. Astronomy is a very diffent kind of scienfific animal IMO, mostly because of the distances involved and the time that has passed. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 13:46:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 13:57:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
*If?!?!?*
quote:
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.
Yet you've been defending BB theory from the start. You sure have a lot of "diclaimers" about your opinions and the things you defend. If you don't have any "faith" in the idea, then why should I believe any metaphysical, unevidenced "inflaton" field is any better an explanation than tooth fairy field Dave? What's the functional scientific difference between a tooth fairy field and a inflaton field? Let me guess: It comes with pretty math formulas?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 14:21:23 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 14:08:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
If it is just *my* pride that turns things into a pissing contest Dr. Mabuse, perhaps you can explain why that's never been much of a problem on the livesciences forums, and why there has been no pissing contest involved in the presenting of my ideas in that forum?
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=468660&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=478357&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
You don't think that maybe it has something to do with Dave's pride, GeeMack's price, furshurs pride or HH's pride? It's all related to me?
quote:
And Michael, an Appeal to Authority is appropriate if the Autority named is a specialist in the very field in which he is referenced.
Not if his/her opinion is the whole basis for your arguement.
quote:
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.
I'm starting to agree that this conversation is pretty much a waste of time. I was simply trying to demonstrate that BB theory is predicated on metaphysical concepts that have never been evidenced. I've done that now, and the rest of this discussion is pretty much just personal attack at this point.
quote:
Like I said, now that my holiday has started, I'm finding better ways to waste my time.
I hear ya. Then again, if you believe that an "inflaton field" exists or existed, wouldn't it be a good use of your time to provide evidence to demonstrate it? If you can't demonstrate it, then what makes this anything other than an excersize in pure metaphysics? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 14:12:29 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 14:24:14 [Permalink]
|
Michael, your pitching of mud over the fence from the other side isn't working, because you don't know where to aim. You're not hitting anything.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 14:34:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Has anyone else received their cheque from the "Foundation for the Protection Of Science From Anything New"? Mine must have got lost in the mail.
I didn't get mine either so I called them. They told me to quit bitching and asked "What have you done for me lately?"
I pointed to this thread, and they said "Yeah, yeah, The check is in the mail..." |
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. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 15:12:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Of course that comment could be considered a bit of a putdown, as though insinuating I've never read any books on the subject.
That was hardly my intent. Rather, I didn't want to make it sound like all I'd done is read some websites. While there's lots of good stuff out there, there's also lots of crap. And while there are lots of crappy books out there, it's generally easier to discern what's what. My comment had nothing to do with what kind of research I think you have done into the topic.
quote:
quote:
Having done that, I find the assertion that "there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory" to be completely incorrect.
Then you should be able to show the *tangible* evidence that demonstates the existence of this mythical "inflaton" field. You should also be able to explain what drives expansion in non metaphysical terms. I'm not asking you for anything I didn't require of myself.
Perhaps I didn't make this clear-- I am not a trained cosmologist. It would be foolish to think that I would be able to find and explain the latest ideas on these topics. We can assume, though, that very smart cosmologists are thinking about this question now and imagining ways to test or otherwise learn more about such things. Else, we're left thinking that either the entire scentific community is stupid, or that they're on the take from some neferious group bent on having the Big Bang be true.
quote:
quote:
The best explanation for things like red shift is the Big Bang.
How do you know that?
From my reading on what red shift is, and how it fits with the Big Bang theory. If you have a better idea, I imagine there are a dozen or so peer-reviewed journals you could submit your article to.
quote:
quote:
And CMBR was, as I noted previously, something predicted by the Big Bang theory.
Ya, but background radiation might be "predicted" in a lot theories, and any theory can be modified to "predict" it now anyway. I fail to see why that single predictions warrants such a big fuss, since nobody can define an "inflaton" field or demonstate one *ever* existed.
So was the Big Bang theory modified to predict CMBR or not?
quote:
quote:
Its discovery earned a Nobel Prize. There are other examples that have been brought up here, as well.
Alfven was also awarded a Nobel prize, and he favored a cosmic model more in line like the one I favor.
Help me out. Was his Nobel Prize for something that convincingly demonstrated this model, or for something else? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 20:08:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So there you have it Robb. You can expect to be treated like a child, belittled, chastised, and ridiculed, the moment you dare to point out that there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory, simply metaphyics wrapped up in fancy wording and pure smoke and mirrors.
Actually, that's not at all why you were "treated like a child, belittled, chastised, and ridiculed." You were ridiculed because you made arrogant claims about having studied Big Bang theory, yet were unable to put together a coherent criticism of it. And you were insulted by people pointing out your blatant failures in discussing physics (your assertion that kinetic energy is a force is still amazing).
But you can't even admit to the reasons why you were told things that insulted you, and instead invent an old-fashioned "persecuted for my beliefs" rationalization. But the fact is that you were being singled out for your obvious belief that you are entitled to your own facts, and not just your own opinions. Had you stuck with facts, things probably would have been much different.
But it seems that all you've got going for you, Michael, is the ability to misrepresent other people's arguments. Misrepresentation of your hero, Birkeland, who never presented a solar model. Misrepresentation of Dr. Manuel, all of whose measurements are also based on "photon counts." You've even dragged Alfvén into this - and by association plasma cosmology - despite the lack of superdupermassive black holes being part of the premises for that. And, of course, misrepresentation, despite everything other people have said in this thread, of what Big Bang theory is, even now.
(Hannes Alfvén, Cune, won his Nobel for his work on magnetohydrodynamics, and not any sort of cosmological "origins" theory. His beef with the Big Bang appears to have been religious in nature: he seems to have felt that the Big Bang was created to appease religious authorities - "Let there be light" and all that - rather than to mesh with Hubble's observations.) |
- 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 - 07/09/2006 : 21:06:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You don't think that maybe it has something to do with Dave's pride, GeeMack's price, furshurs pride or HH's pride? It's all related to me?
What pride? I have absolutely nothing invested in Big Bang theory, Michael. If it goes away tomorrow, I won't be disappointed in the least. I have nothing to gain by being correct, and nothing to lose by being wrong.
You obviously have a large investment in all of your statements, because otherwise you would have said, "oh, yeah, kinetic energy isn't a force, I don't know what the heck I was thinking when I typed that, my bad," or words to that effect, right after I pointed it out. You haven't addressed it at all, though.quote:
Not if his/her opinion is the whole basis for your arguement.
Who has made such an argument from authority here?quote:
I was simply trying to demonstrate that BB theory is predicated on metaphysical concepts that have never been evidenced. I've done that now...
No, you haven't. The Big Bang theory was predicated on Hubble's observations and Einstein's General Relativity. You haven't even begun to address those subjects as "metaphysical" in any way.quote:
Then again, if you believe that an "inflaton field" exists or existed, wouldn't it be a good use of your time to provide evidence to demonstrate it? If you can't demonstrate it, then what makes this anything other than an excersize in pure metaphysics?
Since when has Big Bang theory been predicated upon inflation? |
- 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 - 07/09/2006 : 21:26:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Perhaps I didn't make this clear-- I am not a trained cosmologist. It would be foolish to think that I would be able to find and explain the latest ideas on these topics.
I think it is I who did not make themselves clear then. It would not matter one iota whether you were a trained cosmologist or not, there is simply no evidence of inflation or inflaton fields. You can be trained till you're blue in the face, but that isn't going to change the fact that these ideas have never been demonstated to exist. I think most folks are under a false impression if they actually believe that such things *can* be explained, or have been demonstrated. They cannot be demonstrated, since there is no direct evidence that they exist. Since there is no such evidence, no amount of training is going to make one bit of difference as it relates to this subject.
It's not personal. It's not that just *you* cannot explain these things because of some lack of training, that fact of the matter is that no human being on earth can explain an inflaton field, since no such field has ever been demonstrated.
quote:
We can assume, though, that very smart cosmologists are thinking about this question now and imagining ways to test or otherwise learn more about such things.
I think that is simply wishful thinking on your part. If someone had actually demonstrated the existence of an inflaton field, we'd know about it. It's never happened. All the intelligence in the world isn't going to overcome the fact that no such field exists.
quote:
Else, we're left thinking that either the entire scentific community is stupid, or that they're on the take from some neferious group bent on having the Big Bang be true.
I don't think either of these simplistic ideas is accurate. I think human beings naturally want to "explain" how the physical universe got here. They create myths and stories galore to explain our existence. Astronomers are no different. They've dreamed up "creation myth", as well. It's not easy for a teacher to profess to be an "expert" on a subject and then to suggest to his/her students that we really don't know much about the universe around us. I think it's just "easier" for humans to have something to wrap their mind around, whereas it's tough to accept "I don't know" as a viable scientific answer.
I don't think there is any giant conspiracy, anymore than there is any giant conspiracy in religious creation myths. They just get handed down from one generation to the next, and that becomes the "accepted" idea.
quote:
From my reading on what red shift is, and how it fits with the Big Bang theory. If you have a better idea, I imagine there are a dozen or so peer-reviewed journals you could submit your article to.
The galactic red shift would be a necessary prediction of a slam theory however. Some of my solar ideas have already been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy, and I'll continue to submit my ideas for peer review. The fact one is published however doesn't mean automatic acceptance.
quote:
So was the Big Bang theory modified to predict CMBR or not?
In a general sense, no. In a specific sense, I'm sure it's being "fine tuned" to fit the actual measured amounts rather than simply relying upon early predictions.
quote:
Help me out. Was his Nobel Prize for something that convincingly demonstrated this model, or for something else?
His Nobel Prize was awarded for his work in plasma physics, and specifically in the area of magnetohydrodynamics, a field he essentially founded. He was into plasma cosmology as I am. He also pointed to a lot of Birkeland's early work, which I also put a lot of faith in. What makes any astronomer today "more qualified" to describe the universe than Birkeland and Alfven? How can you be sure that Birkeland's solar model was not accurate? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 22:03:06 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 21:49:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, that's not at all why you were "treated like a child, belittled, chastised, and ridiculed." You were ridiculed because you made arrogant claims about having studied Big Bang theory, yet were unable to put together a coherent criticism of it.
I explained very clearly Dave that an "inflaton" field had never been evidenced. I explained that no one has offered a physical model to explain how "unknown energy" forms into matter. I explained that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that iron and matter are not eternal. I don't know how I could be any more clear Dave.
quote:
And you were insulted by people pointing out your blatant failures in discussing physics...
What physics Dave? There is exactly *zip* in the way of real evidence to suggest anything even remotely like an inflaton field exist. There is therefore no "physics" to discuss. If you can't duplicate it in a lab, what physics are we talking about Dave? What physics?
quote:
(your assertion that kinetic energy is a force is still amazing).
Your fixation on single sentence and your proclivity for evading the real issues is actually what is amazing.
Nevermind the fact you can't even define "spacetime" in the absense of gravity and mass and fields. You'll focus instead on a trivial slip on the tongue and ignore the real arguement entirely. You'll ignore the fact that an "inflaton field" has *never* been demonstrated or observed. It's amazing alright.
quote:
But you can't even admit to the reasons why you were told things that insulted you, and instead invent an old-fashioned "persecuted for my beliefs" rationalization.
Dave, John has never felt the need to overtly "insult me" in any of our discussions. Nor has Dr. Mabuse, or Cuniformist or Ricky or most of the other adults that participate here. There are really only four (five if you include me) primary mudslingers in these threads Dave, you, GeeMack, HH and furhsur. The rest are peanut gallery comments at worst case.
What amazes me is that you can ignore the validity of my points about "spacetime" requiring gravity, mass, particles and fields, yet somehow feel vindicated because I meantioned "gravitons" in relationship to "spacetime". Assuming that a Grand Unified Field theory is found, my statements may have been right from the very beginning, yet there you go ignoring the fact you need mass and gravity for GR to even work, and for the term "spacetime" to have meaning.
quote:
But the fact is that you were being singled out for your obvious belief that you are entitled to your own facts, and not just your own opinions. Had you stuck with facts, things probably would have been much different.
Well Dave, let's look at the "facts". The "fact" is that there is exactly zero evidence to demonstrate an "inflaton field" ever existed. There is exactly zip in the way to demonstrate that iron isn't eternal. The facts are that we don't know how the universe got here, and if we're going to be honest about it, we should just admit our ignorance. Instead you put "faith" in some sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, that's never been documented to exist, probably because it includes some pretty math formulas. Never mind the fact that no data exists to demonstrate any of it!
quote:
But it seems that all you've got going for you, Michael, is the ability to misrepresent other people's arguments. Misrepresentation of your hero, Birkeland, who never presented a solar model.
Oh he did so. He even wrote about the different ways his experiments might relate to real life solar physics.
quote:
Misrepresentation of Dr. Manuel, all of whose measurements are also based on "photon counts."
Dr. Manuel does not seem to believe that I have misrepresented his work Dave. He's done four different papers with me in the past year.
quote:
And, of course, misrepresentation, despite everything other people have said in this thread, of what Big Bang theory is, even now.
Dave, I'm not misrepresenting that fact that no evidence of any sort exists to support your faith in the existence of inflaton fields. There is exactly as much evidence to support inflaton fields as there is to support tooth fairy fields.
quote:
His beef with the Big Bang appears to have been religious in nature: he seems to have felt that the Big Bang was created to appease religious authorities - "Let there be light" and all that - rather than to mesh with Hubble's observations.)
Well Dave, after seeing the metaphysical side of BB theory, I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. I see no other reason to put faith in metaphysics. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 21:59:59 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 22:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What pride? I have absolutely nothing invested in Big Bang theory, Michael.
Sure Dave, anything you say.
quote:
If it goes away tomorrow, I won't be disappointed in the least.
Then why do you place any value in the idea at all?
quote:
I have nothing to gain by being correct, and nothing to lose by being wrong.
Do you think anyone (besides you) actually believes that statement?
quote:
You obviously have a large investment in all of your statements, because otherwise you would have said, "oh, yeah, kinetic energy isn't a force, I don't know what the heck I was thinking when I typed that, my bad," or words to that effect, right after I pointed it out.
Well Dave, my bad then. So what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
quote:
Many forces exist: Coulomb's force (the force between electrical charges), gravitational (force between masses), magnetic force, frictional forces, centrifugal, impact force, and spring force, magnetism, tension, chemical bonding and contact force to name a few.
I should have said "impact force" Dave, not kinetic energy. It is the kinetic energy that is transfered as impact force, and therefore the slip of the tongue. So? You get all fixated on a single sentence and you utterly refuse to acknowledge the whole main arguement I'm making. It's *so* frustrating! You can't take mass and gravity and fields out of GR, and still have "spacetime" Dave. There is no "spacetime" without reference points and gravity and mass Dave, just "empty space". Of course you never once acknowledged this point, and you continue to defend this nonsense up to this present moment.
quote:
No, you haven't. The Big Bang theory was predicated on Hubble's observations
And slam theory is predicated on it too, whereas a static universe theory is predicated on the notion that Arp did a better job interpreting "redshift".
quote:
and Einstein's General Relativity.
Exactly where does GR predict "inflaton fields"? I must have missed that somewhere.
quote:
Since when has Big Bang theory been predicated upon inflation?
*Your* brand of BB theory certainly *is* predictated on it Dave. You are amazing! First you started by chastizing me for *not* staying current with modern and more authorative BB theory. I'm the one I noted that there isn't even single BB theory to begin with so you would have to explain which one you thought was "authoritative". We let you play the "authority" on what "modern BB theory is all about, and now you wish to slip out the back door and claim BB theory doesn't have an inflation stage? Now you're just playing word games and backpeddling as far as I can tell. First I'm accused on not knowing how it "really" works, and how I should recognize an inflation *and* a expansion phase. Now you're not sure an inflation state happened. You seem to walk both sides of every street Dave.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 22:51:46 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
