|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2006 : 00:05:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I have a few questions regarding the charge repulsion:
Sorry, I missed your questions earlier. It's been very busy at work recently.
quote:
1) Is the outer mostly-iron shell electrically conductive?
Yes, but the crust is also more electrically resistive in some areas, relatively speaking, and certainly more resistive in some places than the ionized plasma that is over and under the crust.
quote:
2) What electrostatic(?) charge does the neutron core have?
I believe it has a net positive charge mostly from the outer crust of the neutron core, not due to the material in the neutron core itself.
quote:
3) What electrostatic(?) charge does the outer shell have?
The inner and outer plasma layers, as well as the surface itself form double layers within each of the elemental plasma layers. The outer and solid part of the shell doesn't technically have a sum total charge. In fact the charge at the surface changes based on the path of current flow through the crust, the alighnments in the crust, as well as the height difference in surface structures and how these surfaces interact with the solar sheath. This combination of factors creates both positively charged areas and negatively charged areas on the surface of the outer shell. It's not quite a simple as assigning the surface a single net charge. In fact the core itself may not even be homogeneously charged either for that matter.
quote:
4) Give a rough estimate of the potential difference between outer shell and inner core.
I don't know yet. That is something that I may eventually be able to answer, but I doubt it will be a "simple" sort of answer, or single figure of any sort. I believe however that the charge repulsion mainly relates to the plamsa layers *inside* the surface that push outward, against the crust and hold it in place. The crust itself however is much more complex than plasma since it cannot realign it's features as dyanically as plasma. In other words, I don't think the bulk of the force of charge repulsion is between the core and crust, but rather between the core and the inner most layers of plasma that are closest to the core itself. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 05:23:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Michael said:
Yes, but the crust is also more electrically resistive in some areas, relatively speaking, and certainly more resistive in some places than the ionized plasma that is over and under the crust.
I believe it has a net positive charge mostly from the outer crust of the neutron core, not due to the material in the neutron core itself.
This combination of factors creates both positively charged areas and negatively charged areas on the surface of the outer shell. It's not quite a simple as assigning the surface a single net charge. In fact the core itself may not even be homogeneously charged either for that matter.
I believe however that the charge repulsion mainly relates to the plamsa layers *inside* the surface that push outward, against the crust and hold it in place. The crust itself however is much more complex than plasma since it cannot realign it's features as dyanically as plasma. In other words, I don't think the bulk of the force of charge repulsion is between the core and crust, but rather between the core and the inner most layers of plasma that are closest to the core itself.
My, my what a clear, concise explanation. So you think this is the type of drivel that should be taught in a college course? 
Still sounds like bong induced rambling.....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 09:30:30 [Permalink]
|
| At times, this process is a bit like trying to discuss solar physics at a frat party. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 11:24:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
LMSAL hasn't been forthcoming with any scientific answers HH. Even when I emailed Karol Schrijver about the heat signature images, he was not forthcoming with any math to support their case, rather he handed me an appeal to authority routine like I shouldn't dare question his opinions.
And yet another dishonest reply from Michael, another lie? We all know by now that his claim of a lack of explanation from LMSAL is untrue, but I guess it's only a lie if he actually realizes it's not true. Of course LMSAL has been very forthcoming with scientific answers, and of course those answers don't support Michael's wild fantasy, therefore he has an obvious motivation for rejecting them. But to simply reject them would be one thing. To live in such ceaseless and steadfast denial that those explanations have even been provided does suggest that he is indeed the victim of some kind of serious mental illness.
To review the explanation for what Michael wrongly claims has not been explained... (How many times is this now?) What we see in 171Å images from the TRACE satellite is the result of the temperature sensitivity curve of the particular filters in the equipment used to gather the data. The brightest pixels in the images typically show areas closest to the peak of that curve, with successively dimmer pixels generally representing areas which are either cooler or hotter than that peak range. The sensitivity curve information is available on-line, and in fact has been linked and discussed in these threads several times already.
But of course the running difference images created using those TRACE images as input are an entirely different matter. There are no thermal characteristics per se in a running difference image because that sort of image is, as explained above, only a graphic representation of the difference in the brightness of corresponding pixels between one input image and another.
quote:
Karol denied knowing who created the RD image, and Neal won't answer my question about the author of the image either. What can I say?
Duh. You can say that knowledge of which specific person assembled the 171Å TRACE data into the running difference output is totally irrelevant to understanding it. Regardless of who created the image, it is what it is, a graphic representation of the difference in the brightness of corresponding pixels between one input image and another.
quote:
I can't even get these guys to tell me who created the RD image, or clue me into any of the technical details related to software processing methods they used and the raw images they used, let alone get them to explain any of the details we observe in the RD composite image. How then could I possibly have any clue if LMSAL actually has a "better" scientific explanation for this image?
Actually the clue about the software processing has been provided many, many times in these threads. And Dr. Neal Hurlburt from LMSAL has also clearly explained "the details we observe in the RD composite image". But for those new to this thread, or those with such sub-par language comprehension abilities that they still don't get it, here's how it works...
Two original images, in this case a sequential pair of 171Å images gathered from the coronal region of the Sun by the TRACE satellite, are used as input. A software program does a pixel by pixel comparison between the input images to create an output image. Darker areas in the output are those which changed to become darker between one and the next input images, and brighter areas in the output image are the areas which became brighter between the input originals. Places where nothing changes between the two input images show as gray in the output.
You see, a running difference image is simply a graphic representation of the difference in the brightness of corresponding pixels between one input image and another. So the idea of heat signatures, light sources, or surfaces, while those considerations may apply to the original input images, becomes a non sequitur when considering the running difference output. There are neither heat signatures nor light sources in running difference images.
And since the original 171Å data is obtained from several thousand kilometers above the photosphere and up, even the original TRACE images can't possibly show Michael's allegedly solid surface, which according to his ridiculous claim, resides several thousand kilometers below the photosphere. Therefore, lacking any possibility that even the original data might show his solid surface, the resulting running difference images certainly can't.
Michael believes that there is a solid surface showing in the running difference output images, and apparently bases that opinion on the fact that it looks like it to him, which is wholly unscientific of course. The better explanation, the actual scientific one, which (whether due to dishonesty or to some problem perceiving reality the way normal, mentally healthy people do) he continues to claim has not been provided, has been provided. And it shows that he is simply wrong in his conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 13:29:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Name a single theory for which that has not occured, Michael. Yes, this is a test, since you claim that modifying models to match better measurements is a "bad thing."
I'll try to catch up a bit today as I get time. I'll likely pick and choose what to respond to since my time is somewhat limited.
The "bad" part of this process Dave is the fact that the failures of the current theories are now swept under the carpet and they are not being discussed in class. Everytime a change is made to the model, the "new" model is presented to the class, giving it an air of credibility because its important "predictions" now "match" all the direct observations. If one is not exposed to the history behind this bait and switch routine, one might easily get the impression that the "new and improved" version "passes with flying colors". Cune seemed to think so as I recall. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, when all the failures of it's sorted history are swept under the rug, it's hard to know how badly BB theory has failed in it's predictions over the years.
quote:
Only if one is so naive that they don't understand the process and history of science.
It's possible to understand the process of science without understanding all the history of an individual theory Dave. It's all the history that becomes critically relevant, and ultimately get's lost in the translation. The list of failed predictions associated with BB theory is not what is taught in class. Why focus on the negatives and why focus on the past? Maybe because it gives us a more "complete" understanding of the poor track record of this theory.
quote:
You think that every prediction of the Lambda-CDM model has been falsified by having two of its predictions called into question?
Did this data call it into question, or falsify it outright? This seems like a lot of "spin" from where I'm sitting. The CMBR failed two very critical tests now Dave that relate to BB theory. When exactly is something "called into questions", and when is it falsified by the data?
quote:
It is too soon, as evidenced by the scientists own words.
But it's not too soon to know that BB theory is the only theory that should be taught in college?
quote:
Name a theory which matches all of our current observations better than Big Bang theory, Michael.
You're avoiding my point. I'm not trying to *replace* anything Dave, I'm trying to expose students to a lot more information, nothing more. If I was looking for something "better" than BB theory, I'd personally start with slam theory, or possibly an Arp oriented static universe concept. I certainly wouldn't begin with a theory that requires an unevidenced and unfalsifyable particle/field and claim it's the "better" explanation.
quote:
It's vacuum energy.
This sounds suspiciously like sci-fi Dave. There is no energy in a "pure vacuum". Since spacetime is not a "pure vacuum", it contains energy in the form of moving particles like neutrinos and photons, and even particles euphamistically referred to as "virtual particles" which may simply be neutrino interactions for all we know. A pure vacuum however, that is devoid of all energy, cannot "add" any energy to the system. "ZPM's" only exist as an energy source in Stargate sci-fi episodes.
quote:
That's more of your dogmatic denial of the evidence, Michael, and this time it is labratory evidence.
Ok, explain to me how a "vacuum" creates the Casimir effect from the "resonance" of unspecified particles? What the hell is "resonating", and how does that process push things together?
quote:
The vacuum energy is driving it. Sheesh!
How? A "pure vacuum" doesn't have any energy in it. If the vacuum has energy, its energy is in the form of particles and weves. Expanding energy waves would drive expansion, not the vacuum.
quote:
Yes, we are sure that the universe is expanding. Both of the "dark energy" theories seek to explain why.
Inflaton fields are now dark energy? What does the term "dark" mean in relationship to energy, and where is dark energy evidenced in particle physics or QM or GR?
quote:
The cosmological constant explanation has the benefit of being based upon an energy we can measure in the lab.
What energy particle/wave are you refering to *exactly*? What are you measuring, and how are you measuring it?
quote:
quote:
How do we test this idea against a more mundain explaination like say a simple EM field?
Show us that this universe-wide EM field exists, Michael, and that galaxies are electrically charged such that they'd be affected by the EM field, and that the EM field is geocentric, then your "simple EM field" will be shown to exist and to match observations and so be a candidate for explaining universal expansion.
Talk about double standards. Evidently you don't even have to show that an inflaton field/particle exists, nor do you have to demonstrate that 'dark energy' exists. You can't so much as even define the size of either of these paricles/waves. You don't have any observational evidence from any lab test to suggest these things even exist. There is no evidence from QM or particle physics or GR to suggest they exist, but you claim they exist. On the other hand *I* have to pr |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 14:44:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And yet another dishonest reply from Michael, another lie?
Do you even know how to engage in an intellectually honest debate without resorting to personal attacks?
quote:
We all know by now that his claim of a lack of explanation from LMSAL is untrue, but I guess it's only a lie if he actually realizes it's not true.
If you mean to suggest that I should buy into the idea that one short paragraph, which didn't even address any of the questions I asked you about, is somehow a complete scientific "explanation", you can forget it. You never even asked Dr. Hurlburt the things I asked you about, just the one thing you figured he might actually agree with. I asked him the same questions I asked you, and he would not answer them or respond. So much for your authority figure and his ability to answer direct scientific questions about the image.
Your whole arguement of dragging Neal into this discussion is nothing but an appeal to authority fallacy to begin with Geemack. His short response to your piss poor question was not a complete or comprehensive "explanation" for the RD image in question. It didn't even address the technical aspects of how the image was put together, let alone address any of the points I raised.
quote:
Of course LMSAL has been very forthcoming with scientific answers,
Bullshit! What answers? Here's the questions I want answered. Who created that RD image? What software routines were used to process these images? What specific FITS images were selected and used? What causes the movement patterns we see in the image, and what creates the consistent features in the image? How does the CME manifiest itself in the composite image?
Until you actally answer any of these questions, you sure as hell can't claim that LMSAL has been forcoming with scientific answers. They won't even tell me (or you) who created the image for goodness sake! How about the processing software routines that were used? Did they tell you that? Did they tell you which images were used? Did they tell you anything other than the single paragraph you posted?
Even if Neal disagrees with me Geemack, so what? *WHY* does he disagree with me, and how does he explain the consistent features of the image? Does he even know the light source of the orignal images, and if so, how in the hell could they blow the heat signatures of coronal loops on their website?
quote:
and of course those answers don't support Michael's wild fantasy, therefore he has an obvious motivation for rejecting them.
The only thing I actually "rejected" was your piss poor question, and the way you phrased your piss poor questions. I didn't even reject Neal's response to your piss poor question! Even I said it wasn't as simple as light pixels representing mountians, and dark pixels equally valleys.
quote:
But to simply reject them would be one thing. To live in such ceaseless and steadfast denial that those explanations have even been provided does suggest that he is indeed the victim of some kind of serious mental illness.
You're fragile little insecure and "mentally ill" ego just *had* to repeat your pety little insults, didn't it? Does your insecure little ego feel better somehow by being such a repetative and predictable jerkoff in every single post?
If that is what you call a serious scientific explanation for a multi-million dollar satellite image Geemack? Is that what you think passes for a serious and *complete* scientific explanation? If so, then I pity you. If this insult oriented dialog is what you would call serious scientific debate I pity you. I certainly pity anyone who has to live with you or work with, that's for damn sure.
quote:
To review the explanation for what Michael wrongly claims has not been explained... (How many times is this now?) What we see in 171Å images from the TRACE satellite is the result of the temperature sensitivity curve of the particular filters in the equipment used to gather the data. The brightest pixels in the images typically show areas closest to the peak of that curve, with successively dimmer pixels generally representing areas which are either cooler or hotter than that peak range. The sensitivity curve information is available on-line, and in fact has been linked and discussed in these threads several times already.
Again you parrot the pixel intensity routine, and you ignored the three questions I actualy asked you about? Do you know *anything* about RD images other than the pixel thing? Nobody asked you about the brightness of the pixels! You seem damn slow to catch on to the fact that I already agreed with Neal about the pixel intensity issue. Get a clue! How about the consistent patterns in the image Geemack? How about the the movements we observe in the image? Do you have anything substantive to say on those issues yet, or are you hoping if you act beligerant enough that nobody will notice you're avoiding these questions like the plague?
quote:
But of course the running difference images created using those TRACE images as input are an entirely different matter. There are no thermal characteristics per se in a running difference image because that sort of image is, as explained above, only a graphic representation of the difference in the brightness of corresponding pixels between one input image and another.
Blah, blah, pixel intensity, blah....
Haven't you noticed yet that I agreed with Neal about the pixel insities? Why are you still harping on this expecially since I already agreed with this part? Let me guess: you can't answer any of my actual questions about the patterns and movements in the image, but parroting this part makes you sound like you konw what you're talking about?
quote:
Duh. You can say that knowledge of which specific person assembled the 171Å TRACE data into the running difference output is totally irrelevant to understanding it.
Pure BS. The fact you would even say something like this only demonstrates that you don't have any clue about RD images.
quote:
Regardless of |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 14:56:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The "bad" part of this process Dave is the fact that the failures of the current theories are now swept under the carpet and they are not being discussed in class. Everytime a change is made to the model, the "new" model is presented to the class, giving it an air of credibility because its important "predictions" now "match" all the direct observations. If one is not exposed to the history behind this bait and switch routine, one might easily get the impression that the "new and improved" version "passes with flying colors". Cune seemed to think so as I recall. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, when all the failures of it's sorted history are swept under the rug, it's hard to know how badly BB theory has failed in it's predictions over the years.
In what sort of class would you have all this stuff taught? What sort of students are your target audience? Every scientific theory has been through the exact same sort of history, so should every science class have to be taught with a detailed history of every theory used in each class?
If yes, that's going to represent a hell of a lot of unnecessary detail for the poor English majors who only take the bare minimum of required science credits. If no, then I submit that such "history of" classes are already required for graduate programs, and serve little purpose at the undergrad level.
Undergrads and non-science postgrads are unlikely to need any of that information, simply because it's unlikely that they will be involved in the scientific processes which lead to new scientific discoveries and modification and/or replacement of scientific theories.
And it's certainly not "swept under the rug" since scientists know quite well that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Current theories are always built upon previous failures. There is nothing different about Big Bang theory than any other theory in that regard.quote:
quote:
Only if one is so naive that they don't understand the process and history of science.
It's possible to understand the process of science without understanding all the history of an individual theory Dave.
That's why I used the word "and" in there, Michael.quote:
It's all the history that becomes critically relevant, and ultimately get's lost in the translation. The list of failed predictions associated with BB theory is not what is taught in class. Why focus on the negatives and why focus on the past? Maybe because it gives us a more "complete" understanding of the poor track record of this theory.
No, it gives us a more complete understanding of the process of science. The current theory only carries the baggage of previous failures as historical interest. There's no reason to count past failures as points against the current theory unless you're also an advocate for things like branding criminals. |
- 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 - 09/07/2006 : 16:46:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In what sort of class would you have all this stuff taught? What sort of students are your target audience?
Astronomy 101. Nobody studing astronomy on even a rudimentary level should ever suggest that BB theory "passes with flying colors". Statements like that make the (gray) hairs on the back of my neck stick straight out.
quote:
Every scientific theory has been through the exact same sort of history, so should every science class have to be taught with a detailed history of every theory used in each class?
No. Not every scientific theory has been through this same sort of history Dave, and none have failed as consistently. More importantly, astronomy in particular is not even a "hands on" area of science. The closest thing we have to putting things under a microscope is using satellite imagery to test these ideas. So far, the satellite evidence doesn't look very promising for BB theory. Hubble and Spitzer forever change our naivate as it relates to galaxy formation timelines.
I'd certainly advocate teaching a static universe theory in Astronomy 101, based on Arps work. My attitute is give students some choices and a whole lot of information, and let them discuss the pros and cons of each idea, and test these competing ideas as time goes by.
quote:
If yes, that's going to represent a hell of a lot of unnecessary detail for the poor English majors who only take the bare minimum of required science credits. If no, then I submit that such "history of" classes are already required for graduate programs, and serve little purpose at the undergrad level.
I'm not advocating any such process for English. In English classes one is typically exposed to all different kinds of literature, not just one kind of literature, or just a single book.
quote:
Undergrads and non-science postgrads are unlikely to need any of that information, simply because it's unlikely that they will be involved in the scientific processes which lead to new scientific discoveries and modification and/or replacement of scientific theories.
I'm really only advocating this type of change in the field of astronomy.
quote:
And it's certainly not "swept under the rug" since scientists know quite well that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
History is full of repeated mistakes however. I can't tell you how many papers I've read that talk about "frozen" magnetic fields in light plasma, even though Alfven chastized that idea and he invented the whole field of science they are basing this idea on.
quote:
Current theories are always built upon previous failures.
Not like the BB theory, or gas model theory. If Darwin's theories had been as consistently falsified by the evidence as BB theories have been falsified by the evidence, Darwin would have been a laughing stock by now. Darwin's theories also weren't predicated on unfalsifyable particles. It's one thing to "tweak" a theory, but when the theory says it will take billion(s) of years for galaxies to form, and instead it we find them within a few hundred million years of the event, it's not longer a minor "tweak", it's a major overhaul. That's like finding the skeleton of a fully developed human being from 3.6 billion years ago.
quote:
There is nothing different about Big Bang theory than any other theory in that regard.
I disagree. The theory of gravity is very testable in a lab, as are a lot of theories. Core components of BB theory are not lab testable in any way, and they are unfalsifyable in the case of inflation fields.
quote:
No, it gives us a more complete understanding of the process of science. The current theory only carries the baggage of previous failures as historical interest. There's no reason to count past failures as points against the current theory unless you're also an advocate for things like branding criminals.
Well, here in California we do in fact have a three strikes rule. How many times do we allow someone to kill and rape before we stop letting them out of jail?
Sooner or later, all these "swings and misses" start to make one wonder if BB theory is even capable of getting a "hit" at all. Even the existence of the CMBR turns out to be a foul ball.
Even if BB theory had predicted *some* things right, who is to say that other theories can't make similar predictions and also be right about those same issues?
All I'm advocating is a more open minded approach to astronomy, particularly since we are only now starting to be able to use our modern satellite technology to help us answer some highly important and profound scientific questions. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 19:48:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Astronomy 101. Nobody studing astronomy on even a rudimentary level should ever suggest that BB theory "passes with flying colors".
I'm sure that as of a few days ago, nobody does.quote:
No. Not every scientific theory has been through this same sort of history Dave...
Yes, every single one. Again, I challenge you to name a theory which has not had "this same sort of history." I doubt you can do it, unless you pick a theory of which you are ignorant.quote:
...and none have failed as consistently.
Why is it, Michael, that we still don't know the exact value for G, or alpha, or a host of other constants? The theories which depend upon them fail every time we find ourselves capable of making better measurements.quote:
More importantly, astronomy in particular is not even a "hands on" area of science. The closest thing we have to putting things under a microscope is using satellite imagery to test these ideas.
Yes, and you expected both the standard solar model and Big Bang theory to have precise answers for stuff long before we could even measure them. That's an expectation you don't have of your own theory, of course.quote:
So far, the satellite evidence doesn't look very promising for BB theory. Hubble and Spitzer forever change our naivate as it relates to galaxy formation timelines.
Yes. Theories change over time, Michael. They all do. That you think this is a "bad thing" is simply a symptom of your disdain for actual science.quote:
I'd certainly advocate teaching a static universe theory in Astronomy 101, based on Arps work.
Arp doesn't even have a theory, just a tautology.quote:
My attitute is give students some choices and a whole lot of information, and let them discuss the pros and cons of each idea, and test these competing ideas as time goes by.
Why not do that where all the other science is discussed, in scientific journals, by people who are actual scientists? Why single out astronomy for special treatment, throwing it open to a popular vote by kids who can't possibly get all of the relevant information in a single semester (which would ruin the point of astronomy 101, anyway)?quote:
I'm not advocating any such process for English.
Don't some English majors take Astronomy 101 as a requisite science credit, Michael? Are you going to have them sit in a corner and draw solar systems with crayons while all the science majors "debate" Big Bang and other theories?quote:
In English classes one is typically exposed to all different kinds of literature, not just one kind of literature, or just a single book.
Show me the foremost "theory of English." That's right, there is none. English isn't a science, Michael. Poor, poor analogy.
Oh, where was that theory of architecture again?quote:
I'm really only advocating this type of change in the field of astronomy.
Why single it out, when it's got so much in common with other sciences?quote:
History is full of repeated mistakes however. I can't tell you how many papers I've read that talk about "frozen" magnetic fields in light plasma, even though Alfven chastized that idea and he invented the whole field of science they are basing this idea on.
Even experts can be wrong, Michael. Your repeated chant of "Alfven invented MHD, so people should listen to him" is simply more religious rhetoric, and utterly lacking in any scientific or logical merit.quote:
quote:
Current theories are always built upon previous failures.
Not like the BB theory, or gas model theory.
Name one theory that is not built upon hundreds or thousands of failed predecessors.quote:
If Darwin's theories had been as consistently falsified by the evidence as BB theories have been falsified by the evidence, Darwin would have been a laughing stock by now.
No, you just don't understand the history of evolutionary theory. Almost everything about Darwin's original theories has been changed, sometimes (like PunkEek) quite dramatically. Even the relative importance of natural selection is in question, as genetic drift may contribute more to evolution.
Yet Darwin is still praised as a genius, because he managed to put the pieces together correctly, building upon previous failed theories (which he even discussed).quote:
Darwin's theories also weren't predicated on unfalsifyable particles.
No, at the time they were predicated on unfalsifiable amounts of time and unfalsifiable numbers of fossils. Once again, we've got better measurements of these things now, and so the theory is quite different than it was 150 years ago.
Hey, do you know what Galilleo's big crime was? It wasn't saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. It was doing so without evidence. Before he published, the Pope even told him that to do so without evidence would wind him up in trouble. He did it anyway, and now bil |
- 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 - 09/08/2006 : 13:44:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm sure that as of a few days ago, nobody does.
This is but the last failure in a string of failed "predictions". It's not first failure, and it won't be the last. My biggest beef with the BB theory however has more to do with the notion of it being based on unevidence particles and fields, not the lastest challenge to the theory.
quote:
Yes, every single one. Again, I challenge you to name a theory which has not had "this same sort of history." I doubt you can do it, unless you pick a theory of which you are ignorant.
Well, it's a matter of degrees IMO. I'm not as versed in the field of evolution, but I don't recall anything nearly as "controversial" that's been swept under the rug in evolutional theory. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what is "unevidenced" in evolutionary theory, or what part has been changed radically since it's inception? It seems to me it's been more of a slow process of "discovery" as to *how* the process works, rather than finding data that directly refutes the concept.
quote:
Why is it, Michael, that we still don't know the exact value for G, or alpha, or a host of other constants? The theories which depend upon them fail every time we find ourselves capable of making better measurements.
But we can actually lab test the value of G, and come up with the same number all the time using our current level of technology, so long as we control the conditions of the experiment.
In contrast, we can't even simulate gas model theory in a lab to see if it actually works as advertized. We can't test inflaton particles in a lab, because we've never actually "observed" them in the first place. The core and important elements of BB theory cannot even be adequately tested at this point in time. They are quite literally literly unfalsifyable ideas. If you disagree, give me a valid way to falsify your belief in inflaton particles.
quote:
Yes, and you expected both the standard solar model and Big Bang theory to have precise answers for stuff long before we could even measure them.
No, I expect that if inflaton particles exist, we should have so way to measure them. If "dark energy" exists, we should have some way to describe it as it relates to particle physics.
quote:
That's an expectation you don't have of your own theory, of course.
Sure I do Dave. I expect to have as many answers as I can have. Some of those answers will take time, but then gas model theory *still* cannot explain the heat source of the corona, the sun's stable magnetic fields. Why then should I be held to different standards? No model can be excluded based on a solar phenomenon it *cannot* yet explain.
quote:
Yes. Theories change over time, Michael. They all do. That you think this is a "bad thing" is simply a symptom of your disdain for actual science.
Talk about unfair strawmen Dave. I do *not* have a "distain" for actual science, or I would not put myself though everything I've been through over the past year or so.
I simply "distain" the fact taht the failures of these theories are swept under the rug, and the history of BB prediction failures isn't taught along with other options.
quote:
quote:
I'd certainly advocate teaching a static universe theory in Astronomy 101, based on Arps work.
Arp doesn't even have a theory, just a tautology.
How can you call his work a "tautalogy", and not call BB theory a "tautalogy" too is beyond me. After all, BB "tautology" begins with a particle that nobody has ever seen, nobody has every measured, and nobody has every needed outside of the theory itself. Talk about tautalogies Dave, that one is a doozy.
quote:
quote:
My attitute is give students some choices and a whole lot of information, and let them discuss the pros and cons of each idea, and test these competing ideas as time goes by.
Why not do that where all the other science is discussed, in scientific journals, by people who are actual scientists?
Because by the time folks get to that stage, they've all been brainwashed and herded into a particular "dogma" package that may not even apply. Unlike "professionals", students are immune from being controlled by funding, and they are immune from a lot of the politics that goes on later in life. There isn't a "better" time to give them some options and alternatives to consider. If you wish to foster open science, you have to practice it early and often.
quote:
Why single out astronomy for special treatment, throwing it open to a popular vote by kids who can't possibly get all of the relevant information in a single semester (which would ruin the point of astronomy 101, anyway)?
If I'm singling it out, I'm singling it out based on the fact that current theories in astronomy have failed as many if not more test than they've actually "passed with flying colors". Students should know that. Students should be exposed to Arps work. Maybe Mecco's can influence redshifting in ways we don't yet understand. Students should be taught this kind of thing, instead of a single dogma set, expecially since our satellite technology is less than 40 years old.
quote:
Don't some English majors take Astronomy 101 as a requisite science credit, Michael? Are you going to have them sit in a corner and draw solar systems with crayons while all the science majors "debate" Big Bang and other theories?
Ignoring the "crayons" pu |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/08/2006 13:50:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2006 : 14:38:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is but the last failure in a string of failed "predictions". It's not first failure, and it won't be the last.
Again: name a theory which has had zero failed predictions. Name a theory with fewer than 100 failed predictions.quote:
My biggest beef with the BB theory however has more to do with the notion of it being based on unevidence particles and fields, not the lastest challenge to the theory.
Then your "biggest beef" isn't with Big Bang theory, but with some other theory that you've dreamt up and given the same name, Michael. You refused to look at the evidence before, I don't see that anything has changed about your attitude. You even presented links to Wiki articles discussing the evidence for the Big Bang theory (which discusses and links to evidence for expansion and inflation), yet still you say that there's no evidence. You have shown, beyond question, that you are incapable of even acknowledging that evidence has been placed before you.
More later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2006 : 15:59:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Astronomy 101. Nobody studing astronomy on even a rudimentary level should ever suggest that BB theory "passes with flying colors". Statements like that make the (gray) hairs on the back of my neck stick straight out.
Since I'm the one you're quoting with the "flying colors" remark, I feel compelled to reply. While I may be "young" to Big Bang theory, I am familiar with the various problems with it through time. For instance, there was a long stretch where the Big Bang theory could only call for a universe that was younger than the earth. That is, observations didn't allow for anything more than 1-2 billion years, while science on earth clearly indicated 4+ billion years.
However, scientists are not reactionary (ahem) and know that data to support a theory often takes time. Especially in the realm of astronomy, where theories often lag far behind the technology needed to test them.
Moreover, you seem to think that any and every pronouncement made in the name of evolution is automatically cannon. Thus, for you, if a scholar postulates X then by god the Big Bang better show X. If it doesn't show X, but shows X+1, or even Y, then let's scap the whole thing!
This is silly. Especially since the Big Bang has such explanitory power. This isn't the thread to get into such things (I defend next week; then I'll have all the time in the world to discuss!). Alternate theories don't. That's why they aren't taught, Michael. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2006 : 18:02:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, it's a matter of degrees IMO.
It is a matter of degree, since there are no theories in existence which haven't failed at least once. You are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, and saying "if a theory has failed this much, it's time to pack it in." Of course, incorrect theories can have fewer failures, and correct theories can have more failures. Thankfully, nobody pays any attention to your standards.quote:
I'm not as versed in the field of evolution, but I don't recall anything nearly as "controversial" that's been swept under the rug in evolutional theory.
Nothing has been swept under the rug in Big Bang theory. In Biology 101, students aren't taught about the failures of evolution, either. It's not the appropriate place to teach science history.quote:
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what is "unevidenced" in evolutionary theory...
I already did that, and you even quoted me.quote:
...or what part has been changed radically since it's inception?
I already did that, too.quote:
It seems to me it's been more of a slow process of "discovery" as to *how* the process works, rather than finding data that directly refutes the concept.
That's what all science is, Michael: a slow process of discovery. Every new discovery in cosmology leads to changes in Big Bang theory, just like every new discovery in biology leads to changes in evolutionary theory.
Because Darwin had no knowledge of DNA or modern genetics, the only things that current evolutionary theory truly has in common with Darwin's theory are the "big picture" issues of common descent, natural selection and the use of comparative morphology to determine probable descent. Similarly, current Big Bang theory is very different from what it was 84 years ago in the details, but the "big picture" issues are the same.
quote:
But we can actually lab test the value of G, and come up with the same number all the time using our current level of technology, so long as we control the conditions of the experiment.
And you ignore the point that as soon as our technology improves, our theories change.quote:
In contrast, we can't even simulate gas model theory in a lab to see if it actually works as advertized.
No, we have to compare theory to the reality presented by the Sun.quote:
We can't test inflaton particles in a lab, because we've never actually "observed" them in the first place.
Yet you agreed that direct observation isn't necessary, once upon a time. Are you changing your mind?quote:
The core and important elements of BB theory cannot even be adequately tested at this point in time.
Then how can you be crowing about Big Bang theory being falsified? You're now implying that the findings of early this week aren't about any "core and important" issues, so why do you consider them so important?quote:
They are quite literally literly unfalsifyable ideas. If you disagree, give me a valid way to falsify your belief in inflaton particles.
And there's that old strawman again: I have no "belief" in inflaton particles, Michael. It's an explanation which is undergoing testing right now. If it pans out, fine. If it doesn't, fine. Inflation is just an explanation, Michael. I don't "believe in" inflaton particles any more than I "believe in" common descent.
More later... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2006 : 20:08:32 [Permalink]
|
The inflation compaint is getting tired, and it I still can't shake the picture that Michael doesn't get it.
Inflation is not a core aspect of the Big Bang. That is, is wasn't something proposed in the early 20th century. Rather it was an attempt in the late 70's (or early 80's) to explain some rather curious problems with Big Bang cosmology.
If inflation is proven wrong, it doesn't invalidate the Big Bang. It simply leaves unresolved some difficult problems. As I noted before, this wouldn't be the first time that there have been problems have been associated with the Big Bang. Yet to date, observations and math have eventually caught up with the proposed resolutions to those problems. While the jury is certainly still out, there is no reason to think that such a robust theory is going to soon be turned on its head. This, despite your glee at every published paragraph that even mildly suggested otherwise. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2006 : 21:31:42 [Permalink]
|
Before I forget again:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Cosmological abundance of light elements, for one.
Really? That's the prediction you wish to hand your theory on? That abundance figure is based on "faith" in the belief that plasmas won't separate into individualized layers, or separate hardly at all for that matter, in conditions that cause separation of elements here on earth. If that's what you whole theory is hinged on, it' hanging by a thin thread.
No, Michael. For one thing, the Big Bang theory doesn't hang upon any single prediction, but like every other scientific theory is built around a preponderance of evidence from numerous lines of evidence.
Secondly, it's been explained to you before that the cosmological abundances of light elements doesn't depend on the measurements of the compositions of stars. You've yet to address that point seriously, and tell us just how mass separation in stars is supposed to affect the abundance of light elements from a cosmological perspective, to show that the Big Bang's prediction is necessarily wrong.
Back up to the present:quote:
If you disagree, give me a valid way to falsify your belief in inflaton particles.
As you've been shown before, one way to do so would be to show that the geometry of CMBR anisotropies fails to match those predicted by inflationary theory.quote:
quote:
Yes, and you expected both the standard solar model and Big Bang theory to have precise answers for stuff long before we could even measure them.
No, I expect that if inflaton particles exist, we should have so way to measure them.
I see: you are changing your mind, and refuse to accept scientific inference as a valid methodology. Okay, then, since the Higgs particle has never been detected, then the standard particle model is based upon an "unfalsifiable, mythical field for which we have no evidence," because that model depends upon the Higgs field, the Yukawa interaction and spontaneous symmetry breaking to give mass to all leptons.quote:
If "dark energy" exists, we should have some way to describe it as it relates to particle physics.
Apparently, you deny that vacuum energy is described as it relates to particle physics, demonstrating more of your blindness to the evidence.quote:
quote:
That's an expectation you don't have of your own theory, of course.
Sure I do Dave. I expect to have as many answers as I can have. Some of those answers will take time, but then gas model theory *still* cannot explain the heat source of the corona, the sun's stable magnetic fields. Why then should I be held to different standards? No model can be excluded based on a solar phenomenon it *cannot* yet explain.
If you want to be treated to the same standards as current solar theory, then you should actually have a theory which explains some phenomenon about the Sun using actual laws of physics with testable variables. You don't have such a theory.quote:
quote:
Yes. Theories change over time, Michael. They all do. That you think this is a "bad thing" is simply a symptom of your disdain for actual science.
Talk about unfair strawmen Dave. I do *not* have a "distain" for actual science, or I would not put myself though everything I've been through over the past year or so.
Your repeated insistence that scientific theories should do things that no scientific theories do today is an example of your disdain for science in general, Michael. You want science to behave in a certain way, and because it doesn't you claim that it's based upon "mythical" fields or "unfalsifiable" premises.quote:
I simply "distain" the fact taht the failures of these theories are swept under the rug, and the history of BB prediction failures isn't taught along with other options.
Then you have disdain for things which aren't true, Michael.quote:
quote:
Arp doesn't even have a theory, just a tautology.
How can you call his work a "tautalogy", and not call BB theory a "tautalogy" too is beyond me. After all, BB "tautology" begins with a particle that nobody has ever seen, nobody has every measured, and nobody has every needed outside of the theory itself. Talk about tautalogies Dave, that one is a doozy.
Then you don't know what a tautology is, Michael. A tautology is circular logic, not missing evidence. It's when someone, like Arp, uses his conclusions as his premises. Arp's ideas boil down to "assuming these calculations are correct, then we can conclude that these calculations are correct." Similarly, your own argument for the photosphere being opaque to X-rays depends upon the assumption that the photosphere is opaque to X-rays.
Big Bang theory, on the other hand, is not a tautology because it doesn't argue that if the Big Bang is true then the Big Bang is true. The assumptions it uses as premises are quite different from its conclusions.quote:
quote:
Why not do that where all the other science is discussed, in scientific journals, by people who are actual scientists?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
