|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2006 : 14:31:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The "tough questions" are irrelevant when you've just proven my point that your objections to inflationary theory are based upon your religious faith that it is "bunk," and not upon any actual knowledge of the theories. You know nothing about the mechanisms proposed, yet state with full dogmatic zeal that they are "unevidenced and unfalsifyable [sic]." There's no reason to answer your questions, since you've made it absolutely crystal clear that the answers don't matter to you, since your opinion about the theories isn't based upon, nor will it be swayed by, any sort of fact or reason.
How transparent and how illogical can you be? My "questions" were quite specific, and your reasons for avoiding them were numberous. You simply do not have any evidence to substanciate the existence of inflaton particles and you never have had evidence to support them. In fact, such particles are not even discussed outside of your theory itself, not in QM, GR or particle physics.
I'm not the one trying to *enforce* a specific religous set of dogma in the classroom Dave, you're doing that. The only one with a religious zeal here, or an attachment to a specific "belief" is you, not me. I'm open to plasma cosmology and EU theory, and other theories as well since these theories are not dependent upon unevidenced fields. You can whine and moan about me having "religious faith", but I'm not the one who believes in unevidenced fields, and *insisting* that we teach *everybody* that same dogma in school. That's your thing Dave, not mine. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 16:07:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Well, yes and no. No other theory requires "dark energy" or inflaton fields Dave. These things only exist to "prop up" BB theory. If I handed you two unevidenced partcles and fields to support my solar model, you'd just laugh. You certainly wouldn't put up with me claiming there is a "preponderance of evidence" to support them.
quote:
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.
Since a lot of the mass of the unviverse is sitting inside stars and planets, I fail to see how you can believe they are not inseparably linked.
quote:
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.
The separation of plasmas into layers on a sun means that the lightest elements present in the solar atmosphere will *always* be overrepresented in comparison to any of the heavier elements under the surface.
quote:
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.
I showed you two different and critical tests it failed.
quote:
I see: you are changing your mind, and refuse to accept scientific inference as a valid methodology.
No. I refuse to accept that the evidence actually "infers" the existence of "inflaton particles" to begin with. No other area of science requires such particles. If the falsifying aspects of this CMBR ddata are going to be considered, then what about the CMBR data *can* be used to support BB theory, and also "infer" the existence of inflaton particles?
quote:
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.
Well then Dave, you might as well toss out every branch of science, including all BB theory, since all these areas of science are dependent on particle theory, and Higgs particles. I guess we can toss out GR and QM then too.
quote:
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.
Apparently you're spinning my statements to suit yourself again. I deny that any energy exists in "pure vacuum", and I deny that pure vacuums exist in our concept of reality where neutrinos zip through everything by the billions. Evidently you aren't interested in what I actually believe, just what kind of mileage you might get out of some other distraction.
quote:
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.
I've don that already. I gave you two laws of physics that generate separation in plasma, and I offered you a way to test it with STEREO data.
quote:
You don't have such a theory.
This is pure editorializing. If I'm correct about the sun having a solid surface, history will look back and note that my website is a hell of a lot closer to reality than what passes for a "standard model" right now. It all depends on what you figure is most relevant, simplified mathematical models or direct observations to support your beliefs.
quote:
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.
Sorry Dave, but that is simply untrue. I've offered to explain the heat signatures of the corona with my model, something that standard theory evidently can't do. I don't think it's asking a lot to expect LMSAL to at least figure out the heat *signature* of the corona, if not the actually heat *source*. That really doesn't seem like a lot to ask, but evidently it's beyond their ability at the moment to look at bright loops and notice they're hotter than the darker areas.
quote:
Then you have disdain for things which aren't true, Michael.
Ya sure.
quote:
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.
Um, one problem Dave. Why do we need "inflaton" fields again if their purpose isn't only to explain how we get from "primeval atom" to a universe?
quote:
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, to excel at any sci |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 16:30:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
And what "mechanism" did Guth try to use Dave? How are today's "mechanisms" better?
Well it's sort of silly to reject something if you don't understand it. However, I cited 3 article above that discuss inflation. I can download them in PDF and email them to you, if you like. And that's just a simple search from one journal. I can do a more comprehensive search of all sorts of journals where you can read cutting edge ideas and find out what the arguments are. Just let me know if you want to read up on them and we can work something out. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 17:25:58 [Permalink]
|
Let's have fun with linking things: WMAP Bolsters Case for Cosmic Inflation, dated March of this year: quote:
The WMAP science team announced today that it found powerful new evidence to support the prevailing cosmological model in which the universe experienced an explosive growth spurt within its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second — a fleeting moment of hyperexpansion known as inflation. During this interval, the universe's volume probably increased by a staggering 1060 times (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes) or more, from the size of a marble to the size of today's visible universe.
It goes on to note: quote:
WMAP has ... confirm[ed] some of inflation's boldest predictions about the afterglow of the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) ... WMAP results announced in 2003 confirmed ground- and balloon-based measurements showing that the strongest of these temperature variations are about 1° wide on the sky, in spectacular agreement with inflation's predictions.
While I'm not going to pretend that this is the last word on inflation-- it's hardly the first word, your assertion Michael that inflation is untestable and that it makes no predictions is clearly wrong. Indeed, it's spectacularly wrong.
Good stuff. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 20:38:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Oh for crying out loud Dave, your whole arguement regarding BB theory (and much of the solar theory as well) has been an appeal to authority fallacy.
When have I ever supported the validity of Big Bang theory (or mainstream solar theory) upon the number or quality of the people agreeing with it, Michael?quote:
There is no *evidence* for inflaton fields.
Your repetition of a falsehood will not make it come true, Michael.quote:
They only exist in your pet theory, and nowhere outside of your pet creation myth.
Nowhere does a "Higgs field" exist "outside" of the standard model of particle physics. Does that invalidate particle physics?quote:
Plasma cosmology doesn't even *require* a creation event to begin with.
If it posits an infinitely-old universe, then it requires the violation of 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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 21:02:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How transparent and how illogical can you be? My "questions" were quite specific, and your reasons for avoiding them were numberous.
Your questions are irrelevant to my point, Michael, which is that you don't have a clue about the current contents of several mainstream scientific theories. The fact that you needed to ask those questions demonstrates my point (which I've been making all along).quote:
You simply do not have any evidence to substanciate the existence of inflaton particles and you never have had evidence to support them.
Your repetition of a falsehood will not make it come true, Michael, no matter how much you want it to be true. You've been given (and even made use of) links to the evidence, and you choose to ignore it.quote:
In fact, such particles are not even discussed outside of your theory itself, not in QM, GR or particle physics.
What does that have to do with anything, since none of the particles we know of were discussed in those theories 100 years before those theories were created?quote:
I'm not the one trying to *enforce* a specific religous set of dogma in the classroom Dave, you're doing that.
No, I'm not, and in fact have presented lesser standards by which any other theory might get taught, which you rejected on the grounds that the amount of work done on a theory has no bearing on whether it is correct. Of course, since we weren't talking about whether theories are correct, but just whether they should be taught, your objection was irrelevant.quote:
The only one with a religious zeal here, or an attachment to a specific "belief" is you, not me.
No, you're just projecting your own prejudices and ignorance upon me.quote:
I'm open to plasma cosmology and EU theory, and other theories as well since these theories are not dependent upon unevidenced fields.
I'm open to any theory which has a decent amount of evidence to support it.quote:
You can whine and moan about me having "religious faith", but I'm not the one who believes in unevidenced fields, and *insisting* that we teach *everybody* that same dogma in school. That's your thing Dave, not mine.
No, Michael, it's not my "thing," it's what you wish my "thing" were, since it's so much easier to defeat such a lame-ass position than it is to argue against what I've really been saying. I don't "believe in" any unevidence fields, and I'm not "*insisting*" that anyone be taught anything in school.
You're the one demanding "parity" for theories, while the process of science is necessarily unfair. You're the one who has admitted having "faith" in people and ideas, and have been making arguments from popularity and authority like they mean something. You're the one who has been dismissing theories of which you have demonstrated yourself to be ignorant, Michael, in your zeal to see your "pet" theories get more attention. |
- 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 - 09/12/2006 : 07:32:12 [Permalink]
|
I just read a great article in Sky and Telescope from the November 2005 issue. (I have a PDF, if anyone wants it.) It's a nice layperson's discussion of inflation, what it says, its history, how it's been tested, and how it will continue to be tested. I am stunned (well, not really) that the article presents information that is the complete opposite of what Michael has been saying. While on the one hand I've read numerous posts about how no one is working on inflation, about how it's unproved and unrpovable, and all but rejected in cosmology circles (but discussed anyway because it's too entrenched), the article I read features discussion of perhaps a dozen people working with teams of scientists to study inflation. And now, as I noted earlier, new data have arrive that have confirmed some very important pedictions about inflation.
While much much more work needs to be done, of course, reailty is a far cry from the Michael-world where inflation is a crusty old theory propped up by tired scholars who are too intellectually dishonest with themselves to do anything but parrot the establishment ideas. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 08:27:07 [Permalink]
|
| Therein lies the problem, Cune - Michael thinks he's entitled to his own facts. In his fantasy world, there is not, and never has been, any evidence for inflation; there's no evidence that neutrinos change flavors, and there's no evidence of hydrogen fusion in the Sun. Those are his personal "facts," and there's no way to convince him otherwise, since they are his, and only he gets to say whether they are valid or not. |
- 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 - 09/12/2006 : 10:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well it's sort of silly to reject something if you don't understand it. However, I cited 3 article above that discuss inflation. I can download them in PDF and email them to you, if you like.
Well, I'd be more than happy to read whatever PDF's you'd like me to read. The one idea of Higg's Bosons and magnetic fields was kind of interesting actually.
quote:
And that's just a simple search from one journal. I can do a more comprehensive search of all sorts of journals where you can read cutting edge ideas and find out what the arguments are. Just let me know if you want to read up on them and we can work something out.
Well, like I said, I'm more than happy to read a PDF or two on the subject. Pick a few you like and post some links. I'll be happy to read through it. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 10:44:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well it's sort of silly to reject something if you don't understand it. However, I cited 3 article above that discuss inflation. I can download them in PDF and email them to you, if you like.
Well, I'd be more than happy to read whatever PDF's you'd like me to read. The one idea of Higg's Bosons and magnetic fields was kind of interesting actually.
quote:
And that's just a simple search from one journal. I can do a more comprehensive search of all sorts of journals where you can read cutting edge ideas and find out what the arguments are. Just let me know if you want to read up on them and we can work something out.
Well, like I said, I'm more than happy to read a PDF or two on the subject. Pick a few you like and post some links. I'll be happy to read through it.
Well, I don't think I can post the links. I'm on a university library server that pays for subscriptions. I can access them via the server. I can also download them and email them to you (if they aren't too big-- I think gmail has a limit oc ca. 6 megs). |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 10:45:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
There is no *evidence* for inflaton fields.
Your repetition of a falsehood will not make it come true, Michael.
You have got to be kidding, Dave. You are nuts.
Goodbye. Good luck Micheal. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 10:47:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Let's have fun with linking things: WMAP Bolsters Case for Cosmic Inflation, dated March of this year: quote:
The WMAP science team announced today that it found powerful new evidence to support the prevailing cosmological model in which the universe experienced an explosive growth spurt within its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second — a fleeting moment of hyperexpansion known as inflation. During this interval, the universe's volume probably increased by a staggering 1060 times (that's a 1 followed by 60 zeroes) or more, from the size of a marble to the size of today's visible universe.
It goes on to note: quote:
WMAP has ... confirm[ed] some of inflation's boldest predictions about the afterglow of the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) ... WMAP results announced in 2003 confirmed ground- and balloon-based measurements showing that the strongest of these temperature variations are about 1° wide on the sky, in spectacular agreement with inflation's predictions.
Of course these same sets of data failed two other "predictions" as opposed to postdictions over the past two years.
quote:
While I'm not going to pretend that this is the last word on inflation-- it's hardly the first word, your assertion Michael that inflation is untestable and that it makes no predictions is clearly wrong. Indeed, it's spectacularly wrong.
Good stuff.
You can perhaps "test" the concept of inflation (in a generic sense) using any number of predictions about CMBR data, but since no evidence exists to support the existence of an inflation particle, it's tough to test such a thing. How does one begin to test for the actual existence of an unevidenced particle? At least the Higg's particle idea combined with EM fields had some scientific merit, although that sounds suspiciously like my EM field "slam" theory. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 10:48:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, I don't think I can post the links. I'm on a university library server that pays for subscriptions. I can access them via the server. I can also download them and email them to you (if they aren't too big-- I think gmail has a limit oc ca. 6 megs).
You can email me something you want me to read at michael@thesurfaceofthesun.com
There are no size limits on that particular email account. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 11:02:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Therein lies the problem, Cune - Michael thinks he's entitled to his own facts.
You're the one claiming it is "fact" that we have evidence for inflaton particles Dave. Talk about making up your own "facts".
quote:
In his fantasy world, there is not, and never has been, any evidence for inflation;
No Dave, what I said is that there has never been any evidence of *inflation particles* Dave. "Inflation" as you described it has no evidenciary support since it is based on unobserved particles.
quote:
....there's no evidence that neutrinos change flavors,
Nope, there sure isn't, at least not yet. The only way you can *assume* that neutrinos "change flavors" is if you *assume* that any "missing" neutrino has "changed".
quote:
and there's no evidence of hydrogen fusion in the Sun.
What? Where have you been? There is evidence of both hydrogen and CNO fusion inside coronal loops Dave. Why would you state something like that?
quote:
Those are his personal "facts," and there's no way to convince him otherwise, since they are his, and only he gets to say whether they are valid or not.
When you can "factually" show me that "inflation particles" actually exist, then talk to me about "facts" Dave. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 11:49:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You can perhaps "test" the concept of inflation (in a generic sense) using any number of predictions about CMBR data, but since no evidence exists to support the existence of an inflation particle, it's tough to test such a thing. How does one begin to test for the actual existence of an unevidenced particle? At least the Higg's particle idea combined with EM fields had some scientific merit, although that sounds suspiciously like my EM field "slam" theory.
My guess is that people have come up with answers to the questions you have. Moreover, it seems likely that the idea of an "inflaton particle" has undergone change since you last bothered to look at it. You seem to be fond of trotting out dead theories to re-kill (witness the constant complints about Guth, even though no one accepts his version of inflation), and I am sure that whatever your concept of the "inflaton," no one thinks of it in that way any more, either.
If you really wanted to understand, you'd do some research on it. However, it seems to me like you're more interested in latching on to the old, no-longer-accepted theory just so you can cry bah-humbug. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
