|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2006 : 11:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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).
Boloney. The fact you won't answer them says volumes.
quote:
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.
Nothing in your links suggests the existence of "inflaton" particles outside of you theory Dave.
quote:
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?
It matters because you don't have evidence for them Dave. You *had* evidence that neutrinos *might* exist through particle physics. We could "test" these ideas and even discover that they do in fact have mass. Particle physics predicted their existence. Nothing in particle physics suggests we need "inflaton fields/particles".
quote:
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.
Huh? How can any theory have "lesser standards" than one which begins with an unevidence "inflaton" field?
quote:
No, you're just projecting your own prejudices and ignorance upon me.
No Dave, I'm watching you vehemently reject bringing in other theories into the classroom for "fear" of "confusing the incompetent youth". I don't have any predjudices about you including BB theory in the classroom, I simply reject the notion that it's the *only* idea we should explore and teach.
quote:
I'm open to any theory which has a decent amount of evidence to support it.
Then why wouldn't you want to see plasma cosmology and EU theory taught along side BB theory?
quote:
I don't "believe in" any unevidence fields,
Then what evidence do you have that suggest inflaton particle exist?
quote:
and I'm not "*insisting*" that anyone be taught anything in school.
You're insisting what scientific theory *isn't* taught in school then?
quote:
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.
Boloney. You're sidekick was acting as though if Neal disagreed with my interpretation I was obligated to agree with him or be accused mental problem. Since he "speaks" for you these days, take the good with the bad. You've (plural) have certainly obviously been argueing appeal to authority falacies.
quote:
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.
Oh bull. I let *you personally* pick your favorite pet BB theory, and you got to define all the fields, all the stages, etc. I took the time to let you personally tell me which one you liked best. You picked the one with the inflaton fields, not me.
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 11:57:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
There is no *evidence* for inflaton fields.
Your repetition of a falsehood will not make it come true, Michael.
Likewise Dave, you claims about evidence of unevidenced particle/fields isn't going to fly. There is no evidence of inflaton fields. Period.
quote:
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?
No Dave, it's what holds particle physics and every area of science together. Remove that piece and QM and GR go out the window too.
(I edited this part after I realized I misunderstood your question.)
quote:
If it posits an infinitely-old universe, then it requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
How? It's always had the same amount of energy. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/12/2006 12:36:28 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 12:09:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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.
Well, clearly that's true, if it's now a "Higgs" particle and EM fields we're discussing. I've got no beef with either of these ideas, but frankly you'd expect such particles in a slam theory, along with all sorts of other particles too.
quote:
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.
Well, I've certainly moved on to real particles and real fields. I would have assumed that was true of BB theory, but that is certainly not how Dave explained BB theory to me, particuarly as it relates to the "field/particle" of "inflation", and the presense of EM fields. My slam idea would require these things too, so I see very little difference between what I proposed, and what is now being proposed, other than the *desire* to condense the universe to a "marble" sized object.
quote:
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.
No, I don't think you understand me yet. I've had a long time to do a "lot" of research on this subject over the years. The "slam" theory I put together earlier is pretty much indicative of where I've "moved onto" as the astronomy community started doting on Guth back in the 80's. If anything however, it seems as though the field of astronomy is moving my way if your last few reference papers are any indication of where it's headed these days. I don't really have a problem with EM fields and real particles already proposed by particle physics. It's "vacuum energy", "inflaton fields" and Guth postulates that I rejected in BB theory to begin with. If astronomy want's to move toward a slam type theory, great, I'm all for it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/12/2006 12:17:13 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 12:21:31 [Permalink]
|
| Nevermind, I misunderstood on of your sentences. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/12/2006 12:34:38 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 12:39:15 [Permalink]
|
| But the "slam" doesn't explain red shift, or CMBR, or the abundance of hydrogen, etc., etc... |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 12:58:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
If it posits an infinitely-old universe, then it requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
How? It's always had the same amount of energy.
Geez Michael, you always surprise me with these statements, untill I remember that you know squat about science...
Look at The Second Law of Thermodynamics for the answer. Or is the Second Law one of those unevidenced laws.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 09/12/2006 12:59:11 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2006 : 13:16:59 [Permalink]
|
This thread is locked due to length.
Please continue the discussion in this thread.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/12/2006 13:19:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
