|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2006 : 11:54:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You really have no clue about what you're talking about, Michael, the evidence for which is that Einstein created the tensor field as a part of General Relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Constant
Which tensor field are you refering to, gravity or expansion? Now you're ignoring history entirely. After noting Hubble's work, Einstein *rejected* his own theory of a second affect of the tensor field, calling it his "biggest blunder".
quote:
Every test of Relativity that's been successful demonstrates that GR's tensor field is the correct model to use. That you think it's "mythical" is a symptom of your disdain for actual science.
No Dave, my disdain for the idea was actually shared by Einstein himself. When did he use his formulas to explain expansion?
quote:
Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks for the news. Can't wait to see how that pans out.
Holy smokes Dave. The whole *basis* of your belief in Big Bang theory has been undermined by the very data set that was used to demonstrate the background radiation in the first place! The lack of lensing and the lack of shadowing in the WMAP data sets present *serious* problems for your *interpretation* of these data sets. Where's the lensing that we should see in this data? Where's the shadowing that should be there?
You're also insisting that Einstein was wrong when he called his mistake a "biggest blunder", while simulataneously clinging to the Hubble constant which first caused Einstein to reject his own idea. The only way it would still have meaning is in reference to an "acceleration" of the Hubble constant over time.
quote:
Oh, by the way, it's a real shame that upriver is continuing to undermine your whole theory by demanding lab tests without calculations before something will be considered "true." Shoots the whole concept of STEREO in the foot. It also utterly destroys the helioseismology data. RD images and your own A+B=C, too.
No it doesn't Dave. Upriver is simply suggesting a very rational approach to science. We should try to verify everything we can verify here on earth. We can verify these claims about plasma releasing black body radiation here on earth, as well as some of my own ideas (A+B=C). There is no reason we should not put these ideas to the test whenever and wherever we can. The fact you try to "spin" his comments into some sort of rebuke of my ideas shows the irrational nature of your whole belief system IMO.
[Edited a link to fix layout. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/04/2006 16:58:58 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:04:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Holy smokes Dave. The whole *basis* of your belief in Big Bang theory has been undermined by the very data set that was used to demonstrate the background radiation in the first place! The lack of lensing and the lack of shadowing in the WMAP data sets present *serious* problems for your *interpretation* of these data sets. Where's the lensing that we should see in this data? Where's the shadowing that should be there?
HILARIOUS! The article in question has only just made it to university libraries, and you're already announcing that the Big Bang is virtually dead! Perhaps you should let the scientific community review the arguments and let them test the results before jumping on the bandwagon? Indeed, in reviewing the article on-line, I see that their conclusions are hardly a case for Big Bang haters to jump up and down for:
quote:
Naturally, the entire premise of this paper depends on the reliability of the original WMAP data. If there are any data-analysis issues with the WMAP processing that can explain the extradiffuse emission seen in our SZE clusters, then our findings will be obsolete. However, this would severely implicate all the WMAP analysis done to date. One possible resolution is to look at the SZE [Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect; -- Cune], as probed using dedicated ground-based observatories. The SZE has already been detected in a large number of high-redshift clusters using interferometric techniques of higher resolution than the WMAP data (e.g., Carlstrom et al. 1996; Joy et al. 2001; Reese et al. 2002; Bonamente et al. 2006; LaRoque et al. 2005). Comparison of radio interferometry and X-ray data for the same clusters show that SZE-derived and X-ray derived masses and gas fractions are in agreement (Grego et al. 2001; LaRoque et al. 2005), and allows for a determination of the cosmic distance scale (Reese et al. 2002; Bonamente et al. 2006). There is not necessarily a conflict between our present results and the previous reported SZE detections for individual clusters. As can be seen from Figure 2, many of the clusters in our sample do exhibit the effect at approximately the anticipated level.
In summary, it is through the first detailed radial profile comparison between X-ray and microwave observations that an apparent sample-wide discrepancy between the expected and measured levels of SZE from some of the best known clusters of galaxies was uncovered. The difficulty lies with the average behavior of our randomly selected cluster sample, which could still be suffering from systematic, yet hitherto unknown, biases. Nonetheless, the average CMB temperature decrement is sufficiently shallow to be interpreted simply as the usual primary CMB anisotropy: there is no need to invoke any SZE at this stage of the WMAP analysis.
In other words, let's do some more research and see why it is that we're getting the results we're getting.
I did a search for "big bang" in the journal's abstracts and got numerous hits. But when you read the abstracts, you see that it's ll about tweaking the theory based on new data. As has been discussed about a hundred times, only a fool rejects such a robust theory as the big bang because, say, "significant discrepancy between the calculated 7Li abundance deduced from WMAP and the Spite plateau is clearly revealed," as noted in Coc, et al, "Updated Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Compared with Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations and the Abundance of Light Elements." Instead, new solutions within the theory need to be proposed: quote:
To explain this discrepancy, three possibilities are invoked: systematic uncertainties on the Li abundance, surface alteration of Li in the course of stellar evolution, or poor knowledge of the reaction rates related to 7Be destruction. In particular, the possible role of the up to now neglected 7Be(d, p)2 #945; and Be(d, #945;)Li reactions is considered. Another way to reconcile these results coming from different horizons consists of invoking new, speculative primordial physics that could modify the nucleosynthesis emerging from the big bang and perhaps the CMB physics itself. The impressive advances in CMB observations provide a strong motivation for more efforts in experimental nuclear physics and high-quality spectroscopy to keep SBBN in pace.
Reason, Michael. Reason. (Oh yeah, and a search for "iron" turned up nothing about iron surfaces of neutron star cores-- how strange!) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/04/2006 13:04:33 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:04:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Right-- sort of like rejecting the idea of an iron sun as it calls for metaphysical notions of density and gravity!
No, it does not call for anything "metaphysical" in any way. I know you feel this way (for some reason), but everything can be explained using *known* laws, forces and particles know to exist in nature.
You'll note however that no "picky" expanding tensor fields have been generated in a lab, and no "infaton" particle or field has ever been evidence or required in GR, QM or particle physics.
If I required you to accept two unevidenced (in nature) fields to "believe" what I was saying, I'd completely understand your reluctance to buy into the idea. Fortunately I've proposed only forces and fields that are already known to exist in nature. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:08:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Right-- sort of like rejecting the idea of an iron sun as it calls for metaphysical notions of density and gravity!
No, it does not call for anything "metaphysical" in any way. I know you feel this way (for some reason), but everything can be explained using *known* laws, forces and particles know to exist in nature.
Known laws? Well, since your mostly-iron-sun model calls for a sun to be far denser than is measured, I'd say there are unknown laws. The only reason I've dropped from this discussion is because you have shown me clearly that you can't explain it. Thus, I reject your iron sun theory with not the tiniest bit of guilt. Yes, you're happy to talk images-- you can weave and dodge for weeks (as has been shown), but when asked to explain something that should be at the forefront of your model, you brush it off. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:34:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, I correctly stated that evidence is being gathered, and so far it points to the inflation idea being correct in some form.
What evidence are you refering to exactly? The WMAP data analysis doesn't support the notion that inflation actually occured Dave, quite the opposite. Only *one* aspect of the data supports the idea, namely the *existence* of energy in these microwave wavelengths. The more in depth analysis of the data however shows a distinct lack of lensing and shadowing that should exist in the data if the CMBR was due to a "Big Bang".
Furthermore there is *no* compelling evidence to suggest that "inflaton" fields *ever* existed, outside of your preferred brand of BB theory. More importantly, infaton fields have never been evidenced in nature. There is therefore no convincing evidence of inflation. Period. If you have "faith" there is evidence to support this idea, then your position can only be based on "faith", not a distillation of *all* the WMAP data or based on something that wsa actually observed in a lab experiment.
quote:
This is purely a figment of your own What is "faith" (and blind faith at that) is your claim that inflation is wholly unevidenced.
The fact you actually believe that there is any evidence of "inflation" *outside* of your own BB theory is testament to the faith based nature of your belief in BB theory Dave. This is very much like a religious belief, since the only "evidence" you seem to have, continues to be undermined by further analysis of the WMAP data, and the only place inflaton fields are required in science is to prop up the BB theory itself.
What is most irrational is the fact you'll call the belief in unevidenced scalar and tensor fields "sceintific", while calling a theory that requires no unevidence fields, 'crackpottery'.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:44:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Constant
Which tensor field are you refering to, gravity or expansion?
There's only the one tensor field in General Relativity, Michael.quote:
Now you're ignoring history entirely. After noting Hubble's work, Einstein *rejected* his own theory of a second affect of the tensor field, calling it his "biggest blunder".
Yes, and now you've shown that you can't even comprehend the references that you supply.quote:
No Dave, my disdain for the idea was actually shared by Einstein himself.
Wow, where'd you get that idea? Are you claiming to be able to read a dead man's mind?quote:
When did he use his formulas to explain expansion?
Read your references, Michael.quote:
Holy smokes Dave. The whole *basis* of your belief in Big Bang theory...
What "belief?" I had no "belief" in the Big Bang theory, Michael. You're the one who finds faith in things sceintific important, not me. You're just projecting. I'm sure you expected much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that would have been like the reaction of a religious adherent to the news that God was dead. Being alive at a time when major theories seem to be in need of repair or replacement is, however, fascinating to me.quote:
...has been undermined by the very data set that was used to demonstrate the background radiation in the first place!
Not according to the article you posted, it hasn't. You really don't understand the way sceince works, do you?quote:
The lack of lensing and the lack of shadowing in the WMAP data sets present *serious* problems for your *interpretation* of these data sets.
Oh, yeah, it presents problems alrighty. But it's far too early to think that anything conclusive has been determined.quote:
You're also insisting that Einstein was wrong when he called his mistake a "biggest blunder"...
No, Michael, he was most certainly wrong to have added it without evidence that it needed to be there. We've got such evidence now.quote:
...while simulataneously clinging to the Hubble constant which first caused Einstein to reject his own idea. The only way it would still have meaning is in reference to an "acceleration" of the Hubble constant over time.
That's what has been measured, so yes. The cosmological constant is still important, even though Einstein jammed it in solely to save his belief in a steady-state universe.quote:
No it doesn't Dave. Upriver is simply suggesting a very rational approach to science. We should try to verify everything we can verify here on earth. We can verify these claims about plasma releasing black body radiation here on earth, as well as some of my own ideas (A+B=C). There is no reason we should not put these ideas to the test whenever and wherever we can. The fact you try to "spin" his comments into some sort of rebuke of my ideas shows the irrational nature of your whole belief system IMO.
It's you who are spinning things, Michael, since upriver didn't say "whenever we can." He plainly intends lab tests without calculations to be the litmus test of scientific "fact," and you don't have any such tests for anything. You should be joining me in the call for upriver to provide such evidence in favor of your theory, Michael, instead of spinning his comments into your personal "Big Tent" theory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:51:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Known laws? Well, since your mostly-iron-sun model calls for a sun to be far denser than is measured, I'd say there are unknown laws.
You and I are clearly having a communication problem on this specific point. I'll be more than happy to accept my part in this confusion, but this is where the confusion begins.
There is no "requirement" that a mostly iron sun must *automatically* exceed the average density of current theory. The internal arrangement of plasmas would have to be very different than you seem to imagine, but the density *could be* exactly the same as current theory. Just like the ton of feathers vs. the ton of iron, the only difference will be the materials used, and the arrangement of the materials, but the total mass would not change, and therefore the average density would not change.
It *could be* true (and I think it is true) that he sun is actually more dense than we realize in "absolute" terms, but a mostly iron sun would not need to *necessarily* exceed the average density that is proposed by gas model theory.
quote:
The only reason I've dropped from this discussion is because you have shown me clearly that you can't explain it.
I have freely and honestly admitted that I can't yet tell you what the *interior* of the sun looks like yet, I can only see the *outside*.
quote:
Thus, I reject your iron sun theory with not the tiniest bit of guilt. Yes, you're happy to talk images-- you can weave and dodge for weeks (as has been shown), but when asked to explain something that should be at the forefront of your model, you brush it off.
This is no better than me blowing off the gas model theory for failing to explain the sun's stable magnetic fields or the heat source of the corona. You are taking *one* "percieved" weakness, and assuming that this "weakness" gives you a valid reason for rejecting *every* aspect of the model that has been presented. If you are going to go that direction, then you should necessarily reject gas model theory for the fact it cannot explain the heat source of the corona. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/04/2006 14:03:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 13:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I know you feel this way (for some reason), but everything can be explained using *known* laws, forces and particles know to exist in nature.
Okay, then explain how the alleged shell fails to melt in the face of the billion-degree temperatures inside it required to keep it in place against the massive forces of gravity involved.quote:
You'll note however that no "picky" expanding tensor fields have been generated in a lab...
No, we just measure them all the time via satellites.quote:
...and no "infaton" particle or field has ever been evidence...
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true, Michael.quote:
...or required in GR, QM or particle physics.
Gee, mass separation of plasmas isn't "required" in those theories, either. I guess we should dismiss it as a possibility.quote:
If I required you to accept two unevidenced (in nature) fields to "believe" what I was saying, I'd completely understand your reluctance to buy into the idea. Fortunately I've proposed only forces and fields that are already known to exist in nature.
Nobody has any evidence of a neutron star core floating inside a thin solid shell millions of meters in radius for any star, Michael. Your entire model is unevidenced in nature. Your "A+B=C" is entirely new physics, never used before, as is your insistence that acceleration can change our measurements of density. These are all unevidenced things you're asking us to believe, but you refuse to understand our reluctance to do so.
Oh, and not only that, but you're once again ignoring the fact that many of the forces and particles known to exist in nature today were once completely unknown, many only having been discovered in the last 100 years. Ensuring that you only use established physics isn't a guarantee that you'll be correct. |
- 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 - 09/04/2006 : 14:02:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, I rejected your metaphysical scalar and tensor fields because there is no evidence to support these ideas, either as a part of GR, QM or particle physics. They are fields that only exist in one "mythical" creation event.
You really have no clue about what you're talking about, Michael, the evidence for which is that Einstein created the tensor field as a part of General Relativity. Every test of Relativity that's been successful demonstrates that GR's tensor field is the correct model to use.
If you agree that the only tensor field that is described in GR is "gravity", then what in the hell does your response about my rejection of expansion and inflation fields have to do with GR?
The answer is *none*. You simply "made up" the connnection to expansion fields and attributed it to Einstein. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 14:21:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What evidence are you refering to exactly?
You don't even know what I'm talking about, yet you state in no uncertain terms that whatever it is does not exist. Your faith is amazing, Michael.quote:
The WMAP data analysis doesn't support the notion that inflation actually occured Dave, quite the opposite.
The WMAP analysis you pointed to recently didn't make any tests for inflation.quote:
Only *one* aspect of the data supports the idea, namely the *existence* of energy in these microwave wavelengths.
No, that's evidence for the Big Bang, not inflation.quote:
The more in depth analysis of the data however shows a distinct lack of lensing and shadowing that should exist in the data if the CMBR was due to a "Big Bang".
And we've still yet to see if that analysis is correct, but you'd prefer not to wait around for the replication of the results, because you don't like science at all, just sciency stuff.quote:
Furthermore there is *no* compelling evidence to suggest that "inflaton" fields *ever* existed...
Since you don't have a clue as to what evidence I was talking about, your statement here is entirely based upon your faith.quote:
...outside of your preferred brand of BB theory.
Well, actual science isn't just a big pile of facts, Michael: no evidence exists in a theoretical vacuum.quote:
More importantly, infaton fields have never been evidenced in nature.
Repeating this falsehood doesn't make it true, Michael.quote:
There is therefore no convincing evidence of inflation. Period.
You don't know of any evidence, so therefore there isn't any. Nice logic you've got there.quote:
If you have "faith" there is evidence to support this idea, then your position can only be based on "faith"...
No, you are projecting your own faith, Michael.quote:
...not a distillation of *all* the WMAP data or based on something that wsa actually observed in a lab experiment.
You don't even know what "all" the WMAP data is, Michael, or you would have brought up some of the other problems faced by Big Bang theory already. You don't even know the concerns of the actual scientists working on this stuff.quote:
The fact you actually believe that there is any evidence of "inflation" *outside* of your own BB theory is testament to the faith based nature of your belief in BB theory Dave.
You've already admitted to not knowing what I'm talking about, so the "testament" is to your own blind devotion to "The Big Bang Theory is Wrong" theory.quote:
This is very much like a religious belief...
Yes, your religious beliefs are just that, Michael.quote:
...since the only "evidence" you seem to have, continues to be undermined by further analysis of the WMAP data...
What a curious statement of fact: you don't know what evidence I'm talking about, yet you think that WMAP undermines it.quote:
...and the only place inflaton fields are required in science is to prop up the BB theory itself.
Well, since you never did explain your solution to the horizon problem - which is observational, not theoretical - I guess your "Big Slam" theory will go the same way as the "Big Bang" theory, into the dustbin of history if you're correct.quote:
What is most irrational is the fact you'll call the belief in unevidenced scalar and tensor fields "sceintific"...
You're the one who denies the evidence, Michael, not me. You've got blind faith that there's no evidence favoring the models of inflation or of General Relativity (even while insisting that General Relativity works).quote:
...while calling a theory that requires no unevidence fields, 'crackpottery'.
Your theory requires unevidenced everything else, Michael. New fields aren't a test for what's science and what's not, or otherwise General Relativity wouldn't be here at all. Talk about irrational!  |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 14:45:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you agree that the only tensor field that is described in GR is "gravity", then what in the hell does your response about my rejection of expansion and inflation fields have to do with GR?
The answer is *none*. You simply "made up" the connnection to expansion fields and attributed it to Einstein.
Oh, I see what the problem is: you've fabricated some new "tensor field" and attributed expansion to its effects, just so that you can say that there's no evidence for it. I thought you were talking about the tensor field that Einstein described in General Relativity, Michael. Silly me.
Okay, you're absolutely correct, Michael: there is no evidence for this "tensor field" that you invented out of thin air as a part of your strawman version of universal expansion. |
- 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 - 09/04/2006 : 15:23:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What "belief?" I had no "belief" in the Big Bang theory, Michael.
No, you just "defend" BB theory with an surly "attitude". Sure Dave, anything you say.
quote:
I'm sure you expected much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but that would have been like the reaction of a religious adherent to the news that God was dead. Being alive at a time when major theories seem to be in need of repair or replacement is, however,
fascinating to me.
When folks here have been presented with this new evidence that suggests that current astronomical theory is "dead", there does seem to be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of the teeth going on here. Geemack's been on a one man crusade of personal character assasination since I got here. The attack dogs have been relentless. It sure has all the earmarkings of ostrisize by ridicule process just like any religious organization might undertake.
The data that these *other* folks just dropped in your lap pretty much trumps any notion of a "normal" looking CMBR that would be associated with BB theory Dave. They did it, not me. It's not my research, it's theirs, and it's now the second test that failed.
The whole field of astronomy is in trouble Dave. Astronomy today is based on some mythical creation event, complete with unevidenced and unfalsifyable scalar and tensor fields. That's "religious dogma" Dave, not science.
It's also based on the belief that plasmas do not mass separate to any great degree, inspite of evidence here on earth that this is exactly what they do in the presense of strong gravitational (tensor) fields and magnetic fields.
quote:
quote:
...has been undermined by the very data set that was used to demonstrate the background radiation in the first place!
Not according to the article you posted, it hasn't. You really don't understand the way sceince works, do you?
quote:
Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
by Staff Writers
Huntsville AL (SPX) Sep 03, 2006
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."
.......
Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant. Lieu, Mittaz and Shuang-Nan Zhang, UAH, "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters: A comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed decrement," Astrophysical Journal, Sept. 1, 2006, Vol. 648, No. 1, p. 176
How you can read those paragraphs and claim that my statement is false, and then add insult to injury is utterly beyond me Dave. Hello? You used this very same WMAP data of a uniform CMBR to prop up your belief in BB theory. You used this data as "evidence" in fact.
Unfortunately howevever, dispite your faith in this idea, BB theory has now failed *two* (not just one) critical tests of this idea, specifically there is no lensing occuring as would be expected, and there is no shadowing pattern that is consistent with expectations. I'd say your faith in BB theory was "undermined" by these two failed predictions, but you go ahead and deny it if you like and insult me to boot if it makes you feel better.
quote:
quote:
The lack of lensing and the lack of shadowing in the WMAP data sets present *serious* problems for your *interpretation* of these data sets.
Oh, yeah, it presents problems alrighty. But it's far too early to think that anything conclusive has been determined.
Talk about double standards. It's evindently not too early for you to think that BB theory is "conclusively" the one and only theory we should teach in college today, even while that theory continues to fail in every prediction it has ever made. How does that work?
Why can't static universe theory then be taught in college as well as BB theory, especially if BB theory is failing one predictive test after another?
quote:
No, Michael, he was most certainly wrong to have added it without evidence that it needed to be there. We've got such evidence now.
You don't seem to recognize the *whole* problem here Dave. His "blunder" had to do with a steady state theory. Einstein did not propose an expansion oriented tensor field in GR, just a gravitational tensor field. An expanding tensor field to explain expansion is not a part of the GR Einstein proposed, or a part of QM or particle physics. This expanding tensor field is only necessary to prop up BB theory, and BB theory is not passing other tests anyway, and is based on unfalsifyable hypothesis.
quote:
It's you who are spinning things, Michael, since upriver didn't say "whenever we can." He plainly intends lab tests without calculations to be the litmus test of scientific "fact," and you don't have any such tests for anything.
That's simply not true Dave. All of the satellite "gear" was "tested" right here on earth. The only thing you could claim was not "tested" perhaps is my "method" for determining heat signatures, but I'm sure that can it would pass that test here on earth with electrical discharges right here on earth. In fact, I've already seen x-rays and gamma rays associated with these events, and I'm sure if we added them both up, they'd be directly related to something *inside* the discharge and would not come from the cooler atmosphere around the discharges.
quote:
You should be joining me in the call for upriver to provide such evidence in favor of your theory, Michael, instead of spinning his comments into your personal "Big Tent" theory.
Quite the contrary. You should be joinin |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/04/2006 15:44:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:03:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, I see what the problem is: you've fabricated some new "tensor field" and attributed expansion to its effects, just so that you can say that there's no evidence for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
No Dave, astronomers did that all by themselves. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/04/2006 16:04:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:03:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, you just "defend" BB theory with an surly "attitude". Sure Dave, anything you say.
My "attitude" is due to months of dealing with your double-standard of demanding that we stick to the science, but then trotting out your strawman versions of the theories and "defeating" them.quote:
When folks here have been presented with this new evidence that suggests that current astronomical theory is "dead", there does seem to be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of the teeth. Geemack's been on a one man crusade of personal character attack since I got here. The attack dogs have been relentless. It sure has all the earmarkings of astricization by ridicule process just like any religious organization might undertake.
No, it's ridicule of your obvious lack of knowledge. You've been given numerous links through which you could learn about the actual standard solar model or the actual Big Bang theory, but you're so dead-set on remaining ignorant of them that your "criticisms" are literally ridiculous.quote:
The data these *other* folks just dropped in your lap pretty much trumps any notion of a "normal" looking CMBR that would be associated with BB theory Dave. They did it, not me. It's not my research, it's theirs, and it's now the second test that failed.
No, the problem is that you don't want to wait for replication of the results, a necessary aspect of actual science. If those researchers turn out to be wrong, then the Big Bang theory hasn't failed.quote:
The whole field of astronomy is in trouble Dave. Astronomy today is based on some mythical creation event, complete with unevidenced and unfalsifyable scalar and tensor fields. That's "religious dogma" Dave, not science.
Yes, Michael, it is your religious dogma. We've been telling you that it's not science for many months now, but you just dig your head in the sand even deeper every time you're shown that your caricatures of the theories in question are not reflected in what the scientists actually say.quote:
It's also based on the belief that plasmas do not mass separate to any great degree...
There's more of your religious dogma again. You absolutely refuse to tell us to what degree the standard solar model uses settling of heavy elements, because you don't know. You just assume that it's not "to any great degree," and go about your merry way.quote:
...inspite of evidence here on earth that this is exactly what they do in the presense of strong gravitational (tensor) fields and magnetic fields.
How much do they do so? That's right, you don't know that, either, you just assume that it's a "great degree" larger than in the standard solar model.quote:
How you can read those paragraphs and claim that my statement is false, and then add insult to injury is utterly beyond me Dave.
You clearly don't understand how science works because if you did, you wouldn't be thinking that a single experiment can falsify an entire theory. Even the researchers are approaching their results with utmost caution.quote:
Hello? You used this very same WMAP data of a uniform CMBR to prop up your belief in BB theory. You used this data as "evidence" in fact.
Yes? So what?quote:
Unfortunately howevever, dispite your faith in this idea, BB theory has now failed *two* (not just one) critical tests of this idea, specifically there is no lensing occuring as would be expected, and there is no shadowing pattern that is consistent with expectations.
Just how "critical" are these tests, Michael? That's right: you don't know that, either, since you don't know the Big Bang theory.quote:
I'd say your faith in BB theory was "undermined" by these two failed predictions, but you go ahead and deny it if you like and insult me to boot if it makes you feel better.
You're saying that I have faith in Big Bang theory is what's insulting, Michael. Go ahead an pretend that you don't dish out insults. That's insulting, too.quote:
Talk about double standards. It's evindently not too early for you to think that BB theory is "conclusively" the one and only theory we should teach in college today...
It's the only theory with enough data supporting it to teach in colleges today. Would you prefer that nothing at all is taught?quote:
...even while that theory continues to fail in every prediction it has ever made. How does that work?
It's obviously your faith getting in the way again, since you haven't presented evidence that the Big Bang has failed "in every prediction it has ever made."quote:
Why can't static universe theory then be taught in college as well as BB theory, especially if BB theory is failing one predictive test after another?
Because we know the universe is not static, Michael.quote:
You don't seem to recognize the *whole* problem here Dave.
Oh, I do recognize the whole problem: your faith has overwhelmed your rationality.quote:
His "blunder" had to do with a steady st |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2006 : 16:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, I see what the problem is: you've fabricated some new "tensor field" and attributed expansion to its effects, just so that you can say that there's no evidence for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
No Dave, astronomers did that all by themselves.
The word "tensor" doesn't appear in that article at all, Michael. A cosmological constant is a single scalar value, and quintessence would come from a scalar field.
Ironically, the article begins,In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure. According to the theory of relativity, the effect of such a negative pressure is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales. The "theory of relativity" in there refers to General Relativity. How is it again that you say that expansion a wholly unevidenced field independent of Einstein's ideas? Oh, that's right: your faith tells you that, and leads you to make all these silly pronouncements about things you don't understand. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
