Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 Surface of the Sun (part 12)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  13:15:53  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
This thread is a continuation of "Surfance of the Sun (part 11)"

The other thread has been locked due to length.

Please continue the discussion...

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.

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  14:28:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Michael: nobody has ever detected the Higgs Boson. There are several competitor models to the Standard Particle Model which do not use (or require) a Higgs field (or hence the Higgs Boson), like technicolor theories or loop quantum gravity.

Your logic appears to be that if a theory is based upon an unevidenced particle/field, it is "metaphysical." Why is it that you have strenuously defended the Standard Particle Model (from attack by the proponents of flavor-changing neutrinos) when that model is based upon the "mythical" Higgs field?

In other words, I'm not advocating the trashing of mainstream quantum and particle physics, I am wondering why you are not criticizing them for the exact same reason you are criticizing inflationary theories.

After all, there's no evidence for (nor any need for) Higgs Bosons existing "outside" of the Standard Particle Model and there exist several "Higgsless" models which may someday have explanatory power equal to the Standard Particle Model.

Why is it that you're now saying that a Higgs-based "Big Slam" is okay with you, when such is based upon a "mythical" particle?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  09:36:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Michael: nobody has ever detected the Higgs Boson. There are several competitor models to the Standard Particle Model which do not use (or require) a Higgs field (or hence the Higgs Boson), like technicolor theories or loop quantum gravity.

Your logic appears to be that if a theory is based upon an unevidenced particle/field, it is "metaphysical."


Metaphysical wouldn't quite be the right right word since it's "required" to make everything else work. Then again, it's only a "theory", and it remains unevidenced.

quote:
Why is it that you have strenuously defended the Standard Particle Model (from attack by the proponents of flavor-changing neutrinos) when that model is based upon the "mythical" Higgs field?


My beef with flavor changing neutrinos has to do with lepton conservation laws that have been "lab tested" and seem to work properly. In fact your whole basis from claiming that all neutrinos begin as electron neutrinos is based on these same lepton conservation laws.

I'm not defending Higgs particles however. You seem to confuse issues here deliberately. I'm open to other possilities as it relates to the force of gravity, and what causes particles to have mass. I don't however see any evidence to suggest that leptons are not conserved. These are two different issues, and two different aspects of particle physics theory.

quote:
In other words, I'm not advocating the trashing of mainstream quantum and particle physics, I am wondering why you are not criticizing them for the exact same reason you are criticizing inflationary theories.


If someone has a better option than a Higgs particle, I'm willing to consider it Dave. Since virtually every other area of science is predictated on the existence of mass however, before I replace this concept, I'll need something "better" to explain the mass.

quote:
After all, there's no evidence for (nor any need for) Higgs Bosons existing "outside" of the Standard Particle Model and there exist several "Higgsless" models which may someday have explanatory power equal to the Standard Particle Model.


True. Then again, all the sciences require some explanation for "mass".

quote:
Why is it that you're now saying that a Higgs-based "Big Slam" is okay with you, when such is based upon a "mythical" particle?


Because at least a Higgs particle is *theorized* in particle physics theory, and it's a "required" particle in the "standard model", and therefore a requirement in GR and QM. There is nothing about this particle that is particularly "exotic", other than it's ability to hold/contain/convey "mass".

That is quite unlike an inflaton field that isn't required in particle physics, and seems to defy energy conservation laws entirely, at least as Guth and Linde first proposed it. The density of these fields remained constant, throughout the inflation process. How?

We also have the ability to *test* for Higgs particles since we have some idea as to their size, and energy states. We continue to attempt to devise real world lab experiments to reveal them, and they necessarily would need to exist in the present moment if they exist at all. In other words, the idea is falsifyable.

Again Dave, I'm not holding up the Higgs particle from being scrutinized. It may be that no such particle actually exists. I'm a QM kinda guy anyway. My "beef" with oscillating neutrinos relates to lepton conservation laws that *have* already been lab tested and have been verified by direct observation and experimentation. The whole basis for us being able to compute the number and type of neutrinos released from a hydrogen fusion sun is based on these very same energy and lepton conservation principles of particle physics.

From my perspective, you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to use these lepton and energy conservation laws to compute the type and number of neutrinos released from a fusion powered sun, yet you abandon the lepton conservation laws when the observations don't match solar predictions rather than abandoning the solar model you're using.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/13/2006 09:45:08
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  09:41:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
I know you're busy this week, Michael, so I'm responding to your earlier posts at a leisurely pace, myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

No Dave, I'm watching you vehemently reject bringing in other theories into the classroom for "fear" of "confusing the incompetent youth".
No, Michael, I've given you my actual reasons for not bringing up other "theories" in Astronomy 101, and you didn't address those. Instead, you decided to make up some nonsense about me which isn't true, and put it in quotes to imply that I actually wrote something like that. This sort of boorish behaviour is why it is impossible to have "reasonable" conversation with you, Michael: you refuse to take your interlocutors at their word, and instead invent stuff for them to say.
quote:
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.
I never said it was the "*only* idea we should explore and teach," I "simply reject the notion" that an introductory astronomy course is the proper place to teach the other ideas to the extent that you want them taught. You've indicated that you think that students should be able to debate the pros and cons of each theory, and decide for themselves, based upon "*all*" of the facts, which theory is most interesting. Let's look at a few Astronomy 101 (A101) classes:
  • This UMass Amherst A101 course outline only touches on cosmology issues in its introduction, and doesn't mention the "Big Bang" anywhere.
  • According to a Minnesota State University course catalog, to get a BS in Astronomy, you only need to learn some (unspecified) cosmology as a part of their 225 course, Astronomy and Astrophysics II. Astronomy 101 isn't a part of the degree program there, but only exists to give people going for other majors a broad overview of the subject.
  • At the University of Washington, A101 spends less than six hours of class time on cosmology.
  • The University of Regina doesn't seem to hit on cosmology at all in A101, only getting as far as galactic and large-scale structures.
  • A101 at the University of Alabama only does two class periods on cosmology.
  • Gettysburg College - no cosmology in A101 at all.
  • San Diego State University spends two or three class periods on cosmology in A101.
(The above taken from the first page of results for a Google search: "Astronomy 101" outline.)

So, a Google sampling of Astronomy 101 courses shows us that at most, students taking such a course will be exposed to perhaps nine class hours on cosmology in general, yet you want them to be able to have an informed opinion of multiple theories? You and I have spent more time than that on the subject, and you haven't even presented any of the ideas of the plasma cosmologists or EU theorists other than to toss a couple of links into a couple of posts, Michael.

Perhaps you'll be advocating for Astronomy 101 classes to be devoid of every subject other than cosmology, and students who are interested in, say, planets and stars can just take some other course. Even were that to happen, though, Astronomy 101 would still need to be ten (or more) semesters in length to give students "*all*" of the facts relevant to just Big Bang cosmology to the point where they'd be informed enough to decide for themselves what's right and what's not.

Hey, at Dr. Manuel's school, the University of Missouri-Rolla, they don't even have an astronomy degree (though they do, apparently, teach some cosmology as a part of their general Physics BS). Where did you go to school, Michael?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  10:11:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I never said it was the "*only* idea we should explore and teach," I "simply reject the notion" that an introductory astronomy course is the proper place to teach the other ideas to the extent that you want them taught. You've indicated that you think that students should be able to debate the pros and cons of each theory, and decide for themselves, based upon "*all*" of the facts, which theory is most interesting. Let's look at a few Astronomy 101 (A101) classes:This UMass Amherst A101 course outline only touches on cosmology issues in its introduction, and doesn't mention the "Big Bang" anywhere.


Ya, but in the very first chapter, it talks about the age of the universe. How much would you like to bet that the number that is derived and presented in class is based on BB theory?

I'm not going to go through each item, line by line. The difference here between us is simple and easy enough to understand. I'd like a more *open* approach towards cosmology, whenever and whereever possible. A static *eternal* unviverse should at least be something that is presented as a "possibility" based on Arps work. If you refuse to allow such discussion right from the start, then you refuse to expose them to potentially important information.

quote:
So, a Google sampling of Astronomy 101 courses shows us that at most, students taking such a course will be exposed to perhaps nine class hours on cosmology in general, yet you want them to be able to have an informed opinion of multiple theories?


Yes Dave, I would. I would like every student to know from the beginning of their studies of astronomy that there is still an ongoing debate about the cause of redshift (including MECOs), and there is a raging debate between plasma cosmology and "standard" cosmology. This kind of knowledge is important and relevant to astronomy. It should be common knowledge by the time one gets out of astronomy 101, that BB theory did *not* "pass with flying colors".

quote:
You and I have spent more time than that on the subject, and you haven't even presented any of the ideas of the plasma cosmologists or EU theorists other than to toss a couple of links into a couple of posts, Michael.


Most of our time has been devoted to solar theories.

quote:
Perhaps you'll be advocating for Astronomy 101 classes to be devoid of every subject other than cosmology, and students who are interested in, say, planets and stars can just take some other course.


Perhaps you're just making stuff up now, much as you accuse me of doing.

quote:
Even were that to happen, though, Astronomy 101 would still need to be ten (or more) semesters in length to give students "*all*" of the facts relevant to just Big Bang cosmology to the point where they'd be informed enough to decide for themselves what's right and what's not.


How long does it take to present a wee bit of Arps work as you're discussing the age of the universe? How long does it take to inject a wee bit of plasma cosmology into the ciruculum Dave?

quote:
Hey, at Dr. Manuel's school, the University of Missouri-Rolla, they don't even have an astronomy degree (though they do, apparently, teach some cosmology as a part of their general Physics BS).


And how is that relevant?

quote:
Where did you go to school, Michael?


Same question.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/13/2006 10:14:26
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  10:34:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
Michael sounds so much like the Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates it's frightening. He certainly has their strategy down pat; from calling mainstream science a "religion" to claiming that general students need to be exposed to "critical analysis" of current theories as well as exposure to alternative (and completely unevidenced) ones.

I can't help but feel the only reason he doesn't identify more with them is that he's unfamiliar with their arguments. Apparently the phrase "scientifically vacuous" means nothing to him.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/13/2006 10:36:17
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  10:44:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It should be common knowledge by the time one gets out of astronomy 101, that BB theory did *not* "pass with flying colors".



I regret ever saying this if only because you repeatedly use it as some sort of obnoxious battle cry. In any case, one can only say that BB "did *not* 'pass with flying colors'" is one defines passing with flying colors in a completely impssible way such that no scientific theory could actually do so.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  11:35:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

This UMass Amherst A101 course outline only touches on cosmology issues in its introduction, and doesn't mention the "Big Bang" anywhere.
Ya, but in the very first chapter, it talks about the age of the universe. How much would you like to bet that the number that is derived and presented in class is based on BB theory?
The bolding in the above quotes is mine. Is the age of the universe a "cosmology issue" or not, Michael?
quote:
I'm not going to go through each item, line by line.
Nobody asked you to: the point was, and remains, that it would be impossible to teach "*all*" of the facts pertinent to a debate between various cosmological theories in A101.
quote:
The difference here between us is simple and easy enough to understand. I'd like a more *open* approach towards cosmology, whenever and whereever possible.
So you're backpedaling away from your earlier desire to see "*all*" of the facts presented in A101, then?
quote:
A static *eternal* unviverse should at least be something that is presented as a "possibility" based on Arps work.
What, exactly, is so compelling for you about Arp's work? All I've seen in the links you've offered is "if there is an intrinsic redshift, then the Big Bang fails," but I've never seen any evidence supporting the intrinsic redshift idea in the first place, only tautologies.
quote:
If you refuse to allow such discussion right from the start, then you refuse to expose them to potentially important information.
Again, you are inventing positions for your opponents which they don't hold (and you refuse to even acknowledge that you are doing so). Nobody is talking about preventing any sort of discussion. Students ask questions off the syllabus all the time, and their teachers should be able to answer them to some extent. This is not diametrically opposed to your position, that non-mainstream theories should be taught, yet you argue as if it were.
quote:
quote:
So, a Google sampling of Astronomy 101 courses shows us that at most, students taking such a course will be exposed to perhaps nine class hours on cosmology in general, yet you want them to be able to have an informed opinion of multiple theories?
Yes Dave, I would.
That's my point, Michael: how do you expect a few scant hours of class time to cover enough of the actual data for students to be able to reach an informed view of any cosmological theory? Even Big Bang theory will only be skimmed, at best.
quote:
I would like every student to know from the beginning of their studies of astronomy that there is still an ongoing debate about the cause of redshift (including MECOs), and there is a raging debate between plasma cosmology and "standard" cosmology. This kind of knowledge is important and relevant to astronomy. It should be common knowledge by the time one gets out of astronomy 101, that BB theory did *not* "pass with flying colors".
And that's a very different position from the one you held just a few posts ago, where you said that students in A101 should be taught "*all*" the facts so they can make their own choices.
quote:
quote:
You and I have spent more time than that on the subject, and you haven't even presented any of the ideas of the plasma cosmologists or EU theorists other than to toss a couple of links into a couple of posts, Michael.
Most of our time has been devoted to solar theories.
"The subject" that I referred to was just our discussions of the Big Bang, Michael. I've certainly spent more than nine man-hours on it.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps you'll be advocating for Astronomy 101 classes to be devoid of every subject other than cosmology, and students who are interested in, say, planets and stars can just take some other course.
Perhaps you're just making stuff up now, much as you accuse me of doing.
Nope, I didn't say that you would be doing what I suggested, only that you might. A question was implied, and you could have simply said, "no, I wouldn't advocate that" instead of getting all huffy. You'll note that I also didn't try to make it seem that I was quoting you.
quote:
How long does it take to present a wee bit of Arps work as you're discussing the age of the universe? How long does it take to inject a wee bit of plasma cosmology into the ciruculum Dave?
Again, that's not what you were advocating just a few posts ago. You said that Astronomy 101 classes should present "*all*" of the facts so that students can come to their own conclusions. You've backpedalled quite a ways from there.
quote:
quote:
Hey, at Dr. Manuel's school, the University of Missouri-Rolla, they don't even have an astronomy degree (though they do

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  12:08:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I regret ever saying this if only because you repeatedly use it as some sort of obnoxious battle cry. In any case, one can only say that BB "did *not* 'pass with flying colors'" is one defines passing with flying colors in a completely impssible way such that no scientific theory could actually do so.


Cune, it has absolutely nothing to do with you personally, and the problem is not limited to, or related to you personally. That same phrase erroneously appears in one of the papers you emailed me yesterday.

quote:
When Guth first conceived of inflation, he doubted that the idea would be rigorously tested within his lifetime. But inflation has already passed numerous observational hurdles with flying colors.


I'd have to "guess" that the "observational test" he's talking about is the *existence* of a CMB, but then the CMB backround doesn't seem to show lensing and shadowing effects from such an event as we would expect it to show. This is why you believe things have "passed with flying colors". It's because you're told this kind of crap in the papers you read, and the classes you take. If one isn't old enough to remember all the failures of these theories along the way, one might actually believe this stuff.

The thing is, these metaphysical ideas are quite literally "creation myths", only in this case they are being taught as "science". There is no such particle as an inflaton particle in particle physics. No such animal even exists in particle physics. It's not required in QM, GR or particle physics. No area of "science" requires such particles other than Guth's creation mythos that took hold in astronomy.

Another quote from that paper:
quote:
In january 1980, a young Stanford physicist named Alan Guth unveiled a brilliant idea that had just one drawback: it didn't work. At the time, Guth (now a professor at MIT) was fully aware of this shortcoming, yet he was convinced of the idea's importance
nevertheless.


It's *never* worked from day one, and *still* astronomers are "convinced of the idea's importance nevertheless". Go figure.

quote:
Birth of an Idea
Guth, of course, had no idea what he was getting into when, in the late 1970s, he embarked on the path that led to inflation. In fact, he knew little about cosmology at the time.


I think he still doesn't know very much about cosmology if he still believes this stuff even after his own papers failed to account for the "problems" that he claimed his theories "fixed".

quote:
"The initial problem he took on, with help from Cornell University physicist Henry Tye, related to magnetic monopoles — hypothetical particles that carry lone north or south poles. Guth and Tye's calculations suggested that fantastically large numbers of these particles should have been produced in the Big Bang. Yet none has ever been detected. Guth and Tye showed that monopole production would be suppressed if a phase transition in the early universe were delayed by “supercooling,” so that it occurred at a lower temperature than otherwise would have been the case (just as s
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/13/2006 12:33:52
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  13:16:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
The two best quotes of that intro to inflation paper you sent me come from Guth himself:

quote:
“Inflation is still a vague idea that's based on a vague inflaton field,” concedes Guth. “What are the detailed dynamics of this field? Right now we're making them up.”


No kidding. He certainly got that part right. He quite literally "made up" a field that does not change density, in spite of exponential growth in volume. That's about as "made up" of a field as it can get. We've never seen such a thing here on earth.

I know Guth's core arguements are still quite circular in nature from another quote in that paper:

quote:
Even if the explanation for inflation resides in new physics like string theory, Guth counters, the problems inflation solves still have to be addressed. “We still need a
mechanism that makes a universe with 10^90 particles,” the approximate number within the visible
cosmos, he says. “For that, you almost certainly need exponential growth. So I'm pretty well convinced that any solution to those problems will look a lot like inflation.”


Talk about purely circular rhetoric. All anyone needs to explain the visible universe is 10^90 "particles". These particles could easily have come from a static universe, or may have predated the event in the first place. A "flat" universe doesn't necessarily support inflation theory since it can also be indicative of a "static" rather vast cosmos. Guth is still evidently expousing "poof" theories because he believes that all the particles in our visible universe must have "inflated" themselves into existence out of a "false vacuum". That's just "poof" logic IMO. All the energy we see in the visible universe must have predated the event, and every particle we see may have also predated the event. Nothing needed to "inflate" itself into existence for the universe to be "flat", and no "particles" need to have been "inflated" out of a "false vacuum". Guth is still evidently espousing "poof" theories, where the universe magically springs forth from "false vacuums" (whatever the hell that is) as best as I can tell.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  13:48:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
When Guth first conceived of inflation, he doubted that the idea would be rigorously tested within his lifetime. But inflation has already passed numerous observational hurdles with flying colors.


I'd have to "guess" that the "observational test" he's talking about is the *existence* of a CMB, but then the CMB backround doesn't seem to show lensing and shadowing effects from such an event as we would expect it to show.
Huh? CMB was known long before Guth! So you're "guess" is completely off. In fact, it's clear that you have no idea what he's talking about. Yet you reject it nonetheless. Amazing.

And your tired rehashing of an brand-new study, the results of which haven't even been replicated, reeks of desperation.


quote:
This is why you believe things have "passed with flying colors". It's because you're told this kind of crap in the papers you read, and the classes you take. If one isn't old enough to remember all the failures of these theories along the way, one might actually believe this stuff.
Yawn. The "I'm old enough to remember the failures" routine is, well, old. I've read plenty to show how the early proponants of the Big Bang stuggled with problems and competition with Steady State.

quote:
The thing is, these metaphysical ideas are quite literally "creation myths", only in this case they are being taught as "science". There is no such particle as an inflaton particle in particle physics. No such animal even exists in particle physics. It's not required in QM, GR or particle physics. No area of "science" requires such particles other than Guth's creation mythos that took hold in astronomy.
Where does the article say "inflaton particle"? (I'll answer tht for you: it doesn't)

quote:
Another quote from that paper:
quote:
In january 1980, a young Stanford physicist named Alan Guth unveiled a brilliant idea that had just one drawback: it didn't work. At the time, Guth (now a professor at MIT) was fully aware of this shortcoming, yet he was convinced of the idea's importance
nevertheless.


It's *never* worked from day one, and *still* astronomers are "convinced of the idea's importance nevertheless". Go figure.
Amazing. The whole point is that his mechanism for inflation didn't work but the idea was compelling enough that people sought different mechanisms. This is very clear from the article, Michael.

quote:
quote:
"The initial problem he took on, with help from Cornell University physicist Henry Tye, related to magnetic monopoles — hypothetical particles that carry lone north o
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  13:53:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Even if the explanation for inflation resides in new physics like string theory, Guth counters, the problems inflation solves still have to be addressed. “We still need a
mechanism that makes a universe with 10^90 particles,” the approximate number within the visible
cosmos, he says. “For that, you almost certainly need exponential growth. So I'm pretty well convinced that any solution to those problems will look a lot like inflation.”


Talk about purely circular rhetoric. All anyone needs to explain the visible universe is 10^90 "particles". These particles could easily have come from a static universe, or may have predated the event in the first place. A "flat" universe doesn't necessarily support inflation theory since it can also be indicative of a "static" rather vast cosmos. Guth is still evidently expousing "poof" theories because he believes that all the particles in our visible universe must have "inflated" themselves into existence out of a "false vacuum". That's just "poof" logic IMO. All the energy we see in the visible universe must have predated the event, and every particle we see may have also predated the event. Nothing needed to "inflate" itself into existence for the universe to be "flat", and no "particles" need to have been "inflated" out of a "false vacuum". Guth is still evidently espousing "poof" theories, where the universe magically springs forth from "false vacuums" (whatever the hell that is) as best as I can tell.
I'm completely confused by your inability to see that Guth is working in a framework of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang is true (as suggested by multiple evidences such that an alternate idea is difficult to imagine), then certain issues need to be addressed. As Guth rightly notes, these will probably look a lot like his original idea of inflation.

It's not hard. Are there other possible ways to explain the universe? Maybe. But Guth isn't working on those. He's working under the assumption of the BB. It's hard to ridicule a person for working within a framework and being consistent about it.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  14:01:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

..."false vacuums" (whatever the hell that is)...
Standard Michael rhetoric, which goes along the lines of "I don't understand this theory, but I'm sure it's a magical poof theory devoid of evidence."

Hey, Cune, can you send me that paper, too?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  14:01:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
Show me a 'monopole' particle Cune.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  14:04:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
FYI Cune, I would like to point out that I found the second paper you sent me quite interesting compared to anything I've read from Guth.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2006 :  14:35:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Even if the explanation for inflation resides in new physics like string theory, Guth counters, the problems inflation solves still have to be addressed. “We still need a
mechanism that makes a universe with 10^90 particles,” the approximate number within the visible
cosmos, he says. “For that, you almost certainly need exponential growth. So I'm pretty well convinced that any solution to those problems will look a lot like inflation.”


Talk about purely circular rhetoric. All anyone needs to explain the visible universe is 10^90 "particles". These particles could easily have come from a static universe, or may have predated the event in the first place. A "flat" universe doesn't necessarily support inflation theory since it can also be indicative of a "static" rather vast cosmos. Guth is still evidently expousing "poof" theories because he believes that all the particles in our visible universe must have "inflated" themselves into existence out of a "false vacuum". That's just "poof" logic IMO. All the energy we see in the visible universe must have predated the event, and every particle we see may have also predated the event. Nothing needed to "inflate" itself into existence for the universe to be "flat", and no "particles" need to have been "inflated" out of a "false vacuum". Guth is still evidently espousing "poof" theories, where the universe magically springs forth from "false vacuums" (whatever the hell that is) as best as I can tell.
I'm completely confused by your inability to see that Guth is working in a framework of the Big Bang.


I'm completely confused by your fascination and his fascination with an "inflating" universe in the first place. I see no "great" advantage to that idea over any other idea, and I see a number of problems with it, starting with a field that never decreases with exponentially increasing volume.

Even purely on a "Bang" framework, his arguement is circular. The "particles" as in terms of Higgs particles may have *eternally* existed within the "singularity". No "particles need to have "inflated" in that sense. They simply would need to "form" into fully "developed" (structured) subatomic and atomic particles. Nothing need to have been "created" or "inflated" in any way, simply organized in a different way.

quote:
If the Big Bang is true (as suggested by multiple evidences such that an alternate idea is difficult to imagine),


I don't find a static universe idea, or an expanding plasma cosmology model that difficult to imagine. You (and other students) should not either. That's my point in a nutshell.

quote:
then certain issues need to be addressed. As Guth rightly notes, these will probably look a lot like his original idea of inflation.


I don't think so. I don't think future generations are going to go with an explanation involving unevidenced fields that do not decrease density with increasing volume. It vio
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.47 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000