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
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  12:49:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Liar.


You mean you're going to begin *and* end with a personal attack? Who would have guessed? Yawn.

I'd prefer to be a pathological liar rather than a pathological asshole like you Geemack. At least my "condition" would be cureable with evidence.

Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/22/2006 12:57:19
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  13:21:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
At least my "condition" would be cureable with evidence.

History would indicate otherwise....


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  13:51:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
At least my "condition" would be cureable with evidence.

History would indicate otherwise....



Bull. Guth has provided elegant "math theories". What is missing however from his theory is any sort of observational "evidence" of scalar fields that expand in volume exponetially, and retain near constant density. It's all in his head, including any so called "evidence" of monopoles that have also never been "evidenced" by direct observation. Math formulas and constants on paper do not constitute, nor take the place of, *observational evidence*. The only way you can know if the math is right is to have observational evidence to test it against. There is no evidence to support Guth's mythical, density defying inflaton field, or evidence that "monopoles" exist, let alone constituted a "problem" for "standard" BB theory of the time.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  13:52:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

I think your only valid criticism was your comment about the way we're using "photosphere" measurements without explaining the differences between our layered model and the standard "combined" model. That probably should be explained and noted more clearly in any future papers.
What you really need to explain is how when you use the word "photosphere," you mean everything between your allegedly solid surface and the heliopause, while every solar scientist in the world uses "photosphere" to only refer to that which you call the "neon layer." Anders and Grevesse certainly weren't using your definition in 1989.
quote:
The rest of your critisisms were "poor" criticisms.
Oh? So you really do think it's okay to present 28-year-old "problems" as if they're still current (ignoring all of the work that's been done)? You also think it's okay to have zero experimental basis for extrapolating from "mass parabolas" to exotic matter (while at the same time, you accuse me of having faith in metaphysics!)? Other problems exist - would you like to hear about them?
quote:
If and when you can show me evidence from QM of a scalar field that actually behaves as Guth proposed inflaton fields to act, let me know. Until then, you're putting faith in metaphysics Dave. No known or studied scalar or vector fields will retain nearly constant density/intensity with exponentially increasing volume. Only in Guth's wild imagination do scalar fields act that way.
Only in your wild imagination is inflation proposed as you describe it, Michael. That's your problem: you refuse to acknowledge what the theory actually says because your strawmen of it are so easy to defeat.

- 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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  13:55:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

At least my "condition" would be cureable with evidence.
Apparently, you can't be bothered with the definition of "pathological liar," either.

- 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 - 09/22/2006 :  14:18:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What you really need to explain is how when you use the word "photosphere," you mean everything between your allegedly solid surface and the heliopause, while every solar scientist in the world uses "photosphere" to only refer to that which you call the "neon layer." Anders and Grevesse certainly weren't using your definition in 1989.


Point noted.

quote:
Oh? So you really do think it's okay to present 28-year-old "problems" as if they're still current (ignoring all of the work that's been done)?


Why not? You seem to be ignoring all the work that's been done trying to create and measure monopole particles to support Guth's "problem". Nobody has seen hide nor hair of a monopole to date Dave.

Obviously I don't think I'm "ingoring" the works that's been done between then and now.

quote:
You also think it's okay to have zero experimental basis for extrapolating from "mass parabolas" to exotic matter


Huh?

quote:
(while at the same time, you accuse me of having faith in metaphysics!)?


You seem to believe in scalar fields that defy the laws of QM Dave. All know scalar and vector fields of QM show a significant decrease in density/intensity with an exponential increase in volume. Guth's new type of scalar field has no counterpart in reality as we understand it Dave.

quote:
Other problems exist - would you like to hear about them?


Sure, as long as you don't expect me to "agree" with each of them.

quote:
Only in your wild imagination is inflation proposed as you describe it, Michael. That's your problem: you refuse to acknowledge what the theory actually says because your strawmen of it are so easy to defeat.


Here's exactly what the "theory says" according to a recent magazine article Cune sent me a few weeks ago that included quotes from Guth and others. It's entitled "Sizing up Inflation" by Steve Nadis:

quote:
Before the universe was a tiny fraction of a second old, the theory holds, it already had completed a rapid burst of exponential expansion lasting perhaps only 1035 second, during which time its volume increased by a factor of 10^90 or more. Fueling this outlandish growth was an exotic energy field the inflaton (not inflation) field that turned gravity on its head. During the brief inflationary epoch, the cosmos was filled with this invisible fog, which pushed space apart and stretched it out. This inflation-driving substance had another unusual property: it was hard to dilute, maintaining a constant ornearly constant density even as the volume of space it
inhabited expanded like mad.


This is rather "typical" of how the inflaton field theory is generally presented. Unlike all known "fogs" of scalar and vector fields we know of in QM, supposedly Guth's new fangled scalar field didn't much "dilute" or change density throughout a whole series of exponential increases in volume. That's pure metaphysic Dave. The so called "density" of other kind of QM particle-wave would necessarily changed with volume. Only in Guth's new inflaton field do we find this "metaphysical" property of constant density during expontial volume increases.

You can't deny this point forever Dave. It's a problem. It's a *big* problem.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/22/2006 14:19:44
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  14:28:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

At least my "condition" would be cureable with evidence.
Apparently, you can't be bothered with the definition of "pathological liar," either.



Dave, if I'm a "liar" at all, it's certainly not even intentional, and it's definitely not pathological in nature. Only a complete asshole like Geemack would even say something like that to begin with.

If anything, it's the kind of lying that I think Guth did when he "lied" about inflaton fields, or one "lies" about any "theory" that is later proven to be untrue. If being wrong makes me a "liar", then I suppose it's possible that I've "lied". A wee bit more scientific "evidence" however will correct any "problems" I might have over time. In fact much of my theory should be falsified or verified over the next year by STEREO and Solar-B satellites, so any misunderstandings on my part should be rectified pretty shortly.

That's distinctly "better" than Geemack's predicament. I'd certainly much rather have my predicament than his, even if I have to eat crow later and admit being wrong. At least I know my "problem" is curable.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/22/2006 14:31:37
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  14:49:18   [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.
What you really need to explain is how when you use the word "photosphere," you mean everything between your allegedly solid surface and the heliopause, while every solar scientist in the world uses "photosphere" to only refer to that which you call the "neon layer." Anders and Grevesse certainly weren't using your definition in 1989.
Point noted.
Does that indicate agreement with what I said?
quote:
quote:
Oh? So you really do think it's okay to present 28-year-old "problems" as if they're still current (ignoring all of the work that's been done)?
Why not? You seem to be ignoring all the work that's been done trying to create and measure monopole particles to support Guth's "problem". Nobody has seen hide nor hair of a monopole to date Dave.
The fact that they cannot be found is what supports inflationary theory as matching observations better than "classical" Big Bagn theory, Michael. Inflationary theory predicts that there might be one monopole in the entire universe.

Of course, what's telling is that you're missing the point of my criticism: the appeal in your article to the "neutrino problem" doesn't even bother to mention that just about every solar scientist and particle physicist at work today thinks it has been solved. And of course, since you failed to mention that, you don't even make the attempt to describe how your theory about the Sun is a better explanation. A person knowledgable about current solar theory is going to read your conclusion and get little more than a chuckle, since she'll be thinking "these authors don't even know that that problem has been solved!"

Obviously, since your article was accepted for publication, the editors are either unaware of the solution, or they couldn't be bothered to actually read your manuscript. Only these two options exist, since even if you're correct, Michael, it is scientifically dishonest to imply, as you did in your paper, that no other possible solutions exist, and such dishonesty has no place in a reputable journal. So which option would you prefer: getting published due to incompetence or ambivalence?
quote:
Obviously I don't think I'm "ingoring" the works that's been done between then and now.
Except for all the observations of actual flavor-changing among neutrinos, which you dismiss as "coincidence" (or you refuse to examine the evidence, or both).
quote:
quote:
You also think it's okay to have zero experimental basis for extrapolating from "mass parabolas" to exotic matter
Huh?
More support for my hypotheses about you, Michael: you don't understand my criticism, yet you already dismissed it as a "poor" criticism.
quote:
quote:
(while at the same time, you accuse me of having faith in metaphysics!)?
You seem to believe in scalar fields that defy the laws of QM Dave.
No, I don't.
quote:
All know scalar and vector fields of QM show a significant decrease in density/intensity with an exponential increase in volume. Guth's new type of scalar field has no counterpart in reality as we understand it Dave.
That's where you're wrong. You really shouldn't rely on popular-press magazines for information about complex theories that depend on quantum mechanics and general relativity both.
quote:
Sure, as long as you don't expect me to "agree" with each of them.
If you're interested in peer-review from this peer, you'll take my criticisms a little more seriously than "huh?"
quote:
Unlike all known "fogs" of scalar and vector fields we know of in QM, supposedly Guth's new fangled scalar field didn't much "dilute" or change density throughout a whole series of exponential increases in volume.
Name another "fog" of scalar or vector fields, Michael.
quote:
You can't deny this point forever Dave. It's a problem. It's a *big* problem.
I deny your point because it's not even wrong. I deny your point because the information you've used to reach your conclusions is both incomplete and technically incorrect, and when you're asked to read something which might dispell your poor beliefs, you balk.

- 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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  15:02:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

If being wrong makes me a "liar", then I suppose it's possible that I've "lied".
No, Michael, being wrong is fine, it's being presented with evidence, over and over again, to which you reply that there is no evidence (inflation, flavor-changing neutrinos), that's more the sort of lie we're talking about.

Your claim that Birkeland offered up a solar model is exactly that sort of lie. Even though we've had detailed discussions about what a model is, and what a solar model is, and what Birkeland actually said, you still insist, contrary to all available evidence, that Birkeland had a solar model. Being as concilliatory as possible towards your point of view, Michael, the best that can be said is that Birkeland presented a model of coronal prominences. He certainly offers up no reason to think that he thought there was a solid surface within the Sun, even though the technology of the time required him to use a solid surface in his simulation.

- 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 - 09/22/2006 :  16:33:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Does that indicate agreement with what I said?


I agree with you that there is a difference in the way the original author used the term "photosphere" (lumping all elements into one layer), and the mass separated layering scheme that we are proposing for the solar atmosphere in our model. I also agree that our "interpretation" of what these measurements actually relate to in our model needs to be better spelled out during the course of paper.

quote:
The fact that they cannot be found is what supports inflationary theory as matching observations better than "classical" Big Bagn theory, Michael.


That *might* have been true *if* you or Guth had actually demonstrated that monopoles actually exist in "reality", otherwise it's like claiming that a "lack of" unicorns on earth supports Guth's theory too. No "lack" of an unividenced particle can be used to support some guy's physics theory Dave. That's not even logical. Talk about tautologies and handwaving.

quote:
Inflationary theory predicts that there might be one monopole in the entire universe.


That is like me "predicting" that there might be "one" invisible unicorn in the entire universe. Prove it, or at least show me some valid evidence to support that position.

quote:
Of course, what's telling is that you're missing the point of my criticism: the appeal in your article to the "neutrino problem" doesn't even bother to mention that just about every solar scientist and particle physicist at work today thinks it has been solved. And of course, since you failed to mention that, you don't even make the attempt to describe how your theory about the Sun is a better explanation. A person knowledgable about current solar theory is going to read your conclusion and get little more than a chuckle, since she'll be thinking "these authors don't even know that that problem has been solved!"


Oh I see. I'm just supposed to *assume* like you do that neutrinos do in fact oscillate, and that the solar neutrino problem has already been "solved". I suppose that I do see your point, but then I don't think that you're being particularly "unbaised" over the issue of oscillation. It think you're probably right however, some might believe that the neutrino problem has been "solved".

quote:
Except for all the observations of actual flavor-changing among neutrinos, which you dismiss as "coincidence" (or you refuse to examine the evidence, or both).


I certainly did *not* claim that absorption and scattering of neutrinos was a "coincidence", nor did I refuse to examine the evidence you presented for nuetrino "oscillation". Your so called "evidence" for oscillation amounted to an arguement that all "missing" neutrinos should automatically be counted as "oscillated" neutrinos, irrespective of any absortion or scattering concerns of different types of neutrinos that are *now* known to contain mass.

This is a perfect example of your use of "spin" tactics during our conversations. Even though I went out of my way to isolate the exact nature of my objection and the source of my skepticism regarding "oscillation", you simply claim that I "refused to examine the evidence". Pure spin.

quote:
quote:
quote:
You also think it's okay to have zero experimental basis for extrapolating from "mass parabolas" to exotic matter
Huh?
More support for my hypotheses about you, Michael: you don't understand my criticism, yet you already dismissed it as a "poor" criticism.


Well Dave, whatever your *scientific* criticism on this point really is, you're sure doing a poor job *communicating* it to me, even if it turns out to be a valid and "strong" scienific criticism. I suspect the communication problem is due to your strong desire to "spin" everything, but quite honestly, so far at least, your arguement sounds like a very "poor" criticism to me.

quote:
That's where you're wrong. You really shouldn't rely on popular-press magazines for information about complex theories that depend on quantum mechanics and general relativity both.


It's really quite amazing to me that you have the sheer audacity to say ridiculous suff like this, when you didn't even know Guth an inflaton field was a scalar field. You say stuff like this and then you promptly run and hide from every single direct question I put to you about how Guth's inflaton field ties back into QM or particle physics. You won't define sizes or energy states or explain any of the connections between Guth's inflaton fields and any other *specific* fields in QM. Amazing!

quote:
If you're interested in peer-review from this peer,
you'll take my criticisms a little more seriously than "huh?"


I didn't take it "lightly" Dave, I simply didn't understand the point you were trying to make. I didn't want to "blow it off" without at least understanding what you're actually complaining about, so I said "huh?". I was hoping for clerification. Instead I got "attitude" and zip in the way of clerification. You are amazing at times at way you react to some things. You're certainly unpredictable at times.

quote:
Name another "fog" of scalar or vector fields, Michael.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field#Examples_found_in_physics
quote:
Examples found in physics

* A potential field, such as the Newtonian gravitational potential field for gravitation, or the electric potential in electrostatics.
* A temperature, humidity or pressure field, such as those used in meteorology. Note t
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/22/2006 16:58:14
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  16:51:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, being wrong is fine, it's being presented with evidence, over and over again, to which you reply that there is no evidence (inflation,


WHAT EVIDENCE DAVE? You keep claiming there is *evidence* to support inflaton fields and you have utterly refused to provide any evidence.

quote:
Your claim that Birkeland offered up a solar model is exactly that sort of lie.


Bull.

quote:
Even though we've had detailed discussions about what a model is, and what a solar model is, and what Birkeland actually said, you still insist, contrary to all available evidence, that Birkeland had a solar model.


Evidently *you* get to decide what is and what is not a "solar model"?

quote:
Being as concilliatory as possible towards your point of view, Michael, the best that can be said is that Birkeland presented a model of coronal prominences. He certainly offers up no reason to think that he thought there was a solid surface within the Sun, even though the technology of the time required him to use a solid surface in his simulation.


Birkeland certainly experimented with the same exact kind of solar model in his laboratory experiments that I've proposed, complete with a solid surface, a plasma atmosphere, external EM fields, and an internal magnetic core. He even made "predictions" about current flows from these models that were later verified. Birkeland himself claimed that his terella experiments likely had value as it relates to solar theory, and he was right.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
quote:
On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a large vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have led to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory.


You can "spin" Birkeland's contribution to these theories all you like, and you can complain about what *is* and what is *not* a "solar theory" by your standards, but that won't change history. Birkeland took pictures of his lab experiments and some of them are on my website along with other links to his work. Anyone can read about Birkelands terella experiments for themselves and make up their own mind. Maybe you can "whine" about me taking liberties as it relates to what constitutes a "solar model", but that's about the worst you can really say. I've certainly not "lied" about anything that Birkeland did, and his terella experiments are not my imagination.

Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  17:35:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, being wrong is fine, it's being presented with evidence, over and over again, to which you reply that there is no evidence (inflation,


WHAT EVIDENCE DAVE? You keep claiming there is *evidence* to support inflaton fields and you have utterly refused to provide any evidence.

(I promised I wouldn't reply to this utterly fatuous thread, but whatever):

Cosmologist Charles Bennett wins the Harvey Prize in physics for his work on the WMAP data because, among other things, it demonstrated some predictions re inflation. See esp. pages 39 and following. Does this demonstrate the existence of of monopoles or inflations or any other thing that Mozina hypocritically demands? No. But does it show that inflationary models make preditions? Yes. Have they shown to be true? Yes. Will Mozina move the goalposts? You bet.

(ETA: Do note that the linked paper involves stuff like Math.)
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/22/2006 17:37:38
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  18:38:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
quote:
Even though we've had detailed discussions about what a model is, and what a solar model is, and what Birkeland actually said, you still insist, contrary to all available evidence, that Birkeland had a solar model.

Evidently *you* get to decide what is and what is not a "solar model"?

No science does. Think real hard about this: A model of the sun is not a solar model.


quote:
quote:
quote:
Michael said
Why not? You seem to be ignoring all the work that's been done trying to create and measure monopole particles to support Guth's "problem". Nobody has seen hide nor hair of a monopole to date Dave.

Dave replied
The fact that they cannot be found is what supports inflationary theory as matching observations better than "classical" Big Bagn theory, Michael.

Michael replied
That *might* have been true *if* you or Guth had actually demonstrated that monopoles actually exist in "reality", otherwise it's like claiming that a "lack of" unicorns on earth supports Guth's theory too.

The point is that you are saying that finding monopoles would support Guth when the opposite is true, once again demonstrating your appalling lack of understanding of theories to which you are in violent dissagrement.






If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/22/2006 :  19:21:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

I agree with you that there is a difference in the way the original author used the term "photosphere" (lumping all elements into one layer), and the mass separated layering scheme that we are proposing for the solar atmosphere in our model. I also agree that our "interpretation" of what these measurements actually relate to in our model needs to be better spelled out during the course of paper.
Okay, but the situation is actually quite a bit worse than that, Michael. Your model requires that the measurements made by Anders and Grevesse are necessarily not of the photosphere (as they defined it). You are claiming that their measurements are wrong. To use their measurements as foundational data (as you do) for calculating (there's that pesky math again) the abundance of elements in the "bulk Sun" is therefore the height of irrationality. You can't simply claim that their measurements are correct for your definition of the photosphere, since the methods they used are inappropriate for that.

Oh, and another thing: there have been several refinements made to the 1989 values over the years (another problem with using old references). Obviously, since you're still citing the old data, nobody in your team has re-evaluated the "corrections" your model requires. But when 2001 numbers show iron abundances in the photosphere over 40% lower (!) than estimated by Anders and Grevesse, and 2004 numbers show xenon abundances just 1/364th (that's 0.255% !!) of that of your reference, then it's well past time for the isotope analysis to be re-calculated. Especially since Dr. Manuel made extensive use of xenon abundances in formulating his ideas.

Enough of this for tonight.

- 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

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2006 :  06:23:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
The Catch-22 is that you have to theorize something and only then test for it. In Michael-world, you find the particle and then figure out what it did.


That's the way particle physics and QM work. Sorry. How else do you know is something actually *exists* in reality, and isn't figment of an active imagination?
I also couldn't resist responding to this. Michael, while I do not doubt that scientists often stumble across things they don't expect-- things that can lead to remarkable new ideas and developments-- no one runs tests ust to see what will happen. Tests are run to see if observation matches what it proposed. And what is proposed is, in the realm of physics and cosmology, always arrived at through computing measurments and, well, math.

So no, that's not the way particle phsyics works, Michael. What's sorry is that you think it is.

You provided an example:
quote:
In particle physics they found decay processes that seemed to be "missing" energy, and that is how neutrinos came to be "theorized" from a "problem" in *real life observation* vs. current theory. Note that it is based on *observation*, not blind speculation based on unagreed upon GUT concepts. Note that they understood and had identified the parent particles, and had some notion of the "energy" state it might occupy. The could therefore build experiments to detect these particles and they *did* detect these particles.
Note: Pauli noticed something was wrong when the observations weren't conforming to the math. Then he postulated an undetected thing to explain for the observation. This undetected thing stayed undetected for decades, and only after a) waiting for superior equipment, and b) working through the math, could they devise an experiment to text for them.

Again: they didn't find a neutrino and then figure out what it did. Do you understand? EVERYONE else does. Instead, observation didn't match predictions. So they had to devise new formulas to arrive at a means of testing for the undetected object.

Finally, you should stop bitching about the scalar field problem. Here's what we have to assume: either a) scientists are completely dumb and haven't noticed this very basic complaint you're raising; b) scientists noted the problem, but have worked through them and found solutions so that it really isn't a problem; or c) your understanding of inflation and scalar fields is facile (based largely on wikipedia) and serious cosmologists understood that it wasn't a problem to begin with.

I haven't decided if b or c are right, but I bet some quick searching of journal databases (and not, say, wikipedia) will point to one or the other...
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 0.48 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000