|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2006 : 00:56:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You keep saying things like "I don't know" or "whatever the heck that is," yet you expect us to believe that you are not ignorant of the physics of this theory?
I've been accused of putting words in your mouth everytime I "assume" anything about what you believe in. Cune accused me of not keeping up with the times. I simply asked questions to make sure I was A) not putting words in your mouth, and B) not assuming that some changes have not occured that "might" be relevant. You keep dodging my questions however, so I can only assume that not a lot of progress has been made, and it's not just *me* that is "ignorant" here of how these things work, but rather then whole scientific community.
No, Michael, your assumption is entirely unfounded, and that's been my main point all along.
You have been making statements about these theories, like that there is "no evidence" for inflation, and "no evidence" that neutrinos change flavors, and when people here start talking about the very evidence that you claim is absent, it constitutes a direct refutation of your claims, and shows that you have reached a conclusion - that there is "no evidence" for these ideas - based upon your own ignorance of the subjects, and nothing more.
When you start asking question about the evidence, then, the problem isn't that you might be putting words in our mouths, or that you're making incorrect assumptions about any changes, the questions you ask show that you don't know what the current theories are. Yet you have already dismissed them as "unevidenced" "myths."
You don't know where the theories stand. Everyone here knows this, including you. The fact that you feel okay, under such conditions, stating with absolute certainty that there is "no evidence" for them means that any answers we might provide (and you're utterly wrong about me not answering your question about how the inflaton ties into particle physics, especially since you quoted my answer) do not matter. You have made up your mind. You have, through your reactions to the evidence that's been presented (specifically, simply restating that there is no evidence instead of offering criticisms of the evidence presented), made it absolutely certain that evidence won't change your mind.
A person who is truly interested in a subject, but without enough information to come to an informed decision about it, will start a discussion about it by saying something like, "I heard that neturinos can change flavors, but don't see how that's possible. Can someone here tell me more?" Had you asked a question like that, members here would have gone out of their way to inform you. You didn't do that, but instead began with the incorrect assumption that the only thing to date telling us that neutrinos change flavors is some solar measurements, and every time I've mentioned the Earth-bound "lab tests," you've completely ignored them, stating, incorrectly, that "scattering" and "absorbtion" can explain all the measurements.
That's a textbook example of your willful ignorance, Michael, and it is antithetical to the processes of science and skepticism both. You have faith that there is no evidence for inflationary theory (for example), and yes, that faith is incompatible with good science. I've brought this same point up about your inability to discuss scientific ideas as they should be discussed at least a couple dozen times in the past ten months, and it's been clear for a long time that you don't care.
And so, I've grown tired of playing your unscientific games. You made it clear long ago, that you're uninterested in evidence refuting your ideas, and I've played along for quite a while, but no more. Yes, this is an admission of defeat. Your unscientific rhetoric and denial are too powerful for reason, logic and evidence to overcome.
I'll admit a more substantial defeat when STEREO confirms your theory, Michael. Just let me know when that happens, and I will publicly eat more crow for your amusement. Until then... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 16:59:58 [Permalink]
|
| Can it be that this thread is finally done? Mayhaps. I feel somewhat responsible for hijacking this thread-- at least the last few parts-- for my Big Bang stuff. In the next few days I'll start up a new thread just for that. In the while, I'll promise not to bring any of that up and if anyone (including lurkers) wants to jump in afresh (is that a word), please do so!!! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 17:59:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, your assumption is entirely unfounded, and that's been my main point all along.
No, your assumption of an inflaton field was untirely unfounded and that's been *my* point all along Dave. It's all based on one creation "theory* and it's based on a particle/field that was first proposed in 1981. That particle/field has never been evidenced in a lab anywhere, anytime by anyone. It is not mentioned or required in particle physics, QM or GR.
quote:
You have been making statements about these theories, like that there is "no evidence" for inflation, and "no evidence" that neutrinos change flavors, and when people here start talking about the very evidence that you claim is absent, it constitutes a direct refutation of your claims, and shows that you have reached a conclusion - that there is "no evidence" for these ideas - based upon your own ignorance of the subjects, and nothing more.
Dave, name one scientists that have ever duplicated even his own experiments and shown A) the existence of monopole particles that were used as the basis for introducing inflation in the first place, or B) the existence of inflation fields that were used to "fix" the problem "hypothesized" in part A)?
quote:
When you start asking question about the evidence, then, the problem isn't that you might be putting words in our mouths, or that you're making incorrect assumptions about any changes, the questions you ask show that you don't know what the current theories are. Yet you have already dismissed them as "unevidenced" "myths."
That is because to date, not one single solitary scientist has stepped forward with credible lab evidence to support a monopole particle, let alone an inflaton particle/field. It's never happened Dave. What can I say? Math is great on paper, but math on paper alone does not define "reality". String theory works mathematically, but it's doubtful it has much application in our world today based on the evidence collected to date according to many "experts" that once entertained the idea of string theory.
Show me some real *evidence* of monopole or inflaton particles *outside* of your pet theory and then talk to me about my "incorrect assumptions". Until then, you're just whisting dixie IMO, and trying to take attention away from that point by taking the low road of personal attack. It's not my fault no that human being has yet produced any lab evidence to support a monopole particle or an inflation field/paricle Dave. You're blaming the messenger.
quote:
You don't know where the theories stand. Everyone here knows this, including you.
One thing I'm quite sure of Dave, nobody has ever claimed to create a replicatable experiment where evidence of inflaton particles were present and affecting the experiment, that were later duplicted by another lab. Until that day, it's all "theory" and great looking math on paper. That's the way science works Dave. All the "speculations" Guth makes about string theories and such only make his inflation theories seem even more outlandish IMO. Why do need multiple dimensions to explain acceleration, when simple EM fields and preexisting matter would do the trick? Inflation and string theory, and monopoles are "science fiction" at this point in time Dave, nothing more.
quote:
The fact that you feel okay, under such conditions, stating with absolute certainty that there is "no evidence" for them means that any answers we might provide (and you're utterly wrong about me not answering your question about how the inflaton ties into particle physics, especially since you quoted my answer) do not matter. You have made up your mind.
But Dave, a simple experiment demonstrating evidence of inflaton fields in a lab, that were duplicated by another person would immediately end the debate. If you had such evidence, you and Guth and everyone else would have presented it to the world, and that Wiki page on inflaton wouldn't be three short paragraphs long today.
quote:
You have, through your reactions to the evidence that's been presented (specifically, simply restating that there is no evidence instead of offering criticisms of the evidence presented), made it absolutely certain that evidence won't change your mind.
That is simply untrue. All you have to do is show me real life observational evidence of monopoles or inflaton fields and I very wel might change my mind. How do I know that *you* are being open minded if you refuse to provide any observational support for inflaton fields or monopole particles *outside* of your inflaton theory? That's no better than me assigning "consciousness" the inflaton field to explain why it doesn't change density with expanding volume and then claiming that this lack of changing density is "evidence" that inflaton is "conscious". It's purely a circular feedback loop Dave. Talk about tautalogies!
quote:
A person who is truly interested in a subject, but without enough information to come to an informed decision about it, will start a discussion about it by saying something like, "I heard that neturinos can change flavors, but don't see how that's possible. Can someone here tell me more?" Had you asked a question like that, members here would have gone out of their way to inform you.
I didn't start a conversation about neutrinos Dave, you did. I simply gave you my opinion on that topic as it relates to solar theory and current neutrino experiments to this moment in time. Whether they oscillate or do not, it's no skin off my nose one way or the other. It's actually *easier* for me to explain the existence of these other types of neutrinos through oscillation in the first place. I simply don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that we "know" that neutrinos change flavor yet. IMO, you are simply "jumping the gun", especially since our ability to "observe" them is limited to miniscule percentages of the total flow of neutrinos.
quote:
You didn't do that, but instead began with the incorrect assumption that the only thing to date telling us that neutrinos change flavors is some solar measurements, and every time I've mentioned the Earth-bound "lab tests," you've completely i |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/17/2006 18:01:03 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 18:04:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Can it be that this thread is finally done? Mayhaps. I feel somewhat responsible for hijacking this thread-- at least the last few parts-- for my Big Bang stuff. In the next few days I'll start up a new thread just for that. In the while, I'll promise not to bring any of that up and if anyone (including lurkers) wants to jump in afresh (is that a word), please do so!!!
I'm certainly done with the BB subject in this thread. If you guys want to believe that "progress" has occured when no scientist on earth has ever claimed to have created monopoles or inflaton fields/particles in a lab, that's fine, I can't stop you. If you can't answer my questions however about how these particles have been evidenced *outside* of the theory in which it's being proposed, don't expect me to switch positions anytime soon. Let me know when someone has created a replicateable lab experiment to demonstrate monopoles or inflaton fields. Until then I think I'll limit my comments here to solar theory and only solar theory. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/17/2006 18:05:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 18:10:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This might be the lamest attempt to defend your position on inflation you've thus far used. If I understand correctly, you're arguing that since wikipedia doesn't have much to say about inflation, nothing much has been done?
It means that never once has any credible scientist created a reproceable experiment to demonstrate the existence of A) monopoles that were used as the basis for introducing the concept of inflation to BB theory, or B) the existence of inflaton/particle fields.
If and when any such experiment is ever created, I'll be the first to claim "there is evidence" to support the idea *outside* of the idea itself. Until then, it's just another interesting idea among many interesting ideas.
Again, I think I'll just stop right here on this subject. If you ever run accross lab results that demonstrate inflaton or monopoles, let me know. Until then I'll remain "skeptical" of inflation and I will remain skeptical of BB theory in general.
If you have solar questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but since this is a solar thread, I'd like to return to that subject rather than hijack the thread any further. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/17/2006 18:11:50 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 18:10:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Can it be that this thread is finally done? Mayhaps. I feel somewhat responsible for hijacking this thread-- at least the last few parts-- for my Big Bang stuff. In the next few days I'll start up a new thread just for that. In the while, I'll promise not to bring any of that up and if anyone (including lurkers) wants to jump in afresh (is that a word), please do so!!!
I'm certainly done with the BB subject in this thread. If you guys want to believe that "progress" has occured when no scientist on earth has ever claimed to have created monopoles or inflation particles in a lab, that's fine, I can't stop you. If you can't answer my questions however about how these particles have been evidence *outside* of the theory in which it's being proposed, don't expect me to switch positions anytime soon.
Let me know when someone has created a replicateable lab experiment to demonstrate monopoles or inflaton fields.
Michael, I honestly wouldn't expect you to change your sad position if an inflaton hit you in the head. Indeed, it would fit nicely with the move-the-goalposts strategy you use to convince yourself that you haven't been proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 18:22:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael, I honestly wouldn't expect you to change your sad position if an inflaton hit you in the head. Indeed, it would fit nicely with the move-the-goalposts strategy you use to convince yourself that you haven't been proven wrong.
This is so "backwards" from true skepticism, it's not funny IMO. Skeptics require "observational evidence" that isn't circular in nature and that is verifyable by observation.
In "science" something must typically be evidenced through observation to be substanciated. That has never occured on the subject of inflation, not in 25 years. No one has stepped up to offer any replicateable experiment to demonstrate the existence of inflaton fields or monopoles in any controlled laboratory experiment. It's never happened. Normally the way science works is that first the evidence is presented, *then* the idea is judged. In this case however *no* evidence was presented, the author himself claimed it didn't work, and already the idea has deemed "worthy" to be taught in college.
Worse yet, this theory is being taught to the exclusion of all other theories of the unviverse. I'm afraid as a "skeptic" and as someone who loves "science", that simply is not acceptable to me.
I'm a "show me" sort of individual. I assure you if anyone ever demonstratrates that a monopole or inflaton particle/field exist, I'll be the first to congradulate them. Until that time, I'm going to remain a "skeptic" toward that particular idea. Period. Whether you think that is "sad" or not sad is not important to me. Whether something can be evidenced or not *is* important to me. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/17/2006 18:25:01 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 19:29:53 [Permalink]
|
You're willful ignorance is so annoying Michael...
Dave says correctly that there is evidence for inflation and you say:
quote:
The unscientific "games" begin with your insistence that there is "evidence" of inflaton particles.
You really are a bone head.
I am simply amazed that Dave was so patient and took the amount of time he did to have a discourse with you.
I am glad he did take the time because I learned a tremendous amount about the sun from him - thanks Dave.
I also learned alot about willful ignorance from Michael.
By the way Michael you said:
quote:
You would however exclude other theories from the classroom. *That* sort of behavior is the antithesis of the scientific and skeptical process. Nobody suggests that we only teach programmers one programming language.
That is a truly stupid analogy. Should they teach programing languages that don't work? Teaching your absurd theories would be just like teach a program language that didn't work. But hey they should be exposed to all programing languages right.
quote:
That's quite ironic coming from from you Dave. Most skeptics I know remain "skeptical" of a lot of topics, not just religion.
You wouldn't recognize a skeptic if you tripped over her.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 20:35:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'd simply like you to be more "open minded" as it comes to the topic of astronomy.
From someone who refuses to even acknowledge that there is evidence supporting several theories, this is a laugh riot. No, it may not be the sort of evidence that you demand to see, but there is no place in the scientific method that says "lab tests must be performed." You simply don't understand science, Michael, and you've made that crystal clear just through how you talk about it in general. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2006 : 20:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
That's quite ironic coming from from you Dave. Most skeptics I know remain "skeptical" of a lot of topics, not just religion.
You wouldn't recognize a skeptic if you tripped over her.
This is indicative of Michael's behavior overall. Not only is any scientist who doesn't subscribe to his theories not a scientist (but instead a follower of a religion), neither are skeptics truly skeptics unless they doubt the things he doubts. Of course, Michael isn't a skeptic at all as we define it. He's a contrarian.
|
"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 09/17/2006 20:41:03 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 07:07:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course, Michael isn't a skeptic at all as we define it. He's a contrarian.
Agreed. Michael is identical to the ID crowd who claim they are skeptics. They say they are skeptical of Evolution and claim only that ID should be taught as a possible alternative - when in truth they are completely blinded to anything except their view. The truth is they only want a way in the door to preach their dogma and force out evolution. This all fits Michael to a 'T'.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 07:28:53 [Permalink]
|
We do not have lab tests that shows us the existance of Neutron stellar cores, therefore the notion that the solid sun may have a neutron core is just pure fiction.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 10:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
We do not have lab tests that shows us the existance of Neutron stellar cores, therefore the notion that the solid sun may have a neutron core is just pure fiction.
Except in this case, it is impossible to create a neutron core here in a lab. We do however have quite a bit of observational evidence to support their existence from *many* different astronomers and from many different studies of space.
I think it's time we all take a break for awhile. I'm busy this week, so I won't have a lot of time to carry on online conversations for awhile. It's quite clear that this conversation has been entirely hijacked anyway.
Solar-B and STEREO will offer us some new and exciting ways to test the viability of the solar ideas I've put forth here over the past year. I'll work on some "predictions" for the Solar-B program this week that will include some predictions about current flow during CME's. After I've updated by website blog, I'll post the SOLAR-B predictions here in the forum. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 10:58:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Agreed. Michael is identical to the ID crowd who claim they are skeptics. They say they are skeptical of Evolution and claim only that ID should be taught as a possible alternative - when in truth they are completely blinded to anything except their view. The truth is they only want a way in the door to preach their dogma and force out evolution. This all fits Michael to a 'T'.
What a bunch of boloney. You folks are the only ones trying to "force out" all discent in the classroom. This is pitiful comparison, and it's only meant to be insulting. I do *not* support creationist theories of any sort, and I'm not trying o "force out" any theory found in astronomy. Any kind of comparison to me supporting any such concept, or suggesting I'm trying to "force out" anything is utterly false. It's also irrational to compare inflaton fields from creation mythologies to the theory of evolution.
Unlike inflaton fields, that have never been observed and where three short paragraphs define what's actually been learned and observed about inflaton fields over the past 25 years, the theory of evolution enjoys *emense* observational support from several areas of science. That is utterly *unlike* your blind faith in inflaton fields/particles that have never *once* been *observed* or evidenced *outside* of the the theory itself. There is no rational comparison to these two ideas. Evolutionary theory enjoys all sorts of observational support whereas Guth's mystical magical inflaton particle/fields have never been evidenced by anyone, ever.
If anything like blind religious faith is happening here, it's from *your* side of the aisle not from me. I'm not trying to insert *any* dogma a "truth". You folks are in fact the ones that are peddling a creation mythology and refering to it as "science", even though it begins with an unevidenced field/particle. You have a creation myth that you've latched onto and you folks are utterly unwilling to allow *any* alternative ideas to be presented or discussed in the classroom. You're heavily involved in protecting the dogma system at all costs.
Despite all the evidence to support plasma cosmology, and all the work by Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and others, astronomers are simply intent on ignoring the role of electricity in solar activity and in the cosmos. They don't dare speak a word about current flow related to magnetic fields on the sun or in space, but they'll jump on board any idea that talks about "frozen fields" in light plasma in spite of the fact that Alfven demonstrated that kinetic energy and electrical current flow also have a large role to play in any "frozen" magnetic fields in light plasma. They utterly ignore Bruce when he made the connection between solar phenomenon and electrical discharge theory.
When the shortcomings of the current astronomical theories are pointed out, the "experts" get all defensive and uptight, and the attack dogs start yelping. Never mind the fact that plasmas here on earth separate right down the isotope in the presense of strong magnetic and gravitational fields, astronomers are certain that the sun does not separate its plasmas by the type of element. Astronomy today is one big house of cards IMO, starting with non mass separated gas model solar theories and including the creation myths it teaches it's students today. There isn't a lot I can do about the creation myth at the moment since there is no way to falsify the idea in the first place, but there is something I can do about gas model solar theory. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/18/2006 11:02:56 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 12:05:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
We do not have lab tests that shows us the existance of Neutron stellar cores, therefore the notion that the solid sun may have a neutron core is just pure fiction.
Except in this case, it is impossible to create a neutron core here in a lab. We do however have quite a bit of observational evidence to support their existence from *many* different astronomers and from many different studies of space.
You don't realize how ironic your comments are, do you?
That the photosphere of the sun is a near-perfect black-body is also something we cannot reproduce in a lab.
The inflaton field/particle may not be detectable at the current energy-levels available in labs. You cannot discount the possibility that we may eventually have the equipment to artificially produce Higgs bosons.
So for now, the inflation is a tentative theory waiting for our ability to falsify it. Which may happen some time in the future. Until then, inflation is the best explanation we have. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
