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

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  12:14:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That you still think that monopoles were dreampt up as an "ad-hoc" problem is clear proof that you live in a delusional world.

Michaels reply
The fact that you believe that there is "evidence" to support the notion that monopoles actually exist is clear evidence that you also live in a delusional world right along with me Cune.

You stated that cune believes that there is evidence for monopoles, he of course never said that or even implied that, so the way I see it this leaves only 2 options:

1. You are just a dishonest person.
2. You are not very intelligent.

Frankly, at this point I have not idea if you are 1 or 2.




Thanks furshur-- I missed that. Indeed, I have no idea what a monopole is beyond the scant wiki entry. But what I think is or isn't correct about them isn't at issue, even if Michael thinks it is.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  12:31:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
Please mind your tempers, guys...

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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  13:07:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

The fact you feel the need to "bash" publications now, and play the "what is the publicication's magic number" game, only demonstrates the ridiculously shallow nature of your whole arguement. That is a pure appeal to popularity/authority arguement.
No, Michael, the information I gathered about the journal only came after I identified (and posted) three major problems with your article (none of which you have responded to). The quality of the journal explains why they accepted - apparently without peer review - your piece of poor scholarship.
quote:
Even when I make the effort to get material published, you disrepect that effort.
Why should I respect the effort to republish the same stuff you've already published? There are no new ideas or new data in your most-recent article, so far as I can tell it's all been published before. It seems familiar enough that I'm interested in seeing how much of the text is actually copied-and-pasted from earlier publications (like most of the figures).
quote:
What have you published recently *in anything* Dave?
Ah, the good ol' "argument from publication," by which logic we would all be forced to agree that there is some merit to homeopathy, creationism, astrology, intelligent design, moxibustion, zero-point energy, N-rays, phlogiston and perpetual-motion machines just because the proponents of those ideas have had articles published in peer-reviewed journals. But, the reality of the situation is that publication by itself doesn't lend anything to the truth value of any proposition.

- 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 - 09/20/2006 :  13:19:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
NO, Michael, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE LITEATURE (you haven't read ANY, obviously) THE PROBLEM WAS NOTED BEFORE GUTH.

Parse all you want.



Sure monopoles were "theorized" before Guth and were being championed by someone Guth knew personally or at least professionally, much like my relationship with Dr. Manuel. Monopoles were not even considered that much of a "big deal" prior to Guth, and no evidence for monopoles existed at that time. There was certainly no scientific "consensus" that monopoles would be "created in large numbers" by a Big Bang, with or without inflation prior to Guth.

quote:
Thanks furshur-- I missed that. Indeed, I have no idea what a monopole is beyond the scant wiki entry. But what I think is or isn't correct about them isn't at issue, even if Michael thinks it is.


But Cune, the paper you sent me last week notes some of the history here. Guth presented his theories as a "fix" for a percieved problem based upon the belief that monopole particles would have been created at observationally significant numbers in a "big bang" were it not for inflation. That was one of the the primary "motives" for Guth "inventing" (quite literally) a new scalar field, with quite unusual density properties. The experiments we've done now would suggest that *if* monopoles actually even can exist in reality they wouldn't be created in high quantities from any process we are aware of. Worse however is that no evidence for inflaton fields have ever emerged in GR, QM or particle physics. It's pure theory and purely nice, seductive looking math forumlas on paper, just like string theory. Parse my comments all you wish too, but that isn't going to change the fact that no evidence supports the existence of an inflaton field in any area of science *outside* of the theory itself.

Now if and when you or Guth or anyone can demonstrate an inflaton particle/field in controlled reproceable and observationally verifyable ways, I might change my tune. For the time being however, I will continue to remain "skeptical" of the idea for the reasons I have outlined, particularly that "nearly constant density" with exponentially increasing volume. To me that's pure metaphysics.

I've waited around for 25 years for evidence of inflaton fields to emerge, and it simply has not occured. That is quite unlike that progress that is being made in the detection of, and study of the theorized particles of neutrinos.

Tanglible evidence is all I'm asking for here Cune. Any skeptic would want such evidence before buying into any idea. I'm treating the idea of inlfaton fields with exactly the same skepticism I hold to any new and unevidenced idea. It not personal toward Guth or his theories. I apply this process to everyting I do.

I'm not "hopeless" even from your perspective however in the sense that I am willing to take a fresh look at the concept if and when someone can actually provide any evidence of the idea. In 25 years of waiting, that kind of evidence has simply not emerged and the hairs on my head are strarting to turn grey.

Only the CMBR data looked "promising" for inflation for a while, but in the last few years even that support has been yanked from under the theory, or at least it has been called into serious question. If there is no evidence of lensing or shadowing that is also consistent with inflation theory, and this particular theory wishes to use the CMB data to support itself, then it must address the lensing and shadowing studies that are not consistent with this idea.

If I came to you and claimed that my new solar theory required not one, but two (including dark energy) new scalar fields that nobody had ever heard of before, would anyone even take me seriously?

Think about that for awhile and put yourself in my shoes. Walk a mile (or spend an hour) in my shoes and see what you think. I think you'll see I'm not asking for a lot here. I'm simply asking for observational confirmation of inflation. So far, in 25 years of waiting around, all that's been "agreed upon" by the experts about inflation fields is three short paragraphs that Guth could have written himself 25 years ago. No laboratory evidence yet exists to support this concept even though they "seem" to agree that inflation is still occuring today. Would you have me wait till I'm dead before I try to explore alternative options?
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/20/2006 13:21:51
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  13:20:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
Please mind your tempers, guys...

Gee, you're no fun!

But I will yield to the Dr., I don't want you to unleash the nija baby on me...


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

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  13:30:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
There was certainly "consensus" that monopoles would be "created in large numbers" by a Big Bang, with or without inflation prior to Guth.

The only problem with this statement is that it is wrong.
Since Guth proposed inflation, how was there consensus on monopoles with inflation before Guth???

The consensus is that there will NOT be a large number of monopoles created by the big bang with inflation.



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 - 09/20/2006 :  14:15:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, the information I gathered about the journal only came after I identified (and posted) three major problems with your article (none of which you have responded to). The quality of the journal explains why they accepted - apparently without peer review - your piece of poor scholarship.


Did you wake up on the wrong side of bed today or what Dave? If I treated you like you treat me, you'd throw a hissy fit. Evidently you personally think it's "good scholarship" to believe in unevidenced scalar fields with metaphysical density properties based on a hunch about the creation of another kind of highly questionable particle that has never been evidenced either. Monopoles? Where is the evidence for those? Inflaton? What particle interactions is it involved in?

On the other hand, it's evidently "bad scholarship" to begin with observational evidence using satellite images, and its bad to publish "similar" kinds of material in legtimate publications that have readers with the expertise to refute and/or review the bulk of the "evidence" that's been gathered over the years to suggest the sun isn't a giant ball of hydrogen gas.

It's evidently a "bad" thing to choose the course that Alfven chose to have his early work published in a "skeptical" environment even if the "mainstream" isn't listening. That's "bad" scholarhip evidently because the readers of those publications clearly don't know squat about anything in the paper this mostly involves particle physics observations.

quote:
quote:
Even when I make the effort to get material published, you disrepect that effort.
Why should I respect the effort to republish the same stuff you've already published?


You should respect my effots because these are peer reviewed publications, that go out to professionals with the expertise to judge the validity of our work. These papers were notsimply submitted to generic confernces on topics as was the case with the first paper I was involved in. There is a process here Dave that every scientists uses to get their matieral published and to make it widely available and to open in to significant scrutiny. That's all we've done.

quote:
Ah, the good ol' "argument from publication," by which logic we would all be forced to agree that there is some merit to homeopathy, creationism, astrology, intelligent design, moxibustion, zero-point energy, N-rays, phlogiston and perpetual-motion machines just because the proponents of those ideas have had articles published in peer-reviewed journals. But, the reality of the situation is that publication by itself doesn't lend anything to the truth value of any proposition.


That's certainly seem to be the only thing going for inflaton fields and monopoles too Dave. They belong on that very same list. They are every bit as unevidenced as anything else on your list, and some of the things on your list were also "popular" at one point in time too. Somehow, for some reason, you've decided that there is "evidence" for inflaton fields, even though you can't even define how they fit into QM or particle phyiscs. Go figure.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/20/2006 14:17:33
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  14:26:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
There was certainly "consensus" that monopoles would be "created in large numbers" by a Big Bang, with or without inflation prior to Guth.

The only problem with this statement is that it is wrong.


You are correct. I forgot the word "no" in that sentence which I later corrected.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  14:28:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

No, I was simply noting the irrational nature of claiming *I'm* the one that didn't understand the subject material of inflation when it was you that did not understand the subject material.
I never claimed that you were the only one here who didn't understand the subject.
quote:
Since you did not understand that the theory of inflation was based on a scalar field that did not decrease its density/intensity with exponentially increasing volume, there *could* be a logical reason why you didn't understand my rejection of the concept. Instead of recognizing that maybe there was a valid "sketical" reason for my rejection of the idea, you attacked me personally and questioned *my* knowledge of this subject. That is irrational behavior all things considered.
Not at all: we have hard evidence, in terms of the posts here, that you have been presented with evidence that favors current inflationary theories, and we also have your repetitious denials that such evidence does not exist.
quote:
Now if someone had actually demonstrated the existence of inflaton fields in a lab five years ago, and I was still ignorant of the idea today, *then* you might have had some motive to attack my knowledge level of this subject.
We also have your ignorance that science doesn't require lab tests.
quote:
But Dave, you have not provided *any* evidence outside of the theory itself.
I don't even know what that means any more, since observations aren't a part of any theory.
quote:
The CMBR data can no longer be used to substanciate this idea because it failed other kinds of tests.
Oh, that. As soon as the reports come out saying that the WMAP data definitively disconfirms the Big Bang theory, then you can talk about lack of substantiation.
quote:
There is currently no "data" that actually supports inflation theory at this time.
Of course, the funny thing is that before September 4th (before that WMAP report came out), you were still arguing that there was "no evidence" to support inflationary theory.
quote:
If you wish to provide "evidence" of inflation through the CMBR data, you will have to address the two issues I cited early that demonstrate there there is not enough shadowing or enough lensing in the CMBR data to explain this wavelength as a remnant of an inflation epoch in some distant past.
But nobody claims that the CMBR is "a remnant of an inflation epoch," since the CMBR was predicted by Big Bang theory long before inflationary theory ever existed.
quote:
No, "strickly speaking" I knew right. You're obvious quibbling over wording again.
No, I'm talking about technical issues about the theory. If you can't get it right, then my arguments about your ignorance are supported.
quote:
Dave, the first thing you *should* have learned about these magical scalar fields, is that they are *unlike* other kinds of scalar or vector fields.
Not according to what I've read about scalar fields in general.
quote:
That "property" Guth "made up" in an ad hoc manner of assigning nearly unchanging "density" to this field in the midst of an exponetial increase in volumen, is absolutely unlike any other scalar field we are aware of in nature.
Name one.
quote:
As volume increases all known and doumented scalar and vector fields "spread out" and become less intense.
Not by the same amounts.
quote:
That however didn't help Guth. Guth "needed" a field that didn't disipate so he created one "ad hoc", just like he created the monopole "problem" ad hoc.
Since he didn't create any "monopole problem" at all, your comparison is invalid for two reasons.
quote:
Both the problem he envisioned in the BBG, and the field he envisioned to fix the "problem" were created in the mind of Guth.
Prove it.
quote:
That is exactly as much evidence as *still* exists for either of these particles to this day, some 25 years later.
That's simply your denial of the evidence again.
quote:
Do I have to be dead before I reject an idea that's never had any evidence to support it Dave?
Apparently, you just have to be as blind as a dead person to miss the evidence.
quote:
What I recognize is that you have an nasty little temper that gets you in trouble and makes you say irrational and goofy things from time to time.
You are projecting again. My discussion of your ignorance and the problems it creates for you has been nothing but calm. I've got no reason to lose my temper other than your repetitive misrepresentations about what I've said.
quote:
It is typical when one discusses an idea with someone who knows more about a subject than you know, to acknowledge this.

- 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 - 09/20/2006 :  14:35:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Aw, come on, Michael. You can do better than this.


Yes, I'm sure I could elaborate, but if I say anything it's going to start a whole new conversation on bang theory which is something I really don't have time for right now.

quote:
Details please, this is a completely new idea to me and I'm interested in how it works.


I'll give you a hint. It involves the flow of electrical current through plasma *systems*. Think in terms of arcs of plasma and lots of light from dissimarly charged "systems" that begin to interact as they draw close. Note that I am *not* suggesting that *all* of the plasma in our current universe was contained inside of the two singularies. It would be more akin to a galaxy interaction where one galaxy was made of matter and the other one is made of antimatter. Yes, I know it will require an external energy source to make the current flow work properly, but I already suggested there was an external EM field.

quote:
Where is your logical support of such a hypothesis?


Where is the logical support of inflaton fields?
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  16:17:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sure monopoles were "theorized" before Guth and were being championed by someone Guth knew personally or at least professionally, much like my relationship with Dr. Manuel. Monopoles were not even considered that much of a "big deal" prior to Guth, and no evidence for monopoles existed at that time. There was certainly no scientific "consensus" that monopoles would be "created in large numbers" by a Big Bang, with or without inflation prior to Guth.
Ah, I see. So Guth didn't invent the problem. But his friend did. Perhaps they were in on it together?

Or perhaps you-- get this-- wrong. Actually, monopoles were discussed in the early 70's by guys like 't Hooft and Polyakov. Then, in 79 this guy Preskill wrote a paper noting that according to our understanding of the universe, there should be lots of monopoles. Indeed, he argued there should be "enough to dominate the mass density of the universe by many orders of magnitude" (J. Preskill, "Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles," Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979): 1365-1368, 1365). Then, in 1981, Guth proposed a solution to explain why we don't see them.

Either way, with just a little library work, your arguments are falling short. Unless you're going to argue that Guth, while at Stanford, was in cahoots with Preskill in Harvard?

So Guth didn't invent the problem, and it was considered a problem before Guth addressed it. (Ooh-- I just checked the bible, and it says
quote:
While still a graduate student, Preskill made a name for himself by publishing a paper on the cosmological production of superheavy magnetic monopoles in Grand Unified Theories. This work pointed to a serious problem in the then current cosmological models, a problem which was later addressed by Alan Guth and others by proposing the idea of cosmic inflation.
Yikes!)

quote:
Thanks furshur-- I missed that. Indeed, I have no idea what a monopole is beyond the scant wiki entry. But what I think is or isn't correct about them isn't at issue, even if Michael thinks it is.


quote:
But Cune, the paper you sent me last week notes some of the history here. Guth presented his theories as a "fix" for a percieved problem based upon the belief that monopole particles would have been created at observationally significant numbers in a "big bang" were it not for inflation.
Again, not a "perceived problem" but a real one.

quote:
That was one of the the primary "motives" for Guth "inventing" (quite literally) a new scalar field, with quite unusual density properties.
You put motives in quotes like its suspect. Isn't that what people do in science? Try to solve problems?

And your problems with density and such-- you yourself admit that you have't read a thing on inflation in years (decades?) How do you know they haven't been addressed recently?

quote:
The experiments we've done now would suggest that *if* monopoles actually even can exist in reality they wouldn't be created in high quantities from any process we are aware of.
Really? Can you cite some papers? I'd like to follow up on that.

quote:
Parse my comments all you wish too, but that isn't going to change the fact that no evidence supports the existence of an inflaton field in any area of science *outside* of the theory itself.
Evidence supports it-- I sent you one! It doesn't confirm it, of course. But it supports it.

quote:
Now if and when you or Guth or anyone can demonstrate an inflaton particle/field in controlled reproceable and observationally verifyable ways, I might change my tune. For the time being however, I will continue to remain "skeptical" of the idea for the reasons I have outlined, particularly that "nearly constant density" with exponentially increasing volume. To me that's pure metaphysics.
As yes, the old: only present to me ideas that are proven beyond a doubt. But before they're proven, they are not worthy of consideration. Now that is a Catch-22.

quote:
I've waited around for 25 years for evidence of inflaton fields to emerge, and it simply has not occured. That is quite unlike that progress that is being made in the detection of, and study of the theorized particles of neutrinos.
Oh yes-- I remember the special "25 year limit" on physics. Moreover, as I noted, there is evidence. Just not overwhelming evidence.
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/20/2006 16:26:39
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  16:55:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Where is your logical support of such a hypothesis?


Where is the logical support of inflaton fields?

Don't try to shift the burdon of evidence.
We were discussing how a black hole made from anti-matter could possibly create a Big Bang-slam when it collided with a black hole formed from ordinary matter.

I'm maintaining that if two singularities as you proposed collided we would end up with only one singularity with a mass equal to the sum of the two singularities.

You are aparently of a different opinion, and I'd like to know your rationalization for that opinion.

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.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2006 :  21:27:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
Dr. Mabuse said:
I'm maintaining that if two singularities as you proposed collided we would end up with only one singularity with a mass equal to the sum of the two singularities.

You are aparently of a different opinion, and I'd like to know your rationalization for that opinion.

As would I. A black hole that formed from anti-matter would be indistinquishable from a black hole that formed from regular matter.
Besides, how could that matter that formed these black holes ever interact?
Do tell Michael...

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 - 09/21/2006 :  12:05:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ah, I see. So Guth didn't invent the problem. But his friend did. Perhaps they were in on it together?


I have to assume that you're primarily taking exception to my comment about Guth "inventing" the problem. I've already conceeded however that he did not actually "invent" the concept of monopoles, he simply assumed they existed and used them as his *primary* reason for introducing his inflation theory. He simply *assumed* that Preskill and others were correct about monopoles, even though these ideas were based on Preskill's take on grand unified field *theories* that have never been agreed upon in the first place.

quote:
Indeed, he argued there should be "enough to dominate the mass density of the universe by many orders of magnitude" (J. Preskill, "Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles," Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979): 1365-1368, 1365). Then, in 1981, Guth proposed a solution to explain why we don't see them.


So what evidence did Guth or Preskill have to support the existence of monopoles Cune? Despite the fact that none of these gentlemen had ever seen a monopole in their lives, and had never seen any evidence of a monopole in the real world, both of them "assumed" they would have existed in massive quantities in a BB scenario. Why? What agreed upon process creates them? Show me that a monopole can even actually *exist* in reality Cune, then show me how they are created in the real world.

quote:
Either way, with just a little library work, your arguments are falling short. Unless you're going to argue that Guth, while at Stanford, was in cahoots with Preskill in Harvard?


Of course I'm not suggesting this Cune. I'm suggesting that Guth simply "bought into" this monopole concept, hook line and sinker, *without* any evidence that these particles actually do exist in reality and without any phyiscal evidenc that they even *can* exist in reality! They simply *assumed* that Preskill was right about monopoles even though his ideas were based on *his* intepretation of grand unified theory, something that has still never been agreed upon to begin with.

Guth simply *assumed* monopoles were a problem and he *assumed* that monopoles can form *without* any observational evidence to substanciate that position.

quote:
So Guth didn't invent the problem, and it was considered a problem before Guth addressed it.


For a whole two years the idea was "bantered around" by a few individuals. There was handly any "consensus" on this subject Cune. You make it sound like the "monopole problem" had been plaguing the astronomy community for a hundred years, whereas in reality we're talking about short little window of time between the time the idea was first "proposed" (1979) and the "solution" was found (1981).

quote:
Again, not a "perceived problem" but a real one.


No, Cune, it was certainly a "percieved" problem. Not every "scientist" even thought it *was* a problem to begin with. "Real" evidence is based on observation, not theory from one interpretation of grand unified field theory where there is no consensus to begin with! There is no "real" problem because nobody has ever demonstrated that monopoles are "real" in the first place. It can therefore only be a "percieved" problem.

quote:
You put motives in quotes like its suspect. Isn't that what people do in science? Try to solve problems?


Sure, as long as you *know for sure* there actually *is* a problem to begin with. Guth simply *assumed* there was a problem, he didn't know for a fact that there was a problem.

quote:
And your problems with density and such-- you yourself admit that you have't read a thing on inflation in years (decades?) How do you know they haven't been addressed recently?


If you think progress has occured, show me any evidence that any scalar or vector field will act like this in these conditions of expanding volume, and show me some sign of progress on this front.

quote:
quote:
The experiments we've done now would suggest that *if* monopoles actually even can exist in reality they wouldn't be created in high quantities from any process we are aware of.
Really? Can you cite some papers? I'd like to follow up on that.


How would you "follow up" on something that has never been evidenced in the first place? What particle physics interactions lead to monopoles in a laboratory setting today Cune?

quote:
Evidence supports it-- I sent you one! It doesn't confirm it, of course. But it supports it.


Are you talking about the CMBR data that failed the lensing and shadowing tests, or something else?

quote:
quote:
Now if and when you or Guth or anyone can demonstrate an inflaton particle/field in controlled reproceable and observationally verifyable ways, I might change my tune. For the time being however, I will continue to remain "skeptical" of the idea for the reasons I have outlined, particularly that "nearly constant density" with exponentially increasing volume. To me that's pure metaphysics.
As yes, the old: only present to me ideas that are proven beyond a doubt. But before they're proven, they are not worthy of consideration. Now that is a Catch-22.


At least I can provide "evidence" in the form on nuclear chemistry data and satellite images to support my solar models. I can duplicate the 'structures' seen in running difference images from one day to the next using SOHO images. There is no problem providing real life o
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/21/2006 12:12:07
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2006 :  12:20:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

What exactly is the time limit on half baked ideas that lack observational supporting evidence?
Why should there be a time limit?
quote:
Do I have to personally be dead and buried before someone considers some alternatives to Guth's unevidenced inflation theories?
Obviously not, since Arp and others are doing so right now. What is wrong with those someones considering those alleged alternatives? They even publish their ideas!
quote:
How long do I have to wait around for someone to describe the particle interactions where we might find evidence of inflaton fields manifestisting themselves?
Well, there's your problem: you expect someone to serve you.
quote:
How would you suggest we even go about testing this idea right now?
It has been, and is being tested. What is wrong with the current tests?

- 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
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 0.31 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000