Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

[Perpetual Student]

Just out of curiosity, why must I do so? An "inflation/Godflation did it" point at the sky and add math claim isn't scientifically valid to begin with, so it can't be "better than" an honest "I don't know".

Well, it's your claim, but you have no obligation to do anything here. The point is that I can show you many sources such as this link to the wikipedia article on INFLATION that describes how inflation accounts for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we observe. Can you show me a similar explanation for the eternal flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that you claim for EU theory?
If you can't, I guess we can only conclude that EU is a kind of religion for you.

 

[DazzaD]

What *physics* are you talking about? You can't do physics without a physical thing and inflation isn't real, and neither is "dark energy". You have trumped up magic math, nothing more.

One might say the same about, say, an electron.

It turns out the 'things' you are taught about electrons at say, ages 8 to 18, are not entirely useful in understanding certain phenomena in real life.

Our mathematical model of an electron and how it behaves necessarily becomes more and more sophisticated as we progress in physics. That it is a mathematical model and no more speaks volumes.

You cannot 'hold' an electron in your hand like you can an apple or a blade of grass, you cannot 'see' an electron like you can an apple or a blade of grass, but that doesn't, on its own, invalidate the mathematical model as being a good (enough) description of the electron and how it behaves.

It that same sense we can entrust the entity of inflation or dark energy (or the strong nuclear force, or a neutrino, or a Higgs boson, or a W- boson) to a mathematical model, albeit a very sophisticated one, and test thoroughly how well it stacks up to what observations we can make and what it predicts about certain future observations that may be made.

We need to move away from this quite old fashioned view of "if I cant hit it with a hammer than talking about it is like talking about faeries" in my opinion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, it's your claim, but you have no obligation to do anything here. The point is that I can show you many sources such as this link to the wikipedia article on INFLATION that describes how inflation accounts for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we observe.

How is that any different than me telling you that "Godflation" accounts for exactly the same observations? In what way in "inflation" a "better" scientific explanation than "Goddiditflation" using exactly the same formulas?

Can you show me a similar explanation for the eternal flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that you claim for EU theory?

It always was that way in EU theory in most renditions of EU theory! I don't have to explain something that is eternal by it's very nature.

If you can't, I guess we can only conclude that EU is a kind of religion for you.

No, and it can never be a "religion" to me or to anyone else. EU theory is based upon two branches of empirical physics, GR theory and MHD theory. Period. It must always therefore be an "empirical" branch of physics with real ramification in the real world. One could say it has already has produced real consumer products too like ion thrusters and every other electrical gadget on the planet for that matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One might say the same about, say, an electron.

No. Electrons have been "seen" in the lab, and electrons show up in controlled experiments. You are comparing dead metaphysical apples to living empirical oranges.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/070/electron_1.jpg

 

[GeeMack]

It always was that way in EU theory in most renditions of EU theory! I don't have to explain something that is eternal by it's very nature.

You see, science is a religion, too. Well, okay, crackpot science based on arguments from ignorance.

 

[Perpetual Student]

How is that any different than me telling you that "Godflation" accounts for exactly the same observations? In what way in "inflation" a "better" scientific explanation than "Goddiditflation" using exactly the same formulas?



It always was that way in EU theory in most renditions of EU theory! I don't have to explain something that is eternal by it's very nature.



No, and it can never be a "religion" to me or to anyone else. EU theory is based upon two branches of empirical physics, GR theory and MHD theory. Period. It must always therefore be an "empirical" branch of physics with real ramification in the real world. One could say it has already has produced real consumer products too like ion thrusters and every other electrical gadget on the planet for that matter.

Look, I showed you that inflation is an explanation for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we see. I am not a zealot for inflation. As an educated layman -- it appears to me to be the best explanation we have. You can reject that explanation if you please, it is not based on some dogma -- it's a scientific theory.
You are the one who said EU has an alternative explanation for the "eternal" flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we observe. I have merely asked you to provide me with that explanation or some source I can read to understand it. Your responses thus far have been nothing more than bluster about "godflation" and empty statements about EU theory. Do you have any rational for your opinion or not -- or is it really religion? Let's have it!

 

[Michael Mozina]

You see, science is a religion, too. Well, okay, crackpot science based on arguments from ignorance.

You mean like "we don't know what did it", therefore "inflation/dark energy/non baryonic matter did it"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Look, I showed you that inflation is an explanation for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we see. I am not a zealot for inflation.

Yes, and I just showed you that Godflation does exactly the same thing with the same trumped up math. I'm not a Godflation zealot either.

As an educated layman -- it appears to me to be the best explanation we have.

Define "best" given the fact that inflation is non existent. It's no better than "Goddidit" with the same numerology like math.

You can reject that explanation if you please,

I pretty much reject *all* metaphysical dogma, so it's nothing personal, but as long as it's ok with you, I certainly choose to reject it.

it is not based on some dogma -- it's a scientific theory.

It is based on "dogma" because inflation doesn't empirically exist. Lambda-CDM theory is based on hypothetical entities galore. Inflation is just the first glaring metaphysical flaw in mainstream theory.

You are the one who said EU has an alternative explanation for the "eternal" flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe that we observe.

As far as I know it has always been that way. I don't care how it got that way. I care why the solar wind blows by Earth at a million miles per hour and why the sun heats plasma to millions of degrees in the corona.

I have merely asked you to provide me with that explanation or some source I can read to understand it. Your responses thus far have been nothing more than bluster about "godflation" and empty statements about EU theory. Do you have any rational for your opinion or not -- or is it really religion? Let's have it!

It is neither. The statement "I don't know" is a scientifically valid statement. It's better IMO to admits one's ignorance than simply "making something up" in your head and slapping on some math to Godflation and claiming Godflation did it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am not a zealot for inflation.

FYI, everyone get squeemish around inflation. Just ask DRD. It's the biggest metaphysical pig in the barn.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It is neither. The statement "I don't know" is a scientifically valid statement. It's better IMO to admits one's ignorance than simply "making something up" in your head and slapping on some math to Godflation and claiming Godflation did it.

Well, this is interesting. If I were an advocate of an alternative explanation for a theory that had widespread acceptance and asked to explain my opinion, I would welcome the chance. In contrast, you show nothing but evasiveness.
You have made it quite clear that you do not accept inflation to account for features we observe in the universe. In fact, you flaunt a strong repugnance for inflation theory.
Now, you also claimed that EU provides an alternative explanation. I have asked you to explain how EU can account for the observed features of the universe. Your best answer has been, "As far as I know it has always been that way. I don't care how it got that way."
That is clearly the the wail of a religious devotee muttering his mantra. When you pray to the EU spirits, what direction must you face? Magnetic north?

 

[GeeMack]

You mean like "we don't know what did it", therefore "inflation/dark energy/non baryonic matter did it"?

No, I mean like your position of, "I don't understand math at all, physics is beyond my comprehension, and I have nothing but contempt for legitimate science, so I'll just pull some wildass guess out of my rear end," of course. You take a position dependent on faith, and that's why you end up being wrong in almost every instance.

Face it, Michael, the entire world of professional scientists, those thousands of people who make a living at this stuff and on whom even you depend for every contemporary technological achievement disagree with you. Your pulled-from-your-ass conjectures are religion. They aren't supported by evidence and they don't work in reality. And just like gods, without your faith they wouldn't exist at all. Science is quite the opposite. It depends on evidence, real and tangible, which when processed through the scientific method serves to help us better understand the universe we live in.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well said.

I sometimes imagine an office somewhere in the Vatican. The frocked ones sitting there watching TV and they hear an announcement that planets have been found circling other suns.

"Didn't we burn somebody for that?"

"Let me check. . . . Yep, Giordano Bruno predicted it a few hundred years ago. Burned at the stake for heresy."

"Ooops."

I think the Vatican's Dept. of Ooops is going to be busy in the next few decades.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hey MM:

This is the subject of another thread; it involves one of your physics villains (dark matter):

LINK: DARK MATTER

There will be many attempts at confirmation and there will be much debate. You have an opportunity here to learn how real science works!

 

[GeeMack]

Hey MM: [...] You have an opportunitry here to learn how real science works!

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I mean like your position of, "I don't understand math at all,

You're nothing but a two bit liar, a fraud and an ignorant bully.

Face it Geemack, you're sleeping with a dead metaphysical inflation pig. No amount of red mathematical lipstick is going to resurrect that dead pig from non existence. It's irrelevant, and it has no effect on you or me whatsoever. I can freely dismiss the relevance of that dead metaphysical pig like I can dismiss the relevance of any dead deistic religion. It has no significance on me whatsoever. I know the individual that "made it up in his head", and I'm not interested in your dead deistic religion no matter how much mathematical lipstick you apply to it.

You can lie about me all you want. You can verbally abuse me all you like, but I'm not ever going to sleep with that dead metaphysical pig with you, no matter how attractive that lipstick might be to your personally. Deal with it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, DRD is welcome to correct me if I am mistaken, but as I understand it even she isn't real enamored with inflation theory, and I'm pretty sure she understands math and physics better than you do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey MM:

This is the subject of another thread; it involves one of your physics villains (dark matter):

LINK: DARK MATTER

There will be many attempts at confirmation and there will be much debate. You have an opportunity here to learn how real science works!

I will do so. If you look back through these threads you'll find that I have stated on a number of occasions that "dark matter" is the one thing that "could be" empirically demonstrated in a lab on Earth. I'm not suggesting I agree that it has happened yet, but I'm far less concerned about "dark matter" than I am about "dark energy" or my least favorite invisible friend: "inflation".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, this is interesting. If I were an advocate of an alternative explanation for a theory that had widespread acceptance and asked to explain my opinion, I would welcome the chance. In contrast, you show nothing but evasiveness.

How is an admission of ignorance "evasive" in your opinion? I freely accept that "I don't know". That is my position. It's an "honest" position too because as far as I know, the universe has *always* been homogeneously distributed. I really can't say with great certainly one way or the other.

I'm personally a lot more interesting in things "closer to home", like why the solar wind accelerates to a million miles an hour from the sun 24/7 from the whole surface of the sphere. I'm more interested in why the corona reaches millions of degrees. These are the kinds of things I might hope to explain and truly understand in my lifetime. Events from billions if not trillions of years ago are not as important to me or relevant to me personally as what is occurring right now in our solar system. I tend to focus my attention on the here and now.

You have made it quite clear that you do not accept inflation to account for features we observe in the universe. In fact, you flaunt a strong repugnance for inflation theory.

Yes, because it's a "made up" concept right from the imagination of one individual. It's a "fabricated" and "imaginary" friend with mathematical window dressing. It's dead and gone and irrelevant today even in mainstream theory.

Now, you also claimed that EU provides an alternative explanation.

It does. There are variations of EU theory that simply suggest that the universe has always existed and it's always been homogeneously distributed. That is in fact an "explanation" even if it doesn't sit well with you personally. Alfven's "bang" theory wasn't even a "creation" sort of event, it was more of a "cyclical contraction/expansion" process. Homogeneous distribution of matter predates his "bang".

I have asked you to explain how EU can account for the observed features of the universe.

Which features shall we focus our attention on? How about that high speed solar wind Birkeland "predicted" with EU theory? How about those high energy coronal loops that he also "simulated", as well as "predicted" with his empirical experiments? Why do you insist we fixate on events far in the distance rather than right in our own backyard?

Your best answer has been, "As far as I know it has always been that way."

That is my position and it's the best answer I can honestly give you.

I don't care how it got that way.

That is not my position. I am interested, but I do accept that I may never understand that issue as well as I might comprehend how solar wind works or how coronal loops work. I do care, I just don't believe I can be as certain of that answer as I might be in something closer to home.

That is clearly the the wail of a religious devotee muttering his mantra. When you pray to the EU spirits, what direction must you face? Magnetic north?

The closest wall outlet will do.

You know it's pointless IMO to attempt to compare electrical engineering to religion. You're going to lose that debate instantly. EU theory isn't anything mysterious. It's simply the application of electrical engineering/plasma physics to space. That's it. Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade and he was the first EU/PC theorist to apply MHD theory to objects in space. EU theory can never be anything other than an empirical form of science because it "works in the lab". Any comparison to "religion" fails because electrons show up in labs, whereas dead inflation deities are a no show.

 

[Perpetual Student]

How is an admission of ignorance "evasive" in your opinion? I freely accept that "I don't know". That is my position. It's an "honest" position too because as far as I know, the universe has *always* been homogeneously distributed. I really can't say with great certainly one way or the other.

(...)

First you said EU provided an alternative explanation for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe we observe, now you say you don't know. It's OK not to know, but it's deceptive to say EU provides an alternative explanation if, in fact, you really do not know.

As for the rest of your post, I don't even know where to begin -- it is so laden with fallacies and misinformation that it makes me weary. I'll let someone else respond, if anyone cares and has the energy. Solar wind! -- Now there's a groundbreaking and profound cosmological phenomenon!

 

[Michael Mozina]

First you said EU provided an alternative explanation for the flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe we observe, now you say you don't know. It's OK not to know, but it's deceptive to say EU provides an alternative explanation if, in fact, you really do not know.

As far as I know it has always been homogeneous and isotropic. I have no evidence it was ever not that way. You seem to want to have a "creation event" where everything begins at a single "clump", but you never demonstrated any need for such a thing in the first place.

As for the rest of your post, I don't even know where to begin -- it is so laden with fallacies and misinformation that it makes me weary. I'll let someone else respond, if anyone cares and has the energy. Solar wind! -- Now there's a groundbreaking and profound cosmological phenomenon!

The mainstream is still confused by something that Birkeland "explained" and simulated 100 years ago in a lab! How much confidence should I have in their collective ability to tell me what happened in the distant past if they can't even "explain" what goes on right now inside of our own solar system?