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

[GeeMack]

You are so adamant that inflation is wrong and EU theory has a better answer. Given that, I'm surprised, since you write so prolifically on this forum and have studied EU theory so extensively, that you are unable to give me a simple explanation.

You are correct in that he is unable to provide a simple explanation, or a cogent explanation of any kind for that matter. But he more than makes up for his lack of ability to present his fantasy in an understandable way by his ability to link to severely outdated material written by and about his dead heroes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nothing new since then, eh? I heard a rumor somewhere that there has been new cosmology data since 1962.

Let's see what we've seen since 1962 then shall we? We learned that yes indeed, Birkeland currents flow through the atmosphere exactly as Birkeland claimed (and simulate) 100 years ago. Yes indeed the "flying electrons and flying ions" of all kinds blow by the Earth, just like Birkeland and Alfven "predicted" using empirical tools of physics. Sure enough we see multi-million degree coronal loops as Birkeland predicted (and simulated) and Alfven later attributed to currents after seeing x-ray images from Skylab. Sure enough we've seen "jets" just like Birkeland's model predicted. We see "discharge processes" between the sun and the Earth in Themis images. How much more evidence will it take to convince you that Birkeland's model and Alfven's writings have merit?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are correct in that he is unable to provide a simple explanation, or a cogent explanation of any kind for that matter. But he more than makes up for his lack of ability to present his fantasy in an understandable way by his ability to link to severely outdated material written by and about his dead heroes.

Ya, like you folks aren't using that same dead hero to peddle "magnetic reconnection", something Alfven himself referred to as "pseudoscience". Give me a break. Some things deserve to be expressed as they were meant to be expressed and don't have to be paraphrased by yours truly.

Just out of curiosity, are you a one trick personal insult pony or what?

 

[DazzaD]

Let's see what we've seen since 1962 then shall we? We learned that yes indeed, Birkeland currents flow through the atmosphere exactly as Birkeland claimed (and simulate) 100 years ago. Yes indeed the "flying electrons and flying ions" of all kinds blow by the Earth, just like Birkeland and Alfven "predicted" using empirical tools of physics. Sure enough we see multi-million degree coronal loops as Birkeland predicted (and simulated) and Alfven later attributed to currents after seeing x-ray images from Skylab. Sure enough we've seen "jets" just like Birkeland's model predicted. We see "discharge processes" between the sun and the Earth in Themis images. How much more evidence will it take to convince you that Birkeland's model and Alfven's writings have merit?

And THEMIS also showed:

Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos of the University of California, Los Angeles, who is the principal investigator for the THEMIS mission, claimed, "Our data show clearly and for the first time that magnetic reconnection is the trigger."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080724-themis-aurora-mystery.html

No?

I dont think anyone seriously doubts that Alfven and Birkelands ideas may (and do) have merit, but it is one almighty step to claim that the whole of MHD and related works are to be thrown out and replaced with something that isnt anywhere near as comprehensive or as good at explaining what is going on.

We may also need to be careful idolising any one individual and their ideas. I have strong feelings for much of Newtons work, but I dont think I would agree with much about what he said on alchemy.

For those of you who have no idea what magnetic reconnection is I would recommend:

http://mms.space.swri.edu/

In particular:

http://mms.space.swri.edu/AmSci-Reconnection.pdf

and

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/magnetism/magnetismsun.html

 

[Michael Mozina]

And THEMIS also showed:

Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos of the University of California, Los Angeles, who is the principal investigator for the THEMIS mission, claimed, "Our data show clearly and for the first time that magnetic reconnection is the trigger."

Ya but if you read the article you discover that *both* of their magnetic reconnection models failed to accurately predict the sequence of events they observed, but somehow "magnetic reconnection did it" anyway. Baloney. It's called "current flow". Birkeland physically demonstrated all of these things in a lab over 100 years ago. None of you hotshots can even explain what is physically unique about magnetic reconnection from say ordinary particle interactions or "short circuits" in plasma.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Here's the "simple" explanation in Alfven's own words:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

Thanks for that. My first reading left me with many questions and doubts. I'll have to go over it again and focus on problematic areas.
By the way, there was no mention of our flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

.
Exactly. I mean that's exactly what they do.

I want to reemphasize that such a technique only works with specific branches of "science", specifically "metaphysical" (non empirical) forms of so called "science". It doesn't work too well if we try to compare a religious viewpoint to an empirical form of science. Comparing religious belief to an electron, or electrical engineering as a branch of "science" for instance would be absurd because electrons show up in real experiments, and some branches of science produce tangible results. Many branches of science are purely empirical forms of science, no "acts of faith" are required. In that specific scenario, no such comparison to religious views is possible.

If however we compare religious viewpoints to metaphysical human concepts like "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" or anything that fails to show up in an empirical experiment, with real control mechanisms, one can certainly get a lot of mileage from such an argument.

Does it really take any less "faith" to "believe in" something like "inflation" than it takes to believe in a specific religious viewpoint? In my experience, not really. In my experience, once one "loses their faith" in an idea or belief, whether it's a religious idea or a "scientific" one, it's certainly not easy to simply shut off the skeptic inside and "believe" ever again. Empirical evidence could certainly change things of course, but some branches of "science" defy such empirical support. Some branches of "science" are in fact no empirically better supported than a specific theological act of faith. In fact it could be said that it's easier to "have faith" in a religious idea because that act of faith is often considered a plus in certain religions.

 

[GeeMack]

If however we compare religious viewpoints to metaphysical human concepts like "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" or anything that fails to show up in an empirical experiment, with real control mechanisms, one can certainly get a lot of mileage from such an argument.

You misspelled "iron surfaced Sun"!

​

 

[Perpetual Student]

I want to reemphasize that such a technique only works with specific branches of "science", specifically "metaphysical" (non empirical) forms of so called "science". It doesn't work too well if we try to compare a religious viewpoint to an empirical form of science. Comparing religious belief to an electron, or electrical engineering as a branch of "science" for instance would be absurd because electrons show up in real experiments, and some branches of science produce tangible results. Many branches of science are purely empirical forms of science, no "acts of faith" are required. In that specific scenario, no such comparison to religious views is possible.



If however we compare religious viewpoints to metaphysical human concepts like "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" or anything that fails to show up in an empirical experiment, with real control mechanisms, one can certainly get a lot of mileage from such an argument.


Does it really take any less "faith" to "believe in" something like "inflation" than it takes to believe in a specific religious viewpoint? In my experience, not really. In my experience, once one "loses their faith" in an idea or belief, whether it's a religious idea or a "scientific" one, it's certainly not easy to simply shut off the skeptic inside and "believe" ever again. Empirical evidence could certainly change things of course, but some branches of "science" defy such empirical support. Some branches of "science" are in fact no empirically better supported than a specific theological act of faith. In fact it could be said that it's easier to "have faith" in a religious idea because that act of faith is often considered a plus in certain religions.

You seem to have a serious compulsion with "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" etc. The sciences incorporate countless entities, formulas, equations, associations, logical processes, etc. about a vast collection of data. Can you ever come down to earth and make a meaningful statement about anything else? Does it always boil down to the same knee-jerk responses for you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidence deals with observations. It cannot and does not state which observations are valid, only that it need be a quality or quantity of the world you sense. What makes it evidence and not just an observation is that it is associated with a cause. Again, there cannot logically be anything in the meaning of the word to determine what that cause is.

Will you be my next science "guru"? Man you have some amazingly interesting things to share. Thank you.

The process of isolating "cause and effect" relationships is highly important to "empirical science". Cause/effect relationships typically can only be determined via "empirical experimentation", involving real life physical 'control mechanisms". Where some branches of science "lose their way" and get lost in metaphysical pursuits, is by under emphasizing the importance of true empirical experimentation, with actual physical control mechanisms, and overemphasizing the importance of math alone and validating the idea with something like 'computer modeling" where the only thing of importance is the mathematical model.

The problem of course is that computers can create "virtual worlds" where the laws of physics no longer apply and the model in the computer no longer behaves like "the real world" in terms of the physical cause/effect relationships. Isolating real cause/effect relationships is a critically important process that is highly valued in "science". To isolate "real" physical cause/effect relationships, requires "real" empirical physical "tests" of concept, not simply a mathematical model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You seem to have a serious compulsion with "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" etc. The sciences incorporate countless entities, formulas, equations, associations, logical processes, etc. about a vast collection of data. Can you ever come down to earth and make a meaningful statement about anything else? Does it always boil down to the same knee-jerk responses for you?

You might read and respond to my last response to athon and the importance of empirical experimentation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You misspelled "iron surfaced Sun"!

​

No, iron is empirically "real". We can tell it's "real" because it shows up in a real lab experiments. Inflation is dead. It does not show up in lab experiments and never will show in in a lab experiment or exist in your lifetime or mine. It will never have any sort of physical effect on anything in our lifetimes. The worst you might accuse me of is presenting a valid empirical concept that turned out to be wrong. Compare and contrast that with your dead invisible metaphysical inflation pig that never shows up in a lab. All the math in the world isn't going to fix the basic problem with a metaphysical concept.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When a Cirbesterian belches he thinks it is evidence of the almighty Cirbest.
Note that he simply asserts it is evidence.

Likewise when an astronomer asserts that "dark energy did it", or "inflation did it", he asserts it as "evidence". In short he/she uses the exact observation they are trying to "explain" as the evidence they need to demonstrate that "inflation did it". It's a giant circular feedback loop devoid of any sort of empirical support. Godflation is not different than "inflation" if we attach the same math formula to both labels. Neither one of them shows up in a controlled experiment.

 

[Prometheus]

Likewise when an astronomer asserts that "dark energy did it", or "inflation did it", he asserts it as "evidence". In short he/she uses the exact observation they are trying to "explain" as the evidence they need to demonstrate that "inflation did it". It's a giant circular feedback loop devoid of any sort of empirical support. Godflation is not different than "inflation" if we attach the same math formula to both labels. Neither one of them shows up in a controlled experiment.

Astronomers don't assert that "dark energy did it." Dark matter/energy are predictions of the current theory that have not yet been confirmed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Astronomers don't assert that "dark energy did it." Dark matter/energy are predictions of the current theory that have not yet been confirmed.

This issue goes directly back to empirically determining (or simply having faith in) the actual cause/effect relationships. "Dark energy" never accelerated even one single atom in a lab. Why should I believe it even exists or has anything to do with an acceleration process involving plasma? Pure faith?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That having been established, (now try to follow this) is their religion actually based on evidence, or do they simply naively believe in the holy trinity?

Ok. Let's compare that trinity to the "unholy trinity" of BB theory, DE, DM and most of all "inflation".

Do Christians perform lab experiments in their seminaries to demonstrate the existence of the holy trinity?

Nope. They blame creation on that trinity, but they don't do real lab experiments to demonstrate any of the three of them are "real" or "exist". They're just like astronomers in that sense.

Do they point to the fissile record to show evidence of the holy trinity?

Oh yes. The guy that created the BB theory was in fact a Catholic Priest, so obviously the existence of the universe itself is "evidence" of a "creator" as far as many Christian are concerned. Same with astronomers.

Do they perform mathematical calculations to demonstrate the existence of the holy trinity? No!

Well, actually if you've ever argued with a "Young Earth" creationist, they often attempt to come up with an age of the Earth by adding up the ages of a specific lineage of human beings or something along those lines. Fudging a mathematical number isn't exactly "impressive" to a skeptic. The same is true of the unholy trinity of astronomy. Anyone can come up with a number, but can they empirically support it in any real way?

They simply point to their scriptures and pretend that it is evidence.

Whereas astronomers point at the sky, toss in some trumped up math of some sort and claim it to be evidence of their metaphysical trinity too.

Again, there is no need to define the word "evidence." We all know what they mean.

Knowing what they mean and agreeing that it constitutes "real evidence" (TM), is a whole different issue. Anyone can call an observation or an mathematical formula "evidence". That doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually "evidence" of what they claim. Pointing at the sky with some math in hand and claiming "Godflation did it" isn't actually "evidence" that God did it even if the math happens to work. It doesn't matter what you call the supernatural force you just made up, it's still a "made up" and "supernatural" force of nature that is shy around a lab.

The point I have been making -- that you seem to have so much trouble understanding -- is that their belief does not depend on evidence, it depends on their naive belief or faith.

Ditto with today's astronomers. They naively believe that a computer model is an 'experiment' and they avoid any actual empirical test with any real control mechanisms. It's all based on "faith" ultimately, not "evidence".

There can be no science without evidence; the very very fabric of science is based on evidence.

Yes, but "cause/effect" relationship can only be determined by *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*, not point at the sky and slap on some math exercises. Godfllation does not empirically show up in a lab, so pointing at the sky and claiming Godflation did it is irrational, math or no math. Likewise, pointing at those some events and cliaming something that doesn't show up in a lab did it, is not actually physical evidence, it is an act of faith on the part of the "believer". The so called "evidence" is bogus.

Compare and contrast that with electrical engineering that produces tangible products and where electrons are not shy around a lab, then you can begin to see the distinction between "empirical (as in real) evidence" and "faith in the unseen" which is necessary with all religions, including pseudoscientific branches of religion trying to pass themselves off as "science".

In contrast, religions and superstitions do not need evidence; they need naive belief, though they may use what they think is evidence in their apologies and polemics.

Astronomers are just as lame. They don't actually need evidence that inflation exists or existed, they simply "have faith' that it did and they assigned the "properties" they wanted inflation to have to inflation in a purely ad hoc manner to make it fit the observation in question.

We do not need to dizzy ourselves with definitions of the word evidence. Just try to follow the argument. Try to come out of your cloud of pompous obfuscation.

Oh, he/she definitely hit the nail on the head. The term "evidence" has to be the single most abused term in the universe. That is because religious people typically do not rely upon *empirical evidence*, but some observation they *interpret* to be evidence in a highly subjective and non testable manner.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That might be true to a point, but it'd take more to dismiss a computer simulation than to just treat physicists like idiots and presume they don't know the strengths and weaknesses of their simulations. It'd be like you telling me the model of my house is useless simply because it hasn't got plumbing.

But what exactly is the value of a computer model based upon trumped up "properties" that I get to personally assign to my made up (in my head) "supernatural" entity? Did Guth's imaginary friend called inflation actually show up and verify any of those properties he assigned to inflation, or did he just "make them up" in his head like any good religious figure?

Nobody is stopping you from pointing out unreasonable conclusions made on particular simulations. That happens all the time in science. But computer models are incredibly useful things if the limitations are kept in mind.

Well sure, as long as we use a computer to model "real" things and real forces of nature. When however we leave empirical physics in the dust and start computer modeling "Godflation", I start to wince. It's pointless trumped up, postdicted math, designed intentionally to fit the observation we want it to fit, nothing more. It's still "imaginary" and "made up".

I'm afraid this is where we have to disagree. I think mathematical models have been incredibly useful.

See above. I do to too but only if they are based on real forces of nature. Godflation isn't going to manifest itself suddenly in nature only because I attached mathematical models to the made up concept and point at the sky and claim "Godflation did it".

A lot of brilliant physics has been discovered through modelling.

Sure, when we model real things and real empirical forces of nature.

True, if we can't predict observations using it, it is less than useful (see string theory, for instance). However, they shouldn't be dismissed purely on the grounds of not being 'real'. Mathematics is simply quantified logic, and without logic to apply to our observations, science is a crippled beast.

Unless one QUALIFIES the concept mathematics becomes nothing more than a numerology gig, where anything goes, and any math formula gets to constitute "evidence" of what the believer claims, even if that math has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Quantification is fine, but without "qualification", it's not science, it's numerology with a pseudoscientific song and dance routine.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And there is the crux of our argument right there. 'What they think is evidence'.

Why is it not evidence?

In my experience, more often than not it is because there is not 'cause/effect' relationship established between the thing that is observed and the thing/idea/concept that the observation is being attributed to.

For instance an atheist might not see any empirical connection between beauty in nature and "God". A skeptic might see no connection between expansion and "inflation" or "dark energy".

The lack of evidence is usually caused by a break in the empirical chain of evidence that demonstrates the empirical cause/effect relationship.

I'm arguing against an undefensible, illogical need to describe science as evidence based and describe evidence as science based.

Athon

Well, IMO "empirical science" is somewhat different than "science" in a generic sense. The lines only really become blurry when the 'science' isn't based on empirical fact.

 

[Prometheus]

This issue goes directly back to empirically determining (or simply having faith in) the actual cause/effect relationships. "Dark energy" never accelerated even one single atom in a lab. Why should I believe it even exists or has anything to do with an acceleration process involving plasma? Pure faith?

You shouldn't "believe it exists". I don't. It's existence is a hypotheses that has not been confirmed. However, it's also true that it, or something else probably equally strange, must exist in order for the currently accepted theory to be correct. And that theory does fit with actual observations, and has produced predictions which have subsequently been confimed. So, although it's possible that dark energy does not exist, the opposite supposition is a lot more likely.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM I know you're objection will be that "we can experiment on light here on Earth". That's true. We can now but there was a time when we couldn't. The technology and know-how didn't exist. What was the status of Maxwell's purely mathematical light analysis during that time?

Good point! Maxwell's equations were as "unscientific" as MM believes dark matter is unscientific -- until experiments confirmed his theory. There is no wiggle room here, MM.