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

[Michael Mozina]

I certainly agree with that. Maxwell's analysis of electric and magnetic equations led him to believe that light was a combined electromagnetic wave. He offered no experimental proof at the time he derived it. Was Maxwell's mystical mumbo jumbo mathematics unscientific?

You're missing a key point. Maxwell's equations related (always) to "real things", and processes that show up here on Earth. We can compare the math to the physical processes that they are intended to describe in a standard empirical manner. Nothing has to be accepted on "faith". Even if the math was "wrong", it always related to "real" forces of nature that show up in "real" science experiments, complete with control mechanisms.

Compare and contrast that with a non-existent (in the present moment) concept about "inflation". Since it's "dead and gone", the whole thing becomes an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". No physical "test" or "experiment" is possible because it no longer exists in nature.

If we're going to be strict empiricists then we have to say that it most certainly was unscientific.

Why? We can empirically test the math in real experiments with real control mechanisms in the standard empirical manner. How can you ever compare that to "dark energy"? Where do I get a kilowatt of "dark energy"?

Of course, we know in hindsight that Maxwell was correct but the idea was in a metaphysical limbo for many decades before Hertz devised an experiment to confirm conclusively that light is in fact electromagnetic waves.

Light shows up in a lab. Again, empirical theories can be "tested" in real "experiments" with actual "control mechanisms'. Woo never shows up in empirical experiments.

When I studied the ME's (Maxwell's equations), I could see the mathematical appeal of it. The wave function of light could be derived from observations which had nothing to do with light. Even without Hertz's famous experiment one would have to conclude that it is correct. 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?

It was an empirical theory. Right or wrong it related to tangible real things like magnetic fields and charged particles. Even if the math had turned out to be utterly wrong in some fundamental way, it would still have been an empirical theory with real empirical falsification mechanisms. At no time could it be compared to a dead inflation deity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

True, but again, 'is established' is again subjective. I'm not stating that it is meaningless, but rather that nobody can observe a cause. You can only observe two events and argue over the reasons behind why you think they might be related.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. That's the whole purpose and beauty (and necessity) of having actual "control mechanisms" in active experiments. As long as we build the experiment in a way that allows us to control it, we can establish empirical "cause/effect" relationships. I can plug and unplug (or use the switch on the side) the plasma ball on my desk to establish that it requires "electricity" to make it work.

You can doubt that assertion if you like, but I can unplug the unit and ask you to "make it work" without plugging it in if you doubt my opinion about the need for electrical energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You shouldn't "believe it exists". I don't.

Great. Why don't we explore empirical physics then and look for "real" explanations? What known force of nature makes plasma move and is many times more powerful than gravity?

It's existence is a hypotheses that has not been confirmed.

How could we even "confirm" it, and more importantly how do we "falsify" your dark energy religious deity?

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.

EM fields cause plasma to "expand". You don't mind if I explore more likely "causes" do you rather than something you conjoured up in an math formula?

And that theory does fit with actual observations,

Er, don't you think that's maybe because it was originally "postdicted" from those very same "observations"?

and has produced predictions which have subsequently been confimed.

Bull! It was "made up" to make it fit those observations, it never "predicted" squat. 20 years ago nobody had every hear of it. Now your "religion" is 70+ composed of the stuff.

So, although it's possible that dark energy does not exist, the opposite supposition is a lot more likely.

Bull. The whole thing was postdicted to fit an observation. It was "made up" just like inflation. It's not 'real' because it has no real effect on anything in nature. It's something human beings (some of them anyway) have "faith in" perhaps, but you can't demonstrate dark energy moves a single atom and you can't even tell me where to get some. That's a "religion".

 

[PingOfPong]

Why? We can empirically test the math in real experiments with real control mechanisms in the standard empirical manner.

Yes, but none of Maxwell's equations are an equation of light. The equations represent mathematical models developed from earlier experiments which had nothing to do with light.The description of light only comes through partial integration of the equations. It's that mystical math stuff.

It was an empirical theory. Right or wrong it related to tangible real things like magnetic fields and charged particles. ... Light shows up in a lab.

You're ignoring the key point I was making. Maxwell offered no experiment for his statements about light. Hertz didn't devise the confirming experiment for another 30 years. What was the status of Maxwell's work during that time? Was it unscientific?

Even if the math was "wrong", it always related to "real" forces of nature that show up in "real" science experiments, complete with control mechanisms.

Is light radiation that travels across space to our telescopes not real? Are you real? To me, you're just text that is traveling across the internet. I'm comfortable with the inference that you are in fact a person even though I'll never shake your hand in person. Does that sound dogmatic to you?

By the way, where is the experiment and what is the control of evolution? That's something that YEC's like to ask. Regardless of what you may think of evolution it is still a model with historical predictive power. Take our relationship with primates for example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimpanzees have 24. That was a huge problem for biologists. It was decided that if this evolution theory is correct then it suggests that somewhere along the line two of the chimp's chromosomes must have fused into one and passed onto us. If we couldn't find that fused chromosome then the theory of evolution was going to be in big trouble. The search was made and it was, of course, found. Evolution is a model of reality that yields discovery after discovery.

Now think about the big bang. Early on, it was suggested that the red shift implies an expanding universe. Someone said that a make-or-break prediction for this model would be a background radiation. The BR was found later. I could go on but I'm sure your not really interested. What I'm interested in is the predictive power of your idea. You haven't suggested that it has any at all as far as I can tell. You haven't even explained adequately how your idea is a better representation of all the known features of the universe which we can observe. Maybe it's my fault for not understanding but I think it's more likely that: (one) your alternative has little to no merit, or (two) you are not explaining it very well.

ETA: I've read the Electric universe thread MM so I think I have an understanding of what some of your alternative ideas are. You left plenty of unanswered questions over there.

 

[Prometheus]

Great. Why don't we explore empirical physics then and look for "real" explanations? What known force of nature makes plasma move and is many times more powerful than gravity?

I have no problem with your attempting to do that. If you measure enough of known forces to account for the observed effects which lead physicists to hypothesize dark energy, then you'll be doing everyone a big favor. Get to work.

How could we even "confirm" it, and more importantly how do we "falsify" your dark energy religious deity?

You've got very strange definitions of 'religious' and 'deity' if the dark energy hypothesis fits them.

EM fields cause plasma to "expand". You don't mind if I explore more likely "causes" do you rather than something you conjoured up in an math formula?

I don't mind in the slightest. As I said above, if you actually find enough EM fields to account for observed expansion rates, you'll be doing everyone a favor. And I don't know where you got the idea that I've conjured anything up in a math formula. I'm an English teacher.

Er, don't you think that's maybe because it was originally "postdicted" from those very same "observations"?

Nope. Current theory has made a number of predictions previous to their ever having been observed.

Bull! It was "made up" to make it fit those observations, it never "predicted" squat. 20 years ago nobody had every hear of it. Now your "religion" is 70+ composed of the stuff.

Sorry, but comments like this really just make their authors look silly. The dark energy hypothesis is exactly that--a hypothesis. I don't 'believe' it's true. I don't care if it turns out to be true. At present, all it does for me is provide a shorthand umbrella term for 'whatever it is that's causing observed expansion, that hasn't yet been figure out.' Something's causing the expansion, after all; why have you got a problem with just admitting that no one knows what that is yet?

Bull. The whole thing was postdicted to fit an observation. It was "made up" just like inflation. It's not 'real' because it has no real effect on anything in nature. It's something human beings (some of them anyway) have "faith in" perhaps, but you can't demonstrate dark energy moves a single atom and you can't even tell me where to get some. That's a "religion".

Fail. Come back when you understand what a hypothesis is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you didn't observe a cause at all. You observed a flicking of a switch and the changing of an event. Now, it'd be useless to presume another cause for the event if it is induced over and over again, and under different circumstances etc. You could be left with no real practical doubt, i.e. just provisional doubt.

From a "practical" standpoint, we can reach the logical conclusion that electrical energy was the "power source". Even the most die hard skeptic can probably remove their doubts by sticking a metal kitchen knife into the wall socket. There wouldn't be much doubt about the energy source among the "survivors" of that "experiment".

But that's not the same as having observed a cause.

Sure it is. We can do all kinds of things to our physical experiment including adding a light bulb to the circuit to determine when the current is flowing. We can logically pinpoint the "cause" as long as the "cause" can be replicated by others.

You still have only deduced it from your observations.

You can directly "experience" the power source for yourself with the kitchen knife "experiment" if you prefer.

It is 'established' only on the grounds that we both agree on the relationship, not because you've managed to somehow make a cause magically manifest as a direct observation.

Not at all. It's "established" physically, with or without our "belief" in the process. I can stick you into the "Circuit" too and you can 'Experience" the process for yourself. Even the most diehard skeptic can be affected by the power of the electron.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no problem with your attempting to do that. If you measure enough of known forces to account for the observed effects which lead physicists to hypothesize dark energy, then you'll be doing everyone a big favor. Get to work.

I've listed several recent papers on the return currents in solar coronal loop activity. If these folks can't recognize "current flow' in their own backyard, what makes you think they'll recognize it in deep space?

You've got very strange definitions of 'religious' and 'deity' if the dark energy hypothesis fits them.

Not at all. All I have to do is brazenly pilfer your math, slap on the term "God energy" and you can't tell dark energy from a religion with the same postdicted math.

I don't mind in the slightest. As I said above, if you actually find enough EM fields to account for observed expansion rates, you'll be doing everyone a favor. And I don't know where you got the idea that I've conjured anything up in a math formula. I'm an English teacher.

Ok.

Nope. Current theory has made a number of predictions previous to their ever having been observed.

Nope. I'm too old to fall for that claim. I know too well all the "failed predictions" of "big bang" theory, including the expectation that the expansion process was "slowing down". Dark energy was the "gap filler" they used to band-aid their falsified theory back together from that failure.

Sorry, but comments like this really just make their authors look silly. The dark energy hypothesis is exactly that--a hypothesis. I don't 'believe' it's true. I don't care if it turns out to be true. At present, all it does for me is provide a shorthand umbrella term for 'whatever it is that's causing observed expansion, that hasn't yet been figure out.' Something's causing the expansion, after all; why have you got a problem with just admitting that no one knows what that is yet?

So why not call it "God energy" if there's nothing important the name or placeholder term we use for human ignorance? (Of course you could be a theist and this argument will go up in smoke)

Fail. Come back when you understand what a hypothesis is.

Dark energy isn't a "hypothesis", it's a "postdicted mathematical pipe dream" just like inflation. The only empirical difference between inflation and "God energy" is that supposedly "God energy" continues to exist whereas "Godflation" is evidently dead now. Both of these idea defy falsification and defy physical verification in any empirical manner. If they are merely placeholder terms for human ignorance, they are no better than "God did it".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, but none of Maxwell's equations are an equation of light.

Since the photon is the carrier particle of the EM field, *ALL* of Maxwell's equations are equations of light.

The equations represent mathematical models developed from earlier experiments which had nothing to do with light.The description of light only comes through partial integration of the equations. It's that mystical math stuff.

It's not math that applies to "real things" like photons I object to, it's math applied to invisible unicorns I object to! We're still talking past one another, but I think your next statements illustrates the key problem:

You're ignoring the key point I was making. Maxwell offered no experiment for his statements about light.

It doesn't matter one iota! He applied his math to something "tangible and real" and something that physically manifests in a real science experiment with actual control mechanisms.

Hertz didn't devise the confirming experiment for another 30 years.

But because it applied to physically real things, it was possible to eventually "confirm" or falsify the concept. Either way it was physically possible to test the math. Compare and contrast that with a non existent inflation that is impotent today and incapable of ever showing up in a lab.

What was the status of Maxwell's work during that time? Was it unscientific?

Not at all. It was simply "unconfirmed". At no time did he try to attach math to "invisible dead non existent stuff".

Is light radiation that travels across space to our telescopes not real?

Sure. I has a real effect on real things.

Are you real? To me, you're just text that is traveling across the internet. I'm comfortable with the inference that you are in fact a person even though I'll never shake your hand in person. Does that sound dogmatic to you?

Not at all, but then I do exist and I can physically buy you a beer too. Inflation will never do that trick!

By the way, where is the experiment and what is the control of evolution?

If you look up microevolution there have in fact been empirical demonstrations of the process, complete with real "control mechanisms". Can't say I've seen it applied to macroevolution, but the same principle applies because Hox gene changes have been shown to create macroevolutionary changes in a single generation.

That's something that YEC's like to ask. Regardless of what you may think of evolution it is still a model with historical predictive power.

Well sure, but it can be demonstrate empirically too, but then perhaps only at the micro-evolutionary level.

Now think about the big bang. Early on, it was suggested that the red shift implies an expanding universe.

Expansion might be cause by anything "real". Inflation isn't "real" and it does not exist, nor has it ever existed. Guth made it up in his head to make it fit into BB theory.

Someone said that a make-or-break prediction for this model would be a background radiation. The BR was found later.

Lot's of people predicted radiation from stars and "background radiation". Again however, you never demonstrated a physical link between background radiation and inflation, but you expect me to *assume* there is one because you hand me a pretty math formula. If I apply that same math formula to "Godflation", does that mean God is a real science "hypothesis" too?

I could go on but I'm sure your not really interested. What I'm interested in is the predictive power of your idea.

Godflation (with pilfered inflation math) has "predictive power" too. Are you likewise interested in Godflation? If not, why not? What's the difference?

 

[Prometheus]

So why not call it "God energy" if there's nothing important the name or placeholder term we use for human ignorance?

That's really all your entire position amounts to. Okay, have it your way; call it 'God energy'. It still doesn't mean the same thing that theists mean when they talk about 'God'. So you've accomplished nothing. Your entire argument is nothing more than a Low Redefinition Fallacy.

 

[PingOfPong]

Since the photon is the carrier particle of the EM field, *ALL* of Maxwell's equations are equations of light.

Wait, YOU are going to use virtual particles as an example? I can't buy a virtual particle at Wal-mart so it's not real. Heck, they're called "virtual" in their name. It's only a mathematical abstraction of a mathematical abstraction.

The ME's don't describe wave-like behavior without lot's of mathematical trickery and hand-waving (discounting Hertz's experiment) and you certainly can't directly experiment on a virtual particle. Stop invoking your God-virtual-particles.

Lot's of people predicted radiation from stars and "background radiation". Again however, you never demonstrated a physical link between background radiation and inflation, but you expect me to *assume* there is one because you hand me a pretty math formula. If I apply that same math formula to "Godflation", does that mean God is a real science "hypothesis" too?

I was talking strictly about the big bang in that example. Straw man much?

Not at all. It was simply "unconfirmed".

Ahh, you're going to have a lot of egg on your face if they ever confirm the finding of a dark matter particle. You know, Maxwell was one of the many people who believed in a luminiferous aether. A great deal of work was put into the idea over the years. A professor once told me that they even found ways to calculate the aether's shear and compression modulus. The famous Michelson-Morley experiment killed the idea eventually. I submit that all of their work prior to that point was scientific as well as being dead wrong.

Godflation (with pilfered inflation math) has "predictive power" too. Are you likewise interested in Godflation? If not, why not? What's the difference?

Godflation is your interpretation of an idea. I'm not interested on it.

You may want to retract that beer offer because I'm just going to come out and say it. You're very obtuse. See above where I could easily ape your style to reject Maxwell's work on light even though you tried to invoke a modern physics idea. Imagine if you had a pet theory about light in the 1860's. I think we can all easily imagine you shouting from the roof tops that Maxwell's mathematical treatise was unscientific even if you can't see it for yourself.

Maxwell rejected strict empiricism by the way. He saw the nature of science as being the metaphysical assertion that reality is comprehensible. Empiricism is important of course but the first calling of science is to build explanatory frameworks. It's strange that he could have been so right about light, no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's really all your entire position amounts to. Okay, have it your way; call it 'God energy'. It still doesn't mean the same thing that theists mean when they talk about 'God'. So you've accomplished nothing. Your entire argument is nothing more than a Low Redefinition Fallacy.

No my argument is that you can't empirically tell the difference between your brand of 'science' and any typical religion. Both of them evidently require an act of pure "faith" in the "unseen" on the part of the "believer".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wait, YOU are going to use virtual particles as an example?

Where did you see me use the term "virtual particle"?

Ahh, you're going to have a lot of egg on your face if they ever confirm the finding of a dark matter particle.

No, not really. I've stated plenty of times that exotic forms of matter may exist and could in fact be found experimentally. Exotic types of matter is one thing that could show up in an empirical test. Compared to the dead inflation deity, DM is the least of your worries.

You know, Maxwell was one of the many people who believed in a luminiferous aether. A great deal of work was put into the idea over the years. A professor once told me that they even found ways to calculate the aether's shear and compression modulus. The famous Michelson-Morley experiment killed the idea eventually. I submit that all of their work prior to that point was scientific as well as being dead wrong.

Being "dead wrong" is scientifically acceptable when there is an empirical method to demonstrate the idea and/or falsify the idea. Making dead things up in your head however is "pure religion" because nobody will ever be able to demonstrated it's "dead wrong". There is no definitive way to even physically test for something that no longer exists!

Godflation is your interpretation of an idea. I'm not interested on it.

Why not? It's just a "scientifically viable" as "inflation" with the same trumped up math.

You may want to retract that beer offer because I'm just going to come out and say it. You're very obtuse. See above where I could easily ape your style to reject Maxwell's work on light even though you tried to invoke a modern physics idea.

I'm afraid that your analogy doesn't work because photons show up in lab experiments. Because the math relates to something "real", it is physically possible to come up with an experiment (you even mentioned one) to verify and/or falsify a theory related to photons. Compare and contrast that with attempting to falsify a math formula that doesn't relate to anything 'real" that can even every be physically verified like "inflation". Inflation is dead. It's no longer capable of having any influence on any experiment ever. It's a dead deity theory.

Imagine if you had a pet theory about light in the 1860's. I think we can all easily imagine you shouting from the roof tops that Maxwell's mathematical treatise was unscientific even if you can't see it for yourself.

If Maxwell had tried to apply his math formulas to "invisible dead fairies", your analogy might be useful. As it is, it is useful in demonstrating the difference between a math formula attached to a "real" physical object, and a math formula attached to something that is non existent.

It's strange that he could have been so right about light, no?

No. Light shows up in a lab, so any theory 'could be right' and could be proven right eventually. Any theory related to a dead deity or inflation however defies any sort of empirical test of concept in the present moment. It can't ever be falsified via a standard empirical experiment.

 

[Prometheus]

No my argument is that you can't empirically tell the difference between your brand of 'science' and any typical religion. Both of them evidently require an act of pure "faith" in the "unseen" on the part of the "believer".

So you keep saying--completely at odds with anything at all that I've been saying. Hence the 'redefinition' part of your fallacious thinking.

Why don't you repeat yourself a few dozen more times; then your fantasy might come true.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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

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

OK, I have now read Alfven's exposition carefully.
While he does not specifically discuss our flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe, I guess it's implied in the Klein matter/antimatter proto-universe. So, I will accept that you have an alternative explanation of sorts.
Now for a layman like me, it's very difficult to read Alfven's theories critically. I simply do not have the knowledge to do so. That is also true of mainstream cosmological theories. While I have been following developments in cosmology (for decades) from sources like Scientific American and books by people like Brian Greene, my area is mathematics -- I simply follow the logic of the exposition without the background to be critical. I have also been able to do the same with the paper by Alfven you provided. And, I have followed some of the endless debates you have been having with physicists and cosmologists in various threads here. Basically you seem to be bombastic and evasive, while contributing very little actual substance in your responses.
So here is my naive conclusion. It seems inconceivable that so many astronomers, cosmologists and astrophysicists would engage in an active or tacit conspiracy to reject Alfven's (and other EU) theories. Why would they? How could they? Remember we are talking about scientists throughout the US, Europe, Asia -- the whole world.
Frankly, you come across as a crackpot with enough jargon at hand to muddle endlessly along.

 

[PingOfPong]

Where did you see me use the term "virtual particle"?

Regular photons are not the carriers of static or transient electric and magnetic fields which are described by ME's. There is something called a virtual photon which is theorized to carry those kinds of fields. If you weren't talking about virtual photons then you are wrong. If you were talking about virtual photons then you're not following your own logic.

Anyway, it's a minor point. I was just surprised that you seemed to be talking about virtual particles.

There is no definitive way to even physically test for something that no longer exists!

Is the speed of light finite? If it is then we should be able to look out our telescopes to see a younger example of our universe. We can make inferences about the features we see. If that isn't good enough for you then you should just give up on cosmologists right now.

I'm afraid that your analogy doesn't work because photons show up in lab experiments.

By the way. We should really only talk about light. The integration of the ME's are are a broad description of light and photons are something much more specific.

Once more let me iterate, Maxwell offered no empirical evidence for his statements about light. He used math on observations which had nothing to do with light. The empirical evidence came much later.

If Maxwell had tried to apply his math formulas to "invisible dead fairies"

Are you comparing measurements taken from telescopes to fairies?

No, not really. I've stated plenty of times that exotic forms of matter may exist and could in fact be found experimentally. Exotic types of matter is one thing that could show up in an empirical test. Compared to the dead inflation deity, DM is the least of your worries.

It would be an astounding coincidence if those discovered particles had the precise properties required to fulfill the theoretical demands of "mystical Godflation" theories, to use your own phrase. If it happens and you're still convinced that cosmology is mumbo-jumbo then maybe you should give some serious consideration to turning your life towards mysticism.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Regular photons are not the carriers of static or transient electric and magnetic fields which are described by ME's. There is something called a virtual photon which is theorized to carry those kinds of fields. If you weren't talking about virtual photons then you are wrong. If you were talking about virtual photons then you're not following your own logic.

I have been waiting for this exchange. I could tell from his response MM did not know virtual photons are the hypothetical carriers of static and transient electric and magnetic fields . Again he failed to see the quite strong analogy between Maxwell's once unconfirmed theories and current theories about stuff like dark matter. He also demonstrated a significant area of ignorance for one who thinks he is able to engage in this debate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, I have now read Alfven's exposition carefully.
While he does not specifically discuss our flat, homogeneous and isotropic universe, I guess it's implied in the Klein matter/antimatter proto-universe. So, I will accept that you have an alternative explanation of sorts.
Now for a layman like me, it's very difficult to read Alfven's theories critically. I simply do not have the knowledge to do so. That is also true of mainstream cosmological theories. While I have been following developments in cosmology (for decades) from sources like Scientific American and books by people like Brian Greene, my area is mathematics -- I simply follow the logic of the exposition without the background to be critical. I have also been able to do the same with the paper by Alfven you provided. And, I have followed some of the endless debates you have been having with physicists and cosmologists in various threads here. Basically you seem to be bombastic and evasive, while contributing very little actual substance in your responses.

Well, from my perspective, it looks like just the opposite. When I ask for physical proofs of concept I get point at the sky claims and no physical empirical evidence to support any of those claims. Dark energy and inflation have never moved a single atom on Earth. Why should I believe they cause anything to "expand"? There is nothing "empirically substantive' to these claims.

Oh well, to each their own opinion. I've found you to be one of the more reasonable folks in these discussions. Thank you for at least reading the paper and considering it. I appreciate it.

So here is my naive conclusion. It seems inconceivable that so many astronomers, cosmologists and astrophysicists would engage in an active or tacit conspiracy to reject Alfven's (and other EU) theories. Why would they?

How about professional jealousy for starters?

How could they?

Essentially they step around his ideas by peddling what Alfven called 'pseudoscience' and by ignoring the "circuits" in space that Alfven described. They do it by calling everything a "magnetic" process rather than an "electromagnetic" process and they actively promote the physically impossible, namely claiming that magnetic fields disconnect and reconnect and somehow release energy that way at a zero energy point no less. They publish this stuff whenever they feel like it, and refuse to publish anything from the E orientation of MHD theory. Somehow they produce an abundance of energy from a "ZERO" energy point! 0+0 somehow equals millions of watts of energy in their computer models, but not in real life. That's how they do it.

Remember we are talking about scientists throughout the US, Europe, Asia -- the whole world.

And? You think only US scientists make mistakes? How about those Russian and German and UK papers I provided Geemack earlier? Did you see these?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

Frankly, you come across as a crackpot with enough jargon at hand to muddle endlessly along.

Well, frankly that's too bad, because I'm not the one peddling non existent forms of energy like inflation, "dark" invisible stuff galore and claiming that 96% of the universe is made of something *OTHER THAN* the forms of matter and energy we find here on Earth.

I must say, once a skeptic loses their faith in these ideas, it's hard not to see them as a form of "crackpottery". I'll stick with empirical physics whenever and wherever possible. It's never let me down. It's given me this nice house, a wonderful car, a great computer, the internet and all the luxuries of life. Inflation is about as useful to me as any dead deistic entity. It's useless in terms of empirical physics and therefore of no interest to me whatsoever.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Regular photons are not the carriers of static or transient electric and magnetic fields which are described by ME's. There is something called a virtual photon which is theorized to carry those kinds of fields. If you weren't talking about virtual photons then you are wrong. If you were talking about virtual photons then you're not following your own logic.

Anyway, it's a minor point. I was just surprised that you seemed to be talking about virtual particles.

I suppose you are welcome to call them whatever you like, but their effect is quite "real", very "physical" and will repeatedly have an effect on real things in real experiments with real control mechanisms. That's rather different than a mythical inflation field that is no longer in existence. Surely you must appreciate that physical difference.

Is the speed of light finite? If it is then we should be able to look out our telescopes to see a younger example of our universe. We can make inferences about the features we see. If that isn't good enough for you then you should just give up on cosmologists right now.

The problem if you're an old-timer like me, is you've seen these "predictions" bite the dust, year after year, prediction and pretty soon it's clear that the models have no actual "predictive" value at all. What should an younger galaxy look like? What should the early universe look like? Originally the mainstream told me it billions (plural) of years for galaxies to form. Now they've "discovered" they emerged less than a billion years after the event. Sooner or later when all these so called "prediction" fail over time you start to wonder if the idea ever had merit in the first place.

It's fine to claim you might see younger galaxies, but what exactly do you expect me to say when you then tell me that expansion takes place at faster than light speed? You don't see a contradiction in there somewhere and it doesn't seem to you like you're tying to have your cake and eat it too?

Once more let me iterate, Maxwell offered no empirical evidence for his statements about light. He used math on observations which had nothing to do with light. The empirical evidence came much later.

But since it relates to something "tangible" and "real" it *CAN* be tested. How do I 'test' your belief that inflation causes expansion?

Are you comparing measurements taken from telescopes to fairies?

That depends on what you're claiming is the "cause" of those measurements. If you're trying to tell me dark invisible things did it, yes I'm going to compare that idea to fairies. How can I test for invisible dark things or invisible fairies?

It would be an astounding coincidence if those discovered particles had the precise properties required to fulfill the theoretical demands of "mystical Godflation" theories, to use your own phrase. If it happens and you're still convinced that cosmology is mumbo-jumbo then maybe you should give some serious consideration to turning your life towards mysticism.

You might interest me in some physical form of "spirituality", but I'm afraid I have no interest at all in the metaphysical or the mystical. I like to know how and why things work, physically.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:

So what do you think we are all missing here? When Guth published his theories, they had the same chance of acceptance as Alfven when he published his. Professional jealousy simply doesn't cut it; is that the best you can do? What dark motive, twisted thinking, convoluted conspiracy have the astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists of the world been engaged in?

 

[PingOfPong]

I suppose you are welcome to call them whatever you like

No, I really can't call them whatever I want.

but their effect is quite "real", very "physical" and will repeatedly have an effect on real things in real experiments with real control mechanisms.

What's real? Are we talking about photons, virtual photons, or EM forces? Never mind, we're getting to a point where we are repeating ourselves. You apparently deny the analog.

How do I 'test' your belief that inflation causes expansion?

Consider observations. Make an explanatory mathematical model. Do some math. Did you find new observational predictions? Look for those new observations. Did you find them? If not, reconsider everything. Repeat.

It's a lot like what a famous Scotsman and German did collectively. I'll give you a clue, there names rhyme with Haxwell and Merz.

The problem if you're an old-timer like me, is you've seen these "predictions" bite the dust, year after year, prediction and pretty soon it's clear that the models have no actual "predictive" value at all.

Them's the breaks! Science evolves.

I thought that you DID NOT want science to be dogmatic. Maybe scientists should be a little more dogmatic so they can keep those predictions nice and steady for you.

You might interest me in some physical form of "spirituality", but I'm afraid I have no interest at all in the metaphysical or the mystical. I like to know how and why things work, physically.

I was only being snarky. I'm sure that we all get your main point. If it can't be bought at Wal-mart then it isn't real science.