Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation and Real Science (copy2)
Originally from the thread
Iron sun with Aether batteries I am re-directing the post to this thread so as to avoid off-topic derailment of the sun thread. I also posted a copy in the
[split thread] Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology, but evidently Mozina chose to gravitate towards this thread and away from that one, so I put it here. Now I must have posted a copy just about everywhere it might be relevant.
So the only way your paper can present "evidence" for CNO reactions is to arbitrarily assume in advance that there are such reactions, and then claim that those reactions are the most likely source for the electrons, positrons and neutrons, so naturally there must be CNO reactions going on. Very circular reasoning.
You mean like *ALL* the astronomy papers ever written on the topics of "dark energy", ""dark matter", and "inflation" don't use that same circular logic you just accused me of?
No they don't. None of the papers on dark energy, dark matter or inflation use circular logic. You are the only one who does that.
Dark Energy
There is nothing even close to circular about dark energy. We observe that there is an inconsistency between the brightness and distance of type Ia supernovae, based on the standard expanding universe cosmology. We realize that the inconsistency can be eliminated by modifying the cosmology to replace the old standard of decelerating expansion with a new standard of accelerating expansion. We also determine that making this change does not cause any other fundamental inconsistency between cosmology and the physics upon which the cosmological models are based. We do not know what the cause of the acceleration is, but we know it is there. So we give it a name,
dark energy. There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. I draw the reader's attention to
Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe; Frieman, Turner & Huterer, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46: 385-432, 2008. This is a good, recent review of the science & observational evidence in the dark energy problem. Another reliable source is
TASI Lectures on Cosmic Acceleration; Rachel Bean, Lectures from the 2009 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute at Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, March 2010.
Dark Matter
There is nothing even close to circular about dark matter. We observe that the rotation of spiral galaxies, and the motions of individual galaxies in clusters are not consistent with the dual assumptions that (1) all of visible matter is all the matter there is, and (2) the law of gravity is correct. We do know, of course, that there are many forms of normal matter that are hard to see. The dark matter problem (originally the "missing mass" problem) has been around since the 1930's and it was certainly reasonable at that time to simply assume that there is more ordinary matter that escaped attention by being below the observability threshold of the technology of the times. But that assumption is no longer valid; we now know that we have the technological ability to see matter that was invisible to astronomers of the 1930's, even the 1950's or 1970's & etc. Observation is now limiting the dark matter, if there is any, to the realm of more esoteric non-baryonic dark matter. However, we already know that esoteric non-baryonic dark matter does in fact exist, just not enough of it (neutrinos definitely exist and definitely are non-baryonic dark matter). So in reality, the assumption that so far unseen non-baryonic dark matter is responsible for the observed effect is no more esoteric than the assumption that there is more of what we already have, just in a form that escapes observation by today's (but no necessarily tomorrow's) technology. Meanwhile, there is plenty of active research in the realm of the law of gravity, and we do not in fact
know that the correct solution to the problem will not be a modification of the law of gravity. But the majority of scientists in the community feel that the assumption "
there is more of what we already have" is more sensible than "
the law of gravity is wrong", hence the majority opinion favors non-baryonic dark matter. There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. There are also good recent reviews on the science of dark matter, e.g.,
TASI 2008 Lectures on Dark Matter; Dan Hooper, Based on lectures given at the 2008 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute, January 2009;
Dark Matter Astrophysics; D'Amico, Kamionkowski & Sigurdson, July 2009, Based on lectures given by MK at the Villa Olmo School on "The Dark Side of the Universe," 14--18 May 2007 and by KS at the XIX Heidelberg Physics Graduate Days, 8--12 October 2007.
Inflation
There is nothing even close to circular about inflation. We know that there is an inconsistency between the observed properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the fundamental physics of pre-inflationary big bang cosmology. The inconsistency is that the CMB shows a strictly thermal spectral energy distribution (SED) over the entire sky, and very nearly the same temperature over the entire sky (there are other problems addressed by inflation but I will stick to this one alone for simplicity). This observed fact requires that the source of CMB is in thermal equilibrium. This fact implies that the infant universe must have been small enough for long enough for all parts to reach the same temperature, for the entire universe to reach thermal equilibrium, before expansion begins. The standard physics of pre-inflationary cosmology does not allow for the universe to be as large as it is given the requirement for thermal equilibrium. However, exponential expansion after equilibrium is reached solves the problem (and also the other problems I have set aside for simplicity). There is nothing even remotely circular about that reasoning; it is completely logical, self consistent, and consistent with known physics. A good recent review of inflation is
Inflationary Cosmology; Andre Linde, Lecture Notes in Physics 738, 2008 and citations thereto. Linde's 362 page book
Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology is also available online via the arXiv server.
I have also posted on the title topics numerous times in other threads. Here is a list of relevant posts for all my fans out there who might have missed them first time around:
Dark Matter II,
Dark Matter and Science,
Inflationary cosmology & science,
What is "dark energy", really?,
Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism,
Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant,
Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant II,
Inflationary cosmology is real science,
Dark Matter and Ultra Faint Dwarf Galaxies,
Dark Matter: Direct Detection?,
Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant III,
Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant IV,
Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism V. As one might guess, Mozina's arguments concerning cosmology are as pathetic as are his arguments concerning the sun. The science of dark matter, dark energy and inflation is sound & solid.
This line of discussion is not relevant to the topic of this thread, which is supposed to be the iron surface of the sun and consequent physics. But I put it here because many interested readers might not be following the cosmology threads, where all of this has been worked over before (e.g.,
Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?,
Lambda-CDM theory, woo or not?,
[split thread] Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology). I will post a copy of this message to the dark matter, inflation and cosmology thread as well, and strongly suggest that followup messages go in that thread and not in this thread, in order to avoid distraction from the topic of the sun. If Mozina wants to come after me on this topic, let him do it there in the appropriate thread.
