DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
(bold added)
I'm sorry Michael, I don't know what this is; can you clarify please?
The WMAP paper I provided a link to earlier is (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract):
Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry Michael, I don't know what this is; can you clarify please?
The WMAP paper I provided a link to earlier is (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract):
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That's like *assuming* that magic faeries have useful predictive value, slapping some math to their forehead, and then trying to make predictions about objects in space with your magic faerie math. There's nothing "useful" about the inflation deity because it evidently is dead now.
Magic faerie math isn't "testable" in an uncontrolled observation.
"Iinflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" are the three major components of your theory and you can't demonstrate that any of them exist in nature or have any effect on nature. It's pure woo, no different that astrology or numerology. I didn't "imagine" these things into existence, and I lack belief in them. You are the one that believes these things exist, and it is up to you to demonstrate that they do exist, not me. This is called a shifting of the burden of proof. It like turning James Randi's test on it's head and making him trying to disprove your claim and refusing to abide by any controlled experiments.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
I don't know why your comments are designed to be so polarizing. I am a layman with a mathematical background reading (with occasional questions and comments) this interesting thread. I have been an avid reader of scientific literature all my adult life -- with a special interest in the areas of physics and cosmology. I have been at this for many years and have been exposed only to mainstream ideas, and nothing in MM's arguments have changed my mind so far.
My comment was straightforward and simple -- the link MM showed contains a strong statement and an impressive list of people. From my naive layman's perspective, it encourages me to pay a little more attention to MM's comments, nothing more.
At this point, I have provisionally accepted all the ideas of mainstream cosmology, including all that I am not satisfied with like the counter-intuitive morass of DE, inflation, time having a beginning, etc.
By the way, so far you have had nothing interesting to say about the statement MM linked us to. Try again.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'd personally like to see DRD or anyone else for that matter start at the "beginning" of their theory, and explain some of the "cause and effect" relationships that created the bang. I wanna hear how this "smaller than a breadbox" thing wasn't crushed back together again by the force of gravity the moment it started.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
These are the comments that really get me. Inflation cannot be demonstrated or "measured". It evidently doesn't even exist anymore in fact, so it can *never* be demonstrated or tested. That in itself should make your skin crawl.
What blows me away however is how they keep "constraining" (AKA "making up") the properties of inflation based on pure observation. In other words this process is a "curve fitting exercise" from beginning to end, where they simply "make up" the properties based on uncontrolled observations of very distant objects in the sky.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Why Woo
Specifically, is it your contention that these things a "pure woo" because they cannot be replicated in controlled laboratory experiments? Is/are there any other reason(s), or is the lack of controlled laboratory experiments the one & only reason?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, it's not the *only* reason, but the fact I can never even hope to *ever* demonstrate inflation puts the idea into the realm of "pure faith". In my specific case, my disenchantment began with Guth's addition of inflation to the idea, but the real disgust came with the complete "invention' of "dark energy" and then the final piece for me was "dark matter" going SUSY theory, a *NON* standard branch of particle physics theory. The final straw came on April 16th 2005 while watching SOHO images and realizing that those coronal loops were large electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. From there it was pretty much over.
The "dark energy" thing was really the "biggie" for me for the reasons that Perpetual Student mentioned. The insertion of DE was pure "ad hoc", and it's ramifications on QM were almost not even considered before the papers on Nereid's the inflation deity's new "dark energy" superpowers were being added to her list of supernatural qualities.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, I have not forgotten your critique of my CNO paper. I appreciate the effort you put into your critique and the specific nature of your criticisms. I see that we have many things to discuss. I'll take it up with you in the other thread tomorrow after I've had some sleep.
So I suppose I can go to Walmart tomorrow and buy myself a top quark and a neutron star then?
I did, several pages back (or possibly on the other thread). There are many issues with the list...
1) Science is not a democracy. This is the most fundamental problem. A long list is nothing more than an argument from authority. Given some of the names, its a pretty crap authority too.
2) If anyone bothered to do a list of people that do not have this viewpoint (with signatories of equal or greater qualifications to those on this list) it would be orders of magnitude longer.
3) The two biggest authorities (imo) on the list are dead. What's the quote about people not changing their mind, they just die out, again?
4) There's several complete fruitcakes on the list. It doesn't do the proponents any favours.
5) Its just a list of people that disagree with something. It doesn't offer any alternatives. Nothing. It is, in fact, the antithesis of science.
6) Its the same thing creationists do (which is never a good thing).
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
(my bold)
No offense to derekmcd of course, but that is an absolutely hilarious statement. You've demonstrated over and over that you don't know anything about GR. This question is a pretty good example:
Have you ever taken a course on this kind of physics, MM? Can you solve Einstein's equations in any context? Do you know anything about pseudo-Riemannian manifolds?
If the answers to those questions are "no", it will help to know that so the answers to your questions can be tuned to the appropriate level. If some of the answers are yes, please provide a few details.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
I did not design my comments to be polarising, so thank you for pointing out that they came across to you that way. I shall try harder to avoid creating this perception in future.
Can I ask for your help please? If you see that my comments are polarising, would you mind pointing that fact out to me please?
It certainly is a strong statement, isn't it?
May I ask you to say a few words on why you felt the list to be impressive?
OK, thanks, I will.
The statement concludes with these words:
Now I don't know about you, but to me this seems a little disingenuous.
Why?
Firstly, because today almost all astronomical observations are either in the public domain from the get to (e.g. many of the large surveys), or become available within a relatively short period of time (typically a year). This public availability is, I think, a mandate for observations obtained using certain sources of funds from one or other US government agencies.
Second, because the tools needed to analyse such data, to create and run simulations, and so on are extremely cheap - compare the processing power of an average PC today with that of an IBM mainframe of only a few decade ago, for example, or look at what MHDEnzo can do compared with Perrat's PIC simulations (yes, Perrat is a signatory to this statement).
Third, check out the number of proposals that the initial signatories made, for time on the Hubble Space Telescope for example, or the ATNF. If you can't find any answers, why not email some of these people and ask them if they'd be kind enough to tell you?
So what is it, exactly, that the signatories want to do? It seems to me they want to be given money to do research. And what research do they propose to do, exactly? In the case of Arp and maybe one or two others, I could probably guess. But what research "into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang" would Jacques Moret-Bailly or Timothy Eastman (to take two of the signatories at random) propose to do?
If you're interested, maybe we could go over some other parts of the statement, to see just how much meat there is in it.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Thanks.
An interesting paper (or two?) by Kashlinsky et al. Not yet independently verified though (or did I miss something?), so perhaps we should not get too excited about it until it is, eh?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
See here you engage in the sophomoric sophistry again, you have yet to demonstrate either electricity or gravity!
You have used word models to show link between words you use and perceptual phenomena. You have not shown however that either gravity or electricity exists.
You have shown that you can use words that you associate with certain phenomena.
So sorry Michael you fail, because you refuse to face the facts.
Your word models are exactly the same as the models you refuse to address in this thread, you have not shown that EM fields exist, you have shown that the plasma ball exhibits characteristics that you are currently labeling and plasma and EM field but you have not demonstrated either.
You have claimed to show that a force you label as gravity exists, but you haven't.
Here is the deal, and I am becoming sure that you will ignore it because you are here to argue some political philosophy that you have personal interest in. You do not seem to be here to talk about critical thinking and science.
1. You have a false and arbitrary standard of what 'empirical' is.
Here is why I say arbitrary:
A. Words are models , theories are models.
B. they are self referencing symbols used in an idiomatic feedback to allow communication about observations that can not be shared directly
Therefore
C. Models and words have validity only to the extent that they can be replicated to show that the application of the label is consistent across experience.
Now here is where I will show that you seem (perhaps unintended to be cherry picking where and when you apply a standard.
1. A. You state
-you have used the phrase ‘electrical current’ which is just a word reference to model of ‘electrons’ ‘flowing’ through ‘the substance within the sphere’
--so you have referenced a number of models here, the electron model, the current model and plasma discharge model.
-you then claim that the same force that the nine volt battery causes in the tongue is related to the ‘plasma filaments’ in the ball.
Now NOWHERE did you empirically prove this, you have just referenced a set of models and shown that you have referenced the models to explain the phenomena.
-You have not shown that EM fields exist
-you have not shown that electrons exist
-you have not shown that current flow exists
-you have not shown plasma filaments exist
What you have shown is that you can
1. Use models that are coherently defined
2. Attribute observation to a model
3. That the model and the observations seem to not contradict each other.
Now this is where you get arbitrary, you do not apply the same standard at all to different ideas:
-inflation (Guth) is a model, it attempts to explain the observed phenomena
-dark matter is a model it attempts to explain the observation
-dark energy is a model it attempts to explain the observation
And here is where I think you sophistry comes in:
1. You have yet to explain any of the observations that are addressed in inflation, dark matter or dark energy.
2. You sling around words like ‘EM field’, ‘gravity’, ‘plasma’ and ‘current’.
3. they are all just concepts and theories.
4. the only thing you can do in a lab is exactly the same thing you can do through a telescope or other device
-a. makes observation, collect data
-b. sees if observations and data match the theory
Conclusion:
5. All theories, model and words are equally ‘metaphysical concepts’ your use of the word ‘electron’ is just as metaphysical as the word ‘dark energy’.
6. Observation is the key to collecting data in a lab , either uses instruments in most cases.
7. The validity of science comes from the match between model and observation.
You are arbitrary because you have divided two equal sets and all words and all observations are equal. The scientific utility comes about through the match between theory and observation.
1. What causes the observed galactic rotation curves?
2. What causes the spectrum of the CMB?
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
I find this particularly odd ...
If GR is a theory of gravity, then DE in the form of the cosmological constant (lambda) is part of that theory ... i.e. DE is gravity, and observations confirming the existence of DE in nature, as part of gravity, should be welcomed, shouldn't they? After all, we could say that yet another prediction from GR has been empirically demonstrated, couldn't we?
After all, this is perfectly consistent with the way you conflate "electricity" with "EM fields", isn't it?
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
These are quite specious arguments. Gravity (Einstein or Newton -- take your pick) is a foundational theory of physics. The same is true of Maxwell's equations and all subsequent QED theories.
Asking MM to demonstrate the existence these phenomena as some sort of test that is supposed to equate to the (quite hypothetical) existence of DE and inflation is so much sophistry.
MM's complaint is that DE and inflation cannot be demonstrated in a lab. He is correct, but his complaint has no merit since there exist a multitude of astronomical phenomena that cannot be duplicated in a lab, which nevertheless have a strong scientific basis.
The current prevailing theory of gravity could possible be modified or amplified some day to some small degree; but it is not going to be overturned. However, it is still possible that DE will be overturned by a new approach coming from new observations. If you can't agree to that you are engaging in dogmatism, not science!
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
The two halves of your comment are in contradiction with each other. Einstein gravity cannot be tested in a lab, except in some specific aspects. Exactly the same goes for E&M. DD's point was simply that - sure, there is some phenomenon we call "gravity". But how do you know GR, or Newton, is the correct description of that phenomenon? We cannot ever know that. All we can do is build our confidence, but it remains just that - a belief born out by some evidence, but never a certainty.
Let me give you an example. According to Maxwell, if I emit a radio signal from earth is will propagate through space according to certain rules, arriving at the moon with a particular amplitude and phase after a certain time delay. That claim is completely impossible to test in any earth-based lab - for patently obvious reasons. And yet, when astronauts landed on the moon and tested it, no one was the least bit surprised that that particular prediction of Maxwell was born out - even though propagation of radio signals to the moon had never been tested before (or perhaps it was tested a few years before by some probe - but same goes for that).
Why? Because the essence of science - the whole point of it - is that there are certain rules that one can figure out, and once one has the rules one can predict an enormous range of phenomena other than those used to determine the rules in the first place. We believe Maxwell's equations are correct, even though we have only tested a vanishing fraction of the infinite number of predictions they make. If MM had his way and we insisted on verifying it every time a new potential application arose, we'd still be living in trees and picking lice off each other.
All that said, it is true that inflation is somewhat speculative (although at this point the evidence for it is pretty overwhelming). Given that it's only 25 years old or so - by contrast Maxwell wrote down his equations in the 19th century - that's hardly surprising. So of course people are constantly looking for new ways to test it. But just like E&M, as more and more tests are done, people gradually start to become more and more confident in it.
Let me give you an example. According to Maxwell, if I emit a radio signal from earth is will propagate through space according to certain rules, arriving at the moon with a particular amplitude and phase after a certain time delay. That claim is completely impossible to test in any earth-based lab - for patently obvious reasons. And yet, when astronauts landed on the moon and tested it, no one was the least bit surprised that that particular prediction of Maxwell was born out - even though propagation of radio signals to the moon had never been tested before (or perhaps it was tested a few years before by some probe - but same goes for that).
Why? Because the essence of science - the whole point of it - is that there are certain rules that one can figure out, and once one has the rules one can predict an enormous range of phenomena other than those used to determine the rules in the first place. We believe Maxwell's equations are correct, even though we have only tested a vanishing fraction of the infinite number of predictions they make. If MM had his way and we insisted on verifying it every time a new potential application arose, we'd still be living in trees and picking lice off each other.
All that said, it is true that inflation is somewhat speculative (although at this point the evidence for it is pretty overwhelming). Given that it's only 25 years old or so - by contrast Maxwell wrote down his equations in the 19th century - that's hardly surprising. So of course people are constantly looking for new ways to test it. But just like E&M, as more and more tests are done, people gradually start to become more and more confident in it.
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Irrelevant to my point.
True, but also irrelevant to my point.
Not a good sign.
Even worse!
It is not intended to offer an alternative.
Also irrelevant.
I believe the point is that there are some knowledgeable people out there who are not convinced by the current consensus and who feel they are not given fair treatment. Is that true or not?
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Cool, I want a bike powered by the strong force! Or a Casimir Effect door closer. Or my quantum entanglement telephone! Schrodinger's litter box too. Fusion powered garden lights? Neutrino flashlight?
Your silly plasma ball "experiment" doesn't describe even Newton's understanding of gravity let alone Einstein's.
- Status