Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[sol invictus]

I don't actually disagree with any of your statements.

OK, then you agree that

the CC must be regarded as a parameter in GR whose numerical value cannot be determined a priori, and instead should be fit using observational data (much like GR's other parameter, G).

and

the best fit value for the CC wasn't zero, but small and positive

In that case, we're done as far as I can see. You've agreed with us.

You've simply never demonstrated an empirical link between your invisible gods and that constant. Show me that your gods can have an effect on matter here and now.

No idea what you're talking about. You've already agreed that "the CC...has an effect on the universe at large scales".

What you seem to be missing is any sort of empirical demonstration of concept before handwaving at the sky and claiming your invisible gods did it. There's no way to falsify the concept because the parameters of your gods are simply 'made to fit".

No idea what you're talking about. You've already agreed that "the CC... should be fit using observational data" and "the best fit value for the CC sn't zero, but small and positive".

 

[Perpetual Student]

This is an astonishing repetition of all the non-scientific nonsense Mozina has been blathering on one thread after another. He uses the same tired adolescent labeling (invisible gods, magic entities, etc.) instead of thoughtful commentary. As such, it is a total waste of time -- like trying to teach a medieval monk the theory of evolution. He continues to be a strident, ignorant, unteachable, insolent, intractable pest, who adds nothing of value to these forums.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This is an astonishing repetition of all the non-scientific nonsense Mozina has been blathering on one thread after another. He uses the same tired adolescent labeling (invisible gods, magic entities, etc.) instead of thoughtful commentary. As such, it is a total waste of time -- like trying to teach a medieval monk the theory of evolution. He continues to be a strident, ignorant, unteachable, insolent, intractable pest, who adds nothing of value to these forums.

"Ignore" brings blessed relief.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Religious Scientists IV

But there has been a huge advance in astronomical technology since Zwicky's time, and "simply" has become "not so simply". Infrared astronomers today can see the dust & gas in galaxies that was invisible to Zwicky and we now know that there is not enough to make up the missing mass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/space/17univ.html

Remember the OP ... Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religious about their science. The topic of the is intended to be the messenger more than it is the message. Mozina goes somewhat farther than just being religious about his science. He has chosen to abandon science altogether and replace it with religion, which he then tries to pass off as science to the unsuspecting. In this case, however, he is trying to pass his religion off as science on people who can tell the difference, and so he has become the vociferous failure. Here we see Mozina posting a link from the New York Times in 2008, as if that's all that's needed to defeat the opposition. But this is only a symptom of Mozina's complete unwillingness ever to deal with science directly at any level.

The NY Times story is a reference to the paper The Energy Output of the Universe from 0.1 to 1000 μm; Driver, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 678(2): L101-L104, May 2008. One should note with interest that Mozina chooses to present the newspaper article rather than the journal paper. One might readily assume that Mozina was not aware of the journal paper, never saw or read the journal paper, and has in fact no knowledge of the actual science involved at all. We are expected to bow to his superior intellect and the New York Times. For somebody who so readily complains about the perceived arrogance of others, Mozina certainly brings no lack of his own arrogance to the floor of debate.

Consider the abstract for this paper: "The dominant source of electromagnetic energy in the universe today (over ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared wavelengths) is starlight. However, quantifying the amount of starlight produced has proved difficult due to interstellar dust grains that attenuate some unknown fraction of the light. Combining a recently calibrated galactic dust model with observations of 10,000 nearby galaxies, we find that (integrated over all galaxy types and orientations) only 11% +/- 2% of the 0.1 μm photons escape their host galaxies; this value rises linearly (with logλ) to 87% +/- 3% at 2.1 μm. We deduce that the energy output from stars in the nearby universe is (1.6+/-0.2)×10³⁵ W Mpc^-3, of which (0.9+/-0.1)×10³⁵ W Mpc^-3 escapes directly into the intergalactic medium. Some further ramifications of dust attenuation are discussed, and equations that correct individual galaxy flux measurements for its effect are provided."

Mozina simply provides a link with no words at all, as to how this is supposed to affect the estimate of the mass of a galaxy from its visible light. If Mozina had ever bothered to understand the science involved, he would have realized that it has no affect at all. It is a meaningless link. The human eye responds to light roughly between 0.4 - 0.7 μm. The 0.1 μm light referenced in the abstract is ultraviolet (UV) light, far too short in wavelength for us to see. Main sequence stars like our Sun emit most of their energy in the visible light range. Only the relatively few, very massive stars, emit most of their light as UV. The mass-luminosity relation for stars is derived using visible light, and is L = M^3.5 for main sequence stars, where luminosity (L) and mass (M) are both in units of solar luminosity and mass. This relationship is not dependent on 0.1 μm light. Besides, the energy of UV light which does not get out of the galaxy does disappear. Rather, it is reprocessed into infrared (IR) emission by the dust, from which dust temperature is derived, and from the temperature the hidden stars are made known, a very common tool in IR astronomy to detect hidden sources. Since massive stars are only a small fraction of the mass of a galaxy, one would not expect this to affect the derived galaxy mass by more than a few percent. Reading beyond the abstract into the paper does not provide any reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, Graham & Worley, 2008 demonstrate that the more important implication of this study is to affect the presumed stellar mass distribution between the disc & bulge of a galaxy, and thus alters galaxy structure & evolution models. However, there remains no reason to believe this has any significant effect on the issue of dark matter.

This is a clear symptom of Mozina's attempt to replace science with religion in toto. He cannot comment in the actual science, so all he can do is provide a bare link, without comment. And even his choice of sources to link is suspect, choosing a newspaper article over a science paper. Mozina is clearly a pseudoscientist unable to attack the real science at issue in any case. He is even worse than implied by the OP; not religious about his science, but religious without science at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Remember the OP ... Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religious about their science. The topic of the is intended to be the messenger more than it is the message. Mozina goes somewhat farther than just being religious about his science. He has chosen to abandon science altogether and replace it with religion, which he then tries to pass off as science to the unsuspecting.

Since it's busy at work, all I can say at the moment is "wow". You have reality standing on it's head. Your mythical forms of energy and matter are utter no shows in the lab. You have "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) just like any other religious group on the planet. Empirical physics is not a religion. It's something that shows up in tangible goods, tangible products, and tangible physical items. I've seen someone try to spin reality before, but that comment was simply outrageous. What tangible product runs on "dark energy", "inflation" or exotic forms of matter?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark Matter and Science IV

http://www.physorg.com/news169924281.html
How do you know all this matter has to be "exotic" when you can't even be sure how many actual stars are in a galaxy yet?

Once again, Mozina avoids the science. Once again, he chooses to link to a news report and avoid the science paper (Evidence for a Nonuniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe; Meurer, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 695(1): 765-780, April 2009).

Once again, let us look at the abstract of the paper: "Many of the results in modern astrophysics rest on the notion that the initial mass function (IMF) is universal. Our observations of a sample of H I selected galaxies in the light of Hα and the far-ultraviolet (FUV) challenge this result. The extinction-corrected flux ratio F _Hα/f _FUV from these two tracers of star formation shows strong correlations with the surface brightness in Hα and the R band: low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies have lower F _Hα/f _FUV ratios compared to high surface brightness galaxies as well as compared to expectations from equilibrium models of constant star formation rate (SFR) using commonly favored IMF parameters. Weaker but significant correlations of F _Hα/f _FUV with luminosity, rotational velocity, and dynamical mass as well as a systematic trend with morphology, are found. The correlated variations of F _Hα/f _FUV with other global parameters are thus part of the larger family of galaxy scaling relations. The F _Hα/f _FUV correlations cannot be due to residual extinction correction errors, while systematic variations in the star formation history (SFH) cannot explain the trends with both Hα and R surface brightness nor with other global properties. The possibility that LSB galaxies have a higher escape fraction of ionizing photons seems inconsistent with their high gas fraction, and observations of color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of a few systems which indicate a real deficit of O stars. The most plausible explanation for the correlations is the systematic variations of the upper mass limit M_u and/or the slope γ which define the upper end of the IMF. We outline a scenario of pressure driving the correlations by setting the efficiency of the formation of the dense star clusters where the highest mass stars preferentially form. Our results imply that the SFR measured in a galaxy is highly sensitive to the tracer used in the measurement. A nonuniversal IMF would also call into question the interpretation of metal abundance patterns in dwarf galaxies as well as SFHs derived from CMDs." The initial mass function is the count of stars as a function of mass. In this case, the authors are claiming that low mass stars are more abundant relative to high mass stars than previously thought. But the estimation of mass from total luminosity is not going to be sensitive to this distribution, because the same total mass (and therefore the same total luminosity) can be distributed in many ways over the stellar mass function. So in order to make this observation relevant to the question, Mozina has to demonstrate how this result affects the total luminosity of all the stars combined, and how that affects the estimated mass. But of course we already know that he cannot make this result relevant to the question, because he is quite ignorant of the science involved. He prefers the religious approach of citing newspaper articles while ignoring the actual science.

This, and the previous relevant post, indicate a serious weakness in Mozina's understanding of the real science involved here. While Zwicky back in the 1930's was limited to visible light, we are not. The modern determinations of galaxy masses are based on multiwavelength luminosities; visible light & UV will show starlight directly. IR will show dust directly, and embedded stars indirectly, while X-rays reveal hot gas and hot point sources, like neutron stars or what dwarfs. Radio waves reveal cold gas. So in fact the baryonic matter is fairly well sampled, even if there is enough uncertainty to account for +/- 10%. But the missing mass problem is not a factor of 0.1, but rather a factor of 10.0. All Mozina can do is talk about 5% or 10%, but not a factor of 10. He is trying to fool everyone with uncommented links, but to no avail. For Mozina, it's all religion, no science, all the time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is an astonishing repetition of all the non-scientific nonsense Mozina has been blathering on one thread after another. He uses the same tired adolescent labeling (invisible gods, magic entities, etc.) instead of thoughtful commentary. As such, it is a total waste of time -- like trying to teach a medieval monk the theory of evolution. He continues to be a strident, ignorant, unteachable, insolent, intractable pest, who adds nothing of value to these forums.

The irony is that your mythical and non empirical forms of matter and energy make your creation theory about as credible as any medieval creationist theory. Only YEC and Lambda-CDM require faster than light speed expansion. Prophetic creation theories always assume a creation process, usually on an untenable timeline, and they work backwards. Lambda-CDM is no different than YEC in that respect.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Your mythical forms of energy and matter are utter no shows in the lab. ... What tangible product runs on "dark energy", "inflation" or exotic forms of matter?

Absolutely irrelevant rubbish.

 

[Michael Mozina]

1. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant; Riess, et al., The Astronomical Journal 116(3): 1009-1038, September 1998.
2. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae; Perlmutter, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 571(2): 565-586, June 1999.
3. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148(1): 175-194, September 2003.
4. Type Ia Supernovae at z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on the Dark Energy Equation of State; Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 607(2): 665-687, June 2004.
5. The Supernova Legacy Survey: measurement of Ω_M, Ω_Λ and w from the first year data set; Astier, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 447(1): February III 2006.
6. Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 170(2): 377-408, June 2007.
7. Observational Constraints on the Nature of Dark Energy: First Results from the ESSENCE Supernova Survey; Wood-Vasey, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2): 694-715, September 2007.
8. Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation; Komatsu, et al., preprint submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, version 2 dated 12 February 2010.

These listed and the many thousand citations thereto.

Every single one of those papers *assumes* a cause/effect link. Show me in the lab. I can easily show you a cause/effect connection between EM fields and expansion and acceleration in the lab. You can't even produce any dark energy, let alone get it to "accelerate' anything in a controlled demonstration of concept.

 

[Tubbythin]

The irony is that your mythical and non empirical forms of matter and energy make your creation theory about as credible as any medieval creationist theory.

There is no creation theory.

Only YEC and Lambda-CDM require faster than light speed expansion.

Gibberish.

Prophetic creation theories always assume a creation process, usually on an untenable timeline, and they work backwards. Lambda-CDM is no different than YEC in that respect.

Except for the fact that it isn't a creation theory. And has oodles of experimental support. So apart from being completely different in every way, you're right.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Absolutely irrelevant rubbish.

Your faith in the unseen is what is "rubbish" Tim. Your dark energy is as impotent as any religious deity in the lab. Ditto for inflation.

 

[Tubbythin]

Your faith in the unseen is what is "rubbish" Tim. Your dark energy is as impotent as any religious deity in the lab. Ditto for inflation.

Your attempt at science is as impotent as any creationist refuting evolution.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no creation theory.

How old is the universe?

 

[Tubbythin]

Every single one of those papers *assumes* a cause/effect link.

I bet you don't understand a single one of those papers.

 

[Tubbythin]

How old is the universe?

Dunno. Its about 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang. Before that: who knows?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except for the fact that it isn't a creation theory. And has oodles of experimental support.

What "experimental" support? An "experiment" has a control mechanism. Your mythical thingies don't come from "experiments", they come from point at the sky and make claims about your invisible friend mythologies. Just like any religious deity, your mythical entities are complete no shows in the lab. Dark energy was the latest "add-on" because previous BB theories failed to correctly predict any form of acceleration. BB theory has *ALWAYS* created "support' after the fact by adding in more mythical entities. There is no actual "support", just observations you ultimately cannot explain. Like any religious organization, "I don't know" never suffices so you "make up" whatever supernatural entity you need to create in order to feel like you "explained" it. The are no "experiments" that support your claims, just ad hoc, postidicted claims that support your postdicted claims.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dunno. Its about 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang. Before that: who knows?

If you think the universe has a "beginning" and a finite age then it's a "creation" theory!

 

[Reality Check]

Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist

Your faith in the unseen is what is "rubbish" Tim. Your dark energy is as impotent as any religious deity in the lab. Ditto for inflation.

Your continuing ignorance that the effects of dark energy are empirical observations is astounding. So once again MM: Dark energy is the term that scientists give to the cause of the effects that are actually measured.

Your insistence that dark energy and inflation be detectable in the lab are totally strawman arguments

1. No one expects that dark energy will be detected in labs. It is too weak to be detected on such a tiny scale.
2. Inflation will never be detected in the lab because inflation theory states that the nflationary period happened in the very early universe. There is no inflation to detect in labs as you have been told repeatably for many months !
   You need to learn the basics or you will continue to display your ignorance about this subject to the world to see forever (or as long as the internet exists).

Then there is your illogical position that things only exist if they are detected in labs. By that logic nothing in the universe outside of the Earth (or labs!) exist. For example, your existence has never been demonstrated in a lab. However I have strong evidence that you exist because I have observed the effects of the "mythical religious deity" rolleyes that has the label "Michael Mozina".

I first pointed this problem that you have with science and logic in another thread (Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist? Posted 20th May 2010) but I have not seen a reply.

So Michael Mozina:
Stars have not been demonstrated to exist in labs. No star has ever been found in a lab. Do they exist?

 

[Tubbythin]

What "experimental" support?

I dunno...
The Hubble observations
The distribution of radio sources
The abundance of the light elements
Numerous facets of the CMBR...

An "experiment" has a control mechanism.

Sure, the fact that you do not understand what constitutes control mechanisms is not a fault of the BBT.

You mythical thingies don't come from "experiments", they come from point at the sky and make claims about your invisible friend mythologies.

No, they come from extremely well controlled observations. Like:
The distribution of radio sources
The abundance of the light elements
Numerous facets of the CMBR...

Just like any religious deity, your mythical entities are complete no shows in the lab.

So??? The lab is a scale of human convienience. There is no reason whatsoever that the laws of physics should be such that they should be demonstrable on the scale of a human lab. We've been through this about ten times now. Not once have you even attempted a reasonable refutation of this fact. It really is time to put up or shut up Michael: Explain why the laws of physics should be such that they all be demonstrable on the scale of a human lab in a human lab on or before the 18th August 2010.

Dark energy was the latest "add-on" because previous BB theories failed to correctly predict any form of acceleration.

No. The CC is a free parameter. Do you understand what this means?

BB theory has *ALWAYS* created "support' after the fact by adding in more mythical entities.

Support like the prediction of the existence of the CMBR or the distribution of radio sources?

There is no actual "support", just observations you ultimately cannot explain.

There is loads of support. Like:
The Hubble observations
The distribution of radio sources
The abundance of the light elements
Numerous facets of the CMBR...

Like any religious organization, "I don't know" never suffices so you "make up" whatever supernatural entity you need to create in order to feel like you "explained" it.

"I don't know at the current time" is perfectly fine. And you're contradicting yourself. You previously moaned about the number of different inflation theories and the refusal to pick one. Now you moan because we don't say "I don't know enough".

The are no "experiments" that support your claims, just ad hoc, postidicted claims that support your postdicted claims.

Nope. There's:
The distribution of radio sources
The abundance of the light elements
Numerous facets of the CMBR...
These are some (not all) of the predictions of BBT that have been born out. You couldn't get much more wrong here.

 

[Reality Check]

If you think the universe has a "beginning" and a finite age then it's a "creation" theory!

More continuing ignorance from you Michael Mozina, (or another strawman argument).

The Big Bang theory states nothing about the creation or not of the universe. It is a theory about the development of an already existing universe in the period from about 13.7 billion years ago.

ETA
Just to emphasis the point MM:
The term Big Bang does not equal creation of the universe. The term Big Bang does equal the expansion of the universe from a very, very hot dense state.

Stop relying on news articles and popular accounts for your education and try to learn the actual science. You need to learn the basics or you will continue to display your ignorance about the Big Bang theory to the world to see forever (or as long as the internet exists).