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

[Tubbythin]

Sure, as long as they don't use Alfven's "circuit" orientation, is that it?

Erm, no. See Tusenfem's link.

IMO the whole history of the theory matters. It's interesting to see how Einstein used and described a non zero constant, and it's useful to know he put it back to zero again. The "Dark energy" brands of GR theory are not a step forward IMO, they are metaphysical kludge to what is otherwise a beautiful empirical theory.

It is interesting though of little scientific value. It's interesting because the history tells us Einstein proposed it was non-zero to get a static universe. He then retracted this when he realised that his solution was unstable and the Universe wasn't static. He certainly did not know that the constant was zero, only that at the time there was no evidence it was anything else. Einstein was a gifted scientist. What he was not was a precognitive. He had no way of knowing about the results of observations over four decades after his death. So his opinions about a phenomenon that was not measured until 40 years after his death is of precisely this much scientific value: 0.
What this shows very nicely is that science moves on. That what matters is what the evidence shows, not who said what. And especially who said what about something that wasn't measured till after they were dead.

No, it's a "conceptual" one. The mainstream has the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse in terms of solar physics. We can't easily measure electrical fields, but we can easily measure magnetic fields at a distance. The mainstream sees a distant magnetic field and *IMAGINES* it is doing all the work. It would be like looking at a lightening discharge in the Earth's atmosphere from a distance, seeing it involved powerful magnetic fields and calling it "magnetic reconnection"! It's stupid. Electrical currents create x-rays and even gamma ray's in the Earth's atmosphere. The discharges in Saturns atmosphere are many times more powerful that the discharges in our atmosphere. We see those same discharges in the solar atmosphere and you folks call them "magnetic reconnection' events! That's what's really pathetic.

Your previous post sounded very much like a semantic argument to me.

Magnetic lines form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They don't form as "reconnecting" lines! That's bizarre 'pseudoscience" and it forever be "pseudoscience" no matter how many papers get written and published on this topic.

No, it isn't pseudoscience. Magnetic reconnection is a physical phenomenon. It is described precisely by Maxwell's equations and is seen in a wealth of data. Complaints about calling it magnetic reconnection are 100% semantic. The theory matches the reality. That is all that matters.

You guys cannot even distinguish between MR theory and induction/particle collisions in plasma. It's another example of "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab (except when *CIRCUITS* show up.

No. It's "faith" in Maxwell's equations.

So it is in fact a "creation" story since you are claiming that all matter was "created" from a "hot state"?

Its as much of a "creation story" as that which describes pair production, ie QED.

How do you even know that all matter and energy were even within say 100,000 light years from each other before "expanding" again?

We don't. We don't know how big the Universe is. We know lots of properties of the early universe from the CMBR though.

Have you ever read Alfven's "bang" theory?

You mean the one that is in complete contradiction to overwhelming amounts of empirical data?

You keep trying to tap dance around that "creation" concept

Not in the slightest. I have made it explicitly clear, it is no more and no less a creation theory than QED. Your attempts to make me say it is a creation theory just underline your complete inability to make a scientific argument. You know, one that deals with facts and numbers and how well theory matches data. Instead you have to resort exclusively to vagaries of the English language. That really is truly pathetic.

but you're intentionally and explicitly claiming that all matter was "hot", it was too "hot" for matter to exist as we know it, and matter was "created" later.

There is a finite probability that a photon with energy in excess of 1.022 MeV, when it interacts with matter, will "create" an electron positron pair. Does that make it a creation theory too?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just to make that specific: this paper is FULL of circuit theory, with both electric and magnetic fields and currents and resistors etc.

Anything *SLIGHTLY* more current? That paper is something like 17 years old!

 

[Tubbythin]

Emphasis mine. That's a giant "if" IMO edd. The same could be said for "God energy" too, no? *IF* it exists and works just like your imagined "dark energy" works, God energy could also exist. That's the problem with "if's" that are related to intangible (in the lab) entities.

This really beggars belief. You change the name of a theory and wonder whether it makes a difference.
Michael please answer me this: what effect do you believe the semantics of the English language has on the laws of physics?
If the answer is none please explain why you keep spouting all this horse dung. If the answer is not none, please give a quantitative description of the relationship between the laws of physics and semantics of the English language.

There has never been a "cause/effect" demonstration of "dark energy" causing the acceleration of even a couple of atoms in the lab. What makes you think it's going to cause the acceleration of an entire physical universe?

Sucha demonstration would violate the theory. There has never been a cause/effect demonstration of the Andromeda galaxy in a lab. The lab is a scale of human conveinience. The only reason I can think of for believing every physical phenomenon should be observable in a human lab is if you believe the laws of physics to have been designed for humans.

But couldn't we say the same thing for 'God energy', or "magic energy"? What is the empirical difference between those "ifs"?

One is a well understood scientific description, the other two are a load of crap you decided to rant on about endlessly in a science forum whilst avoiding making a reasoned scientific argument.

 

[Tubbythin]

Due to Michael's religious insistence on using words and phrases differently than they are normally used by intelligent English speaking people, and his refusal to define his terms in a way that anyone else can reasonably understand, it looks like it's time to bring back the list. This list was started in another thread, but applies here just as readily. More so, in fact, because his continued evangelizing is actually an excellent example of the religious fervor among crackpots and wannabe scientists, the subject of this thread.

I seem to remember Michael having problems with "define"/"definition" too.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Anything *SLIGHTLY* more current? That paper is something like 17 years old!

Given your demonstrated religious attachment to outdated theories and papers, that is really funny! Were you striving for irony or are you actually that *OBLIVIOUS*?

 

[Perpetual Student]

OMG! If you want to study Einstein Field Equations, be my guest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

I'm not your math mommy.

No, I do not want to study anything at this moment, but I was asking you to demonstrate your knowledge on a subject that you claim to have extraordinary insight.

 

[GeeMack]

Come on Mozina, the equation below is so fundamental to this discussion, it should be quite easy for you to describe the meaning and significance of each term, its overall impact and in what manner it supports your theories (since you do say you are in agreement with GR):

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

The truly devout don't bark math on command. Or in other words, it's all chicken scratchin'. Please stop, it's hurting his head.

But really, Michael's qualifications to understand the supporting math have been challenged, time and time again, and just as often he has refused to demonstrate that he has the qualifications to even balance his own checkbook, much less understand the math relevant to the physics under discussion. Equal to the best of the religious fundamentalists, his faith relies almost entirely on flat out lies, both to himself and to the targets of his ministering, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and his dishonest strawman which is a bizarre caricature of legitimate science.

One of the primary differences between Michael's religion and the more common religions which typically involve various supernatural beings, is that most of those religions actually have something that sways others into accepting them. Michael, as the sole spokesman for his flavor of crackpot astrophysics, hasn't ever been able to sway another soul to accept his Truth. Among the several possible reasons for this, and clearly the most likely, is that his religion is simply false, that there is nothing remotely resembling legitimate science on which to base his whacked out beliefs, and for the most part, everything he says to support it is BS. Another possibility is that when it comes to evangelizing, he has done such a lousy job that he hasn't persuaded a single mortal soul.

When it comes to Michael's religion, either (a) it's not true, just plain utterly and stupidly wrong, or (b) the preacher is wholly incapable of communicating in a manner that would allow others to see that it is true. Even some of the most bizarre and obscure religions have multiple followers, but convincing a total of zero adherents is a pretty crappy track record for a crackpot indeed. I'll give Michael the benefit of the doubt and go with (a).

 

[Perpetual Student]

The truly devout don't bark math on command. Or in other words, it's all chicken scratchin'. Please stop, it's hurting his head.

But really, Michael's qualifications to understand the supporting math have been challenged, time and time again, and just as often he has refused to demonstrate that he has the qualifications to even balance his own checkbook, much less understand the math relevant to the physics under discussion. Equal to the best of the religious fundamentalists, his faith relies almost entirely on flat out lies, both to himself and to the targets of his ministering, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and his dishonest strawman which is a bizarre caricature of legitimate science.

One of the primary differences between Michael's religion and the more common religions which typically involve various supernatural beings, is that most of those religions actually have something that sways others into accepting them. Michael, as the sole spokesman for his flavor of crackpot astrophysics, hasn't ever been able to sway another soul to accept his Truth. Among the several possible reasons for this, and clearly the most likely, is that his religion is simply false, that there is nothing remotely resembling legitimate science on which to base his whacked out beliefs, and for the most part, everything he says to support it is BS. Another possibility is that when it comes to evangelizing, he has done such a lousy job that he hasn't persuaded a single mortal soul.

When it comes to Michael's religion, either (a) it's not true, just plain utterly and stupidly wrong, or (b) the preacher is wholly incapable of communicating in a manner that would allow others to see that it is true. Even some of the most bizarre and obscure religions have multiple followers, but convincing a total of zero adherents is a pretty crappy track record for a crackpot indeed. I'll give Michael the benefit of the doubt and go with (a).

My fear is that he has persuaded friends and family members who do not have the scientific training to see through his twaddle. I can picture him lecturing an ignorant but spellbound audience about the conspiracy of established physicists and cosmologists and how he has come to develop his ingenious insights. They must hold him in awe, which makes all this meaningless debate worthwhile for him in that it gives him the tools to nurture his narcissism. Sound familiar Mr. Mozina?

 

[Tubbythin]

http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html

What a terrible article. The very first paragraph is just so very very wrong:

Scientists have long believed that hydrogen fusion generates heat and light in the sun and other ordinary stars for billions of years before a star collapses into a neutron star or black hole when its fuel is exhausted.

Errm. No.

By the way Michael, could you please explain figure 3 in the associated paper. I've asked for an explanation several times.

 

[Tubbythin]

My fear is that he has persuaded friends and family members who do not have the scientific training to see through his twaddle. I can picture him lecturing an ignorant but spellbound audience about the conspiracy of established physicists and cosmologists and how he has come to develop his ingenious insights. They must hold him in awe, which makes all this meaningless debate worthwhile for him in that it gives him the tools to nurture his narcissism. Sound familiar Mr. Mozina?

You don't need scientific training to see through arguments like "If we call x theory, God/magic/dead deity theory then it must be wrong", do you?

 

[Perpetual Student]

You don't need scientific training to see through arguments like "If we call x theory, God/magic/dead deity theory then it must be wrong", do you?

It's sad to say that I know too many people who could be persuaded by Mozina's twaddle. I find that the general public is profoundly ignorant of what constitutes science and scientific thinking. I do wish I were wrong about this.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Anything *SLIGHTLY* more current? That paper is something like 17 years old!

Given your demonstrated religious attachment to outdated theories and papers, that is really funny! Were you striving for irony or are you actually that *OBLIVIOUS*?

Let's see now, Saint Birkeland's last publication was, what, ~100 years' ago.

And Saint Bruce's ~70.

Godhead Alfven's last must be at least about the same, and the works of the Godhead which MM so often quotes are much older than that.

Hmm, the key doctrinal texts are timeless; age shall not weary them; the published papers of mere space scientists tarnish within the space of mere years, and are well past their MM-use-by-date once they reach a decade.

 

[Tubbythin]

Let's see now, Saint Birkeland's last publication was, what, ~100 years' ago.

And Saint Bruce's ~70.

Godhead Alfven's last must be at least about the same, and the works of the Godhead which MM so often quotes are much older than that.

Hmm, the key doctrinal texts are timeless; age shall not weary them; the published papers of mere space scientists tarnish within the space of mere years, and are well past their MM-use-by-date once they reach a decade.

I sometimes wonder whether Michael is on a different spacetime manifold.

 

[Tubbythin]

Anything *SLIGHTLY* more current? That paper is something like 17 years old!

Anything Einstein has said must be at least 55 years old. That doesn't seem to bother you.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Physics, according to MM:

Physics, since at least the time of Newton, if not Galileo:

If one of us knows only Basque, and the other only !Kung, how can we two have a meaningful conversation?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Have you ever read Alfven's "bang" theory?

You mean the one that is in complete contradiction to overwhelming amounts of empirical data?

[...]

Write his name with its required honorific, please; it's Godhead Alfven.

As it was written by the Godhead, it is, by definition, eternal and inerrant truth, or Truth. As such, no empirical data, no math, no logic, not even any pictures! ... nothing can contradict it; neither then, nor now, nor ever.

 

[Tubbythin]

As it was written by the Godhead, it is, by definition, eternal and inerrant truth, or Truth. As such, no empirical data, no math, no logic, not even any pictures! ... nothing can contradict it; neither then, nor now, nor ever.

Not even one from wikipedia?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Given your demonstrated religious attachment to outdated theories and papers, that is really funny! Were you striving for irony or are you actually that *OBLIVIOUS*?

The problem is that Alfven published lots of circuit oriented papers *a long time ago* PS. It's only since Alfven's death that "pseudoscience" really seems to have "caught on" in astronomy, and PC theory came to be treated as the evil stepchild. Before Alfven's death, there were indeed a whole host of published papers oriented toward the circuit orientation of MHD theory. Since his death however the whole universe has gone "magnetic" and only what Alfven referred to as the "field' orientation ever get's published, and it typically involves something that Alfven rejected as pure pseudoscience.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I do not want to study anything at this moment, but I was asking you to demonstrate your knowledge on a subject that you claim to have extraordinary insight.

The only "extraordinary" insight I've claimed to have is insight into the fact that you've never actually shown a cause/effect link between anything in that formula and "dark energy" or "inflation" or exotic brands of invisible matter. You might as well point at those same formulas and claim magic is responsible for lambda, because you have just as much evidence that "magic energy did it" as 'dark energy did it". Never once did you bother to demonstrate any empirical link between the acceleration of physical objects and "dark (evil or otherwise) energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Physics, according to MM:
[qimg]http://www.casimir.rl.ac.uk/casimir-plates.gif[/qimg]

Physics, since at least the time of Newton, if not Galileo:
[qimg]http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?%20R_\mu_\nu%20-%20\dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu%20R%20%20+%20g_\mu_\nu\Lambda=%20\dfrac{8\pi%20G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu[/qimg]

If one of us knows only Basque, and the other only !Kung, how can we two have a meaningful conversation?

Beats me. Even with pretty little pictures from multiple sources that show "higher' and "lower' pressures, you still cling to some ridiculous idea that a "vacuum" holds "negative pressure" when the best vacuums on Earth (and space) have positive pressure in them. You can't even tell me what you would add to a 'pure vacuum' (assuming we could remove every particle in it) to create a "negative" pressure. It's sad, just sad. All you folks know is math and you're completely ignorant when it comes to actual "physics" and what is physically real and physically possible. In fact you can't even tell "empirical physics" from a "religion" that requires absolute faith in the "unseen"(in the lab).