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

[Tubbythin]

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.

The above is only a problem if:
a) Alfven was right.
and
b) What you say is true.

Now, I don't have the same devotion as you to follow the word of Alfven as an unimpeachable truth. Nor do I have faith that your characterisation of the mainstream is even remotely accurate, given your repeated failures in other areas of physics. So I, personally, don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

[GeeMack]

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".

Your ignorance does not negate the legitimate science that you hate.

 

[Tubbythin]

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".

I'll repeat:

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I did give the impression that the cause is a physical cause like the CC example. As you state, the cause (but still by definition ) could be a problem of GR on large scales.

I was thinking about this again and it makes no sense. Why do you folks claim that 70+ percent of the universe is composed of "dark energy" if it's potentially just a problem with GR (on whatever scale)?

 

[Tubbythin]

I was thinking about this again and it makes no sense. Why do you folks claim that 70+ percent of the universe is composed of "dark energy" if it's potentially just a problem with GR (on whatever scale)?

Because GR is extremely well tested (both range and precision of tests). We'd have expected any such problems to have shown up already.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because GR is extremely well tested (both range and precision of tests). We'd have expected any such problems to have shown up already.

Well, then RC was right the first time and edd's wrong then, correct? You're claiming "dark (whatever) energy" is in fact the "cause" of that acceleration, no?

 

[GeeMack]

I was thinking about this again and it makes no sense. Why do you folks claim that 70+ percent of the universe is composed of "dark energy" if it's potentially just a problem with GR (on whatever scale)?

So okay, you don't understand contemporary astrophysics. Everyone else already knew that. Why didn't you just admit that years ago instead of persisting with the lies, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and all the useless evangelizing all over the Internet?

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, then RC was right the first time and edd's wrong then, correct? You're claiming "dark (whatever) energy" is in fact the "cause" of that acceleration, no?

Err...No.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, and it could be *anything* in the final analysis. It could be absolutely anything that prevents you from actually "explaining" that acceleration, including a blind ignorance related to your irrational hatred and fear of all things electrical in space. That's the problem RC. You folks really don't know the cause.

Ya, and it could be *anything* in the final analysis is what I said.
That *anything* is the cause. Knowledgeable people call that *anything* , dark energy.
We know its properties (if we keep to accepted theories)

The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense — roughly 10^−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.

That is really dumb, Michael Mozina. I do not have an "irrational hatred or fear of things electrical in space". I *love* things electrical in space!
I do have a rational dislike for ignorant people who have ignore the invalid physics created by obsessing on half of one force.

That's the problem Michael Mozina. You really don't know anything about science. Science does not need to "really" know the cause for anything. Newton did not "really" know the cause of gravity but his theory worked!
GR does not "really" know the cause of gravity but Einstein's theory works!
The theory that replaces GR will not "really" know the cause of gravity but it will work!
This is an demonstration of your confusion between religion and science.

• Religion always knows the cause and never lets the evidence change the cause.
• Science never really knows the cause, selects the current cause according the current empirical evidence and changes the cause whenever the empirical evidence changes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ya, and it could be *anything* in the final analysis is what I said.
That *anything* is the cause. Knowledgeable people call that *anything* , dark energy.
We know its properties (if we keep to accepted theories)

How do you even know that it's "dark" energy in the first place if it could be "anything"?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dark Energy Defined

How do you even know that it's "dark" energy in the first place if it could be "anything"?

Because "dark energy" is by definition the "anything" which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. If it is a problem with GR, then "dark energy" is that problem with GR. If it is electromagnetism, then "dark energy" is that electromagnetism. If it is a repulsive term in Einstein's equations, then "dark energy" is that repulsive term. How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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).

You're wrong about that highlighted stuff. Very wrong.

What's sad is that true believers, knowing nothing about math or (in consequence) modern physics, continue to emulate Saint Alfvén by using explicitly religious language to ridicule science they do not understand.

 

[GeeMack]

How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?

Support for the possibility that Michael has never been able to sway anyone to become a member of his religion because of deficient communication skills.

 

[Perpetual Student]

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because "dark energy" is by definition the "anything" which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

So by definition your use of the term "dark energy" utterly erroneous and stupid because it could be "anything", including:

If it is a problem with GR, then "dark energy" is that problem with GR.

It could simply be a problem with our understanding of gravity that has nothing to do with excess energy, in which case your 70+ percent claim about the makeup of the universe being "dark energy" is completely and utterly bogus. No dark energy would be involved, just 'dark ignorance" of gravity in general.

If it is electromagnetism, then "dark energy" is that electromagnetism.

In that case it wasn't actually "dark" energy and therefore that term was both misleading and pointless in the first place.

If it is a repulsive term in Einstein's equations, then "dark energy" is that repulsive term.

What pray tell (physically, as in actual physics) is a "repulsive term"?

How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?

Use of ordinary English would be something like "unknown acceleration, or "unexplained acceleration", not "dark energy'. You created a whole religion out of your own ignorance. Now 70+ percent of the universe is "dark energy" and most of the rest is "dark matter". I guess you guys just don't like to admit that the term "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. You dreamed up mythical brand of energy that may or may not even exist. You did the same thing with exotic forms of mass that you now call "dark matter". The whole "dark" concept actually relates to your own human ignorance, not any actual property of the matter/energy itself.

 

[GeeMack]

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).

You're wrong about that highlighted stuff. Very wrong.

Support for the notion that Michael uses lies as part of his evangelizing.

 

[Skwinty]

MM mode on:

This thread is worthless without pictures

MM mode off:

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're wrong about that highlighted stuff. Very wrong.

Nope. Alfven was right, you folks peddle psuedoscience. You can't even describe the unique physical difference between "magnetic reconnection" and simple induction and/or ordinary particle collisions. The whole thing comes right back to your irrational fixation on math to the utter exclusion of empirical physics. Once things to move to the subatomic realm, you folks are completely and totally lost.

What's sad is that true believers, knowing nothing about math or (in consequence) modern physics, continue to emulate Saint Alfvén by using explicitly religious language to ridicule science they do not understand.

Ol' St. Alfven had you guys pegged all along. Your whole creation oriented belief system is predicted upon blind faith in mathematical mythologies that have absolutely no physical effect on the empirical physical world we live in. You look at solar "discharge" process and you claim "magnetic reconnection" did it. You look at a acceleration process that is undoubtedly related to the only macroscopic force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity and yet you call it "dark energy". The whole belief system is based entirely (well 96 percent) on faith in the unseen and pure pseudoscience. What you can't actually explain with empirical physics you simply "make up".

 

[Reality Check]

How do you even know that it's "dark" energy in the first place if it could be "anything"?

Because scientists have defined the "anything" that causes the effects as dark energy. By definition dark energy is the cause.
I would think that would be obvious to anyone but then you are the person who has the belief that stars do not exist (Does Michael Mozina believe that stars do not exist?) !

I stated that quite clearly in this post:

Dark energy is the term for whatever
By definition dark energy is the cause.
causes the rate of expansion of the universe to accelerate as determined by the empirical evidence. By definition dark energy is the cause. See the giant gap in your understanding, Michael Mozina?
One more time:

By definition dark energy is the cause.
​

You really should update your reading comphrehension skills.

Tim Thompson has the best reply:

Because "dark energy" is by definition the "anything" which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. If it is a problem with GR, then "dark energy" is that problem with GR. If it is electromagnetism, then "dark energy" is that electromagnetism. If it is a repulsive term in Einstein's equations, then "dark energy" is that repulsive term. How can you be so dense as to fail to understand such a simple aspect of ordinary English?

However your random quoting tic may not be the cause of the quotes around "dark" so:
Astronomers are really, really good at detecting things that emot light. Dark energy is called dark because there is no evidence of it emitting light. Something that does not emit light can be called ... dark !

 

[Michael Mozina]

Support for the notion that Michael uses lies as part of his evangelizing.

When you get your invisible buddies to actually do something in a real science experiment, with actual control mechanisms, then you can call me a liar. Until then you are only lying to yourself.