|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2006 : 21:36:35 [Permalink]
|
Mozina calling somebody a two-bit snake oil salesman?
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 11:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Mozina calling somebody a two-bit snake oil salesman?
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.
Sorry, but I'm not violating any laws of physics in my theories, and I have observational evidence to back up my position. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 12:12:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have observational evidence to back up my position.
No you don't. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 12:39:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So with an "IMO" and the implication that Guth ignores laws of physics at a whim, an entire field of physics is dismissed.
What? I didn't dismiss any laws of physics Dave. Guth did that. He claimed that during the first part of inflation the volume increased while the density remained constant and that's how we get something for nothing. That violates the conservation of energy laws in a big way.
quote:
Applying that same sort of "skepticism," Michael, one might suggest that Dr. Manuel's work is "a big fat myth" and ignore it completely.
Because his work violates no known laws of physics Dave, it's really quite simple to distinguish between the two. The conservation of energy laws cannot be violated on a whim by a guy that thinks something came from nothing. Dr. Manuels work does not violate any "laws" of physics. About the worst you could acuse him of is not agreeing with current solar "theory".
quote:
Good thing that Big Bang theory doesn't state that, then, isn't it?
What does big bang theory bang theory "state" that is actually based on observation rather than theory?
quote:
It's also a good thing that Guth's version of inflation was found to be lacking, years ago, and cosmologists have since moved on to other ideas which better fit the observations.
Yet his work is often still mentioned in association with the BB, even though his theories violated the conservation of energy laws. Go figure.
quote:
In other words, if your opinion of the Big Bang Theory is informed only by theorists from 20-plus years ago, and you present "facts" about the theory which are plainly incorrect, then one can easily see that your conclusions aren't even wrong.
The only "facts" I presented was the "fact" the Guth's theories violated conservation of energy laws. The other "fact" I have pointed out is that we have some idea of when the galaxies formed based on the current trajectories of galaxies. The notion that all energy/matter was contained inside a "singularity" is pure and utter speculation. It may have been more of a "big slam" type event for all we know. Early BB theory claimed that all galaxies formed "billions" (plural) of years after the event, whereas modern observation keeps showing mature galaxies formed within the first billion (singular) years. There is no concrete evidence suggesting that all matter originated in a singularity, or that inflation is anything other than electromagnetic in origin. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/14/2006 13:18:25 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 12:50:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I have observational evidence to back up my position.
No you don't.
Yes, I do. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 13:09:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I'm curious. Do you have a theory that explains red shift, the expanding of the universe, and cosmic background radiation? Of course, not having one is perfectly fine. But I don't see any other theory currently explaining any one of these, let alone relating all three to the same thing.
Sure. The only part we need to change is to suggest that the events at 0,0,0,0 were more like a galaxy collision or "big slam" where some matter survives intact. That idea more readily accounts for mature galaxies in the early universe. I would also suggest that electromagnetic fields drive inflation in a predominantly iron universe. These changes would explain some of the redshift issues although Arp's arguments are not necessarily addressed by these changes alone. The expansion is electromagnetic in nature and the backround radiation is simply leftover energy from the areas of intersection where matter slammed together and was converted into energy. All three phenomenon can be explained and accounted for in many different ways. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 13:49:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What? I didn't dismiss any laws of physics Dave.
I didn't say that you dismissed any laws of physics, I said (correctly) that based on your own incredulity and ignorance of the physics involved, you dismissed the entire field of Big Bang cosmology.quote:
Guth did that. He claimed that during the first part of inflation the volume increased while the density remained constant and that's how we get something for nothing. That violates the conservation of energy laws in a big way.
So what? Guth is old news.quote:
Because his work violates no known laws of physics Dave, it's really quite simple to distinguish between the two. The conservation of energy laws cannot be violated on a whim by a guy that thinks something came from nothing. Dr. Manuels work does not violate any "laws" of physics. About the worst you could acuse him of is not agreeing with current solar "theory".
You've missed the point.quote:
What does big bang theory bang theory "state" that is actually based on observation rather than theory?
Big Bang Theory is actually established entirely upon observation, just like the Theory of Gravity or Atomic Theory. What it doesn't state is that all matter was once compressed to a "point," as you said it states. Rather than admit that you made a strawman out of a theory you don't agree with due to incredulity and ignorance, you instead attempt to attack the theory from a different angle, this time by conflating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the layperson's meaning. Your strategy here is transparent.quote:
Yet his work is often still mentioned in association with the BB, even though his theories violated the conservation of energy laws. Go figure.
And you continue to mention Birkeland, even though your "theory" is very much different from his. Obviously, you (and Big Bang cosmologists) owe a lot to historical figures who came before, and Guth happened to be the one to get most of the world thinking about the possibilities of an inflationary period. It's only surprising to see his name associated with Big Bang cosmology if you think it's surprising that George Washington's name is associated with the birth of this nation.quote:
The only "facts" I presented was the "fact" the Guth's theories violated conservation of energy laws.
No, you also stated, without qualification or hestitation, that Big Bang Theory says that at some time, all matter was in a "point." That's a misrepresentation of the theory, an obvious strawman (as above).quote:
Early BB theory claimed that all galaxies formed "billions" (plural) of years after the event, whereas modern observation keeps showing mature galaxies formed within the first billion (singular) years.
Yes, and what does BBT state now, or would you rather keep attacking the version of it that existed 20 years ago? The latter is clearly much easier, but is it at all gratifying?quote:
There is no concrete evidence suggesting that all matter originated in a singularity, or that inflation is anything other than electromagnetic in origin.
Please explain how the electromagnetic force can drive the mass of the whole universe apart from a space smaller than... well, it's your theory, why don't you tell us how large a space your "Big Slam" occupied, and upon what observations you are basing your ideas? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 19:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I didn't say that you dismissed any laws of physics, I said (correctly) that based on your own incredulity and ignorance of the physics involved,
Woah. It was not "ingorance" that caused me to doubt in Guth's theories, it is the knowledge of the laws of physics that caused me to doubt Guth's "somethingfromnothin" scheme.
quote:
you dismissed the entire field of Big Bang cosmology.
Actually Dave, I don't "dismiss" the big bang "theory" to begin with, I simply note it's one of many possible scenarios. You are the only one holding it upon a pedestal and wraping the word "field" around it to make it sound "official".
quote:
So what? Guth is old news.
So he's being still cited in your reference. That makes your reference look bad IMO. Guth was a snake oil salesman expousing "poof" theories. How is that "scientific" and how does his name and his poof theories lend any credibility to the big bang "field"?
quote:
You've missed the point.
How so? You missed the point. If a theory has been proven to be false because it violates the conservation of energy laws, it shouldn't be held up as material to support Big Bang theory (Ooops, I mean the whole "field" of Big Bang theory). :)
quote:
Big Bang Theory is actually established entirely upon observation,
Which observation favors a big "Bang" over a big "Slam" again?
quote:
just like the Theory of Gravity or Atomic Theory.
Oh, now you're just trying to coattail the idea onto other more easily studied ideas, and less controversial areas of science to give it an artificial air of credibility. :) Again, exactly which observations are you talking about, and how do they account for Arp's theories?
quote:
What it doesn't state is that all matter was once compressed to a "point," as you said it states. Rather than admit that you made a strawman out of a theory you don't agree with due to incredulity and ignorance, you instead attempt to attack the theory from a different angle, this time by conflating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the layperson's meaning. Your strategy here is transparent.
You're simply nitpicking a word I used (point) rather than addressing the actual legitimate issues I raised. There is no evidence to suggest that all matter was once condensed into a "singlularity" (since you object to "point") or any evidence that favors a "bang" over a "slam". Your strategy here is transparent too Dave. I know you too well at this point. :)
quote:
And you continue to mention Birkeland, even though your "theory" is very much different from his.
But Dave, Birkeland's ideas weren't discredited! I wouldn't even cite his work if it had been descredited, certainly not without at least meantioning that small fact.
quote:
Obviously, you (and Big Bang cosmologists) owe a lot to historical figures who came before, and Guth happened to be the one to get most of the world thinking about the possibilities of an inflationary period.
An inflationary "period" he attempted to explain as an expanding volume without a corresponding decrease in density. In other words the universe just went "poof" into existence, just like magic.
quote:
It's only surprising to see his name associated with Big Bang cosmology if you think it's surprising that George Washington's name is associated with the birth of this nation.
The fact you see his work as an important stepping stone in cosmology and somehow his decredited work lends credibility to the BB model is astounding frankly. It only demonstrates the irrational nature of BB theory from my perpective.
quote:
No, you also stated, without qualification or hestitation, that Big Bang Theory says that at some time, all matter was in a "point." That's a misrepresentation of the theory, an obvious strawman (as above).
As usual, you went ballistically nitpicky over a word and ignored the point completely. There is no evidence that this universe began as any sort of singularity or that matter did not predate the events at 0,0,0,0. There is no evidence that all the energy of the universe was once subatomic in nature.
quote:
Yes, and what does BBT state now, or would you rather keep attacking the version of it that existed 20 years ago?
I'm simply noting it has a poor track record of predictions over the past 20 years. Now we are constantly being surprised by the "maturity" of the early universe. It's not been a very useful tool at predictions, and most of the evidence it's based on could easily be interepreted in other ways.
quote:
Michael:There is no concrete evidence suggesting that all matter originated in a singularity, or that inflation is anything other than electromagnetic in origin.
quote:
Please explain how the electromagnetic force can drive the mass of the whole universe apart from a space smaller than... well, it's your theory, why don't you tell us how large a space your "Big Slam" occupied, and upon what observations you are basing your ideas?
Notice how you just switched the burden of proof from BB proponents onto m |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/14/2006 19:25:58 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2006 : 22:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I would also suggest that electromagnetic fields drive inflation in a predominantly iron universe.
(emphasis mine)
Would that be this universe, by chance?
When you say "predominantly", do you mean by atomic frequency, by mass, or by degree of correlation with some other theory?
I made a couple of (admittedly quick and dirty) searches and haven't found much discussion of this particular theory, perhaps it's a new area of research. If so, it sounds pretty exciting, I imagine that this must have some pretty paradigm shaking consequences for a lot of cosmology and physics in general.
Do you know of any peer-reviewed works on this "predominantly iron universe"? |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 04:26:42 [Permalink]
|
I'm now depressed, pondering the inevitable "Rust Death" of the cosmos.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 04:31:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm now depressed, pondering the inevitable "Rust Death" of the cosmos.
As long as there is rioting.
No doomsday scenario is complete without rioting. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 10:47:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Woah. It was not "ingorance" that caused me to doubt in Guth's theories, it is the knowledge of the laws of physics that caused me to doubt Guth's "somethingfromnothin" scheme.
Apparently, you can't even keep straight what you're doubting. Is it Guth's ideas - and nobody actually uses the physics he proposed anymore - or is it Big Bang Theory in general?quote:
Actually Dave, I don't "dismiss" the big bang "theory" to begin with, I simply note it's one of many possible scenarios.
Baloney, since you said, "IMO the Big Bang is a big fat myth." It's amazing how quickly you backtrack from statements you made, trying to rewrite your own history.quote:
You are the only one holding it upon a pedestal and wraping the word "field" around it to make it sound "official".
Baloney again, since a scientific "field" is nothing more than an active area of research centered around one or more theories. There's nothing "official" about it.quote:
So he's being still cited in your reference. That makes your reference look bad IMO.
Then you simply don't understand the historical importance of the man, despite his particular physics being wrong. Do you think that any reference on gravity looks bad if it mentions Newton, since Einstein showed that Newton's physics were imprecise?quote:
Guth was a snake oil salesman expousing "poof" theories. How is that "scientific" and how does his name and his poof theories lend any credibility to the big bang "field"?
His name isn't in the reference in order to lend credibility. While your theory requires riding the coattails of Birkeland and other researchers to gain credibility, the Big Bang Theory stands on its own.quote:
How so? You missed the point. If a theory has been proven to be false because it violates the conservation of energy laws, it shouldn't be held up as material to support Big Bang theory (Ooops, I mean the whole "field" of Big Bang theory). :)
Guth's theory wasn't dropped because it violated the conservation of energy, it was dropped because his model couldn't, once the details had been worked out, answer the questions of horizon and flatness that it tried to answer. Guth's theory isn't a part of modern-day Big Bang Theory, and no reference I've read uses Guth as support of current theory. But the general idea of "cosmic inflation" which Guth proposed is still a part of the theory, and that's what makes Guth historically important.quote:
quote:
Big Bang Theory is actually established entirely upon observation,
Which observation favors a big "Bang" over a big "Slam" again?
Since the Big Bang Theory doesn't address the actual origins of the universe, that question is meaningless.quote:
Oh, now you're just trying to coattail the idea onto other more easily studied ideas, and less controversial areas of science to give it an artificial air of credibility. :)
Nice smiley.quote:
Again, exactly which observations are you talking about...
The ones in the reference which you dismiss because of the historical mention of Guth.quote:
...and how do they account for Arp's theories?
Now you're getting your science backwards: no observations account for Arp's theories (or any other theory), instead Arp's theories must account for all available observations. Do they? Not knowing anything about Arp's theories, I'm sure I can't answer that.quote:
You're simply nitpicking a word I used (point) rather than addressing the actual legitimate issues I raised. There is no evidence to suggest that all matter was once condensed into a "singlularity" (since you object to "point") or any evidence that favors a "bang" over a "slam".
What "legitimate issues?" You've just created a set of strawmen instead of addressing what Big Bang Theory actually says, just like you did with the Standard Solar Model.quote:
Your strategy here is transparent too Dave. I know you too well at this point. :)
At least my strategy is open and honest, whereas yours is to make a mockery of a theory, and then point out how ridiculous your personal version of the theory is.quote:
But Dave, Birkeland's ideas weren't discredited! I wouldn't even cite his work if it had been descredited, certainly not without at least meantioning that small fact.
Your ideas about Birkeland's work have never been credited in the first place.quote:
An inflationary "period" he attempted to explain as an expanding volume without a corresponding decrease in density.
How can the density go below zero?quote:
In other words the universe just went "poof" into existence, just like magic.
Since we cannot know what came "before" the Big Bang, all hypotheses - including "poof" - are equally likely, and that's why the Big Bang Theory ex |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 12:46:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, you can't even keep straight what you're doubting.
You use some really underhanded debate tactics at times Dave. This is one such time. I specifically told you I objected to Guth's work, and I explained exactly *why* I objected to it. I'm not the first guy to to do that by the way.
quote:
Is it Guth's ideas - and nobody actually uses the physics he proposed anymore - or is it Big Bang Theory in general?
Both. It's not an either or proposition Dave. Nothing like starting your arguements with insults and fallacies.
quote:
Actually Dave, I don't "dismiss" the big bang "theory" to begin with, I simply note it's one of many possible scenarios.
quote:
Baloney, since you said, "IMO the Big Bang is a big fat myth." It's amazing how quickly you backtrack from statements you made, trying to rewrite your own history.
I personally do prefer a "slam" over a bang, so I do in fact have a preference of theories, and I do think big "bang" theory is a myth. I do not believe the all energy was one subatomic in nature, or that all the energy of the unverse was collected inside a "singularity". It is however a "possibility" that I cannot write off completely and still be intellectually honest about it. There is however no evidence to support a "bang" over a slam, and Guth's expansion theories are nothing more than "poof" theories that violated the conservation of energy laws. The "bang" concept is more myth than fact since it is ultimately based on pure conjecture, not upon any scientific evidence.
quote:
Baloney again, since a scientific "field" is nothing more than an active area of research centered around one or more theories. There's nothing "official" about it.
You're the one getting your nose all pushed out of shape because I don't believe there was a big "bang", and I don't buy into something-for-nothing myths about expanding volumes without a corresponding decrease in density.
You are now confusing the difference between me action of rejecting a specific theory (a "bang" from "singularity") with me rejecting every aspect of the "field" of cosmology. There is no "field" of big bang theory, there is simply a theory about a big bang and people who believe in that theory. I am not one of them. While it remains a scientific "possibility", the mature galaxies we are finding with Hubble make if a highly unlikely possibility IMO.
quote:
Then you simply don't understand the historical importance of the man, despite his particular physics being wrong.
I do understand his historical importance. A bunch of highly paid, highly 'educated' "astronomers" found his work "fascinating" for awhile and they doted all over him, never mind the fact his theories violated the laws of conservation of energy.
quote:
Do you think that any reference on gravity looks bad if it mentions Newton, since Einstein showed that Newton's physics were imprecise?
No. Newton's work may have been imprecise, but it certainly wasn't "off the wall". It violated no currently understood laws of physics, and it took us a long way toward understanding our universe.
Guth on the other hand espoused a "poof" theory and professional astronomers, all their math degrees in hand, looked at his stuff and said: Wow, this is "important stuff". It was bogus from the start and they just didn't catch it for many years.
quote:
His name isn't in the reference in order to lend credibility.
What's it there for then? How do poof theories support the big bang theory?
quote:
While your theory requires riding the coattails of Birkeland and other researchers to gain credibility,
Birkeland researched the solid surface solar model Dave. I can't help the fact that he beat me to the idea by a 100 years. In science, it's important to cite the work that supports the ideas you are trying to make. That's all I'm doing Dave is follows SOP for the 'industry' of astronomy. Furthermore, at least part of Birkeland's work has already been verified by satellite, and I believe his solar model has been verified by satellite observation as well. Birkeland does have credibility, while Guth does not.
quote:
Guth's theory wasn't dropped because it violated the conservation of energy, it was dropped because his model couldn't, once the details had been worked out, answer the questions of horizon and flatness that it tried to answer.
Guth's theory *does* violate the conservation of energy laws and therefore it never should have been taken seriously in the first place. He also tried to suggest that pure vacuums "inflate". The whole thing was one giant feat of pure "magic". It was not even a viable scientific 'theory' in the first place! The fascination with his work within the big bang community only demonstrates the naivate of that community.
quote:
Guth's theory isn't a part of modern-day Big Bang Theory, and no reference I've read uses Guth as support of current theory. But the general idea of "cosmic inflation" which Guth proposed is still a part of the theory, and that's what makes Guth historically important.
How does a pure vacuum (no energy waves of any sort) "inflate" Dave. How does Guth's work help answer this question?
quote:
Michael:Which observation favors a big "Bang" over a big "Slam" again?
quote:
Since the Big B |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/15/2006 12:49:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 13:30:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
For a guy that defended the gas model...
I specifically told you, many times, that I was not defending the gas model. I would have defended Big Bang cosmology, but if you're just going to tell more lies about me (like the above quote), I've got no motivation to do so. You'll just lie about me again, and claim that I failed to defend the BBT, regardless of what I actually say. Your lack of common decency has tilted the "playing field" entirely in your favor, Michael, so why should I even try?quote:
I tried. You woun't even try to expain RD images Dave.
How does my explanation of anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?quote:
You wouldn't even adequately explain the subsurface stratification layer described by Kosovichev or explain what it's doing sitting in the middle of a presumable open convection area.
How does my explanation of anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?quote:
You wouldn't touch the stuff that falsified the gas model...
How does my "touching" anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?quote:
...and you wouldn't even let me show you where gas model theory falls on it's face. You blamed me for not supporting my own model everytime I showed you how satellite imagery and heliosiesmology eliminate gas model theory.
Because falsifying the gas model doesn't support your model, Michael. Apparently, for all your agreements on that point (you agreed that both models could be false), you still refuse to play by the rules of science, and defend your model independently of any other model. Even if you were to have successfully "eliminated" the standard solar model, your model would still be a useless wreck of pseudoscientific crap, and Birkeland would be ashamed to see the travesty you've created in his name. For fuck's sake, Michael, you claimed that magnetohydrodynamics supports your model, but you can't even run the equations because you admit to not having a supercomputer! And then you have the balls to complain that the Big Bang Theory gets something from nothing, while you're creating "evidence" out of thin air?!? Your arrogant hypocrisy is amazing! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 14:57:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I specifically told you, many times, that I was not defending the gas model. I would have defended Big Bang cosmology, but if you're just going to tell more lies about me (like the above quote), I've got no motivation to do so. You'll just lie about me again, and claim that I failed to defend the BBT, regardless of what I actually say. Your lack of common decency has tilted the "playing field" entirely in your favor, Michael, so why should I even try?
Well, in fairness Dave, you did in fact say several times that you weren't defending the gas model theory. Then again, in thread after thread you defended the "party line" position every step of the way, including stating that heliosiesmology data demonstrated the accuracy of the gas model within a 2% margin if I recall.
quote:
How does my explanation of anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?
The RD images exlcude gas model theory, that's how. You seem to be trying to minimize the significance and the importance of the current theory being falsified by direct observation. It's time to start looking for better answers, answers that jive with direct observation. Gas model theory does not jive with the direct observations, therfore it is eliminated. That is a "big deal", despite your cavalier attitude about it. Whether or not Birkeland's model is accure may remain in question, but the RD images eliminate the gas model from contention and that is no small issue as it relates to astronomy.
quote:
How does my explanation of anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?
I'm trying to exclude a model Dave. I'm trying to show you evidence that demonstrates that the currently accepted model is false and should be excluded from further consideration. You refuse to acknowledge this point and you wish me instead to eliminate *all* possible alternatives without naming them. Which alternatives are you actually concerned about that also explain these RD images? I can't eliminate something if I don't know what it is!
quote:
How does my "touching" anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?
I showed you direct evidence that excluded a model. Not only was it "a" model, it's "the" model that is currently taught in every college on the planet. If that isn't "significant" from your perspective, I'd love to know what exactly you find "interesting".
I can only exclude existing and viable models Dave. I can't exclude models if no competing models exist that also adequately explain the data. If there are no competitive models to the Birkeland solar model, then the Birkeland solar model wins the research money by default. I provided you with evidence to exclude the single most important solar model, and the only other solar model offered for consideration. I can't do any more than that Dave.
quote:
Because falsifying the gas model doesn't support your model, Michael.
It does Dave. It shows you how the Birkeland model is superior to the only other model on the table. I've excluded the current model, and I've explained how the data is explained in a Birkeland solar model.
Not only have I falsified the existing model, I've explain the satellite data using the Birkeland model.
quote:
Apparently, for all your agreements on that point (you agreed that both models could be false), you still refuse to play by the rules of science, and defend your model independently of any other model.
How many threads did we go through with me defending my theories Dave?
quote:
Even if you were to have successfully "eliminated" the standard solar model,
Which I did, and which you failed to acknowledge.
quote:
your model would still be a useless wreck of pseudoscientific crap, and Birkeland would be ashamed to see the travesty you've created in his name.
Oh boloney. The only pseudoscientific crap is gas model theory. It's held together with bubble gum concepts wrapped in bailing wire math formulas.
quote:
For fuck's sake, Michael, you claimed that magnetohydrodynamics supports your model, but you can't even run the equations because you admit to not having a supercomputer!
Did the F word make you feel better, or are you just grandstanding for an audience?
You don't need a supercomputer to notice that plasma isn't rigid and to observe that it "flows" with current running through it. A twenty dollar plasma ball from Walmart will teach you that much.
You don't need a supercomputer to understand that magnetic fields are not "frozen" in plasma any more than they can be "frozen" in gas or liquids. Only in "solids" can magnetic fields be "frozen".
You don't need a supercomputer to see why Alfven embraces plasma cosmology over contemporary cosmology.
quote:
And then you have the balls to complain that the Big Bang Theory gets something from nothing,
I never claimed that Big Bang theory gets something for nothing. You simply made that up. I could do you game and call you a liar, but why? I only said *Guth* tried to claim that the universe went "poof" into existence and that his theories violated the laws of physics, speicifically where he claimed that volume increases without a corresponding decrease in density. That is what I said.
quote:
while you're creating "evidence" out of thin air?!?
The only "evidence" I've presented comes from satellite images in space. In space I suppose you could say the air is quite thin, so there techinically is merit to your statement. :)
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/15/2006 15:27:02 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
