|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 06/27/2006 : 14:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
No it's an argument that shows that iron abundance in a 100 myo universe does not exclude the Big Bang as a possible explanation.
It shows that your argument does not falsify Big Bang.
Alright. Technically I don't have to falsify the Big Bang theory (actually a whole family of related BB theories), I only have to demonstrate that there are other viable ways to interpret the same data, and there is no evidence to suggest that there ever was a time when iron and quasars did not exist.
quote:
What do you propose as the underlying cause for the Big Slam?
The same thing I propose to explain the acceleration of the universe, namely electromagnetic fields. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 16:17:40 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to ignore the solar questions in this thread and focus only on the BB concepts.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You don't seem to grasp the point that no model we have is perfect, and all models require changes when new evidence comes to light.
Not only hasn't the BB theory been helpful at making accurate predictions about the timeline of galaxy formation, it wasn't even in the ballpark! BB theory suggested that it would take billions of years for galaxies to form, whereas observation gave us a completely different picture. Hubble and Spitzer showed us a number of mature galaxies, many times larger than our own galaxy had already formed less than 900 million years from the presumed "quark soup" stage.
BB theory layed a big fat goose egg when it comes to accurate prediction of the formation of objects in the universe.
quote:
quote:
In this particular case, sure it is. They sort of "absorbed" the data, and band-aided the theory back together, never mind the fact we missed our predictions by billions (plural) of years. Still somehow, quite mysterious, the data somehow "supports" the "refined" BB theory. Go figure.
Quote any cosmologist who claims that younger galaxies support the Big Bang Theory.
Huh? You're sitting here defending an unidentified, yet supposedly "modernized" and updated version of the BB theory are you not? You are doing this *in spite of* the fact that we see mature galaxies where none should have existed according to the original theory. What other conclusion can I draw Dave? I'm assuming you intend to offer up an updated version of the BB theory that includes these "early" universes. A week later you'll probably be telling me "See! This model "predicted" this early galaxy formation, see how good it is!". Everytime the data doesn't fit the BB models Dave, the models get "updated". This BB theory has been held together the bubble gum and band-aids now for quite some time, despite its inability to predict anything accurately before hand.
quote:
You are still ignoring the characteristics of the CMBR which differentiate it from other sorts of "residual radiation."
Then carefully explain exactly *which* characteristics of the background radiation data favor a BB over a slam and explain why you believe that is the case. Don't just hand me a handwave of an arguement. You'll have to explain why you excluded the other potential models that might contain say 85 percent "quark soup" and 15 percent surviving matter.
quote:
No, the successful prediction of a highly uniform blackbody radiation massively red shifted without the signatures of heavy elements from all directions in the sky is what I was talking about.
And how would it look any different were the "slam" to "converted" say 70% of it's total mass into "quark soup" while leaving the rest of the matter undistrurbed to "pass on through"?
quote:
Come on, Michael, you're just making stuff up, now.
Not one bit more than you are Dave. You're out there too on a wing and a prayer, you just don't want to admit it yet. Neither of us was there at the moment this process went down. Of course we're "making stuff up". That's what theories are until they provide a mechanism to predict something useful.
quote:
I don't see how we could see the radiation from a "Slam" with a localized "center" as coming from everywhere we look.
It would be hardly any different from a bang other than the fact that not necessarily *all* energy was converted in the form of quark soup. The percentage of mass that was converted to quark soup could be relatively high. It could be somewhat lower. Who knows. There would still be a blob of quark soup to create background radiation. The photons would still expland outwards from 0,0,0,0 faster than atoms of matter.
quote:
On the other hand, since the Big Bang happened to the entire universe, it only makes sense that the "afterglow" would emit from all of space.
The quark soup blob at 0,0,0,0 would also have the same effect Dave. You're stuck now trying to defend an indefensible position. It's not enough for you to demonstrate that some of the matter in our universe began as quark soup, you have to demonstrate that *all matter* in our universe was at at one time part of that same quark soup.
quote:
You're just making assumption after assumption here, and denying your own ability to support them.
Oh ya, like the BB theory isn't based on unsupported assumption after assumption after assumption? Like you can adequately support your preference for the BB to the exclusion of every other viable theory?
quote:
I didn't say "atomic structures," I said "atomic signatures," and if there were heavy elements at the release of the CMBR, I would expect to see emission and absorbtion lines in the CMBR, appropriately red shifted along with the rest of the spectrum.
Why? What guaranted do you have that such absortion lines and emissions lines would be found in this data after 13.7 billion years?
How large (wide) is our universe by the way in terms of light years in your opinion? How did it get that large in 13.7 billion years?
quote:
Once again, you're changing the subject, this time from the CMBR to the "intergalactic medium." Your objection is therefore scientifically vacuous.
I'm not changing the subject Dave, you are. The radiation we see is filter through all sorts of webs of matter. Your objections are therefore scientifically vacuous, not mine. You have no evidence that the radiation would look any different, you just "assumed" that and threw in a handwave arguement.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/27/2006 16:20:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 19:44:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Where did I say anything about you being bad at math, Michael?
We really have to stop meeting like this. These posts are becomming outrageously long.
You did not suggest I was bad at math Dave, it was simply an egoless statement of fact on my part.
quote:
I can't even illustrate a point without you taking it personally.
Sure you can Dave. Dr. Mabuse manages to make his points every time and I never take it personally. Sometimes he's even been known to make his points rather convincingly and I never take it personally. I can tell from his tone he's not trying to score any ego points or be offense. I recognize that he's just doing his job, and doing what I want him to do.
You on the other hand get unnecessarily "personal" at times. This particular case wasn't an example of such behavior actually, but I'll be sure to point it out the next time I see the behavior so you know what things I take personally, and what comments I feel are fair criticisms.
quote:
That's what scientists do, too.
And as I said earlier, when I believe that a mathematical presentation is warranted and can be reasonably deduced from the real life observations, I'll be sure to add them to my presentation.
quote:
quote:
I'd rather not just simply model things based on "theory" and then try to make the observations fit the mathematical representation of a theory.
You're terribly confused. A model is a theory, Michael. In the realm of physics, the terms are synonymous.
Sure Dave, but you missed the point of my statement. It's one thing to have a real observation and be able to perform math on the basis of observation. It's another thing to do math based entirely on an "idea" that has no factual bases in observation. One math problem is certain to be worth spending time on, while other other could be a gigantic waste of time. I have no desire to waste my time. I want to be sure whatever math I present has some factual link to the observed data and I want to present data that I know is accurate.
quote:
You sure seem to have a problem with the fact that every physics theory is based on math, Michael.
I don't have a problem with that Dave. I have a problem with the way that math is sometimes used as a "crutch" to make an otherwise flimsy idea "look good on paper". Many false ideas that are put forth in astronomy include perfect math. Math alone cannot define "truth" from fiction. Observation is the key to making sure the theory is accurate, not the math.
quote:
Baloney. You claimed that evolution is a theory of physics.
IMO, evolution is a theory of physics and chemistry but I'm not going there with you. Two debates between us are plenty.
quote:
Rather than admit your mistake, you're now trying to change the subject.
It was not a mistake, I just don't wish to start a third debate with you. I frankly don't have the extra free time to go through it with you.
quote:
quote:
You don't have to know the math to know that some force caused the apple to fall. You may need to know the math to accurately describe the fall, but you don't need to know the math to know that it will fall.
No, the math is an explanation of the characteristics of the fall. "Some force caused the apple to fall" isn't a model. "Apples will fall" isn't a theory.
But in that case Dave the math is based on *direct observation*. I'm all for that kind of math. The notion that apples will fall based on a force that can be measured is the nucleus of a new theory Dave even before you know what math actually applies. The observation led to mathematical models. That's the way it should work.
Now apply that logic here. What observation leads you to believe that there was ever a time that iron and quasars did not exist?
quote:
And you're obviously avoiding my point, which is that if you can't describe the math and physics that go into a painting, then you're discussing "art appreciation" and not "physics."
Yes and astronomy is really a form of "universe appreciation" not merely a function of physics.
quote:
That's my point, Michael: claiming that your theories contain more explanatory power than current theories is ridiculous when you can't bring the math and physical laws forward which govern your model.
But Dave, you can't bring forth any observations to demonstrate that there ever was a time when when quasars and iron did not exist. Instead you have the cart before the horse. You have a BB "theory" that is not based on direct observation, but it's being modeled mathematically anyway. Whether the math actually applies or not cannot be known because we have no observations to test it against.
Unlike the apple/gravity scenario where we could test the theory against observation and thereby determine if the math is right, in this instance we can only create mathematical models that "might" be right, and we still have no viable way to test the theory against any other theory. In that case all the math in the world won't allow us to validate the model without direct observations to actually support it. If Hubble's replacement sees galaxies even further back in time, then what good was the math?
quote:
You're still avoiding my point, Michael: nobody is claiming that the "Big Slam" didn't happe |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2006 : 21:40:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Before we could model a tornado with some semblance of accuracy, you're exactly right that a "theory of tornados" would have been unscientific.
But that is where you and I disagree. Good theories begin with good ideas that are based on good observational skill. The math can only be worked out when you correctly theoretically grasp the physics involved and you begin to realize what is going on.
Too often however, astronomers work backwards. They have a "theory" that they are attempting to explain mathematically, regardless of whether or not it has any observational basis in reality. The math may be perfect, but that is no guarantee that the mathematical model is accurate. Without observational support it is just "pretty math formula", much as you tend to view satellite images as "pretty pictures". When you can merge the two, observation and math, *then* we know we have a viable theory and a "useful" math formula.
I'm going to skip some of the redundant stuff any anything directly related to solar theory.
quote:
There is no double-standard, because I have yet to see any evidence that a "Big Slam" model is as (or more) successful at explaining the observed phenomena as a "Big Slam" model.
I've yet to see any evidence that suggests that the BB theory has accurately predicted anything other than maybe the presense of background radiation, but that can be explained in a variety of ways including a static universe and a slam theory.
quote:
No, you're just confusing universal expansion with cosmic inflation, and expecting someone else to sort it all out. Since I can't tell what observation it is you'd like me to explain without violating any laws of physics, I will continue to demand that you clarify.
If you expect me to critique current BB theory, and you insist the field has moved beyond Guth, then fine, let's do so. You'll then need to explain to me exactly which BB model you favor in terms of whatever forces that you believe apply to current BB theory. There isn't just one BB theory, there are many and I'm not going to try to do a breakdown of every single one of them. Put a current BB model on the table so we can discuss it. We will go from there.
quote:
If you think "you don't understand what you're talking about" is a personal affront, then it's fairly clear that you simply don't like being shown that you're wrong, and plan to do nothing about it.
Amazing. I don't mind being "shown" where I'm wrong Dave. I tend to appreciate someone that can explain something to me scientifically. I don't have any use however for a statement of faith on your part proclaiming that you believe that you think I'm wrong about something without even so much as a hint of scientific evidence to back it up.
quote:
What about Big Bang Theory now, Michael? Yes, comparing current findings to decades-old theories will find stuff "disproving" them. But the Big Bang theory has evolved since then.
Fine Dave, let's move on from Guth. Let's fast forward 20 plus years. You tell me what drives inflation according to "modern" BB theory. Why is the universe accelerating? What "inflates"?
quote:
I think it's your strawman that has the BBT claiming "billions of years" before the first galaxies. Maybe BBT from 40 years ago expected that, but what about BBT as of April 30th, 2003 (the day before that article came out)?
Fine, let's do that. Put your theory on the table then Dave. What is driving inflation and/or acceleration?
quote:
Well, I never said "perfect uniformity," so putting quotes around it as if I said it is less than ethical, Michael.
I wasn't really trying to quote you personally, but I certainly understand your position. I'll try to be more specific about my use of quote and asterisks. I would have made the word all caps in the past, but evidently that was a bad way to ephasize an idea.
quote:
And the whole point of the CMBR is that it is the result of those photons' last interaction with matter. If you try to dissociate the CMBR from its interactions with matter, then it doesn't mean anything.
I'm not trying to disssociate the radiation from matter Dave. In fact I'm trying to explain the background radiation and the mechanical connection between the radiation and it's last connection to matter. the only real difference here is "percentage" of the preexisting matter that interacts and becomes "quark soup" vs. the percentage that does not. You are trying to suggest that all 100% of whatever prexisting matter that exists was once part of the quark soup. In a slam model it could be that 90 percent of the matter turns into quark soup, and ten percent "matter", or even 10 percent quark soup and 90 percent matter. It's really a question of degrees and percentages. We both seem to believe that there was a bowl of quark soup at 0,0,0,0. The question is really how many crackers we have that are not in the soup.
Based on where the rest of this conversation is going, I'm getting tired of the shifting of burden of proof that I'm seeing. It's not my job to simply "guess" at how you "intpretet" modern BB theory or what you believe is "correct" BB theory. Before I go any further into this "you don't understand the model" game with you, you're going to have to *explain* your *belief systems* around what you believe happened during the BB, where you believe the energy came from, what form it was in, and how the background radiation comes at us from all directions, etc.
When you've actually done this, I'll be happy to continue the conversation with you. Until then we're just spinning our wheels.
quote:
Yeah, just like the Hubble researchers who reported "too young" galaxies.  They've probably all lost their jobs and been hounded into scientific exile. Good grief, Michael, your hyperbole is wonderfully over-the-top in its paranoia.
http://www.space.com/news/cs_060626_camarda.html
Ya Dave, NASA always approves o |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/27/2006 22:00:39 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 07:55:42 [Permalink]
|
Michael you talked about conspiracies and the party line for redshifts and new ideas...
Your link discusses discordant redshifts:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
2 examples of discordant redshifts from the link are:
1. Stephan's Quintet
This is a group of galaxies that appear to be interacting. If you study the data (which has been done) you will see that the 'discordant' galaxy is clearly much closer. The stars can be resolved in that galaxy and cannot be resolved in the other galaxies.
2. NGC 4319 and Markarian 205
The quasar and the galaxy are separated by almost a billion light years as measured by the absorption of ultraviolet radation from interstellar space.
What is it about you that makes you want to take the counter position no matter how unsupported?
Finally there is this gem of a straw man:
Michael said:
quote:
So there go you Robb. This is what you can expect if you put forth any "new ideas" in astronomy today. You'll be ridculed, harrassed, insulted and belittled at every turn. As you can see science operates just like any religious cult. To hell with the science or the observations, if you don't conform to their views they'll treat you like trash.
Dave responded with:
quote:
Yeah, just like the Hubble researchers who reported "too young" galaxies. They've probably all lost their jobs and been hounded into scientific exile. Good grief, Michael, your hyperbole is wonderfully over-the-top in its paranoia.
Michael then linked to a story about the Director of Engineering being firecd at NASA. Come on Michael, this is proof of your position; some guy is fired at NASA? Jesus, that's weak.
Michael you feel that new ideas are rejected and ridiculed because science rejects bad, unsupported ideas, like the ones you keep presenting.
Presenting new revolutionary ideas THAT ARE SUPPORTABLE is rewarded by Science. If new ideas were not accepted science would never progress.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 08:58:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
What is it about you that makes you want to take the counter position no matter how unsupported?
Actually furshur I didn't take the counter position, I bet against Arp. A slam concept requires that Arp be wrong, or only partially right. I simply meantioned his work because I think in any current debate about the BB, his work is worth meantioning. If he is 100% right, then we could all be whistling dixie. There is still some debate at the moment. I'm simply trying to keep reasonable issues on the table instead of herding everyone into a single viewpoint.
quote:
Michael then linked to a story about the Director of Engineering being firecd at NASA. Come on Michael, this is proof of your position; some guy is fired at NASA? Jesus, that's weak.
All I was pointing out furshur is sometimes the all almighty dollar is more important than valid scientific arguments and concerns.
quote:
Michael you feel that new ideas are rejected and ridiculed because science rejects bad, unsupported ideas, like the ones you keep presenting.
That's just "your" opinion. It's easy to say things like that furshur if you don't take any personal responsibility for putting your own explanations on the table based on a solar model you believe in. Anyone can reject an idea based ignornance and ridicule. The truth is discovered by putting theory to the test to see if it can be useful in explaining real life observation. Evidently there isn't an "expert" on earth that's willing to "explain" a running difference image using gas model theory that is even remotely attentive to detial. Give it a try furshur. If you think I'm wrong, go through the first page of my website and point out my errors and explain how my interpretation is incorrect. Explain how gas model theory is superior when it comes to explaining these images.
quote:
Presenting new revolutionary ideas THAT ARE SUPPORTABLE is rewarded by Science. If new ideas were not accepted science would never progress.
It's like pushing an elephant up a steep hill. It changes at a snails pace at times. Alfven tried to explain to astronomers that current flow and particle movement are also important when studing magnetic fields in plasma, but to this day, people and articles talk about magnetic fields being "frozen" in plasma, as though plasma is a solid. Alfven even lectured the astronomical community about the dangers of oversimplification when it came to that specific issue. They hailed him as a genious and then ignored what he said and they ignored the rest of his work. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 10:09:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm simply trying to keep reasonable issues on the table instead of herding everyone into a single viewpoint.
Nobody is herding anyone. The current BB theory does the best job at explaining observation and data. By using terms like 'herding' you are purposely misrepresenting the scientific method.
quote:
quote:
Michael then linked to a story about the Director of Engineering being firecd at NASA. Come on Michael, this is proof of your position; some guy is fired at NASA? Jesus, that's weak.
All I was pointing out furshur is sometimes the all almighty dollar is more important than valid scientific arguments and concerns.
The director of engineering being fired at NASA has NOTHING to do with 'valid scientific arguments'.
quote:
That's just "your" opinion. It's easy to say things like that furshur if you don't take any personal responsibility for putting your own explanations on the table based on a solar model you believe in.
No, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the scientific comunity at large. The explanations of the makeup of the sun and the energy output of the sun can be found in just about any book on astronomy. I don't 'believe' in the model - I see how it explains what we observe.
quote:
Evidently there isn't an "expert" on earth that's willing to "explain" a running difference image using gas model theory that is even remotely attentive to detial.
You have got to be kidding me! It has been shown to you over and over in a multitude of different ways that YOU are misinterpreting the RD images.
quote:
Alfven even lectured the astronomical community about the dangers of oversimplification when it came to that specific issue. They hailed him as a genious and then ignored what he said and they ignored the rest of his work.
This actually shoots holes in your point. Alfven won the nobel prize, and became the head of plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Doesn't sound like he was ostricized to me. As far as some of his other ideas - they just don't pan out. Michael it is possible to be right about some things and wrong about others, you do understand that don't you? If an idea has merit based on evidence it is accepted, if it does not it fades to oblivian. There is no conspiracy in science to keep ideas out - they live or die on their own merit.
You Michael are forced condem the entire scientific process or invent conspiracies because your model is simply bad science, and you cannot accept that.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 11:01:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Nobody is herding anyone. The current BB theory does the best job at explaining observation and data. By using terms like 'herding' you are purposely misrepresenting the scientific method.
That is simply not true. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Nobody in college mentioned a word to me about a "big slam" idea or offered any viable alternatives to current "big bang" theory. Why not? Instead I was offered *one* option. I was taught things about this one option that turned out to be completely untrue. Even still the BB theory is continues to be the only theory that anyone is exposed to in college. Never has anyone really bothered to explain why the first round of predictions made by BB theory ware false in the first place. Now I'm supposed to believe that astronomy as a field of science is "open minded"?
quote:
The director of engineering being fired at NASA has NOTHING to do with 'valid scientific arguments'.
You're absolutely right. It has everything to do with money and *funding* however.
quote:
No, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the scientific comunity at large.
So what? Appeal to poplarity arguements are not going to cut it.
quote:
The explanations of the makeup of the sun and the energy output of the sun can be found in just about any book on astronomy.
These are "theories", most of which have never been validated by direct observation. We can't "prove" for instance that the solar plasmas don't separate by the element, yet astronomers assume they do not separate. I can even provide evidence that plasmas do separate here on earth, right down to the isotope, under the same kinds of conditions we find on the sun. I technically don't have any problem with the total energy output of the sun, I just have a problem with how they think this energy is released and how gas model theoriests believe this energy is created.
quote:
I don't 'believe' in the model - I see how it explains what we observe.
Then you should have no trouble explaining RD images, Doppler images and the rest of the images on the first page of my website using that model.
quote:
You have got to be kidding me! It has been shown to you over and over in a multitude of different ways that YOU are misinterpreting the RD images.
No, it has been "alleged" that I'm misinterpreting the RD images, evidently based on the "faith" that everything we see in RD images is an "optical illusion" of some kind. Talk about silly arguements.
quote:
quote:
Alfven even lectured the astronomical community about the dangers of oversimplification when it came to that specific issue. They hailed him as a genious and then ignored what he said and they ignored the rest of his work.
This actually shoots holes in your point. Alfven won the nobel prize, and became the head of plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Doesn't sound like he was ostricized to me. As far as some of his other ideas - they just don't pan out. Michael it is possible to be right about some things and wrong about others, you do understand that don't you? If an idea has merit based on evidence it is accepted, if it does not it fades to oblivian. There is no conspiracy in science to keep ideas out - they live or die on their own merit.
You Michael are forced condem the entire scientific process or invent conspiracies because your model is simply bad science, and you cannot accept that.
That is not true for many different reasons. As I said before, I see no giant "conspiracy" just politics as usual. I'm grateful for the scientists that designed, built, launched and maintain these satellite systems. There is no go grand conspiracy, just politics based on funding.
Alfven's later work is simple to verify furshur. You can pick up a plasma ball from Walmart for 19.99 and watch how it works. The light plasma inside the ball forms filaments in the plasma as the current flows through the plasma. There is movement and kinetic energy involved in the process. Nothing is "frozen" about the magnetic field lines in plasma. It's moving and it's dynamic. That's exactly the same process taht creates coronal loops.
On the other hand, astronomers today are still talking in terms of "frozen magnetic fields" in lightly dispersed plasmas in space even after Alfven demontrated that such a concept could only be applied to the most dense sort of plasma, and even then there would likely be some movement and flow within the plasma.
The missing ingredient here as it relates to understanding the images we see of the universe around us is the recognition of the role of electricity and the flow of current in these images. That is what astronomy today is still "slow" to embrace. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 12:12:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is simply not true. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Nobody in college mentioned a word to me about a "big slam" idea or offered any viable alternatives to current "big bang" theory. Why not?
Why not? Because it is not a viable alternative. They don't teach creationism to explain the origin of the universe either. There are no secrets or conspiracies or politics as usual.
quote:
quote:
The director of engineering being fired at NASA has NOTHING to do with 'valid scientific arguments'.
You're absolutely right. It has everything to do with money and *funding* however.
From the article in question,
Camarda did not fully explain what led to his request to be let go, but wrote that he "cannot accept the methods I believe are being used by this Center to select future leaders."
It was not funding but a disagreement in management philosophies.
quote:
quote:
No, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the scientific comunity at large.
So what? Appeal to poplarity arguements are not going to cut it.
Apparently you are unfarmiliar with the scientific method. A theory is proposed and tested. Other researches try to duplicate the results. Researchers try to come up with alternate explanations for an observed phenomina. The researchers publish the coroborating evidence. The theory gains acceptance. This is not a popularity contest, this is a matter of concensus based on evidence. Are you just using the popularity comment to try to invalidate the scientific process?
quote:
I can even provide evidence that plasmas do separate here on earth, right down to the isotope, under the same kinds of conditions we find on the sun.
Bullshit! How about a little evidence. You refuse to accept that it is possible *prove* what the conditions are on the sun and in the next sentence you say you can duplicate the condition. Are you taking into account dark matter, dark energy and Z axis acceleration for determining the conditions on the surface of the sun. You are really a piece of work. Hold yourself up to the same standards that you use for everyone else.
quote:
Alfven's later work is simple to verify furshur. You can pick up a plasma ball from Walmart for 19.99 and watch how it works. The light plasma inside the ball forms filaments in the plasma as the current flows through the plasma.
The current is not flowing through the plasma the pulsating current is actually forming the plasma. This means that the Plasma Ball is nothing like the surface of the sun. The plasma is already there on the sun. The highly charged partlcles move along the magnetic lines per normal physical properties.
Why would an electrical current lines travel from the surface of the sun millions of miles out into space only to return the surface of the sun thousand of miles from it's origin?
quote:
That is what astronomy today is still "slow" to embrace.
How incredibly arrogant of you. You truly are a legend in your own mind...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 12:32:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're terribly confused. A model is a theory, Michael. In the realm of physics, the terms are synonymous.
Sure Dave, but you missed the point of my statement. It's one thing to have a real observation and be able to perform math on the basis of observation. It's another thing to do math based entirely on an "idea" that has no factual bases in observation. One math problem is certain to be worth spending time on, while other other could be a gigantic waste of time.
Would you care to provide some examples of these math-examples with no bases in observation? Just so we are on the same page...
quote:
quote:
Baloney. You claimed that evolution is a theory of physics.
IMO, evolution is a theory of physics and chemistry but I'm not going there with you. Two debates between us are plenty.
The theory of biological evolution address the emergent properties of interactions of extremely complex chemical compounds and complex physical relationships. Evolutionary theory model the emergent property. An analogy is that Newton's laws on motion and quantum mechanics govern the movement of each molecule in a gas, but the gas' behaviour in a confined space is modelled by The Ideal Gas Law
(pV=nRT). The difference is that the change in complexity from a simple chemical formula to population dynamics is currently insurmountable because there are several layers of abstractions between them.
quote:
Now apply that logic here. What observation leads you to believe that there was ever a time that iron and quasars did not exist?
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
I can see two separate falsifications of the Slam theory:
1) The lack of absorption and/or emission lines from metals in the spectrum of the CMBR.
The lack indicates that there wasn't any matter that could absorb nor emit additional components in the spectrum. And the Slam theory as you have presented it to us says that there was metals present when the photons were released.
2) The extremely even distribution of the CMBR demands that your "quark soup" is omnipresent in the are you describe as 0,0,0,0. This is contradicted by your statement that the "quark soup" is caused by colliding galaxies, and event that consists of localised interactions (which I would like to explore at a late time due to current time constraints). We are currently observing many colliding galaxies in our part of the universe, however, no evidence of this "quark soup" has been reported.
quote:
quote:
And you're obviously avoiding my point, which is that if you can't describe the math and physics that go into a painting, then you're discussing "art appreciation" and not "physics."
Yes and astronomy is really a form of "universe appreciation" not merely a function of physics.
Now you are describing a layman's idea of Astronomy, not from a scientific or physicistic point or view.
quote:
quote:
That's my point, Michael: claiming that your theories contain more explanatory power than current theories is ridiculous when you can't bring the math and physical laws forward which govern your model.
But Dave, you can't bring forth any observations to demonstrate that there ever was a time when when quasars and iron did not exist. Instead you have the cart before the horse. You have a BB "theory" that is not based on direct observation, but it's being modelled mathematically anyway. Whether the math actually applies or not cannot be known because we have no observations to test it against.
The no-metal era of the universe is very hard to observe, obviously, due to the nature of the universe. As such, the non-metal era is a grey/black area in our collected observations. However, the beauty of the mathematical model constructed of the Big Bang is that it allows us to (forget the poor analogy) navigate through the black tunnel to the point where the theory predicts the release of the light that becomes the CMBR. When we compare the theory's prediction of the CMBR to the radiation detected more than a decade later, we find a match. This tells us that our "navigation through the tunnel" wasn't a fluke.
I need to rush now, to get to work in time. I'll get back on this later.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 13:57:16 [Permalink]
|
You now want me to pick a particular Big Bang model to defend, Michael? Why is that? You smeared all of them by your simple claim that the Big Bang is "a big fat myth." I am certainly not ready to agrue the value of one model with particular numerical parameters over another with slightly different parameters, and I seriously doubt that you are ready to do so, either. So what's the point? We're talking about the larger picture of various groups of models (for example, you can't even decide on a single number to represent the amount of mass getting through your "Big Slam" intact, wether it's 30%, 15% or 10%), and not the tiny details of any one model.
You claim the CMBR can be explained by a Big Slam or even a Steady-State model, but when asked for the geometry which would make such a thing possible, you didn't even bother to quote the question, much less answer it. You might dismiss the question as inconsequential, but it's not, it's very important. For anything to make it through a "Big Slam" intact, then obviously the "Slam" part didn't happen everywhere, and so the "residual radiation" wouldn't come from everywhere. The CMBR, however, is uniform to within one thousandth of one percent across the whole sky.
And this radiation is the closest thing nature has to an ideal blackbody spectrum. According to COBE researchers, the observed data matches the Big Bang theory predictions so well that they can't even plot error bars wider than the pixels they used to plot the whole theoretical curve (they're less that 0.005% of the peak height of the spectrum). "Big Slam" theory, as you've presented it, offers no blackbody prediction for the whole of the CMBR, and cannot do so since some amount of the release would be absorbed, or absorbed and re-emitted, by the atomic matter in its midst, thus ruining the blackbody properties of the universe at the time.
As I said, the "Big Slam" model doesn't match observations, and is thus faulty. This is, of course, independent of whether the Big Bang theory is correct or is "a big fat myth." The one has no bearing on the other. But the Big Bang theory does match observations, and does so with extreme precision.
You asked,quote:
What observation leads you to believe that there was ever a time that iron and quasars did not exist?
And I say, the CMBR itself shows that the entire universe was, 13.7 billion years ago, at an exceedingly uniform temperature of about 3,000 K. If there had been any matter below 2,999.85 K, or above 3,000.15 K (like quasars), it'd be visible in the CMBR spectrum. |
- 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 - 06/28/2006 : 14:49:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Would you care to provide some examples of these math-examples with no bases in observation? Just so we are on the same page...
Well, pretty much any math that is based on the idea that all mass in our universe began as "quark soup" during a "Big Bang" would fall into that category.
quote:
The theory of biological evolution address the emergent properties of interactions of extremely complex chemical compounds and complex physical relationships. Evolutionary theory model the emergent property. An analogy is that Newton's laws on motion and quantum mechanics govern the movement of each molecule in a gas, but the gas' behaviour in a confined space is modelled by The Ideal Gas Law
(pV=nRT). The difference is that the change in complexity from a simple chemical formula to population dynamics is currently insurmountable because there are several layers of abstractions between them.
Sounds like we're on the same page at least. I'd love to have a private email conversation about it sometime (but not this week). You can email me anytime you like at the address on my website.
quote:
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
But that background radiation could be caused by many things, that are completely unrelated to even the "quark soup" period we both seem to agree on. In other words, if we imagine a quark soup event inside an infinite (but spacially distant) "cosmos" this radiation could not even be related to the events at 0,0,0,0. Another example might be a "slam" inside a thin gas universe. Where the radiation is simply a scattering effect from photons from the quark soup phase from distant gas plasma molecules that were not part of the material involved in the slam. In other words, there are several possible explanations for this background radiation. This cannot be considered evidence that is exclusive to an "all matter came from quark soup" model of the BB.
quote:
I can see two separate falsifications of the Slam theory:
1) The lack of absorption and/or emission lines from metals in the spectrum of the CMBR.
How could any photons reach us without being affected by any of the iron plasma that exists in the threads of our universe?
Let us assume for a moment we have a singularity of quark soup. How do the photons go from there, and reach us today, and never be affected by iron in our current universe?
quote:
The lack indicates that there wasn't any matter that could absorb nor emit additional components in the spectrum.
You're going to have to define "lack" here in some way, since there must be some influence of the iron in our current universe on these photons as they travel.
quote:
And the Slam theory as you have presented it to us says that there was metals present when the photons were released.
But there would only have been metals present in certain areas and regions, much of it contained within pulsars, stars, ect. The iron would not have been evenly dispersed like a thin a shell around the outside of the quark soup. Again, I would go back to the galaxy collision scenario, where two black holes intersect and explode. Not every vectored direction that a photon might take from the quark soup is likely to intersect any significant amount of iron as it travels from the soup. Only once in a while will it run into a sun or interact with existing iron.
quote:
2) The extremely even distribution of the CMBR demands that your "quark soup" is omnipresent in the are you describe as 0,0,0,0. This is contradicted by your statement that the "quark soup" is caused by colliding galaxies, and event that consists of localised interactions (which I would like to explore at a late time due to current time constraints). We are currently observing many colliding galaxies in our part of the universe, however, no evidence of this "quark soup" has been reported.
You have a couple of issues to address in that paragraph. First off, someone is going to have to pony up here and offer a "current working model" of a "Big Bang" for me. There are several variations on the same theme, and I don't want to "guess" or create strawmen here. Proponets of the BB need to explain to us how those photons reach us on earth today without being affected by any kind of iron and I'll be happy to proceed. Until someone does this, I'm sort of guessing as to what you think happens in this event.
There seems to be a "quark soup" phase that we both seem to agree on, but someone will need to explain how we get from there to photons on earth today using current BB theory.
Unlike a big bang theory, I am not attempting to explain the "beginning" of all matter, or the beginning of what we think of as time. Imagine an infinite ocean of mass and energy. Inside that infinite ocean of mass and energy is a localized "event" (slam). Within the ocean exists plasma and threads and all the things of our own universe. Thin plasma exists all around the localized event of the big slam. In such an instance, the photons from the quark soup phase of the slam are free to spread out, and scatter off the plasma in the cosmos and come back to earth. The sea itself may also "resonate" with a certain amount of energy all on it's own. The radiation we see need not even come from a single source.
quote:
Now you are describing a layman's idea of Astronomy, not from a scientific or physicistic point or view.
Well, technically, in a "best" case scenario, and talking about a physicists point of view as well. We can only test math against something we can first observe and understand. In other words math and physics based on direct observation, and accurate theory is an ideal case. Just as there are "pretty pictures" without math, there are only pretty math formulas without observational support.
quote:
The no-metal era of the universe is very hard to observe, obviously, due to the nature of the universe. As such, the non-metal era is a grey/black area in our collected observations.
That's more of a statement of faith tha |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/28/2006 15:43:34 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 15:40:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Why not? Because it is not a viable alternative. They don't teach creationism to explain the origin of the universe either. There are no secrets or conspiracies or politics as usual.
How do you know there are no other "viable alternatives" at this point in time?
quote:
It was not funding but a disagreement in management philosophies.
Yes, there are many factors in the decision, most of which are mainly political in nature.
quote:
Apparently you are unfarmiliar with the scientific method. A theory is proposed and tested.
Yes, I am familiar with the scientific method. That is why I went to all the trouble of getting these ideas published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. That's why I put STEREO "predictions" on the table so these critical predictions can be tested. As these predictions are tested, hopefully I'll have some additional evidence to help start converting others to the cause. All of these steps takes time and effort, and typically money.
quote:
Other researches try to duplicate the results.
With or without agreeing on my model, that's exactly what I expect the STEREO team to do.
quote:
Researchers try to come up with alternate explanations for an observed phenomina.
Unfortunately when I ask researchers today to come up with "alternative explantions" for the RD or Doppler images, I don't get much of a response. Evidently the term "optical illusion" is the only other option on the table. It doesn't sound like much of an alternative frankly.
quote:
The researchers publish the coroborating evidence.
You mean like Sumeet, Hilton and Oliver and I already did?
quote:
The theory gains acceptance.
Well, here we're a bit "stuck" at the moment. Hopefully the STEREO data will push that process along.
quote:
This is not a popularity contest, this is a matter of concensus based on evidence.
Indeed. Evidence is the key, but consensus isn't alway on the right side, and consensus changes over time. A change of this magnatude takes a *long* time to gain acceptance. I figure it would take at least three years to get any serious interest happening. I feel pretty good about how far things have come, but I'm almost certain it's at least a five year process assuming we're right and STEREO and SOLAR B help confirm this.
quote:
Are you just using the popularity comment to try to invalidate the scientific process?
Not at all. I'm simply noting that we're only about a year into a five year process even in a best case scenario. I doubt anything much more is going to change until the STEREO data comes in. I think STEREO should push the process along nicely, but that won't happen till late this year at best case. Even if both my predictions are proven to be true, I doubt anyone is going to instantly switch gears and immediately adopt a Birkeland solar model. I'm sure some folks will attempt to shoehorn the data into a modified gas model theory as well.
quote:
Bullshit! How about a little evidence. You refuse to accept that it is possible *prove* what the conditions are on the sun and in the next sentence you say you can duplicate the condition.
We currently use magnetic fields and centrifuges to separate plasmas here on earth. There is no doubt that they will tend to try to separate on the sun. The only "unknown" that could interfere with that would be convection from below, but the convection flows we see in the photosphere seem to only be skin deep. Then there's that little matter of a "stratification subsurface". I'd really rather we keep the sun ideas and the BB thread separate. If you want to discuss the sun things, do it in the other thread.
quote:
The current is not flowing through the plasma the pulsating current is actually forming the plasma.
You'll have to elaborate (in the other thread) for me to comment. I'm not sure but I think you left out the word 'in' from your sentence. What's pulsating the current? What do you mean by the phrase "forming the plasma"? Do you mean moving it around?
quote:
This means that the Plasma Ball is nothing like the surface of the sun. The plasma is already there on the sun. The highly charged partlcles move along the magnetic lines per normal physical properties.
Ok. As long as you realize there is kinetic energy in terms of ion movement and *current flow*.
quote:
Why would an electrical current lines travel from the surface of the sun millions of miles out into space only to return the surface of the sun thousand of miles from it's origin?
Magnetic fields will help guide the process and the attraction at the other end is due to oppositely charged surface areas in these locations. Again, I would ask you to ask any other questions related to the sun in the other thread so we can keep these topics separate.
quote:
How incredibly arrogant of you. You truly are a legend in your own mind...
Or I'm just right. It all depends on your point of view I suppose. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/28/2006 15:41:58 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 16:26:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You now want me to pick a particular Big Bang model to defend, Michael? Why is that?
Because there are a variety to choose from and I have no desire to guess which one you put faith in.
quote:
You smeared all of them by your simple claim that the Big Bang is "a big fat myth."
I haven't seen one I've liked. What can I say?
quote:
I am certainly not ready to agrue the value of one model with particular numerical parameters over another with slightly different parameters, and I seriously doubt that you are ready to do so, either. So what's the point?
I'm actually most interested in how you personally intend to explain inflation and/or acceleration in terms of particle physics, and physics in general.
quote:
We're talking about the larger picture of various groups of models (for example, you can't even decide on a single number to represent the amount of mass getting through your "Big Slam" intact, wether it's 30%, 15% or 10%), and not the tiny details of any one model.
Technically this is irrelevant to you supporting a Bang theory.
quote:
You claim the CMBR can be explained by a Big Slam or even a Steady-State model, but when asked for the geometry which would make such a thing possible, you didn't even bother to quote the question, much less answer it.
Well, I did answer it for Dr. Mabuse now, so that's done. This thread however really isn't about my model, it's about Big Bang theory and whether that theory is viable and the only viable option.
quote:
You might dismiss the question as inconsequential, but it's not, it's very important.
I did not dismiss the question, and I agree it's important. It's also important that *you* explain it as well. I haven't seen you go from quark soup to uniform background radiation, so I'll have to wait and see how you try to explain it before I comment any further on your explanation.
quote:
For anything to make it through a "Big Slam" intact, then obviously the "Slam" part didn't happen everywhere, and so the "residual radiation" wouldn't come from everywhere.
I think that's a huge leap of faith. Before we go into options, first you need to explain it from your perspective, instead of assuming it as a given. I agree that I have to explain the phenenon, but then you must do so as well.
quote:
The CMBR, however, is uniform to within one thousandth of one percent across the whole sky.
So how did it get there, and how do you know it's not generated by a static multiverse?
quote:
And this radiation is the closest thing nature has to an ideal blackbody spectrum.
Black body spectrum from what black body?
quote:
According to COBE researchers, the observed data matches the Big Bang theory predictions so well that they can't even plot error bars wider than the pixels they used to plot the whole theoretical curve (they're less that 0.005% of the peak height of the spectrum).
Which BB theory specifically?
quote:
"Big Slam" theory, as you've presented it, offers no blackbody prediction for the whole of the CMBR, and cannot do so since some amount of the release would be absorbed, or absorbed and re-emitted, by the atomic matter in its midst, thus ruining the blackbody properties of the universe at the time.
Well, in theory, the atoms in our universe now should have some influence on these photons that arrive now on earth. There has to be some absortion going on in the spectrum.
quote:
As I said, the "Big Slam" model doesn't match observations, and is thus faulty.
Again Dave, you just "assume" this to be the case. Before I can really get into this with you, I have to understand how you intend to get from singularity to pristine spectrum. You have to explain how the photons are getting to us now from whatever state the originate in without showing signs of absortion from the matter that's already formed in our universe today. There's quite a slight of hand going on here so far. You seem to expect me to "accept" your explanation, without even offering one to scrutinize.
quote:
This is, of course, independent of whether the Big Bang theory is correct or is "a big fat myth." The one has no bearing on the other. But the Big Bang theory does match observations, and does so with extreme precision.
How does your favorite flavor of BB theory explain the presense of the background radiation as it exist. When you explain to me how these photons get here from all directions today, then you can talk to me about how this helps you case. Right now you "Alledge" that to be true, but I haven't seen you pony up an actual theory yet to scrutinize.
quote:
And I say, the CMBR itself shows that the entire universe was, 13.7 billion years ago, at an exceedingly uniform temperature of about 3,000 K. If there had been any matter below 2,999.85 K, or above 3,000.15 K (like quasars), it'd be visible in the CMBR spectrum.
I'll expect you to prove that temperature of course, but first you'll have to |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
