|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2006 : 09:28:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The link provides no information what-so-ever about radiation from gas or plasma. So what was the point of including it in this discussion? It only serves to distract from the issues at hand.
No, Mab, I asked upriver to live by his own standards, and show us all "condensed matter" in the lab creating a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun. The best he could come up was a cavity blackbody, some 3,000°C cooler than the Sun, and for which I am unable to find a spectrum anyway. So, upriver has failed to support his own contention in the same way he expects us to support ours, and so the idea that "condensed matter" is capable of generating a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun's is nothing but wild conjecture on his part.
I love how it's a "wild conjecture" on upriver's part to suggest that black body spectrums require "condensed matter", but it's just fine to suggest that thinner than aerogel plasma can create black body output spectrums, expecially since virtually all black bodies generated here on earth require and utilize solids, generally carbon.
I'll grant you that any standards we impose on requiring that plasma theories meet rigorous tests should be also applied to uprivers idea as well, however upriver's idea of black bodies requiring "condensed matter" *has* already been lab simulated in the sense that near perfect "black bodies" have been created out of solids here on earth.
I'd say your opinion that lighter than aerogel plasma of an unknown composition is capable of generating BB output curves has far less evidenciary support, and is more "speculative" in that sense. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/05/2006 10:12:08 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 09:31:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Mab, I asked upriver to live by his own standards, and show us all "condensed matter" in the lab creating a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun. The best he could come up was a cavity blackbody, some 3,000°C cooler than the Sun, and for which I am unable to find a spectrum anyway. So, upriver has failed to support his own contention in the same way he expects us to support ours, and so the idea that "condensed matter" is capable of generating a blackbody spectrum matching the Sun's is nothing but wild conjecture on his part.
Woah, wait a moment. What makes you think his example is "3000 C cooler than the sun? Which "surface" are we talking about when you're talking temperatures? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 10:11:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Thanks for proving my point, which is that what's ridiculous is your dogmatic assertions that the theories are unevidenced and unfalsifiable.
Huh? Your WMAP data set failed two very critical and important tests while trying to support the *one* accurate prediction that BB theory actually made, namely the *existence of* microwave radiation. Never mind the x-ray spectrum, or any other wavelength mind you. That one single accurate "prediction" can hardly serve as any sort of direct "evidence" to support your theory at this point in time, especially after failing two other critical tests.
How would you suggest we falsify your belief in the existence of inflaton particles/fields? Dark energy? What the heck *is* "dark energy"? What particle or field is involved in "dark energy"?
quote:
Big Bang theory was valid until these results came in, and now it's validity is in question.
No Dave, it was *alledged* that BB theory was valid, but there has never been any direct evidence of inflaton particles, and you can't even define their size.
quote:
It hasn't been falsified. No single experiment has that kind of power, Michael.
But one single "prediction" has the power to make the theory "valid" in the first place? Talk about double standards. Does that mean if both my predictions for STEREO can be proven to be accurate that my model is then "valid"?
quote:
If any other theory had the same amount of science going favoring it, then it should be taught in college. Name one.
Why does it have to have the "same amount" of science favoring it to present a static universe theory presented around Arps "intpretation" of redshift phenomenon? Why teach a *single* point of view when it is this early in the process?
quote:
So you're upset because this piece of science jives with some Christian ideas? With that sort of logic, we'd have to invalidate most scientific findings, since there's always someone out there claiming that some bit of science "proves God."
No Dave, I'm "upset" because this is nothing but a "creation myth" based on unevidence and unfalsifyable fields and particles. The notion that everything originated from a "primeaval atom" is the part I object to. It's an "assumption" that was made to support a "creation myth". Nobody knows that the universe began as a primeaval atom. That's pure conjecture, and it's utterly unfalsifyable at this point.
More importantly this "creation myth" is taught as "the" most viable theory, when it is merely speculation, and it is based on unevidenced particles and fields.
quote:
Of course, I don't imagine you ever tried to find out Friedmann's religious views, did you? How about Robertson and Walker?
I could really care less about their religious views Dave. I'm more concerned about the *human desire* to create creation myths of all sorts. That behavior, and that desire to have a "complete" creation explanation is not limited to theists in the first place.
quote:
Yes, but you won't bother doing so.
Actually Dave, at one point I did read several of your references, but since I can observe much more separation than these papers suggested, I can't say I find them that appealing, and certainly not that convincing.
quote:
Apparently, you don't understand what a 0.1% density difference means. "Subsurface stratification layer." If Kosovichev were dead he'd be rolling in his grave right now. Just where did you find evidence of such a "layer" at a depth of 100,000 km, anyway?
Fortunately he's not dead. :)
What in the world are you talking about as it relates to a 100,000 km depth? When did I say anything about 100,000km depth? That upwelling plasma column under the sunspot that we discussed months ago, flattens out and spreads out far above the 100,000 km depth range, much closer to the underside of the "surface" at .970R. The sound speed tends to change at about 4800km.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast07nov_1.htm
quote:
A June 1998 observation provided evidence for this. "We were surprised at how shallow sunspots are," said Kosovichev. Below 3,000 miles (4800 km) the observed sound speed was higher, suggesting that the roots of the sunspots were hotter than their surroundings, just the opposite of conditions at the surface. "The cool part of a sunspot has the shape of a stack of two or three nickels," he added.
"The cool downward flows dissipate at the same depth where the hot upward flows diverge," said Duvall. "With these data one cannot get a sharp enough picture to really explain the details. Until now we've looked down at the top of sunspots like we might look down at the leaves in treetops. For the first time we're able to observe the branches and trunk of the tree that give it structure. The roots of the tree are still a mystery."
Emphasis mine.
How interesting that sound speeds change in the same region that both upwelling and downdrafting plasmas dissapate, and the entire column of upwelling plasma flattens out along the underside of this area.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v557n1/53591/fg2b.jpg |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/05/2006 10:19:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 10:29:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I can't believe that you just said that the density might make a difference to the density.
I should have said "pressure" and temperature.
quote:
And what does weight have to do with anything? We're talking about mass.
We're talking about an *average* density and total mass. My example was just simplified (and rather sloppy).
quote:
If you start out by putting 1,000 grams of iron into the bottle, then you can heat it as much as you want (assuming a magic bottle that will never melt or deform), and the average density inside the bottle will never change from being one gram per cubic centimeter.
And if you put 5 grams of iron into the bottle and heat or cool it as much as you like that won't change the "average" density either. Why aren't you helping me on this point anyway, since you could probably explain it to Cune better that I could, and he'd probably more readily listen to your explanation anyway?
Why would you intentionally confuse this issue even further? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 10:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I love how it's a "wild conjecture" on upriver's part to suggest that black body spectrums require "condensed matter", but it's just fine to suggest that thinner than aerogel plasma can create black body output spectrums, expecially since virtually all black bodies generated here on earth require and utilize solids, generally carbon.
The "wild speculation" part was more-or-less upriver's point. He was only willing to concede the possibility that plasmas can create blackbody spectra if shown lab "proof." So by the same standard, I am unwilling to believe that "condensed matter" can have a blackbody spectrum matching that of the Sun unless shown lab experiments demonstrating it. upriver provided a link about a cavity blackbody machine which included no information about its actual spectrum.quote:
I'll grant you that any standards we impose on requiring that plasma theories meet rigorous tests should be also applied to uprivers idea as well, however upriver's idea of black bodies requiring "condensed matter" *has* already been lab simulated in the sense that near perfect "black bodies" have been created out of solids here on earth.
Then why did he link to an article about a cavity black body?quote:
I'd say your opinion that lighter than aerogel plasma of an unknown composition is capable of generating BB output curves has far less evidenciary support, and is more "speculative" in that sense.
Your opinion doesn't much matter to the truth. You want to take scattering into account - scattering which has been tested in the lab - then the photosphere (per the standard solar model) will have more than enough scattering to present a near-blackbody spectrum.
On this same subject, you also asked:quote:
Woah, wait a moment. What makes you think his example is "3000 C cooler than the sun? Which "surface" are we talking about when you're talking temperatures?
Your question implies that scientists will commonly mistake the spectrum created by the 3,300° cavity blackbody machine in upriver's article as having been created by a 6,000° black body, or vice versa.
In other words, the Sun's spectrum makes it look like it's a black body at about 6,000°. upriver says that the hottest black body he knows of is only 3,300°. Too bad for him that a 3,300° black body won't emit a spectrum that scientists might mistake for a 6,000° black body. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 10:47:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I should have said "pressure" and temperature.
If the volume doesn't change, and the mass doesn't change, then you could have said butterflies and temperature for all the difference it'd make to the average density.quote:
We're talking about an *average* density and total mass. My example was just simplified (and rather sloppy).
So much so that I have no idea what your point was.quote:
And if you put 5 grams of iron into the bottle and heat or cool it as much as you like that won't change the "average" density either.
Right.quote:
Why aren't you helping me on this point anyway, since you could probably explain it to Cune better that I could, and he'd probably more readily listen to your explanation anyway?
Why would you intentionally confuse this issue even further?
I'm not helping because I can't see through your confused statements. Just what point have you been trying to make? To calculate the average density of something, we only need to know its total mass and its total volume, and then make a single division. The pressure, temperature and composition aren't a part of the equation. So just what are you talking about? |
- 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 - 09/05/2006 : 11:13:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, you don't understand what a 0.1% density difference means.
Apparently you don't understand that the change in sound speed at 4800km that Kosovichev has observed *could* be related to temperature increases as Kosovichev assumes, or it *could* be related to a significant density change as well, or a combination of both factors. He chalks most of it up to a temperature change, most likely to preserve the other "shells" of the the Model-S of gas model theory.
According to Kosovichev's work however, the downdrafting plasma all flattens out in the 4800km region, and the upwelling plasma also flares out from the rising column before it gets to 4800km. The notion then that there is only a .1% density difference and a great increase in temperature seems like an unlikely explanation, expecially since these same theories claim that a sunspot is due to a temperature *decrease*, not a temperature *increase*. A hotter layer of plasma building up underneath of a sunspot would radiate more energy, not less energy according to your black body theories, assuming of course that you're applying these theories consistently. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 11:20:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Huh? Your WMAP data set failed two very critical and important tests while trying to support the *one* accurate prediction that BB theory actually made, namely the *existence of* microwave radiation.
Apparently, you simply don't know about the other predictions of the Big Bang theory.quote:
Never mind the x-ray spectrum, or any other wavelength mind you.
What other backgrounds are you talking about?quote:
That one single accurate "prediction" can hardly serve as any sort of direct "evidence" to support your theory at this point in time, especially after failing two other critical tests.
Good thing that nobody thinks the Big Bang theory is a good one based on just one prediction then, isn't it?quote:
How would you suggest we falsify your belief in the existence of inflaton particles/fields?
I have no "belief" in it, Michael, and you can look at the predictions of the Lambda-CDM model just as easily as anyone else, and see how they can be falsified.quote:
Dark energy? What the heck *is* "dark energy"?
Vacuum energy.quote:
What particle or field is involved in "dark energy"?
If it's modeled as the cosmological constant, it's neither a field nor a particle, but just a scalar value (like G or c or h or α). If quintessence would make a better model, then it would be a scalar field and have some particle associated with it, but I don't know enough about that model to say what it would be.quote:
No Dave, it was *alledged* that BB theory was valid, but there has never been any direct evidence of inflaton particles, and you can't even define their size.
Big Bang theory made some good predictions even before inflation came along to answer a couple of its problems. The idea that if inflation is wrong then the Big Bang is wrong is to ignore which is based upon what.quote:
But one single "prediction" has the power to make the theory "valid" in the first place? Talk about double standards.
Yes, that's another example of your double standard, Michael. You get to fabricate entirely fictitious "facts" (like that the Big Bang's validity rests upon a single prediction), but you demand that everyone else stick to science.quote:
Does that mean if both my predictions for STEREO can be proven to be accurate that my model is then "valid"?
Only in your fantasy world where the Big Bang theory is deemed valid due to a single prediction. Hell, in your fantasy world, your theory is already valid, isn't it?quote:
Why does it have to have the "same amount" of science favoring it...
Because otherwise it fails your "parity" demands. Can a professor dream up a new theory and then teach it the next morning in your fantasy world?quote:
...to present a static universe theory presented around Arps "intpretation" of redshift phenomenon?
Arp's interpretation is a tautology, and has no predictive power whatsoever.quote:
Why teach a *single* point of view when it is this early in the process?
This early? The Big Bang theory has been around for 84 years!quote:
No Dave, I'm "upset" because this is nothing but a "creation myth" based on unevidence and unfalsifyable fields and particles.
There's your dogmatic religion again, Michael.quote:
The notion that everything originated from a "primeaval atom" is the part I object to. It's an "assumption" that was made to support a "creation myth". Nobody knows that the universe began as a primeaval atom. That's pure conjecture, and it's utterly unfalsifyable at this point.
If you're objecting to 79-year old descriptions of the theory, then you're not objecting to the theory as it stands today. When most of the National Academy of Sciences is atheistic, the idea that their support for Big Bang theory is due to their desire for a "creation myth" certainly rings hollow.quote:
More importantly this "creation myth" is taught as "the" most viable theory, when it is merely speculation, and it is based on unevidenced particles and fields.
More dogmatic chanting from you, Michael, and not a single objection of substance.quote:
I could really care less about their religious views Dave. I'm more concerned about the *human desire* to create creation myths of all sorts. That behavior, and that desire to have a "complete" creation explanation is not limited to theists in the first place.
Actually, all you really seem to care about is that you're seen as being correct, even when you're just hiding from the evidence in order to pretend that you're correct.quote:
Actually Dave, at one point I did read several of your references, but since I can observe much more separation than these papers |
- 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 - 09/05/2006 : 11:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not helping because I can't see through your confused statements. Just what point have you been trying to make?
The point I'm making is that temperature and pressure can and might influence any concept of "average density".
quote:
To calculate the average density of something, we only need to know its total mass and its total volume, and then make a single division. The pressure, temperature and composition aren't a part of the equation. So just what are you talking about?
I'm talking about a basketball analogy where pressure does matter Dave. If we only looked at the average density of the outside material of the rubber basketball and looked at it's volume, we might accurately predict that that the basketball is is not made of solid rubber. However most of the "mass" of the basketball could still come from the rubber, even though the "average density" of the pressurized basketball might be closer to air.
Cune is having a tough time accepting that pressure *does* matter, and your comments are not only confusing, they are misleading. Pressure and temperature *can* matter Dave, and you know it. At least stop making it worse but butting into our conversations and injerecting things that are not true. Pressure and temperature *are* a part of the equation when we are trying to understand/assertain the internal structure of the basketball, and to determine what elements make up most of the "mass" of the basketball. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 11:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Apparently you don't understand that the change in sound speed at 4800km that Kosovichev has observed *could* be related to temperature increases as Kosovichev assumes, or it *could* be related to a significant density change as well, or a combination of both factors. He chalks most of it up to a temperature change, most likely to preserve the other "shells" of the the Model-S of gas model theory.
He finds a temperature increase of 10%, which could also be a density increase of 0.01%, since density's effects on sound speed are proportional to the square of the density (temperature's changes are directly proportional). We've been through this all before, and you had no answer expect to insist (without evidence, just more religious faith) that the whole photosphere might be much more dense than the standard model might suggest.quote:
According to Kosovichev's work however, the downdrafting plasma all flattens out in the 4800km region, and the upwelling plasma also flares out from the rising column before it gets to 4800km. The notion then that there is only a .1% density difference and a great increase in temperature seems like an unlikely explanation...
Your incredulity doesn't amount to much, especially in light of the fact that you think that two fluid flows won't "flatten out" when directed against each other.quote:
...expecially since these same theories claim that a sunspot is due to a temperature *decrease*, not a temperature *increase*.
No, Michael, the visible sunspot is due to a temperature decrease at the surface.quote:
A hotter layer of plasma building up underneath of a sunspot would radiate more energy, not less energy according to your black body theories, assuming of course that you're applying these theories consistently.
The heat is radiated outside the visible sunspot, Michael, but you've been religiously chanting "ocean temperatures" just so you won't hear the explanation and so can keep on flogging that dead horse of a strawman you built.
And the fact is that since the photosphere is opaque, we wouldn't be able to see the hotter plasma 4,800 km below the visible sunspot, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 11:35:40 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me you are having trouble seperating the container from the contents in regards to temp/pressure/density, normal people dont think in those terms.
Oh and I believe MM's "Creation myth" is a refernce to Ishmael and not actual theistic creation. Big bang = type of creation...of course that doesnt help his arguement in any way. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 12:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm talking about a basketball analogy where pressure does matter Dave. If we only looked at the average density of the outside material of the rubber basketball and looked at it's volume, we might accurately predict that that the basketball is is not made of solid rubber. However most of the "mass" of the basketball could still come from the rubber, even though the "average density" of the pressurized basketball might be closer to air.
Oh, that again.
Okay. Cune, if all we know about the basketball is that it's average density is 81 milligrams per cubic centimeter (official NBA stats of 76 cm circumference and mass of 600 grams), then Michael is correct, we can't know anything about its internal construction. It could just be a ball of dense gas, or a thin shell held up by its internal pressure.
Of course, what Michael is ignoring is the fact that we know more about basketballs than just their average density. We also know that the rubber has a high strength compared to the ball's self-gravity. An empty basketball floating in deep space won't get crushed by its own gravity, but will maintain its spherical shape. Heck, if you're careful, you can get a basketball with its valve torn out to maintain a spherical shape right here in Earth's gravity.
Unfortunately, anything at the Sun's surface - regardless of the Sun's internal construction - has to overcome a crushing 27.9 gees of gravity, just due to the Sun's mass. The standard model shows that the energy generated by internal fusion can increase the internal pressure of the Sun enough for the plasmas throughout to accomplish the feat of "fighting gravity" like this (but the core temperature does get to 13.6 million Kelvin in the process).
Since Michael's model has most of the Sun's mass sequestered away in a "neutron core," then that mass won't actually contribute to the pressure in order to keep the alleged shell "inflated" (like a basketball, or even a water blob in microgravity). Instead, Michael has - at most - about 30% of the Sun's mass maintaining pressure on his thin shell, and so the pressure (and thus the temperature) of whatever is between the core and the shell has to be much, much higher than in the standard model.
Michael's mistake is in thinking that the small examples he points to, like basketballs or water spheres, will just "scale up" to the size of the Sun. But the recent hoopla over the definition of a "planet" ought to disabuse anyone of that notion, since part of the new definition is that a planet has to have enough mass to crush it into a spherical shape. Once you get a large enough basketball, its "shell" will collapse in on itself once its "self-gravity" overcomes the compressive resistance of the rubber.
Same for the water sphere with the air bubble in the middle. Make the sphere large enough, and eventually the forces of its self-gravity will begin to pressurize the air bubble in the middle and collapse it - if the air isn't driven into solution long before then (which I would suspect to be the case).
To maintain a spherical shell around the Sun, whatever is inside has to be very highly pressurized, and that's going to mean that it'll be really hot (since there's a limited amount of mass to work with). I'll submit (again) that it'll be far too hot to maintain anything as a solid - or even liquid - in the "shell," especially since the neutron core's own huge local gravity will be "eating" the gas inside, removing even more mass as time goes by. |
- 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 - 09/05/2006 : 13:31:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good thing that nobody thinks the Big Bang theory is a good one based on just one prediction then, isn't it?
No, it's a bad thing. What's been done is every *wrong* prediction was later replaced by a "modified" prediction to match observation, and therefore if one is young and naive, they might actually believe that these "predictions" were actually right from the beginning.
Nevermind the fact that galaxies weren't supposed to form for billions of years according to *early* BB theory, the new and *improved* BB theory just changed around all the timelines to match up with Hubble observations, and never even bothered to explain the reason the early predictions were wrong, or note that they were wrong.
quote:
I have no "belief" in it, Michael, and you can look at the predictions of the Lambda-CDM model just as easily as anyone else, and see how they can be falsified.
Well, they were "falsified" by the lack of lensing and the lack of shadows, but that doesn't count because it's "too soon" to know if it actually failed, but not too soon to know that it's the "best" theory we have. Sheesh.
quote:
Vacuum energy.
What energy is that? Which scalar particle/field are you refering to in the vacuum, since a pure vacuum will not provide any energy to the system whatsoever.
quote:
If it's modeled as the cosmological constant, it's neither a field nor a particle, but just a scalar value (like G or c or h or #945;).
How might that work? What force is driving the acceleration process?
quote:
If quintessence would make a better model, then it would be a scalar field and have some particle associated with it, but I don't know enough about that model to say what it would be.
In other words, we *don't* know what it is, we don't *know* if it's a scalar field, but somehow you're sure it exists. How do we test this idea against a more mundain explaination like say a simple EM field?
quote:
Big Bang theory made some good predictions even before inflation came along to answer a couple of its problems. The idea that if inflation is wrong then the Big Bang is wrong is to ignore which is based upon what.
No it did not Dave. Early BB theory predicted late forming galaxies. Those predictions failed miserably. In order to make BB theory work, we have to accept not one but (evidently) two different scalar fields. You won't even accept the two methods presented that seem to falsify the only real "prediction" of the inflation aspect of BB theory.
quote:
Yes, that's another example of your double standard, Michael. You get to fabricate entirely fictitious "facts" (like that the Big Bang's validity rests upon a single prediction), but you demand that everyone else stick to science.
But Dave, what *other* prediction would it make that BS theory wouldn't make too? Even by your own definition and explanations, "basic expansion" of tensor fields would apply to BS theory, and BS theory doesn't need two undefined scalar fields to explain the process.
quote:
Only in your fantasy world where the Big Bang theory is deemed valid due to a single prediction.
Like BB theory has accurately predicted one other thing that makes it "more valid" than slam theory?
quote:
Hell, in your fantasy world, your theory is already valid, isn't it?
No, in my world, theories that require two metaphysical and undefined particles/fields aren't "right" by default. In my world, other options are possible and viable. Only in college world is there a "fantasy" put forth that is based on the idea we already have all this stuff figured out, and we already "know" what the "best" answer might be.
quote:
Because otherwise it fails your "parity" demands.
The standard should *not* be that I must do an equal amount of work to *all gas model scientists* to have the idea presented in class. Even if it's not "equal" in your opinion, a static universe theory should not be excluded from classroom study, nor should slam theory or EM acceleration ideas for that matter. How will you know if "minority" viewpoints are valid, or how to test them if you're never exposed to the idea in the first place?
quote:
Can a professor dream up a new theory and then teach it the next morning in your fantasy world?
That's all they've done with current theory in the final analysis. If there is evidence to support the idea, let them bring in a *lot* of ideas into the classroom and let students debate the various options.
Oh ya, I forgot, college students are so wet behind the ears, and so incapable of discerning BS from truth, that we can't risk exposing them to anything that might be "controversial".
quote:
Arp's interpretation is a tautology, and has no predictive power whatsoever.
Since there's no lensing or shadows in the WMAP data, evidently the BB theories "predictive power" turned out to be pretty useless.
quote:
quote:
Why teach a *single* point of view when it is this early in the process?
This early? The Big Bang theory has been around for 84 years!
Ya, but only since the launch of H |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/05/2006 13:33:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 17:50:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, it's a bad thing. What's been done is every *wrong* prediction was later replaced by a "modified" prediction to match observation...
Name a single theory for which that has not occured, Michael. Yes, this is a test, since you claim that modifying models to match better measurements is a "bad thing."quote:
...and therefore if one is young and naive, they might actually believe that these "predictions" were actually right from the beginning.
Only if one is so naive that they don't understand the process and history of science.quote:
Nevermind the fact that galaxies weren't supposed to form for billions of years according to *early* BB theory, the new and *improved* BB theory just changed around all the timelines to match up with Hubble observations, and never even bothered to explain the reason the early predictions were wrong, or note that they were wrong.
Prove that assertion, Michael. Show me just one peer-reviewed scholarly article about changing the "timelines" for Big Bang theory which fails to describe why it is necessary. Yes, this is a test, since I believe you get most of your "science" from popular-press accounts which (by necessity) fail to give you the information you think is simply absent.quote:
Well, they were "falsified" by the lack of lensing and the lack of shadows...
You think that every prediction of the Lambda-CDM model has been falsified by having two of its predictions called into question? Okay, by that standard, since the idea that there's a neutron star at the core of the Sun is patently ludicrous, every prediction of you model is falsified.quote:
...but that doesn't count because it's "too soon" to know if it actually failed...
It is too soon, as evidenced by the scientists own words.quote:
...but not too soon to know that it's the "best" theory we have.
Name a theory which matches all of our current observations better than Big Bang theory, Michael.quote:
Sheesh.
Indeed.quote:
quote:
Vacuum energy.
What energy is that?
It's vacuum energy.quote:
Which scalar particle/field are you refering to in the vacuum, since a pure vacuum will not provide any energy to the system whatsoever.
That's more of your dogmatic denial of the evidence, Michael, and this time it is labratory evidence.quote:
How might that work? What force is driving the acceleration process?
The vacuum energy is driving it. Sheesh!quote:
quote:
If quintessence would make a better model, then it would be a scalar field and have some particle associated with it, but I don't know enough about that model to say what it would be.
In other words, we *don't* know what it is, we don't *know* if it's a scalar field, but somehow you're sure it exists.
Yes, we are sure that the universe is expanding. Both of the "dark energy" theories seek to explain why. The cosmological constant explanation has the benefit of being based upon an energy we can measure in the lab.quote:
How do we test this idea against a more mundain explaination like say a simple EM field?
Show us that this universe-wide EM field exists, Michael, and that galaxies are electrically charged such that they'd be affected by the EM field, and that the EM field is geocentric, then your "simple EM field" will be shown to exist and to match observations and so be a candidate for explaining universal expansion.quote:
No it did not Dave.
There's your religious chant again.quote:
Early BB theory predicted late forming galaxies. Those predictions failed miserably.
Not after they were fixed. Oh, that's right: in your religion, changing a model to match reality is a "bad thing." We should have a big pile of broken models, and every new one should entirely ignore historical scientific data and start over from scratch.quote:
In order to make BB theory work, we have to accept not one but (evidently) two different scalar fields.
You can't even be bothered to remember what I tell you in your replies. How can you possibly claim to be able to discuss this stuff rationally?quote:
You won't even accept the two methods presented that seem to falsify the only real "prediction" of the inflation aspect of BB theory.
No, Michael th |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2006 : 20:55:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I didn't say that. At first I half expected someone at NASA or LMSAL to offer me a better explanations for these images, but that did not happen. In fact most of these folks didn't have any explanation at all. Not many complete "explanations" have been offered that include any of the details of these images. Some people like Neal from Lockheed won't even offer me an explanation. The only way I can know if their explanation is plausible is to hear it. That hasn't happened.
Actually Neal Hurlburt from LMSAL specifically said that running difference images do not show any kind of solid structure or surface. You claim they do, Michael, but your only support is the assertion itself, which is no support at all. Even when asked directly to specify exactly what you mean by structures and solid features and to point out the things you believe to be solid, you balked completely. You only said some things you see are solid features and some are effects of the changes in brightness, so even you, who keep on whining about how nobody else can or will explain those images in any detail, are clearly unable to explain them in any detail.
On the other hand, we in this forum have explained running difference images down to the very last pixel. There is no finer detail than every single pixel. And since Dr. Hurlburt has stated unequivocally that they don't show a surface or anything solid, as it relates to the possibility that running difference images might support your crazy solid surfaced Sun fantasy, there is no more thorough and complete explanation possible. The better explanation has been given, and it is that you are wrong.
So again it begs the question, do you actually know these explanation have been provided dozens of times, therefore when you deny it you're simply lying? Or are you just completely ignorant of the fact that the images have been thoroughly explained time and time again, in which case you are either obviously incapable of understanding what you read or you have some kind of mental problem which prevents you from acknowledging it?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
