|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2006 : 09:53:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
The inflation compaint is getting tired, and it I still can't shake the picture that Michael doesn't get it.
Actually, I do "get it", which is why I'm not about to agree to it.
quote:
Inflation is not a core aspect of the Big Bang. That is, is wasn't something proposed in the early 20th century. Rather it was an attempt in the late 70's (or early 80's) to explain some rather curious problems with Big Bang cosmology.
Fortunately I'm old enough to recall some of the history of this aspect of BB theory. Guth popularized the inflation the inflation stage of BB theory, suggesting it explained how the universe was "flat", and larger than 27 light years accross. His theories didn't actually explain the flatness aspect after further scrutiny, but by then it was already too late. In fact, Guth became quite the darling of the astronomy world for awhile and everyone doted all over his work. By the time they figured out it didn't work, it was too late. He ideas were entrenched into BB theory.
How you figure that the inflation part of BB theory is not a "core" part of BB theory however is a bit of a mystery to me frankly. How do you get from the "primordial atom" to here then?
quote:
If inflation is proven wrong, it doesn't invalidate the Big Bang. It simply leaves unresolved some difficult problems.
It blows the whole "beginning" of the big bang concept! A failure at the start of the theory, seems like a non starter from where I sit.
quote:
As I noted before, this wouldn't be the first time that there have been problems have been associated with the Big Bang. Yet to date, observations and math have eventually caught up with the proposed resolutions to those problems. While the jury is certainly still out, there is no reason to think that such a robust theory is going to soon be turned on its head. This, despite your glee at every published paragraph that even mildly suggested otherwise.
I'm actually quite pragmatic. I do not believe that BB theory is likely to be overturned in my lifetime. In fact I'd be very surprised if it was overturned anytime soon. On the other hand, the fact the industry is attached to the idea is not evidence that this theory is accurate. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 09:59:20 [Permalink]
|
| FYI, I'm not going to be particularly active on the forum this week. I'm working on several programming projects. I'd also like to spend some time putting together a new paper I'm working on related to the coronal loops. When I get caught up at work, I'll try to catch up here again. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 11:20:52 [Permalink]
|
I obviously wasn't clear. The theory of the Big Bang is older than Guth's ideas by several decades at least. Ergo, Guth's inflation was not a "core" part of the Big Bang. I'm defining "core" as the basic parts originally proposed. When people studied these ideas and examined the data, some problems emerged and then solutions were posited to resolve them. (This is how theories evolve, if you will.) Guth's idea of inflation belongs to this last part.
As for this: quote:
His theories didn't actually explain the flatness aspect after further scrutiny, but by then it was already too late. In fact, Guth became quite the darling of the astronomy world for awhile and everyone doted all over his work. By the time they figured out it didn't work, it was too late. He ideas were entrenched into BB theory.
Is this is Mozina-world, or reality? Cause I'm looking at a copy of Astrophysics and Space Science 200 no. 4 (2003) which has an article entitled "A magnetized homogeneous inflationary cosmological model in general relativity" with the following abstract: quote:
Abstract In this paper we have investigated the effect of magnetic field on an orthogonal Bianchi type-I inflationary cosmological model using the concept of Higgs field. It has been investigated that the expansion and inflation in the model increases as the magnetic field increases. To get inflationary model we have assumed a mass less scalar field with flat potential V(#966;)that has flat region.
Did these guys not get the message?
An older article, "Bulk viscosity, Kaluza-Klein models and inflation" from the same journal, 197 no. 2 (1992), has the abstract: quote:
In this work we have employed two hypotheses which have been separately used in order to try to solve the horizon problem, the first one is to take a Kaluza-Klein cosmological model with d noncompact and D compact space-like dimensions, in particular we consider D=1, the second one is to use an energy-momentum tensor depicting a fluid out of equilibrium, in particular we take a mixture of two gases, one is formed by relativistic particles and the other one is a gas constituted by non-relativistic particles and they are not in thermodynamical equilibrium, such that a bulk viscosity term arises. Without actually solving the Einstein equations, we prove that the scale factor of the non-compact space is a monotonic increasing function of time, and that if the scale factor of the compact space reaches a maximum at a certain time then the non-compact space is driven to expand rapidly, and, therefore, hinting us about the possibility of solving the horizon problem.
The effective pressure and density in the non-compact space are found and it is proved that they satisfy the condition for having generalized inflation, and, therefore, might permit to solve the horizon problem, even in the case of D=1, there is no need of a large number of extra dimensions, as some other previous authors have found.
Despite our higher-dimensional matter is one in which the kinetic approach is valid, the effective tensor in the non-compact space-time has the property that this treatment is not applicable.
In another article, "Inflation in Bianchi type-IX Einstein-Cartan Cosmological Model," from 260 no. 4 (1998) of the same journal, we have the abstract: quote:
Within the framework of Einstein-Cartan theory with Weyssenhoff fluid, we investigate an inflation model for an anisotropic Bianchi type-IX cosmological model. The system of field equations is solved numerically and an inflation epoch is achieved. The general condition for the inflation to occur is also discussed. This anisotropic model evolves quickly towards to an isotropic one.
Are all these guys just dupes, Michael? Are they doing hard core research at major universities around the world and publishing in serious journals on a bogus idea that has no business being inserted into the Big Bang theory, but is discussed because these (lazy?) scholars are too dumb to see it?
I doubt it.
Note-- I understand that inflation has gone beyond Guth's ideas. So you simply cannot say that the establishment is hanging on to Guth; they aren't However, others models for inflation have been proposed an are being tested, as is seen in the articles I cited above.
Moreover, I think there seems to be some misunderstanding. You wrote:
quote:
How you figure that the inflation part of BB theory is not a "core" part of BB theory however is a bit of a mystery to me frankly. How do you get from the "primordial atom" to here then?
Are you not confusing expansion with inflation? Or am I not getting something? It gets very complex.
quote:
I'm actually quite pragmatic. I do not believe that BB theory is likely to be overturned in my lifetime. In fact I'd be very surprised if it was overturned anytime soon. On the other hand, the fact the industry is attached to the idea is not evidence that this theory is accurate.
Oh yes-- the old conspiracy that a bunch of old scholars are so bent in their ways that they refuse to see the truth. Oh well. I look forward to the Big Bang being overturned. I am sure that the evidence for an iron-abundant universe is there, ready to be discovered. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/11/2006 11:21:41 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 13:16:12 [Permalink]
|
| If they aren't hanging onto Guth, why do they need an "inflation" stage in the first place? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 13:29:41 [Permalink]
|
| Guth's inflation was intended to solve the horizon and flatness problems. Current inflationary theories are intended to solve the horizon and flatness problems, also. The problems didn't go away when Guth's particular explanation was found to not solve the problems, and so a solution is still needed. Current inflationary theories propose a different mechanism to solve the problem than Guth used. |
- 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 - 09/11/2006 : 13:41:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did these guys not get the message?
http://cosmologystatement.org/
Well, some folks sure seem to think its time to try some new ideas. Count me as one of those individuals that thinks that the inflation aspect of BB theory is pure bunk.
According to Dave, we now have folks chasing the tail of an inflation theory that didn't even work right, or solve any problems in the first first place. I simply lack belief in inflaton particles, and I see no evidence that such ideas actually fixed anything in the first place. I still see no evidence of inflaton particles, and no way to falsify them. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/11/2006 13:42:44 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 13:43:39 [Permalink]
|
| And what "mechanism" did Guth try to use Dave? How are today's "mechanisms" better? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 13:46:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
And what "mechanism" did Guth try to use Dave? How are today's "mechanisms" better?
Thank you for finally admitting your ignorance on these subjects, Michael. |
- 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 - 09/11/2006 : 13:51:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://cosmologystatement.org/
Wow! Something unscientific published in New Scientist! That never happens!  quote:
According to Dave, we now have folks chasing the tail of an inflation theory that didn't even work right, or solve any problems in the first first place.
When did I ever say any such thing, Michael?quote:
I simply lack belief in inflaton particles...
So do I.quote:
...and I see no evidence that such ideas actually fixed anything in the first place.
Then you're ignorant of the evidence, despite it being handed to you.quote:
I still see no evidence of inflaton particles, and no way to falsify them.
That's because you are blinded by your faith that inflation is "bunk." |
- 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 - 09/11/2006 : 13:53:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Oh yes-- the old conspiracy that a bunch of old scholars are so bent in their ways that they refuse to see the truth.
Well, that is *part* of the problem. The other part of the problem is that human beings like "beginnings", and they don't handle the concept of "eternity" very well.
quote:
Oh well. I look forward to the Big Bang being overturned. I am sure that the evidence for an iron-abundant universe is there, ready to be discovered.
The surface of the sun is something that can already be observed in satellite images, whereas BB theory is not something that can even be falsified in the first place. The current gas model solar theories are going to be falsified long before BB theory. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 13:55:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
And what "mechanism" did Guth try to use Dave? How are today's "mechanisms" better?
Thank you for finally admitting your ignorance on these subjects, Michael.
Thank you for avoiding the tough questions Dave. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 13:57:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://cosmologystatement.org/
Wow! Something unscientific published in New Scientist! That never happens!
That must explain why all these folks signed it:
Signed:
[Copied-and-pasted signature list from the above link snipped - Dave W.]
In your zeal to remove the "list", you removed some of my edits:
quote:
When did I ever say any such thing, Michael?
You just said Guth's theories didn't work Dave.
quote:
So do I.
Sure. That's why you insist we teach *our* children this stuff.
quote:
Then you're ignorant of the evidence, despite it being handed to you.
Hand me an inflaton particle Dave, or *real* evidence of one, and then you can tell me I'm "ingorant" of something. I'm also "ignorant" of invisible faeries too by your definition.
quote:
That's because you are blinded by your faith that inflation is "bunk."
No Dave, I'm willing to let you teach this big bunk theory in class, I'm just asking that we alow for some other *possibilities* as well, adn teach things like plasma cosmology along side of it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/11/2006 14:15:56 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2006 : 14:03:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That must explain why all these folks signed it:
Ah, yet another argument from authority. Do fallacies like that ever tire you, Michael? |
- 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 - 09/11/2006 : 14:07:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Thank you for avoiding the tough questions Dave.
The "tough questions" are irrelevant when you've just proven my point that your objections to inflationary theory are based upon your religious faith that it is "bunk," and not upon any actual knowledge of the theories. You know nothing about the mechanisms proposed, yet state with full dogmatic zeal that they are "unevidenced and unfalsifyable [sic]." There's no reason to answer your questions, since you've made it absolutely crystal clear that the answers don't matter to you, since your opinion about the theories isn't based upon, nor will it be swayed by, any sort of fact or reason. |
- 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 - 09/11/2006 : 14:14:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That must explain why all these folks signed it:
Ah, yet another argument from authority. Do fallacies like that ever tire you, Michael?
Oh for crying out loud Dave, your whole arguement regarding BB theory (and much of the solar theory as well) has been an appeal to authority fallacy. There is no *evidence* for inflaton fields. They only exist in your pet theory, and nowhere outside of your pet creation myth. Plasma cosmology doesn't even *require* a creation event to begin with. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
