|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2006 : 12:39:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You don't realize how ironic your comments are, do you?
Evidently not, but then again, I'm not as "sold" on the idea of a neutron core center as Dave seems to be sold on inflaton particles.
quote:
That the photosphere of the sun is a near-perfect black-body is also something we cannot reproduce in a lab.
But it *can* and has been cross checked based on the amount of energy we receive from a solar panels in space. I'm sure the energy output of the sun has been crosschecked a lot of different ways by now. Perfect or imperfect, the calculation seems to work. Even I will admit it that much.
quote:
The inflaton field/particle may not be detectable at the current energy-levels available in labs.
What energy level is required to detect them?
quote:
You cannot discount the possibility that we may eventually have the equipment to artificially produce Higgs bosons.
Nor can I discount the possibility that one day a different kind of theory might take it's place. I've actually seen some interesting ones already. For the time being, I "have faith" that we *may* one day find evidence of Higg's bosons. I lean in that direction for the moment, but I remain open to other possibilities.
quote:
So for now, the inflation is a tentative theory waiting for our ability to falsify it.
I don't even know how anyone would even know where to start, especially since nobody seems willing to explain how such "particles" might fit into particle physics, or how such 'fields' might relate to known and theorized fields/particles in QM. There is no way to "falsify" the idea of such an ill defined particle/field. At least with Higgs bosons there is a fighting chance to find observational evidence for their existence because at least we have some idea of the energy range we might expect to find them. With inflation fields however, who knows even that much?
quote:
Which may happen some time in the future. Until then, inflation is the best explanation we have.
Dr., it's that word "best" that makes me literally cringe from a scientific point of view. If we don't have evidence of inflaton fields outside of the inflation theory itself, and we have no viable way to even hope falsify the idea anytime soon, it's illogical to call it the "best" scientific explanation IMO. My slam theory didn't require anything but preexisting EM fields and preexisting matter. I didn't need anything particularly "exotic" to explain the initial "push/pull" of the explosive event or to explain long term acceleration of the universe. Why you then choose to label a theory with such ill defined particle/fields as "inflaton fields" and "dark energy" as the "best" option remains a complete mystery to me. Even a static universe, Arp redshift oriented universe sounds a lot more plausible to me than two different kinds of unevidenced fields.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/18/2006 12:45:25 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 13:12:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr., it's that word "best" that makes me literally cringe from a scientific point of view.
That is because you do not understand science. Evolution is the best explanation for what is observed - it may be wrong, but at present it is the best explanation. Would you prefer we supported the worst explanation.
quote:
If we don't have evidence of inflaton fields outside of the inflation theory itself, and we have no viable way to even hope falsify the idea anytime soon, it's illogical to call it the "best" scientific explanation IMO.
1. Your opinion is worthless as it relates to science, it really is a riot the you constantly using IMO in scientific discussions like it means something.
2. Evidence for inflation has been presented but you ignored it or didn't understand it.
quote:
My slam theory didn't require anything but preexisting EM fields and preexisting matter. I didn't need anything particularly "exotic" to explain the initial "push/pull" of the explosive event or to explain long term acceleration of the universe.
For someone who constantly harps on the importance of observation why in the world would you support the slam theory that is directly at odds with observation.
quote:
Why you then choose to label a theory with such ill defined particle/fields as "inflaton fields" and "dark energy" as the "best" option remains a complete mystery to me.
Again, you're inability to grasp science is not a reason to abandon science in favor of whatever you call that hand waving you do.
quote:
Even a static universe, Arp redshift oriented universe sounds a lot more plausible to me than two different kinds of unevidenced fields.
It has already been pointed out to you (more than once) that a static eternal universe would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ignoring this point to continue defending the static universe does not strengthen your position it just highlights your dishonesty.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 14:35:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...I'm not as "sold" on the idea of a neutron core center as Dave seems to be sold on inflaton particles.
Apparently, when I say, "There may not be any actual particle," you hear "there has to be a particle." This sort of "mistake" on your part, Michael, is what has generated most of the text in these threads. You misrepresent the ideas, and then someone else has to spend a lot of time correcting your misrepresentations, and then you ignore the corrections and keep on going as if nothing had been said at all.
I don't care if there are any inflaton particles. I don't give a rat's ass if inflationary theory is correct or not (because it makes no difference in my life). The point I've been arguing is that your so-called objections to inflationary theory are based upon your own ignorance of the ideas, and "mistakes" like the above prove my point very well. The truth value of the theory is irrelevant.
For example, if you were to assert that geocentrists think that the Sun goes around Venus, I would also tell you that you're obviously ignorant about geocentrism, even though I know that geocentrism has a truth value close to zero. Whether the ideas contained within the theory are correct or not simply doesn't matter when it's clear that you don't know what those ideas are in the first place, Michael.
So no, my argument that you don't know squat about current inflationary theories doesn't mean that I believe that any of them are correct. Making such statements is just your way of trying to distract from the fact that you don't know what you're 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 - 09/18/2006 : 16:01:04 [Permalink]
|
Here is a preview of a paper that was published in Yadernaya Fizika 69, no. 11 (2006); Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, no. 11 (in press, 2006)
There is not a 1:1 correspondence of pages here with those in the published manuscripts.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/PlasmaDiffuserFinal.pdf
This paper should be posted on Arxiv in a few days.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 16:25:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't care if there are any inflaton particles. I don't give a rat's ass if inflationary theory is correct or not (because it makes no difference in my life). The point I've been arguing is that your so-called objections to inflationary theory are based upon your own ignorance of the ideas, and "mistakes" like the above prove my point very well. The truth value of the theory is irrelevant.
You were the one that was "surprised" at the fact that an inflaton field was presumed to be a scalar field, not me. I also knew that inflaton was presumed not to decrease in intensity with an exponential increase in volume. It is therefore utterly disingenuous for you to accuse *me* of being ignorant of the idea Dave. That must takee quite a juicy rationalization on your part to even go there on this subject.
Its also clear that you *do* give a "rats ass" or you wouldn't be opposed to bringing in other ideas into the classroom.
quote:
Whether the ideas contained within the theory are correct or not simply doesn't matter when it's clear that you don't know what those ideas are in the first place, Michael.
What gaul you have. I certainly knew that inflaton fields involved an unevidenced scalar field that did not decrease density/intensity with an exponential increase in volume. That has always been my beef with inflation theory, whereas you seemed surprised to discover it was even a scalar field in the first place, and never did you offer to explain how the density remained "nearly" constant over exponential increases in volume. Don't even think about preaching at me about what I do and don't know about inflation Dave.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 16:46:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
That is because you do not understand science.
That must explain why various "science" jounals keep publishing my papers and other "scientists" have chosen to work with me on these papers.
quote:
Evolution is the best explanation for what is observed - it may be wrong, but at present it is the best explanation. Would you prefer we supported the worst explanation.
No. I've been quite clear that I believe that we should teach a *range* of ideas to our students and discuss the pros and cons of each idea.
quote:
2. Evidence for inflation has been presented but you ignored it or didn't understand it.
No, I trumped your so called "evidence" for inflation with two new studies of the CMBR data that demonstrate that your CMB data didn't pass *all* the tests. Evidently you ignored this work, or you didn't understand this work. That CMB data was the *single* bit of so called "evidence" you had to support inflation by the way, expecially since Guth's fabled "monopoles" (and the reason he created the inflation theory in the first place) have failed to materialize in any lab test.
Not only did Guth's "solution" fail to materialize any evidence in 25 years, the "problem" he claimed warranted his "solution" also failed to materialize during the past 25 years as well. I'd say that is two strikes against the inflation idea to begin with. The fact that nobody can define the "field/particle" in reference or releationship to any other known fields/particles, and Guth is still talking about string theories, is strike three. He theory is outa there.
quote:
For someone who constantly harps on the importance of observation why in the world would you support the slam theory that is directly at odds with observation.
Which specific observation is that?
quote:
Again, you're inability to grasp science is not a reason to abandon science in favor of whatever you call that hand waving you do.
That comment broke the irony meter, expecially considering the fact you guys (all of you) can't even name the parent particle involved, nor can you explain how these fields fit into QM or particle physics. Talk about handwaves and psuedoscience. Give me a break.
quote:
It has already been pointed out to you (more than once) that a static eternal universe would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It has already been pointed out to you that you're wrong and you're doing that "handwaving" again.
quote:
Ignoring this point to continue defending the static universe does not strengthen your position it just highlights your dishonesty.
What is "dishonest" about our little banter is the way you go "personal" at the drop of a hat and you ignore every point I make in order to insert pointless insults into an otherwise enjoyable discussion. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 17:59:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here is a preview of a paper that was published in Yadernaya Fizika 69, no. 11 (2006); Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, no. 11 (in press, 2006)
There is not a 1:1 correspondence of pages here with those in the published manuscripts.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/PlasmaDiffuserFinal.pdf
This paper should be posted on Arxiv in a few days.
Congrats on the publication, Michael.
(I don't know if it's too late to do so, but on page 16 you should change "Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg. who helped" to "Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, who helped.") |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/18/2006 18:12:04 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2006 : 20:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
For someone who constantly harps on the importance of observation why in the world would you support the slam theory that is directly at odds with observation.
Which specific observation is that?
Distant galxies appear to be moving away from us uniformally in all directions. This indicates an expansion in space. In your BS theory the only way that this observation could occur would be if we were at the center of the BS universe.
quote:
quote:
It has already been pointed out to you (more than once) that a static eternal universe would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It has already been pointed out to you that you're wrong and you're doing that "handwaving" again.
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed that, could you restate why a static universe would not violate the second law?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 08:44:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Distant galxies appear to be moving away from us uniformally in all directions. This indicates an expansion in space.
The "expansion" of space is simply caused by the expanding tensor field as matter (in the form of galaxies) moves away from one another. I would expect a similar set of observations from a slam theory as well. The acceleration of the unviverse is due to the influence of the EM fields. "Dark Energy" is utterly unnecessary in slam theory.
quote:
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed that, could you restate why a static universe would not violate the second law?
Why *would* it violate the second law? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 10:38:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed that, could you restate why a static universe would not violate the second law?
Why *would* it violate the second law?
Thermal radiaion is seeping out into space never to be seen again. That means the Universe is on a journey towards thermal death. An Eternal static universe would already have experienced thermal death because it has already had an eternity to die. |
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 11:30:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Thermal radiaion is seeping out into space never to be seen again.
How do you know it's an "open" system rather than a closed one? How do you know it's "never" seen again? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 11:56:00 [Permalink]
|
http://www.maik.rssi.ru/cgi-bin/journal.pl?name=nuclphys&page=board
quote:
(Yadernaya fizika) ISSN: 1063-7788
CODEN: PANUEO
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Yurii G. Abov, Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
DEPUTY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
A.B. Kaidalov, Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia;
L.A. Kondratyuk, Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia;
E.E. Saperstein, Kurchatov Institute, Russian Research Centre, Moscow, Russia;
EXECUTIVE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
S.P. Kruchinin, Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
EDITORIAL COUNCIL
V.V. Anisovich, L.M. Barkov, V.A. Bednyakov, S.T. Belyaev, L.D. Blokhintsev, A.E. Bondar', M.V. Danilov, S.P. Denisov, I.M. Dremin, Yu.V. Gaponov, V.B. Gavrilov, S.S. Gershtein, V.Z. Gol'dberg, G.F. Filippov, V.I. Furman, B.S. Ishkhanov, R.V. Jolos, O.V. Kancheli, V.A. Khoze, I.B. Khriplovich, A.E. Kudryavtsev, A.K. Likhoded, V.A. Matveev, V.D. Mur, N.N. Nikolaev, V.Z. Nozik, Yu.Ts. Oganessian, L.B. Okun, V.A. Rubakov, O.G. Ryazhskaya, M.A. Shifman, V.A. Sidorov, Yu.A. Simonov, A.A. Slavnov, Yu.F. Smirnov, V.V. Vladimirsky, A.A. Vorob'ev, M.I. Vysotskii.
STAFF EDITOR
Ol'ga Yu. Averkieva
EDITOR OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Andrei R. Isaakyan, Cand. Sci. (Phys.–Math.)
Ok Dave, you can now add some more individuals who have peer reviewed at least part of our work and have published it. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 12:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why *would* it violate the second law?
Definition of the second law in terms of entropy:
For any process the entropy change in the universe must be greater than or equal to zero. The Entropy change is equal to zero only if the process is reversable.
Star formation, the energy out put of stars, or digestion are all nonreversible processes so the entropy increases for the universe for all of these. Almost every real process is nonreversible. This means the fate of the universe is a 'heat death' in other words there will eventually be no way to transfer energy from one area of the universe to another. A static eternal universe would be dead.
I'm kinda busy so I will adress the BS theory later tonight.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 13:09:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok Dave, you can now add some more individuals who have peer reviewed at least part of our work and have published it.
Yeah, how many journals did you submit that article to before you found someone to publish it? Given the obvious problems (based upon your standards of "science") in your review (since there's no new data presented), I'm surprised you even put your name on it. Again, the use of photospheric abundances as good data refutes your personal model unless you use the word "photosphere" to mean something different from the rest of the scientific community (clearly prohibited by the publication guidelines of the journal unless you explain your deviation, which you do not). A larger problem, of course, is that you extrapolate from the "mass parabolas" of known elemental isotopes to exotic matter - without the benefit of any "lab tests" showing the extrapolation is at all valid - in order to conclude stuff about "neutron replusion" which hasn't been experimentally validated, either. Your conclusion is still (again, this is a review article, and not new basic research) based in part upon a premise of Fowler's 28-year-old writings, discussing a problem about which you completely neglect to mention that the mainstream physics world had found other means to solve (another bending of the submission rules if I read them correctly).
Those are just a few of the problems I saw, for example purposes, and there appear to be many more. So of course you'd only be able to get some obscure journal with an impact factor less than one to publish it, but I don't even know why that journal is so desperate for filler. Geez, poking around a bit, I can't find any Nauka/Interperiodica journals to have a 1.0 or larger impact factor (the top 1,500 journals are all at 1.1 or more).
I really don't care how many papers you can get into these little journals, Michael. Show me a research article published in Science with your name on it and you'll impress me. Hell, get published in Solar Physics (ranked 1,323 with an IF of just 1.253) and I'll go out of my way to congratulate you in person next time I'm in California. |
- 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 - 09/19/2006 : 13:38:26 [Permalink]
|
You know, the guidelines for authors of Physics of Atomic Nuclei don't mention anything about referees or how long authors have to offer revisions based on reviewers' comments. I'm wondering if it's really a peer-reviewed journal. How many referees offered notes to you, Michael, on ways to improve your article?
For example, Solar Physics, has this to say:Refereeing: All manuscripts will be sent to a minimum of one referee. The referee remains anonymous unless he or she expresses the wish to have his/her name revealed to the author(s). Referees are asked to evaluate a paper within three weeks (with six weeks as a maximum) and authors are given three months as the maximum for a paper revision. I can't find anything like that for Physics of Atomic Nuclei.
Hmmm... The Journal of Fusion Energy doesn't mention reviewers, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
