|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2006 : 13:49:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How do you know it's an "open" system rather than a closed one?
If the universe is a closed system and infinitely old, then it should have already attained thermodynamic equilibrium throughout. The fact that we're here to discuss it means that this has not occured, and therefore a closed, infinitely old universe is definitely the wrong model.
If the universe is an open system, and your theory requires the continual addition of energy (or removal of entropy) from "outside," then "where is 'outside' the universe?" becomes the obvious next question to ask. |
- 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 - 09/19/2006 : 14:28:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, how many journals did you submit that article to before you found someone to publish it?
It was sumbitted to exactly *one* journal that I'm aware of Dave. Sheesh are you difficult or what?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 14:33:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If the universe is a closed system and infinitely old, then it should have already attained thermodynamic equilibrium throughout.
Should have? How do you know it "should have" achieved anything of the sort? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 14:35:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Should have? How do you know it "should have" achieved anything of the sort?
Did you read what I wrote about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? That should explain it.
|
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 : 16:55:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Should have? How do you know it "should have" achieved anything of the sort?
Did you read what I wrote about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? That should explain it.
quote:
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.
So as long as a photon and neutrino can be captured by a "singularity", a slam process can be reversed and the entropy change may be equal to zero. I'm not sure your definition helps explain a whole lot in a relatively "closed" system where photons and neutrinos can end up back inside "singularities" where they once originated.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/19/2006 16:56:35 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 17:39:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not sure your definition helps explain a whole lot in a relatively "closed" system where photons and neutrinos can end up back inside "singularities" where they once originated.
No, my definition of the 2nd law does not explain much relative to the quote above however, I was refering to our universe, in which case the second law does an excellent job. You claim to be interested in science but you make up your own psuedo-science and then act like it is perfectly rational.
I think you talked about an anti-matter black hole hitting a matter black hole and initiating the BS.
Do you know what would happen if your (comletely unevidenced) anti-matter black hole combined with a matter black hole... you would get a bigger black hole.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 18:26:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
I was wondering that, Dave, though they had a long list of scholars associated with it, so I figured they were reviewers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 20:18:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Should have? How do you know it "should have" achieved anything of the sort?
Because any closed system will reach thermodynamic equilibrium after a finite period of time. An infinite amount of time is an infinite number of finite periods of time.
Singularities don't help your case (in a closed system) unless every bit of matter and energy winds up back in a single singularity on a periodic basis. If any is left outside at any time, then an infinite amount of matter will have been left outside the singularity after an inifnite time, and we're back to thermodynamic equilibrium.
On the other hand, how would a "Big Slam" involving every single dyne of energy in the universe be distinguishable from a Big Bang? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2006 : 20:52:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Your BS theory assumes that space is preexisting before the matter wave or black holes or whatever, interacted and for want of a better word exploded.
Now assuming that this is true, then there is a point in the universe that we can point to and say "that is the origin of the big slam". Since we note that all of the distance galaxies are moving away from us uniformally based on distance, no matter what direction we look the the origin of the BS must be earth. If we were not at the origin of the BS then we would see that the distant galaxies in one direction would be moving at a different velocity than galaxies in a different direction. |
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 : 21:00:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I was wondering that, Dave, though they had a long list of scholars associated with it, so I figured they were reviewers.
I have no doubt that what Michael copied-and-pasted in his gloating post about peer "review" was correct, and that they're all editors. An editor's job is different from a reviewer's (or referee's) job.
And the fact that Michael and his co-authors picked an obscure little Russian non-peer-reviewed journal that doesn't seem particularly oriented towards solar science in which to publish a review of stuff that they've published before elsewhere tells me that they're not even trying to be accepted by mainstream scientists, and instead the three of them are simply looking to pad their "publication count" in order to have the appearance of respectability. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 04:48:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I was wondering that, Dave, though they had a long list of scholars associated with it, so I figured they were reviewers.
I have no doubt that what Michael copied-and-pasted in his gloating post about peer "review" was correct, and that they're all editors. An editor's job is different from a reviewer's (or referee's) job.
And the fact that Michael and his co-authors picked an obscure little Russian non-peer-reviewed journal that doesn't seem particularly oriented towards solar science in which to publish a review of stuff that they've published before elsewhere tells me that they're not even trying to be accepted by mainstream scientists, and instead the three of them are simply looking to pad their "publication count" in order to have the appearance of respectability.
Right, Dave. I am trying to publish my first article, and review is hard! They ask hard questions, and challenge interpretations and the like. I'm sure that it's similar in the field of solar science, as well. Particularly when the article takes such a radical veiw! I wonder what the reviewers said? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/20/2006 04:50:05 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 07:01:07 [Permalink]
|
Oh my God, I looked at the paper the Manuel, Kamat, and Mozina submitted. How fucking embarassing for the Manuel and the University of Missouri! Manuel has the running differences images in the paper and is stating the sun has a rigid surface based on misunderstanding the meaning of the running difference images.
It's pathetic, I couldn't even read the whole thing I was so embarassed for the college ...
|
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 - 09/20/2006 : 07:19:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You were the one that was "surprised" at the fact that an inflaton field was presumed to be a scalar field, not me.
And now you're acting like I haven't learned anything, while you're still chanting "there is no evidence" while evidence is presented to you.quote:
I also knew that inflaton was presumed not to decrease in intensity with an exponential increase in volume.
Strictly speaking, you knew wrong.quote:
It is therefore utterly disingenuous for you to accuse *me* of being ignorant of the idea Dave.
How is it disingenuous? I'm not being insincere, nor am I pretending to be naive. I've learned quite a bit about inflationary theories, while you still seem to be stuck on incomplete Wiki descriptions.quote:
That must takee quite a juicy rationalization on your part to even go there on this subject.
Not at all: it's been my point all along. You still won't even recognize it.quote:
Its also clear that you *do* give a "rats ass" or you wouldn't be opposed to bringing in other ideas into the classroom.
It's also clear that you're still building strawmen because you're entirely unable to cope with my actual arguments.quote:
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.
Then you knew wrong.quote:
That has always been my beef with inflation theory...
Yes, I know. It demonstrates your ignorance.quote:
...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.
That is simply untrue. That you reject the explanation doesn't mean it wasn't offered.quote:
Don't even think about preaching at me about what I do and don't know about inflation Dave.
Your pretentiousness isn't particularly charming, 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 - 09/20/2006 : 07:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Oh my God, I looked at the paper the Manuel, Kamat, and Mozina submitted. How fucking embarassing for the Manuel and the University of Missouri! Manuel has the running differences images in the paper and is stating the sun has a rigid surface based on misunderstanding the meaning of the running difference images.
It's so much worse than that, furshur:Further discussion of these images will be postponed until the experimental basis has been presented for concluding that the Sun acts as a plasma diffuser, hiding its iron-rich interior beneath a veneer of lightweight elements.
— Page 3 But there is no further discussion of the images in the paper, and so it looks like the images are just thrown in there as a "pre-announcement" of data which may or may not be forthcoming in an article to be released at some unknown time in the future. Maybe.
An editor or reviewer at a journal with a reputation at stake would have said, "cut this whole section out since it adds nothing to the hypotheses discussed in the introduction or the conclusion."
Of course, at any such journal the paper wouldn't have seen the light of day since it's mostly just a re-hash of stuff from previous papers by Dr. Manuel, and the scientific community generally frowns on such repeat performances unless they begin with "the goal of this paper is to review the current state of research into blah-di-blah."quote:
It's pathetic, I couldn't even read the whole thing I was so embarassed for the college ...
Again, what's worse is that Dr. Manuel was a founder of the Foundation for Chemical Research, Inc. (which he thanks at the end of the article), and it looks like funding this sort of article is well outside the Foundation's mandate. Dr. Manuel's work is not listed on the site under "Research Supported by FCR." |
- 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 - 09/20/2006 : 09:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I'm not sure your definition helps explain a whole lot in a relatively "closed" system where photons and neutrinos can end up back inside "singularities" where they once originated.
No, my definition of the 2nd law does not explain much relative to the quote above however, I was refering to our universe, in which case the second law does an excellent job.
You begin with a handwave?
quote:
You claim to be interested in science but you make up your own psuedo-science and then act like it is perfectly rational.
WTF? You guys made up *fields* and particles ad hoc to solve a problem created by another theorized particle that was created ad hoc. You assigned this new field "special" properties ad hoc. You have *faith* in things that have never been evidenced, and then you have the nerve to talk to me about "pseudo-science". Give me a break. Show me an experiment demonstrating a monopole or a inflaton field. Then and only then can you lecture me about pseudoscience. You ad hoc fix was even based on an ad hoc "problem" to begin with.
quote:
I think you talked about an anti-matter black hole hitting a matter black hole and initiating the BS.
Yep. All that was required was preexisting energy fields and preexisting matter. I didn't propose anything outside of standard paricle physics or QM either.
quote:
Do you know what would happen if your (comletely unevidenced) anti-matter black hole combined with a matter black hole... you would get a bigger black hole.
No, you would get a meltdown just outside the event horizons as matter and antimatter anihillated one another until one of them ran out of material, reached critical mass, and simply exploded.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/20/2006 10:15:46 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
