|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2006 : 10:08:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
No Dave. The fact that we picked a respected Russian publication that is specifically devoted to particle physics, demonstrates that this material absolutely passes that aspect of this peer review process, not just in the United States, but also in other countries with nuclear programs. Whatever comes in the future will be built upon the nuclear physics behind Manuel's work as well as the evidence from satellite imagery. The steps we are taking are just as deliberate as what Alfven put himself through when he first started publishing. His early work wasn't considered "acceptable" to the "mainstream" channels either, but that did not stop him from publishing his work, and that does not mean that others in his field did not take his published work seriously.
The fact you feel the need to "bash" publications now, and play the "what is the publicication's magic number" game, only demonstrates the ridiculously shallow nature of your whole arguement. That is a pure appeal to popularity/authority arguement. Even when I make the effort to get material published, you disrepect that effort. What have you published recently *in anything* Dave?
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:03:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
It's almost insulting to read crap like this, Michael. You clearly have read nothing I've posted here, nor bothered to follow up on any of the literature I've suggested. It's as though you don't want to understand the problem beyond the scraps you picked up on wikipedia. That you still think that monopoles were dreampt up as an "ad-hoc" problem is clear proof that you live in a delusional world. Indeed, you obviously haven't read a single scientific paper on the topic (besides, perhaps, the one I sent you-- and I seriously doubt you got much from it if so). Thus, your refutations are based only on sophomoric grounds. A similar approach would have had you reject Einstein because he couldn't offer evidence for his ideas. In Michael-world, an idea is only valid if it arrives, like Athena, full in form-- complete and with no further testing needed.
The irony is that you sometimes claim that we'll just have to wait for some such project before there is solid proof for your goofy solid-sun idea. Special pleading, indeed! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:06:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now you're acting like I haven't learned anything,
No, I was simply noting the irrational nature of claiming *I'm* the one that didn't understand the subject material of inflation when it was you that did not understand the subject material. Since you did not understand that the theory of inflation was based on a scalar field that did not decrease its density/intensity with exponentially increasing volume, there *could* be a logical reason why you didn't understand my rejection of the concept. Instead of recognizing that maybe there was a valid "sketical" reason for my rejection of the idea, you attacked me personally and questioned *my* knowledge of this subject. That is irrational behavior all things considered. Now if someone had actually demonstrated the existence of inflaton fields in a lab five years ago, and I was still ignorant of the idea today, *then* you might have had some motive to attack my knowledge level of this subject. Since that has *never* happened, your personal assault on my knowledge level of this subject was unwarranted, and illogical.
quote:
while you're still chanting "there is no evidence" while evidence is presented to you.
But Dave, you have not provided *any* evidence outside of the theory itself. The CMBR data can no longer be used to substanciate this idea because it failed other kinds of tests. There is currently no "data" that actually supports inflation theory at this time. If you wish to provide "evidence" of inflation through the CMBR data, you will have to address the two issues I cited early that demonstrate there there is not enough shadowing or enough lensing in the CMBR data to explain this wavelength as a remnant of an inflation epoch in some distant past.
quote:
Strictly speaking, you knew wrong.
No, "strickly speaking" I knew right. You're obvious quibbling over wording again.
quote:
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.
Dave, the first thing you *should* have learned about these magical scalar fields, is that they are *unlike* other kinds of scalar or vector fields. That "property" Guth "made up" in an ad hoc manner of assigning nearly unchanging "density" to this field in the midst of an exponetial increase in volumen, is absolutely unlike any other scalar field we are aware of in nature. As volume increases all known and doumented scalar and vector fields "spread out" and become less intense. That however didn't help Guth. Guth "needed" a field that didn't disipate so he created one "ad hoc", just like he created the monopole "problem" ad hoc. Both the problem he envisioned in the BBG, and the field he envisioned to fix the "problem" were created in the mind of Guth. That is exactly as much evidence as *still* exists for either of these particles to this day, some 25 years later. Do I have to be dead before I reject an idea that's never had any evidence to support it Dave?
quote:
Not at all: it's been my point all along. You still won't even recognize it.
What I recognize is that you have an nasty little temper that gets you in trouble and makes you say irrational and goofy things from time to time. It is typical when one discusses an idea with someone who knows more about a subject than you know, to acknowledge this. You did not. You simply *assumed* that your two month crash course on the subject of inflation trumps my 20 years of studying the inflaton field subject. I admit freely that I gave up reading Guth about a decade ago, but for a long time I followed his work, and I never saw any evidence to support his "faith" in an inflation field that maintains nearly constant density with exponentially increasing volume. There is currently no evidence to support Guth's concept of inflaton fields Dave. None. Even the CMBR rug has been yanked from under the idea over the past few years and nobody seems to care. The "industry" of astronomy can't be bothered with facts.
If and when someone shows me some evidence of inflaton paricles/fields, then I'll be happy to revisit Guth's ad hoc ideas.
quote:
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.
Huh? Dave, if you didn't care about astronomy and have any strong opinions about astronomy, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Lots of "skeptics" I know don't: A) know much about astronomy (just like I don't know squat about paleantology), nor B) have any affinity to any particular theory in astronomy, particularly inflation theory.
You however have gone *way* out of your way to discuss everything from gas model solar theory to inflaton fields. You seem to think that nothing but the "party" line should be discussed in a college classroom discusion on astronomy. Most "skeptics" I know don't even know who Arp is, let alone go out of their way to slander the guy's work on the redshift problem. You obviously care Dave about astronomy, or you wouldn't do stuff like that. Claiming now, some 14 threads later (2 BB threads too) that you don't give a "rats ass" about this issue is just silly.
quote:
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.
Boloney. You can't even explain the association between an inflaton particle/field and any other particle/field in particle physics or QM. You refuse to make the connection between the inflaton field/particle and any other field/particle in QM or particle phyiscs. You can't explain why the density of a scalar field would remain "nearly constant" with an exponential increase in volume. You've evidently have faith in the idea |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/20/2006 11:48:38 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:15:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Could you go into a tad more detail. What matter and anti matter outside of the event horizons are you talking about? Where would this matter (or anit-matter) come from?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:26:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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?
I guess I needed to be more specific. In the universe I inhabit photons and neutrinos don't originate from singularities. Could you explain how this could be possible?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:28:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No Dave. The fact that we picked a respected Russian publication that is specifically devoted to particle physics, demonstrates that this material absolutely passes that aspect of this peer review process, not just in the United States, but also in other countries with nuclear programs.
Uh, no, Michael. Perhaps the world of physics is different from the humanities, but peer review usually works like this:
First, you submit an article. The editor (or an editor) reads it over. Assuming that it passes some basic qualifications (e.g. proper subject matter, length, etc.), it is passed to an anonymous reviewer or reviewers. This person or persons are usually experts in the area in question and go over the article noting problems in the interpretation of data, etc. The reviewers let the editor know if the article a) shouldn't be published, b) should be published with revision, or c) can be published as-is.
Assuming it's the middle option, the author gets the article back and either a) says no thanks, or b) corrects the paper according to the reviewers' comments.
Obviously, the quality of reivew and editing can vary. A reviewer might be lazy, or incompetant. Or they may not really review at all. Scholars are usually aware of such things, though ("don't publish in that journal; it's not very reputable"). The idea being, if you want your article to have the most impact, you want it to be reviewed by competant people, and you want the process to be rigorous. In a field like physics or English or American history, almost anyone can get published somewhere. There have to be a million journals on American history. Some, like the JAH are the gold standard. Others, not so much. I'm sure the same goes for physics. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:32:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That however didn't help Guth. Guth "needed" a field that didn't disipate so he created one "ad hoc", just like he created the monopole "problem" ad hoc. Both the problem he envisioned in the BBG, and the field he envisioned to fix the "problem" were created in the mind of Guth.
You are such a rotten little LIAR!!! At least THREE TIMES I have demonstrated that GUTH DID NOT INVENT THE MONOPOLE PROBLEM. And yet EVERY TIME you bring it up, so say this is the case. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:33:13 [Permalink]
|
 Damn this is funny
quote:
Quote by 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.
quote:
Michael's angry reply to himself:
Boloney. You can't even explain the association between an inflaton particle/field and any other particle/field in particle physics or QM. You refuse to make the connection between the inflaton field/particle and any other field/particle in QM or particle phyiscs. You can't explain why the density of a scalar field would remain "nearly constant" with an exponential increase in volume. You've evidently have faith in the idea Dave, but you *definitely* don't have any evidence to support that idea. Period.
Well I an not convinced, but hopefully you now have convinced yourself that you don't agree with what you said....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:33:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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.
Aw, come on, Michael. You can do better than this. Details please, this is a completely new idea to me and I'm interested in how it works. Where is your logical support of such a hypothesis? |
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 - 09/20/2006 : 11:35:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That you still think that monopoles were dreampt up as an "ad-hoc" problem is clear proof that you live in a delusional world.
The fact that you believe that there is "evidence" to support the notion that monopoles actually exist is clear evidence that you also live in a delusional world right along with me Cune.
quote:
Indeed, you obviously haven't read a single scientific paper on the topic (besides, perhaps, the one I sent you-- and I seriously doubt you got much from it if so).
That is simply false. It shows that you do not know me, you are not listening to what I've said, and you are making thing up as you go. I already told you quite honestly that I read a lot of Guth's materials in the late 80 and early 90's until I lost interest in the idea. If the new article you sent me recently is any indication of the progress that's occured on this topic over the past decade, then you're right, I'm absolutely not interested in it. Show me some *real* evidence to support monopoles and inflaton fields and maybe my views will change. It's been 25 years, and nothing has changed regarding the evidence to support these ideas. The evidence does not exist.
quote:
Thus, your refutations are based only on sophomoric grounds. A similar approach would have had you reject Einstein because he couldn't offer evidence for his ideas.
This is so unfair it's sad. I didn't reject Einstein, and I could not have rejected his work because his math and his ideas worked even when he first proposed them. He did not propose any creation myths of any kind. You are comparing apples to oranges.
quote:
In Michael-world, an idea is only valid if it arrives, like Athena, full in form-- complete and with no further testing needed.
No, in the realm of "science", one requires observational evidence to support a hypothesis. There is none that supports inflation to the exclusion of other theories, and in fact there is not that directly supports inflation at all.
quote:
The irony is that you sometimes claim that we'll just have to wait for some such project before there is solid proof for your goofy solid-sun idea. Special pleading, indeed!
There is a distinct difference however. I'm not proposing any new "fields" in my theories whereas Guth proposed monopoles *and* inflaton fields/particles that have never been evidenced in a lab. I'm not proposing anything that has not been documented to exist in physics, and the model I'm proposing has actually been lab "similated" by Birkeland over 100 years ago. I have provided direct satellite evidence to support my assertions, and I can think of several ways to test these theories, including STEREO data, Solar-B data, and active radar. My theories are falsifyable, and I've put my theories to the "test" so to speak by making very specific predictions related to the STEREO data.
The "special pleading" here is purely on Guth's part. He is pleading for us to accept that there is A) a problem because monopoles would have been created in a BB without inflation, and B) that inflaton fields exist, and C) that said fields do not signficantly decrease in intensity as volume increases exponentially. None of these things have ever been demonstrated. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:40:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You are such a rotten little LIAR!!! At least THREE TIMES I have demonstrated that GUTH DID NOT INVENT THE MONOPOLE PROBLEM. And yet EVERY TIME you bring it up, so say this is the case. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I didn't claim that Guth *invented* the theory of monopoles Cune, I said that Guth created the percieved "problem" for BB theory for his paper from an unevidenced particle, and then he "fixed" the percieved problem using another unividenced particle which he *did* invent.
Guth did make a "big deal" of monopoles, and he popularize this idea and he did bring this idea front and center in his papers. He used their presumed existence to "build his case" for an inflaton field that does not change density during exponential increases in volume. Not one aspect of this theory has ever been verified by direct observation, not the problem, and not the fix.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/20/2006 11:42:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:50:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Well I an not convinced, but hopefully you now have convinced yourself that you don't agree with what you said....
Oh for crying out loud, I simply left out his response (which I've now fixed). |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 11:59:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Perhaps the world of physics is different from the humanities, but peer review usually works like this:
Yes, I know Cune. I've been through the process a number of times now. How many others here have even been through the process and had anything published?
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 12:08:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That you still think that monopoles were dreampt up as an "ad-hoc" problem is clear proof that you live in a delusional world.
Michaels reply
The fact that you believe that there is "evidence" to support the notion that monopoles actually exist is clear evidence that you also live in a delusional world right along with me Cune.
You stated that cune believes that there is evidence for monopoles, he of course never said that or even implied that, so the way I see it this leaves only 2 options:
1. You are just a dishonest person.
2. You are not very intelligent.
Frankly, at this point I have not idea if you are 1 or 2.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2006 : 12:12:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You are such a rotten little LIAR!!! At least THREE TIMES I have demonstrated that GUTH DID NOT INVENT THE MONOPOLE PROBLEM. And yet EVERY TIME you bring it up, so say this is the case. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I didn't claim that Guth *invented* the theory of monopoles Cune, I said that Guth created the percieved "problem" for BB theory for his paper from an unevidenced particle, and then he "fixed" the percieved problem using another unividenced particle which he *did* invent.
Guth did make a "big deal" of monopoles, and he popularize this idea and he did bring this idea front and center in his papers. He used their presumed existence to "build his case" for an inflaton field that does not change density during exponential increases in volume. Not one aspect of this theory has ever been verified by direct observation, not the problem, and not the fix.
NO, Michael, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE LITEATURE (you haven't read ANY, obviously) THE PROBLEM WAS NOTED BEFORE GUTH.
Parse all you want.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
