|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2006 : 13:45:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why should there be a time limit?
As far as a time limit on the "idea" is concerned, there doesn't need to be one. From a *personal* and physical perspective however, I am not immortal. I'm personally bored to death of Guth's poof theories for the reasons I outlined, starting with the metaphysical density properties he assigned to his new fangled type of metaphysical scalar field. It was bad enough that he began with a "problem" he percieved in BB theory based on his faith in a monopole particle that nobody has ever seen before or since he prosed the idea. When he then "fixed" the percieved problem by adding a new scalar field into the discussion that nobody has ever seen before, and then he started claiming that its density remained nearly constant throughout a series of exponential volume increases, that is when I got *really* skeptical of the idea. Now 25 years have passed, and still nobody can explain how inflaton fields affect QM or particle physics. Nobody has ever shown a scalar or a vector field to behave as he claimed inflaton fields functioned. Nobody has ever demontrated a "monopole" that was the basis for his whole "fix" in the first place.
Show me any evidence from the real world of particle physics and QM to support any of Guth's metaphysical mumbo jumbo. At the moment, it's all just nice looking math on paper Dave.
quote:
quote:
Do I have to personally be dead and buried before someone considers some alternatives to Guth's unevidenced inflation theories?
Obviously not, since Arp and others are doing so right now. What is wrong with those someones considering those alleged alternatives? They even publish their ideas!
Ya, and I read their stuff too. But of course they aren't being published in the "right" journals with the "right" influence numbers with the right frequency of publication. These ideas dare not be discussed in the classroom for fear of confusing those poor ignorant students. Best that we indoctrinate the ignorant students into the "approved" dogma fold instead.
quote:
Well, there's your problem: you expect someone to serve you.
Not me! I'm long gone from inflation theory Dave. If someone still has "faith" in the idea, even after 25 years of virtual stagnation, its really up to these individuals to define how inflaton fields fit into particle physics and provide the "evidence" to substanciate their faith. If and when that occurs, I might have some renewed interest. Right now, I'm bored of Guth's idea altogether.
quote:
quote:
How would you suggest we even go about testing this idea right now?
It has been, and is being tested. What is wrong with the current tests?
The inflation theory failed the latest set of CMBR tests. Nobody in 25 years of particle research has ever introduced evidence of monopoles, let alone evidence of a new scalar fields. Certainly nobody had provided any evidence of a new *kind* of scalar field that remains at nearly constant density/intensity with an exponentially expanding volume. That's a lot of problems for just one theory Dave, especially after 25 years of effort. The most recent tests you refer to aren't even providing favoreable data to support Guth's inflation theory, quite the opposite in fact. The CMBR data does not show the types of lensing and shadowing effects that would be consistent with inflation theory. Even when the evidence doesn't support the idea, that evidence is simply swept under the carpet, and the "approved" dogma lives on in the classroom. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/21/2006 13:46:44 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 13:56:05 [Permalink]
|
Michael are you going to elaborate on your matter / anti-matter black hole BS theory or have you moved on...?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 14:19:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael are you going to elaborate on your matter / anti-matter black hole BS theory or have you moved on...?
I've moved on. I've provided a few "hints". That's as much as I'm going to say about it for the time being.
I'm going to limit my posts on this forum to solar theory. I'll wrap up my inflaton field conversation with Cune and Dave, but after that, I'm only going to discuss solar topics here.
I have no real interest in starting another kind of discussion on another type of astronomy theory on this forum. I have no personal desire to champion slam theory in the first place since it's just another kind of creation myth from my perspective. One controversial new theory is plenty, and I'd rather stick to topics that I can actually hope to demonstrate in my lifetime. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 15:19:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ah, I see. So Guth didn't invent the problem. But his friend did. Perhaps they were in on it together?
I have to assume that you're primarily taking exception to my comment about Guth "inventing" the problem. I've already conceeded however that he did not actually "invent" the concept of monopoles, he simply assumed they existed and used them as his *primary* reason for introducing his inflation theory. He simply *assumed* that Preskill and others were correct about monopoles, even though these ideas were based on Preskill's take on grand unified field *theories* that have never been agreed upon in the first place.
You can't be serious. You obviously haven't read the papers where these data are published, you haven't looked through the math, haven't done the calculations, or any other such thing. Fortunately for the rest of the world who cares about science, people like Guth (and other actual cosmologists) actually do bother with them.
Ultimately, your argument rests on a "show me what a monopole looks like" which is a safe bet. It is telling, however, that you don't ask for the math that demonstrates why Preskill argued for huge numbers of monopoles. You don't ask for the math behind inflation. You don't bother much with the math needed for your iron sun. In fact, even the discussion of your Big Slam has been math-free.
Even though you're happy to live in a world were math is just a scapegoat used by cosmologists who can't back up their ideas, the reality is that math is the foundation from which we base our experiments and tests. As I've noted time and again, we can only get to a point where we can test for things like monopoles and inflation once the math is sound. (We also need the equipment-- telescopes, atom-smashers, etc.-- but you know that, even though you seem to think that it's only a valid excuse for your theories.)
I can only predict at this point that your reply will be some grand speech about who I've been sold on pretty math formulas and the like (save it-- you've given it already above). Fact is, though, there isn't a cosmology journal out there that doesn't fill its pages with math. Math is how we understant the universe. I'm not sure what a Mozina-led cosmology or astronomy class would be like, but I can only imagine that it would be light on math and thus in substance. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 15:57:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Did you wake up on the wrong side of bed today or what Dave? If I treated you like you treat me, you'd throw a hissy fit.
You do treat me like that, Michael. Case in point:quote:
Evidently you personally think it's "good scholarship" to believe in unevidenced scalar fields with metaphysical density properties based on a hunch about the creation of another kind of highly questionable particle that has never been evidenced either. Monopoles? Where is the evidence for those? Inflaton? What particle interactions is it involved in?
On the other hand, it's evidently "bad scholarship" to begin with observational evidence using satellite images, and its bad to publish "similar" kinds of material in legtimate publications that have readers with the expertise to refute and/or review the bulk of the "evidence" that's been gathered over the years to suggest the sun isn't a giant ball of hydrogen gas.
It's evidently a "bad" thing to choose the course that Alfven chose to have his early work published in a "skeptical" environment even if the "mainstream" isn't listening. That's "bad" scholarhip evidently because the readers of those publications clearly don't know squat about anything in the paper this mostly involves particle physics observations.
I gave you a few reasons why I think your paper is poor scholarship, but you apparently can't respond to what I actually said, and so you were forced to invent a bunch of garbage.quote:
You should respect my effots because these are peer reviewed publications...
I can find no evidence that either Physics of Atomic Nuclei or the Journal of Fusion Energy are peer-reviewed publications. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim, or do you think your insistence that they are should be good enough?quote:
...that go out to professionals with the expertise to judge the validity of our work.
How many published responses to your JFE article have there been? Can you reference any?quote:
These papers were notsimply submitted to generic confernces on topics as was the case with the first paper I was involved in.
I didn't say they were.quote:
There is a process here Dave that every scientists uses to get their matieral published and to make it widely available and to open in to significant scrutiny. That's all we've done.
No, it seems that you're claiming that you had your submission accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal when that doesn't appear to be the case at all.quote:
quote:
Ah, the good ol' "argument from publication," by which logic we would all be forced to agree that there is some merit to homeopathy, creationism, astrology, intelligent design, moxibustion, zero-point energy, N-rays, phlogiston and perpetual-motion machines just because the proponents of those ideas have had articles published in peer-reviewed journals. But, the reality of the situation is that publication by itself doesn't lend anything to the truth value of any proposition.
That's certainly seem to be the only thing going for inflaton fields and monopoles too Dave. They belong on that very same list. They are every bit as unevidenced as anything else on your list, and some of the things on your list were also "popular" at one point in time too.
Of course, none of that refutes my point that publication - even in a peer-reviewed journal - isn't a guarantor that an idea has merit. All you're doing is whining that inflation is a crappy idea, instead of defending your earlier-stated position that your being published and me not being published means something about the validity of your published ideas.quote:
Somehow, for some reason, you've decided that there is "evidence" for inflaton fields...
I presented some of the evidence to you, and you failed to offer any criticism of it, you just repeated your claim that it doesn't exist.quote:
...even though you can't even define how they fit into QM or particle phyiscs.
I already did that.quote:
Go figure.
Indeed, go figure: you refuse to defend your own statements, and you refuse to look at what's presented to you, yet you've got the chutzpah to accuse everyone else of not providing what you've asked for. |
- 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 - 09/21/2006 : 16:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why should there be a time limit?
As far as a time limit on the "idea" is concerned, there doesn't need to be one.
Great, then we agree on something.quote:
From a *personal* and physical perspective however, I am not immortal. I'm personally bored to death...
Your personal desires and frailty are irrelevant.quote:
Show me any evidence from the real world of particle physics and QM to support any of Guth's metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
Guth's idea is entirely about particle physics and quantum theory, since nothing other than those processes existed for the first 300,000 years of this universe.quote:
At the moment, it's all just nice looking math on paper Dave.
And satellite observations, but you just want to ignore those because they seem to conflict with some other theory.quote:
Ya, and I read their stuff too. But of course they aren't being published in the "right" journals with the "right" influence numbers with the right frequency of publication.
So what? You asked when someone would consider these ideas. They are being considered, debated and published.quote:
These ideas dare not be discussed in the classroom for fear of confusing those poor ignorant students.
Why would you think that?quote:
Best that we indoctrinate the ignorant students into the "approved" dogma fold instead.
Then you've got little respect for the students.quote:
Not me! I'm long gone from inflation theory Dave. If someone still has "faith" in the idea, even after 25 years of virtual stagnation, its really up to these individuals to define how inflaton fields fit into particle physics and provide the "evidence" to substanciate their faith. If and when that occurs, I might have some renewed interest.
It's already been done, you just refuse to look.quote:
Right now, I'm bored of Guth's idea altogether.
Nobody here cares about your boredom, Michael. Your boredom doesn't refute current inflationary theory.quote:
The inflation theory failed the latest set of CMBR tests.
The latest tests were not of inflation, Michael.quote:
The CMBR data does not show the types of lensing and shadowing effects that would be consistent with inflation theory.
Inflationary theory doesn't predict lensing and shadowing, Michael, you've got the theories confused. |
- 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 - 09/21/2006 : 16:39:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You can't be serious.
Yes Cune, I'm quite serious.
quote:
You obviously haven't read the papers where these data are published,
I've already told you several times now that I have read Guth's early work.
quote:
you haven't looked through the math,
Well, I've looked *at* the math. I can't say I've done much more than that. I didn't personally sit down to "proof" it mind you, but by then it had been "proofread" a ton of times already. What would be the point in me doing it too?
quote:
haven't done the calculations,
Which calculations are going to help you answer any of the *specific* questions I asked you about?
quote:
or any other such thing.
Define "other such thing". If you mean by give his theory a "skeptical review", I certainly *have* done that. Have you? In fact that is why I feel comfortable pointing you to the very specific points from his theory that I take "issue" with so that you know *why* I remain skeptical of his ideas. If you'd like to answer any of my very specific questions about how Guth's math formulas relate back to particle phyiscs, or explain how these formulas have helped you locate and observe scalar fields in "reality" that do not decrease density over distance, I'm all ears. If you can't do that, then I think you should at least respect my scepticism toward his inflaton field theories.
quote:
Fortunately for the rest of the world who cares about science,
If I didn't "care" about science Cune, I wouldn't rag on astronomy as much as I do.
quote:
people like Guth (and other actual cosmologists) actually do bother with them.
What Guth *didn't* both with is any type of *observational evidence* to support any of his cool looking math forumulas.
quote:
Ultimately, your argument rests on a "show me what a monopole looks like" which is a safe bet.
It's always a "safe bet" to ask for observational evidence Cune, expecially around a mathematician. If someone in particle physics was jumping up and down claiming that they had evidence of monopoles in their experiments, I would certainly listen. Unfortunately for Guth and his followers, that has never happened.
quote:
It is telling, however, that you don't ask for the math that demonstrates why Preskill argued for huge numbers of monopoles.
Math is a "secondary" issue in how I "learn". I'm a "theory first" type of individual. I like to know how things fit into the big picture before I worry about the minutue of the math that makes it work. I first have to understand how you figure Preskill knew that monopoles even exist at all, what he thinks they are made of in terms of "particles", or how these monopoles make up particles. Before I get into the math, I need to understand how inflaton fields somehow tie back into QM or particle physics. If I can understand how it ties into particle physics, then I have some basis for "using" these mathematical calculations, elegant though they might be. If they can't be related back to QM and particle physics they are just "busy work" calculations that I can't really relate to or use to test against direct observations in the real world.
quote:
You don't ask for the math behind inflation.
Well, for one thing, I've seen the math. I don't think the problem is in the math in the first place, I think the problem lies in Guth's conceptual understanding of energy and fields and quantum mechanics.
Fields, particularly scalar fields and vector fields do not and would not maintain constant density/intensity during volume increases. Even the effects of tensor fields change with distance. Guth can claim his new scalar field is constant till he's blue in the face, and use that constant in a lot of nice math formulas, but until he can show me that this constant has any relevancy to particle physics or QM, I have no resason to suspect he's even talking about "reality" at all.
quote:
You don't bother much with the math needed for your iron sun.
That isn't true. I've simply resisted the urge to oversimplfy everything just to make it fit nicely into a math formula. That doesn't mean that I do not "bother" with math. I'm currently "really" struggling to keep up with Alfven's "math". I assure you, it's ever bit as "heavy duty" in the math department as anything Guth has ever done.
Besides, there is a lot of math in Manuel's body of work as well as in the work he cites (we) site in his(our) papers. I've cited heliosiesmology papers from Alexander Kosovichev that have included some of the most elegant uses of math that I've ever seen applied to any astronomy problem before, yet he doesn't even agree with my interpration of the data. Math alone won't reasolve this issue.
The math from these papers doesn't make our theory of mass separated plasma layers and a mostly iron sun any more or any less accurate by virtue of sophisticated math. I showed my "math" to everyone as it relates to determining the "relative" temperature of coronal loops vs the solar atmosphere in general.
quote:
In fact, even the discussion of your Big Slam has been math-free.
Would you like me to personally duplicate all the math that relates to expansion just to show you that this same math would also apply to any "bang/slam" with expanding galaxies? What would be the point of that excersize? There really isn't a lot "difference" about my slam theory mathematically other than the nature of the explosive event at the start, a |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/21/2006 16:56:05 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 17:14:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your personal desires and frailty are irrelevant.
Ya, and notice how you skimmed right over that part about my objection to the metaphysical density properties that Guth assigned to his new *type* of scalar field.
quote:
Guth's idea is entirely about particle physics and quantum theory, since nothing other than those processes existed for the first 300,000 years of this universe.
No, Guth's ideas directly *defy* the laws of particle physics and QM because in these realms, the density/intensity of scalar and vector fields decrease with an exponential increase in volume. Whatever universe Guth is describing, it's not one that involved QM or particle physics as we know it.
This whole thing is one big ruse Dave. If you had evidence of inflton fields/paricles like you have evidence of neutrinos, we wouldn't be arguement about the existence of inflaton fields. We might still be arguing about how your scalar field doesn't decrease in density with increasing volume, but at least we would be argueing about their very existence. You can't even get to first base here Dave because nobody has *ever* demonstrated that inflaton fields exist. Nobody seems willing to take a stand how they affect particles and how this field fits into Quantum Mechanics. It's all one giant handwave with metaphysical properties to boot. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 17:20:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Would you like me to personally duplicate all the math that relates to expansion just to show you that this same math would also apply to any "bang/slam" with expanding galaxies?
I sure would, since the math I used to describe a Newtonian universe under constant acceleration would result in Hubble being unable to find a constant unless Earth is coincidentally located where the center of the "slam" occured (or so far away that projecting backwards in time would indicate that the "slam" occured trillions or quadrillions of years ago, instead of a measley 15 billion). Your response to that was simply to deny that I'd done any such math, even though I posted it for everyone to see.quote:
What would be the point of that excersize?
It would demonstrate that your "slam" model really could explain the same things as the Big Bang model can. Your say-so that your model is capable of similar predictions isn't good enough.quote:
There really isn't a lot "difference" about my slam theory mathematically other than the nature of the explosive event at the start, and the mechanism of acceleration.
And the fact that you've got galaxies expanding through spacetime, instead of expanding along with spacetime, because you spent a lot of time denying that spacetime can expand.quote:
I was using that "theory" just to make the point that there are alternate ways of "interpreting" the same data.
Except its predictions fail to match observations, so your different "interpretation" is simply a wrong interpretation.quote:
I'm simply trying to point out the fact that BB theory has a lot of holes in it...
No, you call it a "myth" and "metaphysics," based upon "unevidenced" fields. Having "holes" in a theory means that there are unanswered questions, and every theory has them (the standard particle model has many quite-large holes in it, but I don't see you advocating for the teaching of alternatives to quantum mechanics). Your claims about Big Bang theory and Inflationary theories amount to nothing less than "those theories are wrong."quote:
...and it's premature to be fixated on one option to the exclusion of other options.
Then why are you only railing against astronomy, when there are plenty of "holes" in every other theory we've got? QM can't explain gravity - huge hole. GR can't explain the speed of light - another gigantic hole. Why aren't you complaining about those as "dogma" used to "indoctrinate" kids? |
- 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 - 09/21/2006 : 17:39:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ya, and notice how you skimmed right over that part about my objection to the metaphysical density properties that Guth assigned to his new *type* of scalar field.
It could be that I am "bored" of your strawmen, and so simply declare that they don't exist (just like you). Or it could be that your so-called objections were completely irrelevant to the point that you basically agreed to, that the "25 year limit" is due to your personal feelings and not a property of any scientific field.
Of course, you've got no solid ground from which to decry skimming, since you have yet to respond to the reasons I provided for why I think your latest paper is poor scholarship. You haven't even acknowledged that I gave you any such reasons, and instead fabricated some of your own.quote:
No, Guth's ideas directly *defy* the laws of particle physics and QM because in these realms, the density/intensity of scalar and vector fields decrease with an exponential increase in volume. Whatever universe Guth is describing, it's not one that involved QM or particle physics as we know it.
Only in your own private world, Michael. This has been explained already, but I suppose you're so bored that you didn't bother even trying to understand the explanations.quote:
This whole thing is one big ruse Dave. If you had evidence of inflton fields/paricles like you have evidence of neutrinos, we wouldn't be arguement about the existence of inflaton fields.
Since nobody has ever seen or otherwise directly measured a neutrino, the evidence we have for them is of the exact same sort as the evidence we have for inflation.quote:
We might still be arguing about how your scalar field doesn't decrease in density with increasing volume, but at least we would be argueing about their very existence.
Same old strawman.quote:
You can't even get to first base here Dave because nobody has *ever* demonstrated that inflaton fields exist.
The observations support the theory, Michael, in exactly the same way as the observations support the idea that neutrinos exist.quote:
Nobody seems willing to take a stand how they affect particles and how this field fits into Quantum Mechanics.
You simply refuse to acknowledge all of the people who are doing exactly that, Michael.quote:
It's all one giant handwave with metaphysical properties to boot.
Only in your dreamworld, Michael. |
- 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 - 09/21/2006 : 17:45:58 [Permalink]
|
Fine, Micahael. I'm done. Your arguments make no sense and are utterly hypocritical. You ask how Preskill knew about monopoles. Here's an idea: read the article. Do the math. Understand how scholars theorize the early universe. You claim to be a "theory first" but this is clearly not the case. You're a "fact first" kind of guy. The Catch-22 is that you have to theorize something and only then test for it. In Michael-world, you find the particle and then figure out what it did. In Michael-world, the irrefutable math is presented, and then the things it explains are presented.
I know that you can't see how your entire approach is backwards, but don't worry: everyone else can.
Finally, before I go: I am completely right about the monopole problem. That you cite Preskill shows this. The problem clearly existed before Guth. You have a habit of never saying that you were wrong. Indeed, you seem to revel in the fictional world that you were right there when all of this was going down-- as though you were sitting at the back of the auditorium tsk-tsking as Guth and the rest of the cosmological world. But the reality is far different. And again, everyone but you can see it.
So I'm done. I have enjoyed finding the actual articles and reading them (or trying to-- the math is often beyond me). I've learned much, and have been convinced now more than ever about the origins of our universe. I know that there is still much to learn, but it is clear that it won't come from the iron-sun thinkers. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2006 : 11:28:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Fine, Micahael. I'm done. Your arguments make no sense and are utterly hypocritical.
My arguement is that Guth introduced a completely unevidenced scalar field with mystical density properties that defy everything we know about scalar fields in "reality" and how they "expand" in nature. My arguements make perfect sense to a skeptic that wants to see evidence to support all ideas. It's certainly not hypocritical to want *evidence*, in fact it's necessary to provide evidence to verify the theory. Your response doesn't make sense.
quote:
You ask how Preskill knew about monopoles. Here's an idea: read the article.
The article is in reference to a grand unified field *theory* that nobody has ever agreed to in the first place Cune! In other words, the very first paragraph gives us our first clue that this is all theoretical speculation based purely on *one guy's opinion* about grand unified field theory. We're still trying to find a grand unified field theory, so what he really did was pull out some concept from a *partial* theory at best case.
quote:
Do the math.
What will that accomplish? I'll concede right now that the math is probably right. We still need observational evidence in the real world to verify that the math shown in the paper actually *applies* to reality. We have never found a stray monopole in the real world Cune, that is just the inconvient fact for Guth's theory. All the math in the world won't make a monopole appear in a lab experiement.
quote:
Understand how scholars theorize the early universe. You claim to be a "theory first" but this is clearly not the case. You're a "fact first" kind of guy.
Well, not in the case of inflaton. I want to first understand how this new field is supposed to back tie into QM and particle physics. Then by all means show me the math *and* the observations that backup the theory. Since not even the experts seem to be able to agree on how inflaton fields might tie into QM or particle physics, it's tough to even begin to apply any "math" that might lead to real world tests to attempt to falsify the idea. I'm not big on unfalsifyable concepts, and that's exactly what we have here since there is no way to test the theory without such information.
It's worse than that however. Guth invented a scalar field that has a completely *new* and unevidence property to it. It's quite literally the "everlasting Gobstopper" of energy fields since it does not decrease in density/intensity with exponential increases in volume. It's the ultimate "free lunch" kind of energy field.
It's bad enough that Guth introduced an unevidenced scalar field to "fix" a *percieved* problem from some guys "theory" about grand unified field theories, but by adding new properties to the scalar field, Guth made it a non starter. No evidence exists to suggest any scalar field acts this way or anything like this exists in "reality" Cune. I hate to rain on Guth's parade here, but that would be the single most unique scalar field ever seen in Quantum Mechanics.
quote:
The Catch-22 is that you have to theorize something and only then test for it. In Michael-world, you find the particle and then figure out what it did.
That's the way particle physics and QM work. Sorry. How else do you know is something actually *exists* in reality, and isn't figment of an active imagination? In particle physics they found decay processes that seemed to be "missing" energy, and that is how neutrinos came to be "theorized" from a "problem" in *real life observation* vs. current theory. Note that it is based on *observation*, not blind speculation based on unagreed upon GUT concepts. Note that they understood and had identified the parent particles, and had some notion of the "energy" state it might occupy. The could therefore build experiments to detect these particles and they *did* detect these particles.
Guth can't name any parent particles, and how any particle interact with his inflation field. He can't tie anything back into QM because he scalar field doesn't act like any other scalar field in QM.
quote:
In Michael-world, the irrefutable math is presented, and then the things it explains are presented.
There is no such thing as "irrefutable math" in Michael world, though there is such a thing a irrefuteable *observational evidence* in Michael world. Math can be used to "support" a lot of weird ideas too. Observation is what separates reality from "math theory".
quote:
I know that you can't see how your entire approach is backwards, but don't worry: everyone else can.
You simply built yourself a convenient strawman out of what I said to distract from the fact that you have exactly zero observational evidence to support an inflaton field in a lab, through particle physics or QM. What you have in inflation theory is a highly active imagination that dreamed up a very different kind of scalar field that would defy everything we know about fields in QM today.
quote:
Finally, before I go: I am completely right about the monopole problem. That you cite Preskill shows this. The problem clearly existed before Guth.
The "problem" your talking about only existed in the minds of a handful of individuals that were basing all their "faith" on a single guys math formulas from his personal take on a grand unified field theory *concept*. Note that we don't actually *have* a grand unified field theory, so it's more of a "concept" to begin with, not something anyone's really agreed to. . Guth *bought* the monopole *concept* hook line and sinker and *made* it a problem for his paper to then "solve". Since no observational confirmation has ever emerged to confirm that monopoles actually can be created in *any* circumstance even 25 years later. The whole inflaton field idea is based on *unevidenced mythology* made popular by a handful of individuals that included Guth. The whole 'problem' that Guth proposed wasn't even two years old before Guth latched onto the "problem" he percieved with monopoles and then he created a "fix" based on metaphsical particle fields. It's all based on faith Cune because nobody has ever produced |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/22/2006 12:42:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2006 : 11:48:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It could be that I am "bored" of your strawmen, and so simply declare that they don't exist (just like you). Or it could be that your so-called objections were completely irrelevant to the point that you basically agreed to, that the "25 year limit" is due to your personal feelings and not a property of any scientific field.
Did you major or minor in "spin" Dave? :)
Come on. I handed you my skeptical "objections" on a silver platter Dave. I spelled them out clearly for you. My skepticism towards Guth's inflaton field primarily relates to how *all known and documented* scalar and vector fields propogate and expand. They don't maintain nearly constant density with an exponential increase in volume. My considerable skepticism also relates to the fact that *nobody* has ever demonstrated the existece of a monopole or an inflaton particle in all this time. Like I said Dave, do I have to be "dead" before I give up on some guy's wild imagination about how some new scalar field *might* work, assuming that someone actually finds evidnece of "monopole" to even verify there is a "monopole problem" that Guth's theories actually "fix".
quote:
Of course, you've got no solid ground from which to decry skimming, since you have yet to respond to the reasons I provided for why I think your latest paper is poor scholarship.
I think your only valid criticism was your comment about the way we're using "photosphere" measurements without explaining the differences between our layered model and the standard "combined" model. That probably should be explained and noted more clearly in any future papers. The rest of your critisisms were "poor" criticisms.
If and when you can show me evidence from QM of a scalar field that actually behaves as Guth proposed inflaton fields to act, let me know. Until then, you're putting faith in metaphysics Dave. No known or studied scalar or vector fields will retain nearly constant density/intensity with exponentially increasing volume. Only in Guth's wild imagination do scalar fields act that way. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2006 : 12:23:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How long will it take before astronomy catches up to Birkeland's "iron-sun" concepts? Maybe it will take another 70 years. Who knows? I know it will happen however.
Make no mistake about it, the significant changes that will occur in astronomy in your lifetime will be a direct result of the effort of the "iron sun" thinkers throughout history.
Your faith is touching, but your lack of knowledge is appalling.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2006 : 12:40:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Birkeland was an "iron-sun" thinker too. He actually created lab simulations and tested everything that I've proposed, over 100 years ago. [. . .] How long will it take before astronomy catches up to Birkeland's "iron-sun" concepts? Maybe it will take another 70 years. Who knows? I know it will happen however.
Liar. Kristian Birkeland never postulated the existence of an iron Sun, a mostly iron Sun, an iron surfaced Sun, nor anything of the sort. He actually never presented any solar model for that matter, a fact you've been reminded of again and again. And of course he never tested everything you've proposed. That you continue to make these kinds of ridiculous claims, and seem to believe you're being honest when you do, only adds to the mounting evidence that you are completely detached from any sort of rational reality, Michael.
As Dave regularly reminds you, your constant repetition of your lies will not make them come true. As H. Humbert has already mentioned, you're a contrarian. And of course by now nearly everyone here has at least seriously considered the possibility that you're just a pathological liar. But, even though it's probably by accident rather than by intent, you do occasionally make one hell of an entertaining troll! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
