|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2007 : 23:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You believe the sun has a solid surface because you looked at a picture you don't understand. So yes, the term "crank" seems an apt description for you.
No, I believe it because I looked at gigabytes worth of images I do understand, because there is nuclear chemistry data to support it, and heliosiesmology evidence as well. If that is all it takes to be called a "crank", the standard theorists must fit into the "wacko" category the moment they invented a monopole problem to solve with inflaton fields. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 03:26:52 [Permalink]
|
"Big Bang and the Singularity." Wasn't that a 60's rock band, that used to play at Fillmore West?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 04:00:32 [Permalink]
|
Mozina is on a crusade, it seems. He's happy to ridicule anything he claims is "undefined" even though when challenged to present anything significant about his own "solutions" he comes up with equally mysterious answers ("it's the Z-axis!").
He also is mistaken (no, really!) on many of his facts regarding the early universe. For instance, his sumary of the so-called 'monopole problem is incorrect and his logic for dismissing it is anything but. (This isn't to say that there aren't problems with Guth's notion of inflation; there are-- it's just that inflation solves so many problems with the Big Bang that it's worth exploring!)
Mozina's own solution to the origins of the universe only works if you ignore every piece of evidence out there for the Big Bang. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 08:14:02 [Permalink]
|
Mozina also fought incredibly hard to preserve the standard model of particle physics from the threat of those nasty oscillating neutrinos, despite the fact that even without oscillating neutrinos, that standard model remains internally inconsistent and includes unevidenced particles like the Higgs boson. In other words, Michael will argue in favor of the exact same sort of "metaphysics" he's decried here when it suits him. Michael's failure to complain about the problems with particle physics - and his failure to complain about General Relativity's inability to model a singularity, and his failure to criticize any "Big Bang" theory less than 20 years old - indicate that he's completely unreliable when it comes to accurately pointing out the unanswered questions of physics, and so his input to this thread should simply be ignored.
Of course, the fact is that Michael requires General Relativity and the standard model of particle physics (along with a ton of other mainstream physics) to make his own "alternative" theories "work," so he can't throw away every model that has a "hole" in it. He has to pick-and-choose which ones to keep and which to toss based upon how they affect his own pet theories. Because nothing he's obsessed with is dependent upon Lambda-CDM theory, or dark matter, or dark energy, he feels free to poo-poo all that work and evidence. No skin off his nose. But if the standard model of particle physics has its flaws fixed, it could severely impact his ideas about what the measurements of the Sun mean, so it's better for Michael if it sticks around, blemishes and all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 17:11:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is because it cannot be. You can't get something from nothing. Period. You need energy to create a universe that is filled with energy. The first law of thermodynamics insists that whatever predated this universe included lots of energy. It's not just a "theory" by the way, it's the first law of thermodynamics they are trying to violate on a truly cosmic scale.
Can you point out why you believe scientists would assume that the laws of this universe would apply outside it?
I would say that why should the laws apply before the universe to which they apply exists, but considering that time is a a property of this universe, it would be a meaningless statement.
"Predated", in the context you used it, can't refer only to the conventional, chronological sense. These issues are is complex, and far from intuitive, as much as we might wish it were otherwise. It is quite likely that there are things we cannot determine, and may never be able to determine about the origin of the universe.
Your expectation of using the the known laws of the universe to derive the origin of those laws is absurd.
If you have issues with the theories, fine, present them in a constructive, scientific manner. Rants and handwaving won't endear you to many folk, let a one those of a scientific bent. Of course, if you like the label "crank", go right ahead. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/11/2007 17:15:17 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Big Bang and the Singularity
