DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
(bold added)
I'm sorry Michael, I don't know what this is; can you clarify please?
The WMAP paper I provided a link to earlier is (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract):
Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry Michael, I don't know what this is; can you clarify please?
The WMAP paper I provided a link to earlier is (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract):
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That's like *assuming* that magic faeries have useful predictive value, slapping some math to their forehead, and then trying to make predictions about objects in space with your magic faerie math. There's nothing "useful" about the inflation deity because it evidently is dead now.
Magic faerie math isn't "testable" in an uncontrolled observation.
"Iinflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" are the three major components of your theory and you can't demonstrate that any of them exist in nature or have any effect on nature. It's pure woo, no different that astrology or numerology. I didn't "imagine" these things into existence, and I lack belief in them. You are the one that believes these things exist, and it is up to you to demonstrate that they do exist, not me. This is called a shifting of the burden of proof. It like turning James Randi's test on it's head and making him trying to disprove your claim and refusing to abide by any controlled experiments.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
I don't know why your comments are designed to be so polarizing. I am a layman with a mathematical background reading (with occasional questions and comments) this interesting thread. I have been an avid reader of scientific literature all my adult life -- with a special interest in the areas of physics and cosmology. I have been at this for many years and have been exposed only to mainstream ideas, and nothing in MM's arguments have changed my mind so far.
My comment was straightforward and simple -- the link MM showed contains a strong statement and an impressive list of people. From my naive layman's perspective, it encourages me to pay a little more attention to MM's comments, nothing more.
At this point, I have provisionally accepted all the ideas of mainstream cosmology, including all that I am not satisfied with like the counter-intuitive morass of DE, inflation, time having a beginning, etc.
By the way, so far you have had nothing interesting to say about the statement MM linked us to. Try again.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I'd personally like to see DRD or anyone else for that matter start at the "beginning" of their theory, and explain some of the "cause and effect" relationships that created the bang. I wanna hear how this "smaller than a breadbox" thing wasn't crushed back together again by the force of gravity the moment it started.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
These are the comments that really get me. Inflation cannot be demonstrated or "measured". It evidently doesn't even exist anymore in fact, so it can *never* be demonstrated or tested. That in itself should make your skin crawl.
What blows me away however is how they keep "constraining" (AKA "making up") the properties of inflation based on pure observation. In other words this process is a "curve fitting exercise" from beginning to end, where they simply "make up" the properties based on uncontrolled observations of very distant objects in the sky.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Why Woo
Specifically, is it your contention that these things a "pure woo" because they cannot be replicated in controlled laboratory experiments? Is/are there any other reason(s), or is the lack of controlled laboratory experiments the one & only reason?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, it's not the *only* reason, but the fact I can never even hope to *ever* demonstrate inflation puts the idea into the realm of "pure faith". In my specific case, my disenchantment began with Guth's addition of inflation to the idea, but the real disgust came with the complete "invention' of "dark energy" and then the final piece for me was "dark matter" going SUSY theory, a *NON* standard branch of particle physics theory. The final straw came on April 16th 2005 while watching SOHO images and realizing that those coronal loops were large electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. From there it was pretty much over.
The "dark energy" thing was really the "biggie" for me for the reasons that Perpetual Student mentioned. The insertion of DE was pure "ad hoc", and it's ramifications on QM were almost not even considered before the papers on Nereid's the inflation deity's new "dark energy" superpowers were being added to her list of supernatural qualities.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, I have not forgotten your critique of my CNO paper. I appreciate the effort you put into your critique and the specific nature of your criticisms. I see that we have many things to discuss. I'll take it up with you in the other thread tomorrow after I've had some sleep.
So I suppose I can go to Walmart tomorrow and buy myself a top quark and a neutron star then?
I did, several pages back (or possibly on the other thread). There are many issues with the list...
1) Science is not a democracy. This is the most fundamental problem. A long list is nothing more than an argument from authority. Given some of the names, its a pretty crap authority too.
2) If anyone bothered to do a list of people that do not have this viewpoint (with signatories of equal or greater qualifications to those on this list) it would be orders of magnitude longer.
3) The two biggest authorities (imo) on the list are dead. What's the quote about people not changing their mind, they just die out, again?
4) There's several complete fruitcakes on the list. It doesn't do the proponents any favours.
5) Its just a list of people that disagree with something. It doesn't offer any alternatives. Nothing. It is, in fact, the antithesis of science.
6) Its the same thing creationists do (which is never a good thing).
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
(my bold)
No offense to derekmcd of course, but that is an absolutely hilarious statement. You've demonstrated over and over that you don't know anything about GR. This question is a pretty good example:
Have you ever taken a course on this kind of physics, MM? Can you solve Einstein's equations in any context? Do you know anything about pseudo-Riemannian manifolds?
If the answers to those questions are "no", it will help to know that so the answers to your questions can be tuned to the appropriate level. If some of the answers are yes, please provide a few details.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
I did not design my comments to be polarising, so thank you for pointing out that they came across to you that way. I shall try harder to avoid creating this perception in future.
Can I ask for your help please? If you see that my comments are polarising, would you mind pointing that fact out to me please?
It certainly is a strong statement, isn't it?
May I ask you to say a few words on why you felt the list to be impressive?
OK, thanks, I will.
The statement concludes with these words:
Now I don't know about you, but to me this seems a little disingenuous.
Why?
Firstly, because today almost all astronomical observations are either in the public domain from the get to (e.g. many of the large surveys), or become available within a relatively short period of time (typically a year). This public availability is, I think, a mandate for observations obtained using certain sources of funds from one or other US government agencies.
Second, because the tools needed to analyse such data, to create and run simulations, and so on are extremely cheap - compare the processing power of an average PC today with that of an IBM mainframe of only a few decade ago, for example, or look at what MHDEnzo can do compared with Perrat's PIC simulations (yes, Perrat is a signatory to this statement).
Third, check out the number of proposals that the initial signatories made, for time on the Hubble Space Telescope for example, or the ATNF. If you can't find any answers, why not email some of these people and ask them if they'd be kind enough to tell you?
So what is it, exactly, that the signatories want to do? It seems to me they want to be given money to do research. And what research do they propose to do, exactly? In the case of Arp and maybe one or two others, I could probably guess. But what research "into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang" would Jacques Moret-Bailly or Timothy Eastman (to take two of the signatories at random) propose to do?
If you're interested, maybe we could go over some other parts of the statement, to see just how much meat there is in it.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Thanks.
An interesting paper (or two?) by Kashlinsky et al. Not yet independently verified though (or did I miss something?), so perhaps we should not get too excited about it until it is, eh?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
See here you engage in the sophomoric sophistry again, you have yet to demonstrate either electricity or gravity!
You have used word models to show link between words you use and perceptual phenomena. You have not shown however that either gravity or electricity exists.
You have shown that you can use words that you associate with certain phenomena.
So sorry Michael you fail, because you refuse to face the facts.
Your word models are exactly the same as the models you refuse to address in this thread, you have not shown that EM fields exist, you have shown that the plasma ball exhibits characteristics that you are currently labeling and plasma and EM field but you have not demonstrated either.
You have claimed to show that a force you label as gravity exists, but you haven't.
Here is the deal, and I am becoming sure that you will ignore it because you are here to argue some political philosophy that you have personal interest in. You do not seem to be here to talk about critical thinking and science.
1. You have a false and arbitrary standard of what 'empirical' is.
Here is why I say arbitrary:
A. Words are models , theories are models.
B. they are self referencing symbols used in an idiomatic feedback to allow communication about observations that can not be shared directly
Therefore
C. Models and words have validity only to the extent that they can be replicated to show that the application of the label is consistent across experience.
Now here is where I will show that you seem (perhaps unintended to be cherry picking where and when you apply a standard.
1. A. You state
-you have used the phrase ‘electrical current’ which is just a word reference to model of ‘electrons’ ‘flowing’ through ‘the substance within the sphere’
--so you have referenced a number of models here, the electron model, the current model and plasma discharge model.
-you then claim that the same force that the nine volt battery causes in the tongue is related to the ‘plasma filaments’ in the ball.
Now NOWHERE did you empirically prove this, you have just referenced a set of models and shown that you have referenced the models to explain the phenomena.
-You have not shown that EM fields exist
-you have not shown that electrons exist
-you have not shown that current flow exists
-you have not shown plasma filaments exist
What you have shown is that you can
1. Use models that are coherently defined
2. Attribute observation to a model
3. That the model and the observations seem to not contradict each other.
Now this is where you get arbitrary, you do not apply the same standard at all to different ideas:
-inflation (Guth) is a model, it attempts to explain the observed phenomena
-dark matter is a model it attempts to explain the observation
-dark energy is a model it attempts to explain the observation
And here is where I think you sophistry comes in:
1. You have yet to explain any of the observations that are addressed in inflation, dark matter or dark energy.
2. You sling around words like ‘EM field’, ‘gravity’, ‘plasma’ and ‘current’.
3. they are all just concepts and theories.
4. the only thing you can do in a lab is exactly the same thing you can do through a telescope or other device
-a. makes observation, collect data
-b. sees if observations and data match the theory
Conclusion:
5. All theories, model and words are equally ‘metaphysical concepts’ your use of the word ‘electron’ is just as metaphysical as the word ‘dark energy’.
6. Observation is the key to collecting data in a lab , either uses instruments in most cases.
7. The validity of science comes from the match between model and observation.
You are arbitrary because you have divided two equal sets and all words and all observations are equal. The scientific utility comes about through the match between theory and observation.
1. What causes the observed galactic rotation curves?
2. What causes the spectrum of the CMB?
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
I find this particularly odd ...
If GR is a theory of gravity, then DE in the form of the cosmological constant (lambda) is part of that theory ... i.e. DE is gravity, and observations confirming the existence of DE in nature, as part of gravity, should be welcomed, shouldn't they? After all, we could say that yet another prediction from GR has been empirically demonstrated, couldn't we?
After all, this is perfectly consistent with the way you conflate "electricity" with "EM fields", isn't it?
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
These are quite specious arguments. Gravity (Einstein or Newton -- take your pick) is a foundational theory of physics. The same is true of Maxwell's equations and all subsequent QED theories.
Asking MM to demonstrate the existence these phenomena as some sort of test that is supposed to equate to the (quite hypothetical) existence of DE and inflation is so much sophistry.
MM's complaint is that DE and inflation cannot be demonstrated in a lab. He is correct, but his complaint has no merit since there exist a multitude of astronomical phenomena that cannot be duplicated in a lab, which nevertheless have a strong scientific basis.
The current prevailing theory of gravity could possible be modified or amplified some day to some small degree; but it is not going to be overturned. However, it is still possible that DE will be overturned by a new approach coming from new observations. If you can't agree to that you are engaging in dogmatism, not science!
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
The two halves of your comment are in contradiction with each other. Einstein gravity cannot be tested in a lab, except in some specific aspects. Exactly the same goes for E&M. DD's point was simply that - sure, there is some phenomenon we call "gravity". But how do you know GR, or Newton, is the correct description of that phenomenon? We cannot ever know that. All we can do is build our confidence, but it remains just that - a belief born out by some evidence, but never a certainty.
Let me give you an example. According to Maxwell, if I emit a radio signal from earth is will propagate through space according to certain rules, arriving at the moon with a particular amplitude and phase after a certain time delay. That claim is completely impossible to test in any earth-based lab - for patently obvious reasons. And yet, when astronauts landed on the moon and tested it, no one was the least bit surprised that that particular prediction of Maxwell was born out - even though propagation of radio signals to the moon had never been tested before (or perhaps it was tested a few years before by some probe - but same goes for that).
Why? Because the essence of science - the whole point of it - is that there are certain rules that one can figure out, and once one has the rules one can predict an enormous range of phenomena other than those used to determine the rules in the first place. We believe Maxwell's equations are correct, even though we have only tested a vanishing fraction of the infinite number of predictions they make. If MM had his way and we insisted on verifying it every time a new potential application arose, we'd still be living in trees and picking lice off each other.
All that said, it is true that inflation is somewhat speculative (although at this point the evidence for it is pretty overwhelming). Given that it's only 25 years old or so - by contrast Maxwell wrote down his equations in the 19th century - that's hardly surprising. So of course people are constantly looking for new ways to test it. But just like E&M, as more and more tests are done, people gradually start to become more and more confident in it.
Let me give you an example. According to Maxwell, if I emit a radio signal from earth is will propagate through space according to certain rules, arriving at the moon with a particular amplitude and phase after a certain time delay. That claim is completely impossible to test in any earth-based lab - for patently obvious reasons. And yet, when astronauts landed on the moon and tested it, no one was the least bit surprised that that particular prediction of Maxwell was born out - even though propagation of radio signals to the moon had never been tested before (or perhaps it was tested a few years before by some probe - but same goes for that).
Why? Because the essence of science - the whole point of it - is that there are certain rules that one can figure out, and once one has the rules one can predict an enormous range of phenomena other than those used to determine the rules in the first place. We believe Maxwell's equations are correct, even though we have only tested a vanishing fraction of the infinite number of predictions they make. If MM had his way and we insisted on verifying it every time a new potential application arose, we'd still be living in trees and picking lice off each other.
All that said, it is true that inflation is somewhat speculative (although at this point the evidence for it is pretty overwhelming). Given that it's only 25 years old or so - by contrast Maxwell wrote down his equations in the 19th century - that's hardly surprising. So of course people are constantly looking for new ways to test it. But just like E&M, as more and more tests are done, people gradually start to become more and more confident in it.
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Irrelevant to my point.
True, but also irrelevant to my point.
Not a good sign.
Even worse!
It is not intended to offer an alternative.
Also irrelevant.
I believe the point is that there are some knowledgeable people out there who are not convinced by the current consensus and who feel they are not given fair treatment. Is that true or not?
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Cool, I want a bike powered by the strong force! Or a Casimir Effect door closer. Or my quantum entanglement telephone! Schrodinger's litter box too. Fusion powered garden lights? Neutrino flashlight?
Your silly plasma ball "experiment" doesn't describe even Newton's understanding of gravity let alone Einstein's.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I'm not aware of anyone that thoroughly understands the relevant physics and doesn't think the universe is expanding.
Suppose you want to overthrown the standard cosmological model. You'll need:
1) to understand the current model very, very, very well, understand the evidence for it and why it came to be accepted in the first place, and be able to point out specific flaws or internal inconsistencies and argue convincingly that these really are a problem; and
2) to have a specific, concrete, mathematically rigorous model which fits the data as well or better than the standard one.
There are lots of historical examples of this - Einstein's GR is a perfect one.
But I have never encountered anyone that remotely qualifies for either 1) or 2) in this context, let alone both. In fact all the PC proponents I've seen fail 1) miserably, and 2) even more so.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
This denial and personal attack routine is typical of your industry. Unless you simply never followed this conversation at all, it should be very obvious to you and everyone else that your theory has *qualification* problems, not *quantification* problems. My math skills are therefore utterly irrelevant to my basic objection, nor am I asking you for any math, or any help with math.
Even if one individual cannot demonstrate their point mathematically on command, that does not mean that this has never been done by anyone else, or that you may therefore ignore the work which was done just because the individual presenting the work cannot personally duplicate that work.
I've met many "scientists" on the web over the years, many reporting to be "experts" on GR. Of all the individuals I've met over the past 4 years in cyberspace, the two folks I'd trust most to explain something to me correctly about GR are an individual that goes by the handle of Tensor and Derek. Did the fact you were left off my list upset you somehow?
Again, you missed my point or you are intentionally avoiding the whole point of my criticism. If I was complaining about your mathematical presentation or complaining about GR theory, you'd have some legitimate reason to question my background in math and solving GR equations. Since I'm not questioning your postidicted math formulas, and I am questioning your your lack of *qualification* of inflation as a force of nature, this is a moot point.
You guys love to posture with this math ego of yours and parade around these math formulas as though they are deities and entities in and of themselves due to their mathematical elegance. It is not true that one needs a mathematical understanding of an idea to "verify" the existence of something. I can drop apples to show that gravity has an effect on objects in nature. I can turn on my plasma ball and see the effects of the current in the plasma even without understanding anything at all about MHD theory. The *physical demonstration of concept* is a form of "qualification", not necessarily quantification. The "qualification process" can help us determine if the mathematical models are accurate, but you need something to happen and a control mechanisms to do that. Evidently inflation is dead, and no control mechanism with therefore ever exist to test anything. You folks simply ignore the observations that shoot holes in your theory, or you incorporate them into the "new and improved inflation/dark energy deity".
If and when I'm complaining about something related to your math or your personal grasp of GR, and it has some relevance to our conversation, then ask me again. Since I asked about how you *qualified* your theory, it's not even relevant.
If you were such the "expert" on GR, you'd just ignore me altogether and go find the error in Michal's paper by yourself and "show me" you have a better grasp of GR than I do.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
There is one point of clarification I would add here to your comments. I fully realize that any and all theories will need to be "scaled to size" and there *must* be an allowance for this in *any* cosmology theory. I can't duplication a neutron star in a lab, but I can demonstrate they exist in nature and that gravity has an effect on nature, and it's therefore "possible" that such stars could form. I likewise can't create an object with an event horizon in a lab (some think this is actually possible but I do not), yet even still, I'm willing to entertain they idea because it's just a combo of gravity and mass. We might debate whether it achieves "infinite density", but the basic concept of a very massive objects is based on physics. I'll even go so far as to allow for theories like "quark stars" other exotic ideas that I know can't be demonstrated here, but may have some merit because quarks show up in experiments on Earth.
It's only when a new *force* of nature is being posited that an extra step is then required. One must demonstrate that their new force exists in nature. Guth never did that. His "reasoning" for inflation is that he couldn't otherwise explain expansion. He other "big prediction" from the paper was a prediction of near zero "monopoles", and he seemed to believe that was useful somehow. It's like claiming your theory is valid because it predicts the existence of zero unicorns in nature, and indeed there are none.
Guth's inflation was pure "ad hoc". It wasn't like the neutrino for instance that came about via active controlled experimentation and the fact a law of physics seemed be violated in a decay reaction. In that case there was very good reason to posit an actual new form of energy. There was real "physics" and real "hardware tests" done to verify the existence of the neutrino. That's fine by me. In Guth's case however, he simply "made it up in his head" due to his inability to otherwise explain the observation in question. In 25 years since the time he first postulated inflation, it's now evidently been labeled "dead on arrival" by the time it reaches Earth, so we know for certain we can *never* demonstrate it actually exists in nature.
There's a huge difference between controlled experimentation that leads to postulation as in the case of the neutrino, and a concept pulled directly out of a single individuals backside based on pure speculation.
Inflation is the ultimate "ad hoc" concept. It's also utterly unfalsifiable. When there observations don't fit, like a dead inflation deity should result in a universe that slows down over time and instead the universe is still accelerating, they invent yet a new deity to explain the failures of the old one. When they discover now that the universe has "dark flows", they're now in denial, and soon they'll come up with new "dark flow" attributes to assign to the inflation deity formula. This isn't science, this is religion. It requires *multiple* (not just one) acts of "pure faith" in something they cannot empirically demonstrate.
Last edited:
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
By your $50 wal mart lab standard of discovery, Pluto would have never been discovered.
Please describe how you would have discovered Pluto in the lab with $50 worth of stuff from wal mart?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Demonstrate it. Show me that "dark energy" has some effect on objects made of mass. I can show you that EM fields affect objects. Show me DE isn't a figment of your imagination *before* you go stuffing it into a formula we agree is a real physics formula.
The part that was simply "over the top" for me is suddenly I'm supposed to believe that everything I once "knew" about the composition of the universe was entirely false and 75 percent of it is made of something you can't even demonstrate? More importantly the QM ramifications were virtually ignored altogether. You don't find that the least bit "suspicious"?
That is simply another claim that you cannot demonstrate here on Earth. Since DE is evidently not "dead" like inflation, how about a physical demonstration of concept? Predict something useful in a controlled experiment here on Earth based on your "knowledge" that dark energy *is* gravity.
This whole line of reasoning demonstrates the circular feedback nature of your theory. The observation of acceleration could have been "interpreted" as a failure of your (inflation/GR) deity, but instead you stuffed the deity with new forces of nature to fill the gaps, and you needed 75 percent gap filler to do it.
No. EM field do thing to other things in real "experiments" on Earth. DE is like inflation. It's useless at "predicting" anything from a real controlled experiment. It's a dead deity too, and pure gap filler.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Unless you're trying to claim that some object in space is made of material that does not exist on Earth, you aren't making any 'extraordinary' claims by identifying a "planet" (at least at that time) when we clearly have evidence of the existence of planets and normal matter here on Earth. I have no doubt that ordinary matter exist in nature. I'm made of the stuff.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Cool, I want a bike powered by the strong force! Or a Casimir Effect door closer. Or my quantum entanglement telephone! Schrodinger's litter box too. Fusion powered garden lights? Neutrino flashlight?
Your silly plasma ball "experiment" doesn't describe even Newton's understanding of gravity let alone Einstein's.
You seem to be having a tough time with the idea of empirical physics. Neutrinos have been shown to have an effect on matter. Fusion powers the bombs that protect my nation. The Casimir effect shows up in a lab. In short, every "process" you describe shows up in controlled experiments, whereas nothing useful at all can ever be done with inflation.
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
So, maybe all the planets are an illusion? You only infer they exist by indirect observation. Do you have any way of telling the difference between light reflecting off a real planet and light being generated in a complicated illusion somehow?
Do you forget that Pluto wasn't observed? It's existence was inferred by indirect observations of other things.
Luck you to live in a time when every real force and object in the universe has been detected and cataloged in the lab.
None of those things are available in wal mart, so again by your standards they should be discounted. Oh but for these forces you can make an exception.
At one point the neutrino was the exact same as inflation.. observations were made that could not fit in the existing models, so a new particle was invented to compensate for that. The theory and math was worked out 20 years before the particle was actually detected.
So if you were posting between the prediction and the detection, would you have the same view of the neutrino; would you call all of established physics wrong because they believed in a made up particle?
On one had you discount what the majority of science says, on the other you place absolute trust in them that everything real can be reproduced in the lab.
What is so special about us that every aspect of reality should ultimately be reproducible by us in the lab?
Your pattern is similar to that of a creationist. You seem to be having a problem with not being 100% right, problem with knowledge changing over time and new discoveries taking more than a moment to fully understand.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Including the one I'm on now?
You seem to be missing the key point here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Planets are made of ordinary material and I live on a planet. The notion other planets existing in space is not an extraordinary claim. The claim that "inflation did it", *is* an extraordinary claim because inflation is dead and to my knowledge it never existed in the first place.
I never said it *must* be available at Walmart. I simply said most useful things show up in Walmart products and those that do not tend to be really expensive, or are controlled as a function of national security.
Never. In the case of neutrinos, it was *controlled experimentation* that suggested we were either A) missing some particle of mass, or B) the *laws* of conservation of energy were invalid. Option A violated no known laws of physics and controlled experiments told us one of the two must be true.
Inflation came right out of Guth's imagination, not from controlled experimentation, and unlike neutrinos that have a measurable effect on Earth, inflation is dead and cannot ever be "tested" for nor will it ever do anything on Earth.
This was a *terrible* comparison.
So this also should apply to all religious ideas too I presume?
You have that backwards. You expect me to accept your belief system on *faith* like any creationist and you have no empirical support to back up your claim. It's a pure act of faith that you ask for and demand. Any evidence I might present to demonstrate that many things in the universe can be explained with ordinary gravity and electricity are met with contempt and are ignored, regardless of the validity of the issue in question. You *insist* I have faith in your inflation deity regardless of the fact you can't demonstrate it.
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
Nope, that's the exception. The other ones are though, because I can't prove their existence in a controlled experiment.
Observations showed there was something that could not be explained with existing models, so the model was changed. Is it the changing of a model that you have a problem with?
Not at all what you've said, every post seems to imply that because I can't buy inflation driven devices at wal mart it's made up.
Observations suggested something was missing, that those observations took place in a lab is incidental. I don't see why observations in a lab where the control is contrived is so special compared to astronomical observations were the control is other astronomical observations.
The neutrino came out of imagination as well, its properties were generated out of pure thought before it was detected. When detected it fit with the prediction.
Oh well, I tried. I do wish I was better at articulating myself.
By saying that you just lead me to believe that the only evidence you find acceptable is that which you can reproduce in a lab at this moment in time.
No, it's like a creationist because people spend pages and pages showing all the support, asking for alternatives, etc and the reply is still wal mart cosmology.
I've seen much evidence in this thread, but not much from you...
Maybe because you haven't listened to what they've said, and you haven't demonstrated the level of understanding you claim to have, is why they are sometimes terse with you?
I guess I'm just tilting at windmills, if the guys that have a far better understanding can't communicate it in a way that you grok it, I have no hope.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
You misunderstood my post.
here is the short form:
1. All human words, thought and theories are models. None have any truth to them, they are abstracted maps that approximate reality.
2. It is only through examination of a model/theory that the validity of it's predictions can be asertained.
It is foolish sophistry to state that only laboratory experiements can produce empirical result. Observation of spectral lines in the sun's spectru, led to the discovery of helium. Not lab experiments, they confirmed that the hypothesis of the new element was coherent with observation.
You have mistaken my post entirely.
dark matter is a hypothesis /theory to explain the gravitational effects that are observed. Stars, star clusters and galaxies move in a way that indicates there is more gravity present than can be accounted for through the observation of EM radiation. ERGO energy/partciles are hypothesized that suggest there are partciles that interact only with gravity, so they do not give an EM signature to detect. this is the hypotesis of dark matter. So far it is coherent, but likely to be tested repeatedly.
dark energy i don't really understand, but it accouints for the apaprent increase in the what is hypotesized to be the cosmological redshift over time. It again is a hypothesis that will need to be tested.
But electrons and gravity are hypotsthesis as well, they are not tangible, they are abstaced concepts of approximate behavior. there are theories that are based upon those hypothesis and make predictions about the observation. IE the theories are coherent with observational data.
My point is that there is observational data, period.
Some occurs in a lab, some occurs in the universe. Why si Eddington's limit accepted theory even though it can not be tested in alab, ebacsue we can llok for stars that excede Eddington's limit. And we don't find them.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
I think MM might say, after someone has spent the years required to understand the relevant physics, they can no longer think about cosmological expansion with an open mind. There could be some merit to that point.
In my view, the requirements you state in 1) and 2) above, are quite valid and make a very powerful point. I agree, from my (layman's) perspective, it doesn't appear any of the detractors of the current model meet either 1) or 2).
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
OK.
I agree.
I agree.
Yes, I agree.
Yes, however electrons and gravity have passed the test of being productive models through many years and countless tests. That is not true of DE, for example.
Yes, however, controlled experiments can speed up the process and reduce ambiguities for verification. Simple observations take a lot more time and are often subject to interpretation.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That is absolutely not true. We've landed things on several planets now. The existence of other planets have been empirically demonstrated with "real hardware".
If you had "changed" your model using known forces of nature, I would have had no particular complaint about your changes. When Guth however pulled a whole force of nature out of his pure imagination, that's quite a different sort of "change". I'd like to see evidence he didn't just "make it up" and slap some postdicted math on it.
There is a significant difference between a non-existent hypothetical entity and one that has a useful function. EM fields are easily demonstrated and they show up in consumer products. Gravity shows up in empirical experiments too and it has useful predictive value when putting spacecraft on distant planets. Inflation is evidently dead and gone, and it's a pure act of faith.
That is absolutely silly. It is not "incidental" in the least. In the case of neutrinos it was "controlled experimentation" with a known "source" of energy/mass that led to the realization that some energy/mass was unaccounted for in these controlled decay reactions, or laws of physics were being violated and they were no longer "laws" at all. The more "likely" scenario is we were missing something. We knew where these neutrinos came from and we identified the source. We built real hardware to "test" the theory again in "controlled experimentation". This branch of astronomy is "squeaky clean" pure empirical physics at it's finest.
Compare and contrast that with Guth being perplexed one night about the the BB and simply "making up" inflation in his head without so much as doing a single controlled experiment.
You can't "control" anything in a pure observation. In the case of the neutrino, they had already identified the presumed source of these particles. They understood the approximate energy states and could therefore build real hardware to attempt to detect them. They did build hardware to detect neutrinos, and they built more controlled experiments to verify their hardware worked as advertised. They turned of the source and watched the effect on their experiments.
You can't turn on or off inflation and in fact according to theory it's gone and useless now for anything related to science other than to prop up your otherwise failed dogma.
Neutrino detection on the other hand is real, and has real uses in the real world.
No. They came out of "experimental, empirical science", done the old fashion way. Inflation was a figment of one guys imagination who simply 'made it up'.
You have no hope of ever "detecting" your inflation thing. It's dead and therefore useless at predicting the outcome of any scientific experiment. It's an act of faith that has no practical value whatsoever.
I'll take Walmart cosmology (AKA "Real physics") over make believe deities that have no useful function whatsoever any day of the week.
No "level of understanding" is required for me to "experience" gravity. No "level of understanding" is necessary for me to be struck by lightning. I can experience these things in nature because they exist in nature. I only have to have a "level of understanding" in numerology and inflation theory and things that have no useful predictive value whatsoever that can be demonstrated in a controlled experiment.
I hear this sort of argument a lot on religious websites. If I only 'understood better' it would make more sense to me. I'm often told that the reason it doesn't make sense to me personally is because I'm not an "expert" in that field. This faith of yours in inflation is actually "goofier" than most people's faith in a deity because most folks who believe in a deity believe that it has an effect on their lives. The inflation deity is evidently dead and useless to anyone except someone who is desperately trying to "keep the faith" in Lambda-dead-inflation theory.
Inflation theory is just like numerology. Someone just 'made it up' on a whim and it has zero useful predictive value in determining the outcome of any scientific experiment that human beings will ever create. In short, it's a dead deity, and a dead religion and pure "woo".
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Hey look, the inflation deity was "hairy".
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2833
Translation: Our "predictions" didn't actually match observation as it relates to our claim about a homogeneous layout of matter, so we need to explain why it's not as homogeneous as we claimed. We can't of course just falsify the model like real science, so we need to add some metaphysical "hairs" to the inflation process. Wanna bet that a version of hairy inflation is going to now be used to "postdict" that "dark flow" observation? I can already see that the new and improved Nereid the inflation deity will have "dark hair".
Translation: We need a new fudge factor.....
Translation: Nereid the inflation deity has a superstring sidekick named Bob that we can't demonstrate either.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2833
Translation: Our "predictions" didn't actually match observation as it relates to our claim about a homogeneous layout of matter, so we need to explain why it's not as homogeneous as we claimed. We can't of course just falsify the model like real science, so we need to add some metaphysical "hairs" to the inflation process. Wanna bet that a version of hairy inflation is going to now be used to "postdict" that "dark flow" observation? I can already see that the new and improved Nereid the inflation deity will have "dark hair".
Translation: We need a new fudge factor.....
Translation: Nereid the inflation deity has a superstring sidekick named Bob that we can't demonstrate either.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You did read the abstract didn't you?
What they are saying is previously a zeroth order calculation of inflationary scenerios matched the data. Now that there is more precise data the calculations have to be extended to look at finer structures within the existing scenerios.
Translation: We have to now include in our calculations things that we previously ignored because their effect was within the errors of the previous data.
This is similar to the situation in Quantum Electrodynamics and the measurement of the fine structure constant. As experimenst delivered more precise values of the fine structure constant, more terms (i.e. Feynman diagrams) in QED have to be calculated.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
The primary difference of course is that QM formulas actually show up in actual measurements from real physical experiments whereas inflation is dead and useless at predicting anything related to an actual experiment with real control mechanisms.
I'm just waiting to see how you folks deal with those observations of "dark flows". I know Nereid the inflation deity is going to get an upgrade sooner or later. I'm just trying to "predict" which inflation model is going to be used to try to postdict those dark flow observations and a "hairy" inflation deity sounds like just the trick!
What is stupid about these mathematical exercises is that each and every one of them are based upon a point at the sky and add math mentality, and inflation cannot *ever* actually be "qualified" in a lab, or used to predict anything useful about nature. It's dead. It's gone. It's an act of faith in a dead deity. That has to be the most pathetic metaphysical deity ever invented.
Last edited:
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
And in inflation there was something unaccounted for in the observations.
The only difference being that in case of the neutrino there was a controlled experiment which lead to the observation of something missing, in the case of the universe you can't put it in a lab and turn things on and off, so you have to make observations of varying types and parameters to isolate variables.
You don't accept any result that doesn't come from a lab, or if it comes from somewhere outside a lab it has to depend on already known forces that DO come from a lab... that seems unreasonable to me. How would you ever discover something new that couldn't be detected in the lab? Are you saying that that is categorically impossible?
So your point is that science cannot be done using pure observation alone? There's no way to do science on something without a controlled experiment?
Well you haven't demonstrated that, at least not to me as trying to understand what you are saying and what others are saying. It's difficult to wade through your vitriol and repetition of not very helpful phrases to determine what you are actually saying beyond "I don't believe it".
The practical value I think has been shown already, the predictions the model makes and the confirmed observations. I think the question of an alternative that makes all those predictions has been raised already.
No, but to understand gravity something more than experiencing it was required. Newton showed that, by creating his theory despite is inability to test his theory in a lab.
By level of understanding I was referring to understanding what things like GR and the Lambda-CDM model say, usually you have to understand something well to determine if it's valid or not. I know you'll disagree though.
Of course, I usually say most creationists don't accept evolution because they don't understand it, they usually reject some view of evolution which isn't real. I get the same sense reading your posts that you don't understand what they're talking about with you here.
A better understanding would lead to a batter ability to either confirm or refute something. But I agree being an "expert" (meaning a publishing scientist or something) isn't required, being able to demonstrate and substantiate one's view is all that's really important.
I don't have any faith in inflation.. if I could make sense of your alternative and it better described the observations and it became the prevailing theory (or I felt confident enough in my understanding and were able to assess it myself), I'd switch my views in an instant. I don't have faith, I have trust that the scientific enterprise works, because it's demonstrated that it works. If inflation fails, it'll be replaced, like all the other things that have been replaced by a better understanding.
Interesting caveats.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Here is why it is "woo".
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Now this does apply to the neutrino, because it was experimental tests that demonstrated the need for a neutrino even before it was shown to exist in yet another empirical experiment, complete with a control mechanism.
Here's where your dead inflation deity failed to qualify as a "scientific" theory. It's not observable. I can't test it. Unlike any ordinary religious deity, I can't ever even hope to verify it. It's the ultimate in pathetic, impotent, useless deities.
Boy does that apply to this case. It doesn't matter how badly Guth's original inflation theory actually failed to accurately predict those holes in universe and those "dark flows" we now observe. You'll dream up a new brand that does, sooner or later based on *postdicted* formulas and then add all the things that should have falsified the theory to it's list of "triumphs". Gah!
Here's where inflation "fails".
Ding. Ding. Ding. Fail! You all simply *assumed* "inflation did it". You can't and won't ever demonstrate it either because it's dead and useless.
Like those *dark flows*.
Why wouldn't those "Dark flows" falsify inflation once and for all? If it will not falsify inflation theory, what will?
Sound familiar?
The postiction process with inflation will continue till the end of time until somebody busts your show and points out that your deity is dead and useless as it relates to predictive value. All it's properties were *postdicted*, not actually "predicted" and Lambda-Gumby theory is 96% "woo" and only 4% physics.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Now this does apply to the neutrino, because it was experimental tests that demonstrated the need for a neutrino even before it was shown to exist in yet another empirical experiment, complete with a control mechanism.
Here's where your dead inflation deity failed to qualify as a "scientific" theory. It's not observable. I can't test it. Unlike any ordinary religious deity, I can't ever even hope to verify it. It's the ultimate in pathetic, impotent, useless deities.
Boy does that apply to this case. It doesn't matter how badly Guth's original inflation theory actually failed to accurately predict those holes in universe and those "dark flows" we now observe. You'll dream up a new brand that does, sooner or later based on *postdicted* formulas and then add all the things that should have falsified the theory to it's list of "triumphs". Gah!
Here's where inflation "fails".
Ding. Ding. Ding. Fail! You all simply *assumed* "inflation did it". You can't and won't ever demonstrate it either because it's dead and useless.
Like those *dark flows*.
Why wouldn't those "Dark flows" falsify inflation once and for all? If it will not falsify inflation theory, what will?
Sound familiar?
The postiction process with inflation will continue till the end of time until somebody busts your show and points out that your deity is dead and useless as it relates to predictive value. All it's properties were *postdicted*, not actually "predicted" and Lambda-Gumby theory is 96% "woo" and only 4% physics.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Yes, but that "unaccounted for" observation could be caused by anything. How do you know "inflation did it and then died very conveniently for me so that nobody can ever disprove my claim in a lab".
There was also that little problem about an apparent law of physics being violated. We really only had two options to choose from. Throw out a known and accepted law of physics or look for a missing particle. Notice they didn't just sit at a computer terminal and whip up some math? They used actual "hardware" to build real "experiments" with "real control mechanisms".
Sure. Then again I can't start with the premise that faeries did it and then build math formulas and point at the sky with my faerie math. That isn't "isolating variables", that is "making up the variables as you go with a preconceived opinion that can never be falsified by point at the sky exercises, especially if I keep changing my faerie math as I go!
I want a demonstration that their theory works in the real world. If someone came to my door selling me something I would at least want to see it work before I would buy it, wouldn't you?
It seems unreasonable to me that they would expect me to buy their inflation powered wireless vacuum cleaner without a demonstration.
The same way they discovered and detected neutrinos. That was "by the book" empirical physics. Why should astronomers who worship inflation get a free pass?
No, I'm saying that it's entirely possible as in the case of the neutrino. Nobody just took a "wild guess". It was all done via the experimental methods outlined in that paper on the scientific method.
Faerie math cannot be verified using pure observation of distant objects. "Faeries did it and here is the math to demonstrate it" won't cut it. I simply want to see the faeries actually do something here on Earth first before I'll believe they do something to objects out in deep space, or once a long time ago they did something to objects in space. In this case it is actually "dead faerie math" and the faeries are all gone now so nobody can ever prove they do not exist!
That's Great. Let me explain how that is going to happen. Gravity and electricity show up in a lab. They "explain" *experimentally* how solar wind acceleration occurs, coronal loops, jets, aurora, etc. Sooner or later the mainstream will revisit Birkelands solar theories and find the answers that they've been looking for and cannot answer without "electricity". Once that starts, the need or desire for 'cosmology theories' will become a backseat, secondary point of interest, and figuring out all the nuances of the solar system current flows will become important to things like "space travel" and things that are actually 'useful to humans'. Inflation won't even matter anymore and what will matter is what you can "produce" with technology and the understanding of the current flows in our solar system.
Keep in mind that EU theory is pure empirical physics. It will take over not at the level of "cosmology" but at the level of "useful products" that take advantage of the current flows inside of our solar system. After that it will pick up real interest from a lot of places and dead inflation faeries will seem about as credible as a flat earth theory. That's how it will go down.
Me too. That's why I believe it will be real scientific "enterprise" (probably commercial enterprise) that wins the day. Electricity and gravity work in lab. They work in space too.
It won't be anytime soon I'm afraid. Guth dreamed it up 25 years ago and it's still a completely useless theory. Not only hasn't it died, it's gained momentum in spite of the fact that it's dead, useless, and entirely "made up".
Honestly, once I saw Birkeland's experiments and realized the real predictive value of EU/PC theory, Lambda-CDM theory seems pitiful. Inflation is purely postdicted nonsense that is impossible to ever falsify or verify in a lab. It is absolute woo.
Last edited:
- Status