Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ben m said:
I just re-read an older Mozina dark matter thread. The striking thing about it is not just Mozina's poor science judgment and weird biases. It was that he was quite literally unable to grasp the basic idea of hypothesis testing. (see here.) MM was presented with this sequence:

a) Scientists came up with the hypothesis X about WIMPs being out there.
b) If X is true, the Fermi satellite expects to see Y.
c) Fermi was unable to determine whether or not it was seeing Y.
Click to expand...

All of your wild claims begin "If my invisible friend exists and has the various ad hoc properties I give it, then I should expect to see something "out there somewhere" which never happens here on Earth because my invisible friend is always shy around real labs".

Now *if* you could demonstrate that Wimps actually do exist, *and* you could demonstrate that they have a real cross section as you claim, *then* (and only then) is it appropriate to point at the sky and claim "Wimps did it".

Our own sun emits positrons and experiences annihilation. We don't need anything exotic to explain gamma rays in space.

He couldn't wrap his mind around the conditional "if X is true" at all.
Click to expand...

That' because you never demonstrate a "cause/effect" relationship to begin with! You didn't demonstrate they exist. You failed to demonstrate they interact in any way. You failed to demonstrate they decay in any way. You simply *ASSUMED* X particle exists with Y and Z parameters you you assigned in a ad hoc way, and then you point at the sky!

As soon as he sees "hypothesis X about WIMPs" he insisted that our lack of knowledge about WIMPs had to be cleared up first.
Click to expand...

Of course! Otherwise you're just "curve fitting" again with more mythical particles when other less exotic options already apply and have been "observed" even in our own solar atmosphere!

Your whole method of "science" goes something like:

My invisible friend did it. I know he never shows up on Earth, but I "have faith" that my invisible friend did it because I say so, and I have all this metaphysical math like astrology math that tells me "inflation,dark energy and exotic matter did it". Baloney. You made up all your invisible friends. You assigned them ad hoc properties of your own choosing and the started pointing at the sky claiming "my invisible friend did it".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course it is, but that has never stopped them or even slowed them down. :) Their sacred beliefs have been questioned. In most religions they would just call me a pawn of satan. Since they can't do that, and their unseen entities are impotent on Earth, the best they can do is call me names. :)
Click to expand...


Of course the reference to real science as "sacred beliefs" is an insult to those who engage in real science. And the implication that real science and math is some sort of religion is an insult to those who, unlike you, actually understand math and science. And does it occur to you that the simple proven fact that you are a liar might be the reason people refer to you as a liar?

But more whining and another moaning oh-poor-me response, rather than address the dozens upon dozens of legitimate questions you have in your queue is to be expected. After all, dishonesty, distraction, misdirection, and complaining about real science continually kicking your silly idea's ass is part of the trademark of crackpot "science", isn't it? :p

Care to get back on the subject and start to explain the meanings of those 200 terms that you use and refuse to define? That is part of the dishonesty in all your arguments. You could go a long way towards remedying your problem and the perception that people have of you being a crank if you'd show a shred of integrity and get started on that project.
 
Tim Thompson said:
There are numerous references here, and in other threads, to "EU/PC theory" and such things. I will assert here for the interested reader that in fact the combination of "EU" and "PC" into the conglomerate "EU/PC" is a figment of the imagination (and wishful thinking) more than it is a reality. Mozina tries to legitimize his crackpot ideas by illegitimately associating them with legitimate scientists (e.g., Alfven & Birkeland). He is doing the same thing here, though even less effectively, since "PC" no longer carries the legitimacy it once did. The two ideas, EU & PC are notably different and this should be pointed out.
Click to expand...

This is pure propaganda and should be outright ignored. I don't know of any proponent of EU/PC theory that separates EU and PC theory in arbitrary ways like the you do. We all acknowledge the electrical aspects of plasma physics unlike the mainstream that treats *electromagnetic* transactions as though they are all quite sterile "magnetic" events.

You guys just "make up" all sorts of exotic "magnetic" constructs in a purely ad hoc manner where none are required or warranted.

http://www.physorg.com/news9847.html

Your magnetic slinky is really called a "Birkeland Current".
 
Michael Mozina said:
you've never even acknowledged the problems with your theory!
Click to expand...

a) There's a vast mainstream literature exploring the *actual* problems with mainstream dark matter hypotheses. The dwarf-satellite problem, the cuspy core problem, various particle-physics-model problems, etc.

b) The only problems you, Michael, have "suggested" have been repetitions of your usual baloney.

You won't even commit yourself to a single brand of exotic matter, you later in this same post "hedge your bets" with other brands of exotic matter besides that wimpy wimpy wimpy particle that never shows up on Earth.
Click to expand...

Repeat after me, Michael: "hypothesis". Type that word and it will make everything better. This is how hypotheses work. In the absence of conclusive evidence, one proposes lots of different hypotheses and looks for ways to test them all. It's science.

What they don't seem to like is the fact that these experiments poke holes in their previous experiments, particularly in the "fuzzy" areas of the lowest possible energy states for Wimps where other things might contribute to "hits", not simply Wimps.
Click to expand...

Geez, even when you're reading a paper that you think agrees with you, you get it wrong. This is an utterly backwards and nonsensical description of the XENON/CoGeNT controversy. CoGeNT doesn't think XENON sees backgrounds; CoGeNT thinks that, for some of the WIMP hypotheses XENON claims to have ruled out, they in fact expected zero signal to begin with.


In fact these two articles show that there is evidence to suggest you blew your original mass estimates.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and add up the "errors", Michael. Did we miscount the dust by 1,000,000%? That's what it would take for this to be relevant for dark matter, as opposed to "I can Google for random astronomy press releases". Do you think the dark matter is actually made of gas and dust that we somehow missed earlier? We had a whole thread on this where you vaguely attempted to state such a hypothesis---you were in favor of "rocks" or "moons" by the end---and had a lot of trouble with the fact that it doesn't work. Did you forget about that?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course it is, but that has never stopped them or even slowed them down. :) Their sacred beliefs have been questioned. In most religions they would just call me a pawn of satan. Since they can't do that, and their unseen entities are impotent on Earth, the best they can do is call me names. :)
Click to expand...
So intellectual dishonesty is, to you, an acceptable part of scientific discourse?
 
GeeMack said:
Of course the reference to real science as "sacred beliefs" is an insult to those who engage in real science.
Click to expand...

The fact you refuse to question your own beliefs and spend your time bashing anyone who disagrees with you demonstrates the "sacred" nature of your beliefs. If you weren't so emotionally attached to them, you'd recognize, accept and live with the weaknesses of your theory. You can't do that.

And the implication that real science and math is some sort of religion is an insult to those who, unlike you, actually understand math and science.
Click to expand...

Math when combined with "Real physics" produced "real products". Your invisible friends are not real, your math is "trumped up" and therefore your math produces no physically useful tangible goods whatsoever. It's pure woo with math, just like astrology. Just like astrology there is a serious disconnect when it comes to demonstrating any of your claims in the lab. I'm sure that there is math related to astrology. I'm sure that math is pointless woo. Ditto on the math related to your invisible friends.

And does it occur to you that the simple proven fact that you are a liar might be the reason people refer to you as a liar?
Click to expand...

The only lie around here is the notion you've demonstrated any sort of cause/effect relationship between your invisible friends and A) acceleration or B) mass. All you've got are petty insults and more lies related to bashing the messenger. Since you can't call me a spawn of satan in your little religion, you have to settle for good old character assassination in every post. You've literally become infamous for this behavior.

Care to get back on the subject and start to explain the meanings of those 200 terms that you use and refuse to define?
Click to expand...

Care to get back on track by demonstrating any cause/effect relationship between your unseen entities and reality? Talk about dishonest behaviors. You don't have a leg to stand on dude.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
So intellectual dishonesty is, to you, an acceptable part of scientific discourse?
Click to expand...

The only intellectually dishonest behavior around here comes from your side of the aisle. Instead of openly and honestly admitting that you have serious qualification problems with your theory, you instead attack the messenger, ignore the problems and you continue to bash empirical physics.
 
ben m said:
a) There's a vast mainstream literature exploring the *actual* problems with mainstream dark matter hypotheses.
Click to expand...

The "actual" problem is you have zero evidence that exotic brands of matter exist in the first place, let alone that it has the "properties" you think it has. None of you have acknowledged this problem.

Go ahead and add up the "errors", Michael. Did we miscount the dust by 1,000,000%?
Click to expand...

No, just by a factor of two evidently. You also blew the low mass star (we can't see)/high mass star (we can see) ratio by up to a factor of four. That's huge. Don't you think in light of these recent discoveries that you might want to try to at least minimize the amount of "exotic matter" you might actually need? Nah. You have no desire to "question your faith in the unseen".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Tim Thompson said:
There are numerous references here, and in other threads, to "EU/PC theory" and such things. I will assert here for the interested reader that in fact the combination of "EU" and "PC" into the conglomerate "EU/PC" is a figment of the imagination (and wishful thinking) more than it is a reality. Mozina tries to legitimize his crackpot ideas by illegitimately associating them with legitimate scientists (e.g., Alfven & Birkeland). He is doing the same thing here, though even less effectively, since "PC" no longer carries the legitimacy it once did. The two ideas, EU & PC are notably different and this should be pointed out.
Click to expand...
This is pure propaganda and should be outright ignored. I don't know of any proponent of EU/PC theory that separates EU and PC theory in arbitrary ways like the you do.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question: what "proponent of EU/PC theory" do you know (of)?

We all acknowledge the electrical aspects of plasma physics
Click to expand...
Who, in this case, is "we"?

unlike the mainstream that treats *electromagnetic* transactions as though they are all quite sterile "magnetic" events.
Click to expand...
This is yet one more example of blatant intellectual dishonesty^.

MM, there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of posts, written in response to similar claims, that show your claim to be nonsense.

Some of those responses have included links to relevant blog entries by Tom Bridgman, such as these.

If you are unprepared to engage in honest discourse, why are you here?

You guys just "make up" all sorts of exotic "magnetic" constructs in a purely ad hoc manner where none are required or warranted.

http://www.physorg.com/news9847.html

Your magnetic slinky is really called a "Birkeland Current".
Click to expand...
(bold added)

And you know this, how, exactly?

^ I used to think it was gross ignorance, but the objective evidence is now overwhelmingly in favour of dishonesty
 
ben m said:
a) There's a vast mainstream literature exploring the *actual* problems with mainstream dark matter hypotheses. The dwarf-satellite problem, the cuspy core problem, various particle-physics-model problems, etc.

b) The only problems you, Michael, have "suggested" have been repetitions of your usual baloney.

[...]
Click to expand...
(bold added)

I think Tim Thompson, and before him GM, have made a very strong, objective case (which can be independently verified) that it's not baloney, but intellectual dishonesty.

I think the time has come to focus on this - the intellectual dishonesty.
 
ben m said:
I just re-read an older Mozina dark matter thread. The striking thing about it is not just Mozina's poor science judgment and weird biases. It was that he was quite literally unable to grasp the basic idea of hypothesis testing. (see here.) MM was presented with this sequence:

a) Scientists came up with the hypothesis X about WIMPs being out there.
b) If X is true, the Fermi satellite expects to see Y.
c) Fermi was unable to determine whether or not it was seeing Y.

He couldn't wrap his mind around the conditional "if X is true" at all. As soon as he sees "hypothesis X about WIMPs" he insisted that our lack of knowledge about WIMPs had to be cleared up first. He doesn't get the idea of hypotheses being not-yet-fully-tested unknowns that you can write down in order to devise tests.

This is such a basic item of scientific method---or, heck, logic---it's really hard to step into the shoes of someone who doesn't get it. I suspect that it's behind basically every MM thread we've ever had.

  • If vacuum energy exists AND GR is true, THEN the Universe should do ... wait stop vacuum energy is something you just made up!
  • If statement X, Y, or Z about the solar corona is true, then the Sun's limb can look like A, B, or X ... stop it, you can't talk about the limb until you know exactly what the corona looks like
  • If (all men are mortal) and (Socrates is a man), then ... stop stop stop, Birkeland didn't do empirical experiments on Socrates so you can't say that.

Seriously---has anyone ever seen Mozina make (or agree with) a well-formed conditional statement like "IF the mainstream hypothesis were true, then X would follow..." ? I don't think I have. I think it's a complete cognitive blind spot for him.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct. Also, given Michael's response to this post, I think I can offer some insight.

Michael is not a scientist; he is a software developer. I have dabbled in amateur software development. I think that when Michael sees an if/then conditional statement, he interprets it not as a hypothesis, but as code.

In any programming language of your choice, the "if" part of an if/then conditional sets the conditions. The "then" part contains code that is only executed if the condition is true. Execution doesn't occur if the conditional might be true. Execution doesn't occur to test the conditional. Execution only occurs if the conditional really is true.

In other words, from Michael's perspective (we he can't seem to break out of), an "if" statement is really a form of truth statement. It isn't a hypothesis which is tested; it is a truth statement with consequences. That's why he can't get past the "if" part. He thinks you are making a claim and then moving on to execute the "then" portion of the conditional without questioning your initial assumption. He can't wrap his head around the notion that the "then" in this context includes testing the initial condition.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
This is yet one more example of blatant intellectual dishonesty^.
Click to expand...

Boloney. Your industry is constantly "dumbing down" everything to "magnetism" and constantly puts the magnetic cart before the electrical horse! You create any excuse to minimize the electrical aspects and everything you can to maximize the magnetic aspects of the process!

Show me one empirical experiment of "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't begin and end with "current flow"?

Some of those responses have included links to relevant blog entries by Tom Bridgman, such as these.
Click to expand...

Is Tom your personal hero or what? His whole method of comparing EU theory to creationism is purely and completely dishonest behavior. EU/PC theory doesn't even require nor predict a "creation event". Only mainstream theories need and require a "creation" brand of science. The fact you find his approach to be "ethical" in the first place says volumes about your lack thereof.

Don't even think about lecturing me about ethics when you engage in these behaviors and you refuse to acknowledge the qualification problems of your own theories DRD. It only makes you look like a hypocrite.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
So intellectual dishonesty is, to you, an acceptable part of scientific discourse?
Click to expand...
The only intellectually dishonest behavior around here comes from your side of the aisle. Instead of openly and honestly admitting that you have serious qualification problems with your theory, you instead attack the messenger, ignore the problems and you continue to bash empirical physics.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

This would, indeed, be a very good point ... except for the fact that no one (other than you) seems to know what "qualification" is (as you use the term), and that "empirical physics" has, in your hands, an idiosyncratic meaning which no one else understands.

If this is, indeed, how you think, why is it that in a half-decade of internet posting, you have not been able to communicate what you mean by these two (to you) obviously key terms?

For example, how about engaging in discussion on my attempt to understand what you mean?

Here it is again:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.
 
Just as an addendum to my post above, because the scientific method is inductive rather than deductive, it rests on a formal fallacy - namely affirming the consequent.

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore P.

Programming is pure deductive logic. From that perspective, the scientific method looks wrong-headed, even though we know it is the best method to get at the truth of things.
 
D'rok said:
I think you are correct. Also, given Michael's response to this post, I think I can offer some insight.

Michael is not a scientist; he is a software developer. I have dabbled in amateur software development.
Click to expand...

FYI, your definition of "scientists" is rather limited. Lot's of "scientists" write software.

I think that when Michael sees an if/then conditional statement, he interprets it not as a hypothesis, but as code.
Click to expand...

No. The basic problem is you established no cause/effect relationship between the observation in question and the mythical entity you created to try to "explain" that observation.

You're the one writing virtual software (if exotic thingy exists...then....), not me. I'm trying to point out that your theory fails the "hardware" test. There is no point in worrying about software because you problem is a qualification problem related to hardware.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The "actual" problem is you have zero evidence that exotic brands of matter exist in the first place, let alone that it has the "properties" you think it has. None of you have acknowledged this problem.



No, just by a factor of two evidently. You also blew the low mass star (we can't see)/high mass star (we can see) ratio by up to a factor of four. That's huge. Don't you think in light of these recent discoveries that you might want to try to at least minimize the amount of "exotic matter" you might actually need? Nah. You have no desire to "question your faith in the unseen".
Click to expand...
We've been over this before MM, likely many times (shall I dig up the references, to refresh your memory?).

It is intellectually dishonest to keep repeating things which you know have been demonstrated to be false, doubly so when you also fail to reference the prior exchanges.

Now I grant you that you may not have understood the relevant science (astronomical observations, astophysical models, etc), but ignorance is no excuse for intellectual dishonesty. Especially when there are quite a few people who are more than prepared to go through the papers - in as much detail as you'd like - to try to address your ignorance.
 
D'rok said:
Just as an addendum to my post above, because the scientific method is inductive rather than deductive, it rests on a formal fallacy - namely affirming the consequent.

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore P.
Click to expand...

And the basic problem is that your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy. P has never been established and Q was always "observed" in the first place!
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, your definition of "scientists" is rather limited. Lot's of "scientists" write software.



No. The basic problem is you established no cause/effect relationship between the observation in question and the mythical entity you created to try to "explain" that observation.

You're the one writing virtual software (if exotic thingy exists...then....), not me. I'm trying to point out that your theory fails the "hardware" test. There is no point in worrying about software because you problem is a qualification problem related to hardware.
Click to expand...

"I" am not doing anything of the sort. I am not in any way a scientist.

The rest of your response merely re-enforces my explanation of your thought process.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
We've been over this before MM, likely many times (shall I dig up the references, to refresh your memory?).
Click to expand...

Refresh my memory on why you chose not to reevaluate your mass estimation techniques in light of these findings?

It is intellectually dishonest to keep repeating things which you know have been demonstrated to be false,
Click to expand...

It is intellectually dishonest of you to not acknowledge the serious qualification problems with your theories when they are brought to your attention. You've never acknowledged the problem, nor have you taken any steps to minimize the need for your invisible friends based on more current data.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's the best you can do Tim? You know, people who live in glass houses should really refrain from such trash talking, particularly since you've never even acknowledged the problems with your theory!
Click to expand...


This is a lie.

What response is required Tim? Your exotic matter god is a complete no show in the lab! What did you expect me to say exactly? You won't even commit yourself to a single brand of exotic matter, you later in this same post "hedge your bets" with other brands of exotic matter besides that wimpy wimpy wimpy particle that never shows up on Earth.
Click to expand...


This is a dishonest and insulting characterization of legitimate science, a direct personal insult to Tim, and another lie.

Of course it's being "#$^!^" Tim, but there are lots of "&@$%@^%" involved in that paper and only a couple of "^#%^!%!' that seem to have a problem with their results. Now since it falsified (90% confidence) their previous observations, of course those two particular authors have "%^@$%@". So what? I've seen their criticism. They're weak at best. What they don't seem to like is the fact that these experiments poke holes in their previous experiments, particularly in the "%^@$%^" areas of the lowest possible energy states for Wimps where other things might contribute to "&#%&@", not simply Wimps.
Click to expand...


See what a crappy argument that is when you babble incoherently?

Oh boloney. More huff and puff and character assassination.
Click to expand...


Whine.

Notice how their team notes that this finding flies in the face of the previous claims (by the authors now bitching about their work)?
Click to expand...


Whine.

The "challenge" seems more like pure ignorance on the part of the challengers as it relates to how their work was actually done in one case, and the sensitivity and the very lowest end of the energy scale where it's harder to determine "cause". So what? Again Tim, your critics have an emotional and professional interest in the outcome and they, like you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that your Wimps were a no show in the lab in more sensitive experiments.
Click to expand...


Another insult to Tim and to legitimate scientists. And, I might add, another flat out lie. Do you see a pattern in your behavior here?

Ya Tim, but the prior round of "tests" claimed to find interesting things in *THIS* energy range so it's naturally the first place to start your search! Oooops, epic fail!

Now that 4-55Gev range that showed so much promise in previous "tests" has been eliminated, and your gaps are shrinking. Notice that you won't even personally commit yourself to a single particle or a single energy state. You're making this up as you go and hoping like hell that the gaps don't close around you.
Click to expand...


Another insult to Tim and to legitimate science. And another lie. I'm seeing the pattern in your behavior. It's consistent with every crackpot and crank who ever crossed the threshold of an Internet forum. It entails spreading little turds all over the people who actually understand science and know how to "do a little math" while all the while hiding like a coward behind the skirt of ambiguity and pretend sciencey jargon.

But that is the specific brand that previous tests examined Tim! You can't simply ignore the fact that this "test" was intended to "check" the previous claims and then ignore the epic fail of the previous claims! That's what you're now trying to do.
Click to expand...


Another insult to real science. Oh, and another lie.

In other words, you've got a million and one excuses why your wimpy exotic matter god is a no show in the lab, and not one valid empirical tests of concept.
Click to expand...


And again insulting legitimate science and legitimate scientists with your crappy "it's all a religion" argument. That's dishonest and childish.

Ya, but the equipment is far more sensitive that previous detection methods and your exotic matter is supposed to be 5 times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard. It should have show up in such experiments if it was there in these energy ranges. It's not.
Click to expand...


The fact that you don't understand this stuff does not demonstrate a flaw in the science. Your comment is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Yep. Your exotic matter of the gaps argument is getting a haircut. :)
Click to expand...


So all those professional physicists on Earth who agree with you are located where again? :D

Er, no. It immediately went after the only promising area of research to date an found exactly nothing of interest. Now what? More fumbling in the dark eh?
Click to expand...


Another slam to genuine science and legitimate scientists. Jealous maybe? :p

The "disputed nature" looks to be driven not by real scientific concern, but by emotional attachment by the criticizing authors Tim. There's nothing in their criticism that is particularly damning, nor is there any reason to believe that the criticisms have serious merit. In terms of the range being looked at Tim, that's the range where all the action was focused. What did you expect from their first "test"?
Click to expand...


You just can't leave that insulting and lying alone, can you?

That's simply more evidence IMO that you're "reaching" for anything at this point. You don't really know what you're looking for. You don't really know if it's there. You don't really have any evidence that exotic brands of matter exist. All you know is your mass calculations are pitifully useless at determining the total mass of a galaxy. Instead of reexaming your original mass estimation techniques, you're simply going to "have faith" in exotic matter and never question your basic assumptions about the nature of that 'missing mass'.
Click to expand...


Again an argument form incredulity and ignorance. And riddled with insults, condescension, strawmen, and more typical crackpot dishonesty.

For all you really know Tim, there is simply more dust and more stars in a given galaxy than you "predicted" with your previous mass estimation techniques. In fact these two articles show that there is evidence to suggest you blew your original mass estimates. Rather than researching the validity of your mass estimation techniques, you ignore the damning evidence entirely, and go on blindly having faith in exotic forms of matter. It's pitiful behavior Tim, along with your villianization routine of EU/PC theory and anyone and everyone that promotes it.
Click to expand...


EU/PC "theory" is a big pile of crap made up of a few dozen little turds that keep being excreted over and over again by its followers. Tim, and others, have already shown that there isn't a single shred of legitimate scientific support. Oh, and you might have missed where he explained how your conflating EU with PC is a dishonest tactic worthy only of ignorant children and lying crackpots.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
And the basic problem is that your whole argument is based on a logical fallacy. P has never been established and Q was always "observed" in the first place!
Click to expand...
As usual, you want P to be established before we even proceed to Q.

I think I have hit the nail on the head with my explanation of your thinking style.
 
D'rok said:
"I" am not doing anything of the sort. I am not in any way a scientist.

The rest of your response merely re-enforces my explanation of your thought process.
Click to expand...

If I were pointing at the sky claiming "God did it" without establishing A) the existence of God, and B) without establishing a cause/effect relationship between God and the observation in question, would you accept that as a valid form of "science"? If not, why not?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If I were pointing at the sky claiming "God did it" without establishing A) the existence of God, and B) without establishing a cause/effect relationship between God and the observation in question, would you accept that as a valid form of "science"? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
See above.

Your errors in thinking are fundamental.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The "actual" problem is you have zero evidence that exotic brands of matter exist in the first place, let alone that it has the "properties" you think it has. None of you have acknowledged this problem.
Click to expand...

Something exotic exists; either it's exotic new particles (a good hypothesis) or it's collision-proof magic rocks (your hypothesis---remember?) or non-microlensing magic moons (your other hypothesis?). All of these are hypotheses. HYPOTHESES. Have you ever heard of the word "hypothesis", Michael? Look it up.
 
D'rok said:
See above.

Your errors in thinking are fundamental.
Click to expand...

You did not answer my honest question D'rok. It's a sincere and honest question. In a broader sense, what I am asking you to do is define the empirical difference between "religion" and "science". If "God did it" is not "scientific", then is "Dark whatever did it" any scientifically better?
 
ben m said:
Something exotic exists; either it's exotic new particles (a good hypothesis) or it's collision-proof magic rocks (your hypothesis---remember?) or non-microlensing magic moons (your other hypothesis?). All of these are hypotheses. HYPOTHESES. Have you ever heard of the word "hypothesis", Michael? Look it up.
Click to expand...

Same question to you as I asked of D'rok. Is "God did it" a valid scientific "hypothesis"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
This is yet one more example of blatant intellectual dishonesty^.
Click to expand...
Boloney. Your industry is constantly "dumbing down" everything to "magnetism" and constantly puts the magnetic cart before the electrical horse! You create any excuse to minimize the electrical aspects and everything you can to maximize the magnetic aspects of the process!
Click to expand...
As I said, you'd be making a very good point if this were true.

However, it's not, and you know it's not.

That's what makes what you write intellectually dishonest.

Show me one empirical experiment of "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't begin and end with "current flow"?
Click to expand...
The only person who could possibly do that is you, MM.

You see, when you invent new terms (""current flow"" in this case), and do not explain what they mean, what you write becomes essentially meaningless.

DeiRenDopa said:
Some of those responses have included links to relevant blog entries by Tom Bridgman, such as these.
Click to expand...
Is Tom your personal hero or what? His whole method of comparing EU theory to creationism is purely and completely dishonest behavior.
Click to expand...
Nice diversion MM - is this part of your toolbag of intellectually dishonest tactics?

Here's what I used the link to Tom Bridgman's blog to illustrate: MM: "unlike the mainstream that treats *electromagnetic* transactions as though they are all quite sterile "magnetic" events."

Are you saying that the blog entries do NOT show that your characterisation is nonsense?

EU/PC theory doesn't even require nor predict a "creation event".
Click to expand...
That may well be so ... but as no one (other than you) knows what "EU/PC theory" is, no one is in a position to comment, one way or the other.

Don't even think about lecturing me about ethics when you engage in these behaviors and you refuse to acknowledge the qualification problems
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Again, as only you know what "the qualification problems" are, it's impossible to "acknowledge" them.

Why not take the time to explain "qualification" in a way that others can understand?

After all, even you must acknowledge that an exchange of comments is not a dialogue if the central term is undefined.

of your own theories DRD.
Click to expand...
What are these theories of mine?

I checked ADS, and there are no papers with DeiRenDopa as author (just saying).
 
Michael Mozina said:
You did not answer my honest question D'rok. It's a sincere and honest question. In a broader sense, what I am asking you to do is define the empirical difference between "religion" and "science". If "God did it" is not "scientific", then is "Dark whatever did it" any scientifically better?
Click to expand...
Both are hypotheses. One is testable. The other isn't. So yes, the dark matter/energy hypothesis is scientifically better.

But you can't see this, because you can't wrap your head around inductive reasoning.
 
D'rok said:
Just as an addendum to my post above, because the scientific method is inductive rather than deductive, it rests on a formal fallacy - namely affirming the consequent.

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore P.

Programming is pure deductive logic. From that perspective, the scientific method looks wrong-headed, even though we know it is the best method to get at the truth of things.
Click to expand...
This is a good insight D'rok.

Put it together with mine - that to MM mathematics is magic - and I think much of MM's behaviour is explainable.

Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
As I said, you'd be making a very good point if this were true.

However, it's not, and you know it's not.

That's what makes what you write intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Actually DRD, I know for a fact it *IS* dumbed down to the point of absurdity and I've seen how your industry treats "current flow". It specifically treats is as an "effect" of the "magnetic whatever you make up", rather than the "primary cause". Take those "magnetic flux ropes". According to Alfven the primary "cause" of the flux rope was "electrical current". He actively compares it to a "Bennett Pinch". At no time did he ever promote "magnetic reconnection", in fact he called it pseudoscience his whole life and saw lots of papers on the topic.

The term "magnetic reconnection" is a perfect case in point. You can't make it happen in the lab *without* current flow and "circuits", but you refuse to acknowledge it could just as rightfully be called "circuit reconnection". You constantly minimize the role of current flow and constant attribute everything to "magnetism", even when it's inappropriate, irrational, and in directly conflict with other branches of science. In electrical engineering, magnetic fields do not "reconnect". Only circuits and particles are physically capable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to anything. Magnetic fields form as a complete continuum, without beginning and without end.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
This is a good insight D'rok.

Put it together with mine - that to MM mathematics is magic - and I think much of MM's behaviour is explainable.

Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.
Click to expand...
I concur.
 
D'rok said:
I concur.
Click to expand...

IMO it's intellectually dishonest to fail to acknowledge the qualification problems of mainstream theory. That's all your doing. It has nothing to do with the messenger and everything to do with the lack of empirical cause/effect demonstration of concept. If you were claiming "EM fields did it", you wouldn't have a qualification problem. Since you're claiming "my invisible friend did it", you've made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary support. You've provided none.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Even the intellectual dishonesty is explainable - it's the ultimate denial mechanism.
Click to expand...

The ultimate denial mechanism if your failure to acknowledge the qualification problems in your "religion". You unseen entities of choice are impotent in the lab DRD. They are useless in terms of producing any tangible goods. They have failed to show up in any legitimate experiment that includes a control mechanism. In fact you don't even know how to produce your invisible friends or where they come from. The whole thing is based on pure denial of the epic failure of your invisible friends to have any tangible effect on anything.

Your denial of the qualification problems of your theory is the intellectually dishonest behavior.
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO it's intellectually dishonest to fail to acknowledge the qualification problems of mainstream theory. That's all your doing. It has nothing to do with the messenger and everything to do with the lack of empirical cause/effect demonstration of concept. If you were claiming "EM fields did it", you wouldn't have a qualification problem. Since you're claiming "my invisible friend did it", you've made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary support. You've provided none.
Click to expand...
Please define "qualification". You are using this word in a bizarre manner. As a term of art, it means the opposite of quantify - i.e., it means to create a narrative explanation for something. Are you asking scientists to tell you a story that explains the universe? Because that's what your words are doing.

Also, please stop saying "you". I am not a scientist and I have made no scientific claims.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually DRD, I know for a fact it *IS* dumbed down to the point of absurdity
Click to expand...
I think you know that this is not true, but because you do not understand even Maxwell's equations, much less Alfvén's MHD ones, I'll grant you that this is a good example of gross ignorance.

and I've seen how your industry treats "current flow".
Click to expand...
According to Google, the only "DeiRenDopa industry" is the one you have created, here in the JREF.

What is it (as it's got my name on it, apparently, I'm curious)?

Also, what is ""current flow""?

It specifically treats is as an "effect" of the "magnetic whatever you make up", rather than the "primary cause". Take those "magnetic flux ropes". According to Alfven the primary "cause" of the flux rope was "electrical current". He actively compares it to a "Bennett Pinch". At no time did he ever promote "magnetic reconnection", in fact he called it pseudoscience his whole life and saw lots of papers on the topic.
Click to expand...
Is Alfvén a god to you MM?

Did he write down all there is to know - and all that there ever will be to know - about plasma physics?

And - more pertinent - how do Maxwell's equations "treat as an "effect" of the "magnetic whatever you make up", rather than the "primary cause""?

How does QED do this?

Or are you saying that astrophysicists do not build their models ultimately on Maxwell's equations? QED?

The term "magnetic reconnection" is a perfect case in point. You can't make it happen in the lab *without* "circuits", but you refuse to acknowledge it could just as rightfully be called "circuit reconnection".
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What are ""circuits"" in the above?

What do you mean by ""circuit reconnection""?

More fundamentally, how can you determine (or define) a "circuit" in a plasma, in an objective, unambiguous way?
 
D'rok said:
Both are hypotheses.
Click to expand...

One is testable. The other isn't. So yes, the dark matter/energy hypothesis is scientifically better.
Click to expand...

False. I can blatantly pilfer your mythical math and claim "Invisible God energy did it", "Invisible God matter did it", " Godflation did it.". There's nothing "untestable" about these hypothesis using that same math.

But you can't see this, because you can't wrap your head around inductive reasoning.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to accept that there is a problem with you reasoning. If not P, then Q is unrelated to P. Q is a given. It's an observation. The only way to establish that P is involved is to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship. A mathematical formula isn't sufficient to distinguish between "Godflation" and "Inflation" if they are based on the same exact math!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually DRD, I know for a fact it *IS* dumbed down to the point of absurdity [...]
Click to expand...


It is unlikely to the point of near impossibility that you know that for a fact, for the simple reason that your qualifications to understand science and math at a level above that of a typical fourth grade child have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you hold those qualifications.
 
D'rok said:
Just as an addendum to my post above, because the scientific method is inductive rather than deductive, it rests on a formal fallacy - namely affirming the consequent.

If P (hypothesis), then Q (predictions).
Q (confirmed over and over through independent testing).
Therefore P.

Programming is pure deductive logic. From that perspective, the scientific method looks wrong-headed, even though we know it is the best method to get at the truth of things.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's simplistic, even wrong. Three relevant examples:
  1. Program design is a creative enterprise that (in some respects) resembles theory building.
  2. Debugging, when done intelligently, involves hypothesis formation and empirical testing (falsification).
  3. Falsification involves deductive logic in science, just as in programming.
What's remarkable is that this particular programmer doesn't understand the deductive aspect of falsification, as demonstrated by this exchange:
ben m said:
I just re-read an older Mozina dark matter thread. The striking thing about it is not just Mozina's poor science judgment and weird biases. It was that he was quite literally unable to grasp the basic idea of hypothesis testing. (see here.) MM was presented with this sequence:

a) Scientists came up with the hypothesis X about WIMPs being out there.
b) If X is true, the Fermi satellite expects to see Y.
c) Fermi was unable to determine whether or not it was seeing Y.

He couldn't wrap his mind around the conditional "if X is true" at all. As soon as he sees "hypothesis X about WIMPs" he insisted that our lack of knowledge about WIMPs had to be cleared up first. He doesn't get the idea of hypotheses being not-yet-fully-tested unknowns that you can write down in order to devise tests.

This is such a basic item of scientific method---or, heck, logic---it's really hard to step into the shoes of someone who doesn't get it. I suspect that it's behind basically every MM thread we've ever had....

Seriously---has anyone ever seen Mozina make (or agree with) a well-formed conditional statement like "IF the mainstream hypothesis were true, then X would follow..." ? I don't think I have. I think it's a complete cognitive blind spot for him.
Click to expand...

In his response, Michael Mozina confirmed ben m's hypothesis:
Michael Mozina said:
All of your wild claims begin "If my invisible friend exists and has the various ad hoc properties I give it, then I should expect to see something "out there somewhere" which never happens here on Earth because my invisible friend is always shy around real labs".

Now *if* you could demonstrate that Wimps actually do exist, *and* you could demonstrate that they have a real cross section as you claim, *then* (and only then) is it appropriate to point at the sky and claim "Wimps did it".
Click to expand...
As should be evident from that response, Michael Mozina truly does not understand that a hypothesis X cannot be tested unless one is willing to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y".

In other words, Michael Mozina truly does not understand the process of falsification: By refusing to consider "if X, then Y" he rejects "if not Y, then not X".

What's going on here? We can only speculate. Someone suggested that he's so accustomed to the imperative view of "if X then Y" statements in programming that he cannot understand the declarative semantics of "if X then Y" in logic. That's just speculation, but it's a plausible speculation. We might even think of it as a hypothesis X, go on to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y", devise experiments to determine whether Y is true, and then conduct those experiments here in this thread.

In a way, that's what ben m did: He stated his hypothesis about Michael Mozina being unwilling to consider the testable consequences of an unproven hypothesis, and Michael Mozina obliged by confirming ben m's hypothesis.
 
Michael Mozina said:
False. I can blatantly pilfer your mythical math [...]
Click to expand...


No, you can't. Your qualifications to do math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook have been challenged, and you have been wholly incapable of demonstrating that you indeed possess those qualifications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom