Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

Perpetual Student said:
MM:

So what do you think we are all missing here? When Guth published his theories, they had the same chance of acceptance as Alfven when he published his.
Click to expand...

Actually Alfven's MHD theories were in fact accepted and he was given a Nobel Prize for this work. It was his application of that theory to objects in space that was *not* accepted.

Professional jealousy simply doesn't cut it; is that the best you can do?
Click to expand...

How about pure ignorance then? Few if any of the astronomers I've met online have even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma where he actually applies MHD theory to objects in space. Professional jealousy does explain why his cosmology work is continually overlooked, and constantly ignored. The best the mainstream seems to be able to do with MHD theory in space is peddle a theory that Alfven himself rejected outright. They wouldn't recognize a "circuit" in space if it electrocuted them. :)

What dark motive, twisted thinking, convoluted conspiracy have the astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists of the world been engaged in?
Click to expand...

It's called "inflation", "DARK energy" and "DARK matter". :) Do you really think someone who's professionally invested themselves in "dark energy" and/or inflation for 20 years is simply going to "give up" on the ideas and try something new? I'd guess that the "dark motive" is driven by ego.
 
Last edited:
PingOfPong said:
No, I really can't call them whatever I want.
Click to expand...

In the field of astronomy you can. They refer to induction and circuit topology changes as "magnetic reconnection". Astronomers make absolutely no attempt whatsoever to be consistent with other branches of science.

What's real? Are we talking about photons, virtual photons, or EM forces?
Click to expand...

Take your pick. The EM field shows up in the lab. Anyone and everyone can replicate any experiment we might come up with.

Never mind, we're getting to a point where we are repeating ourselves. You apparently deny the analog.
Click to expand...

That's because your analogy is flawed. Whereas the EM field shows up in an ordinary experiment, inflation is dead. Where would I even go to get a few watts of "dark energy"? It's irrational IMO to compare a known and demonstrated force of nature to one that is a complete no show in the lab. Such a comparison only serves to highlight and emphasize the difference between metaphysical claims and real empirical physics.
 
Last edited:
PingOfPong said:
Them's the breaks! Science evolves.
Click to expand...

In this particular case it "evolved" into 96% metaphysical mythology.

I thought that you DID NOT want science to be dogmatic. Maybe scientists should be a little more dogmatic so they can keep those predictions nice and steady for you.
Click to expand...

When a theory "fails" to match it's core "predictions" it is typical to suggest that the theory has been "falsified" and to look for a better theory. If all the mainstream does when their predictions fail is slap in *another* liberal dose of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to "keep it alive", that is highly "dogmatic" and is a great example of letting emotional attachments get in the way of scientific progress.
 
MM:
I find cosmological theories fascinating. I personally long for an explanation for the origin of the universe, but for this layman, evidence appears to be somewhat thin for all theories. When the standard model brings us back to a singularity, my reaction is, "OK, then what?" As you have pointed out, so where is this inflationary field now? From Wikipedia, "At the end of inflation, a process called reheating occurs, in which the potential energy of the inflation field is converted into Standard Model particles, starting the radiation dominated phase of the Universe." How could we ever demonstrate that?
Similarly, where would Klein's primordial matter/antimatter mist come from? How could it ever be demonstrated?
All we currently have are our observations and models that have a reasonable fit to those observations. I don't like inflation any more than you do, but it's the best answer we currently have.
If Alfven's theories made any sense, the scientific community would pay attention. I have known too may scientists in my life who also passionately long for explanations; they are brilliant people who have a genuine lifelong mania to understand the origins of the universe. It is beyond far fetched that there could be a global mind block to Alfven's theories. I think you would be better served if you attempted to understand the basis for the virtually universal acceptance of the inflation model among the world's cosmologists and got a better handle on why EU theories do not fit observations. I know you have been given a considerable amount of information from many on these threads but refuse to even try to understand why the EU model is flawed.
Finally, don't you find it a bit troubling that Alfven's area was plasma physics -- not astrophysics or cosmology? I don't have a ax to grind here; I just find your adherence to this EU stuff peculiar and not very dissimilar to the blind acceptance of creationists.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I suppose you are welcome to call them whatever you like, but their effect is quite "real", very "physical" and will repeatedly have an effect on real things in real experiments with real control mechanisms. That's rather different than a mythical inflation field that is no longer in existence. Surely you must appreciate that physical difference.
Click to expand...

Actually this is a very important point.

As mentioned the gauge boson photons (the "carriers" if you like of the electromagnetic force in particle physics) arise from a very sophisticated mathematical model which has been constructed to explain observations in the "lab" (or at least in particle accelerators and subsequent checks on cosmological and other constraints).

This is, in essence, the same sort of origin as this dark energy you so detest.

You cannot see, hold, detect, or have a bucket of these "force" carriers any more than you can go "dark energy" (at present).

In fact, we may go as far to say that some candidates for dark matter have a better experimental and "in your hand" basis than these gauge bosons (although the overwhelming majority of scientists have no trouble with gauge bosons "existing" in the sense of the standard model being a very good explanation of the current state of affairs).

I think this is quite key to this discussion.... this issue of what a single individual holds up as "having an experimental basis" and what "has only a mathematical ideology behind it".

In practice they go hand in hand (at least in particle physics and cosmology).

This "mythical" gauge boson "field" could be said to be pie in the sky, something that by its very definition you are not going to "grab hold of". And yet. And yet. And yet, as by your own admission, it does an outstanding job of explaining the properties of the electromagnetic force.

Why then can you not allow the same grace and favours to a "dark energy field" or similar?

Is it JUST because the area of electromagnetics has a 150 year head start on that of the areas in cosmology under discussion?

May I be so bold as to suggest you do not understand the specifics of the electromagnetic interaction as regards theories in particle physics? Because they are NOT just your average Coloumb's Law type things... they really are highly mathematical constructs that envisage an exchange of virtual particles, virtual in the sense that you CANNOT detect them... if you do then pretty much by definition they are not virtual.

I suspect this is a little outside your comfort zone as regards what should and shouldnt be a theory in physics, and I suspect it may be uncomfortable because it hits home at the very subject you hold so dearly, classical electromagnetism.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
MM:
I find cosmological theories fascinating. I personally long for an explanation for the origin of the universe, but for this layman, evidence appears to be somewhat thin for all theories. When the standard model brings us back to a singularity, my reaction is, "OK, then what?"
Click to expand...

It doesnt bring us back to a singularity, this is a common misunderstanding.

All that really happens is that we reach a point where our current knowledge about physics doesnt really help any more and we have to either give up and go home or a have a crack at working out something better.

It doesnt actually say "look, there was a singularity".

This is an important point which demonstrates a clear difference I think between science and religion... the acceptance that what we know and hold dearly may be so very wrong and the willingness to seek out that which contends and goes against all we hold dear.

Or perhaps the unwillingness to accept an answer such as that.



Perpetual Student said:
Finally, don't you find it a bit troubling that Alfven's area was plasma physics -- not astrophysics or cosmology? I don't have a ax to grind here; I just find your adherence to this EU stuff peculiar and not very dissimilar to the blind acceptance of creationists.
Click to expand...

And may I mention kindly again, as have others, that plasma physics is the bread and butter of some astrophysicists ... they have learnt, understood and developed the field as a completely necessary part of their day to day to work and understand it, dare I say, better than Alfven in many respects.

I have the greatest of respect for some of Alfven's life and work, but I would not seriously contend that the field of plasma physics has not advanced in the last 60 odd years.
 
DazzaD said:
It doesnt bring us back to a singularity, this is a common misunderstanding.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."

LINK
 
Perpetual Student said:
From Wikipedia:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."

LINK
Click to expand...

The fact that a "singularity" sort of "exists" is an indication of the limitation of the model, not a serious representation of the physical state of the universe at the time.

Those are two different things that should be teased apart in my view, especially in a thread that compares science to religion.

As the sentence says it indicates a failure of the model, not a true singularity.

Just in the say way that if a multimeter connected to my car battery indicated an infinite pd, my first instinct would not be "wow what could possibly have caused an infinite pd" but rather it would be to bash the multimeter a few times on the car with the view that it was faulty.
 
Perpetual Student said:
MM:
I find cosmological theories fascinating. I personally long for an explanation for the origin of the universe, but for this layman, evidence appears to be somewhat thin for all theories. When the standard model brings us back to a singularity, my reaction is, "OK, then what?" As you have pointed out, so where is this inflationary field now? From Wikipedia, "At the end of inflation, a process called reheating occurs, in which the potential energy of the inflation field is converted into Standard Model particles, starting the radiation dominated phase of the Universe." How could we ever demonstrate that?
Similarly, where would Klein's primordial matter/antimatter mist come from? How could it ever be demonstrated?
Click to expand...

As you know, it can't.

I believe you overlooked one very important difference however. Klein's model requires no 'new' forms of mass or energy. Matter and antimatter do actually exist in nature today. From an Occum's razor perspective, his theory "beats" any theory that requires the introduction of a new and "hypothetical" form of matter or energy. Klein's "bang" requires no "'singularity" to have ever existed.

All we currently have are our observations and models that have a reasonable fit to those observations. I don't like inflation any more than you do, but it's the best answer we currently have.
Click to expand...

In the end you and I only disagree on the concept of what is considered a "better" theory. The skeptic in me just can't call a theory that requires three hypothetical entities "better than" one that requires none at all. Even if Klein's model still needs a lot of work mathmatically, it's still way 'better than' anything IMO that introduces even *ONE* hypothetical form of energy/matter, and certainly any theory that requires two or more hypothetical forms of matter/energy just to make the math fit.

If Alfven's theories made any sense, the scientific community would pay attention.
Click to expand...

They do and they don't. :) I've seen them in action now for years. Even when I bring them new papers that support Alfven's views on "circuits", they simply ignore them. Those last three papers for instance all used satellite data to confirm the presence of return current in coronal loop activity. Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven all PREDICTED that observation. Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere release gamma and x-rays all the time, so why call it "magnetic reconnection" when we observe the same energy signatures from the sun's atmosphere? I'm sorry, I wish I believed you, but I've had too many conversations over the last few years to believe that way any longer. I *USED* to think that way, but I've been tarnished by the conversations over the years.

I have known too may scientists in my life who also passionately long for explanations; they are brilliant people who have a genuine lifelong mania to understand the origins of the universe. It is beyond far fetched that there could be a global mind block to Alfven's theories.
Click to expand...

There isn't. I promote them. Many individuals who post here promote them as well. I've shown you papers by about a dozen different authors that all supported parts of Alfven's solar views. In no way can you call this a global conspiracy. There is simply a "mainstream' that is resistant to his idea and a "minority opinion" that continues to point out the importance of his work.

I think you would be better served if you attempted to understand the basis for the virtually universal acceptance of the inflation model among the world's cosmologists
Click to expand...

And what do you figure I've been doing for the last 28 years or so since Guth first introduced the idea? The basic problem with inflation hasn't changed in all those years PS, it's always been plagued and always will be plagued by the fact inflation is dead. It was always an "imaginary" force that Guth "imagined" in his head. It will never show up in an empirical test of concept. It will never move a single atom so why should I believe it ever did? I even know who "made it up" PS. I can't ignore the skeptic in me that sees the whole thing as a dead deistic religion devoid of empirical support. All the math in the universe won't fix that lack of physical verification. The math gets modified all the time anyway. How many different forms of inflation are there anyway?

and got a better handle on why EU theories do not fit observations.
Click to expand...

I've only been aware of EU theory myself for about 5-6 years and I've spend those years attempting to understand both the theory itself and the criticisms of that theory. I'm not quite as "well versed' on that idea as say 'inflation' that I've studied now for over 25+ years.

I can tell you this much however. Most mainstream scientists are just like I was 6 years ago, blissfully ignorant of the whole concept. The ones that do understand anything about it tend to know very little about it. Most of the loudest critics of PC/EU theory are usually the most willfully ignorant on the topic too.

I know you have been given a considerable amount of information from many on these threads but refuse to even try to understand why the EU model is flawed.
Click to expand...

I understand why some here "percieve" there to be 'flaws' in the theory. I concede that it lacks mathematical qualification on some levels too. I understand it's limitations better than most, I simply accept them, just as you accept the fact you'll never be able to empirically demonstrate inflation. What's the worse flaw?

Finally, don't you find it a bit troubling that Alfven's area was plasma physics -- not astrophysics or cosmology?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. He was the most qualified to explain to cosmologists that magnetic fields do not disconnect or reconnect to other magnetic fields. He understood the physics well. He understood both the B *AND* E field orientations of MHD theory. If anyone had the qualifications to apply MHD theory to objects in space, it was Alfven. Like it or not he *EARNED* those qualifications. Plasma is a part of cosmology and always will be.

I don't have a ax to grind here; I just find your adherence to this EU stuff peculiar and not very dissimilar to the blind acceptance of creationists.
Click to expand...

I find that troubling frankly because I see things exactly the opposite. A YEC can *NEVER* physically demonstrate their claim. They always rely upon an "act of faith" to promote their beliefs. When push comes to shove and you ask for physical evidence, you get a song and dance faith based routine. Inflation has the same feel. "Dark energy did it' sounds just as unlikely to me as Goddidit. What's the empirical difference?

EU theory is pure empirical physics. Sure, it has limitations and it has "flaws", but it is and always will be a form of pure empirical physics. Anything that EU theory *CAN* figure out (like those circuit in coronal loop activity) should be considered and accepted. The mainstream refuses to do so.

Anything it can't explain is irrelevant from my perspective because "inflation" isn't a "real" explanation, nor is "dark energy" a "real" explanation. So what if EU theory doesn't compete with metaphysical make believe things?

Sooner or later the mainstream is going to have to accept some or most EU tenets and theories because we live inside an electric universe. They can't hide from reality forever.
 
Last edited:
DazzaD said:
It doesnt bring us back to a singularity, this is a common misunderstanding.

All that really happens is that we reach a point where our current knowledge about physics doesnt really help any more and we have to either give up and go home or a have a crack at working out something better.

It doesnt actually say "look, there was a singularity".

This is an important point which demonstrates a clear difference I think between science and religion... the acceptance that what we know and hold dearly may be so very wrong and the willingness to seek out that which contends and goes against all we hold dear.
Click to expand...

Except for the one empirical theory that could one day overturn your dogma. The motto of the mainstream seems to be "anything but electricity". EU theory is the "forbidden topic" of your industry. Let's see you come up with even one electrically (E field) oriented paper published in the APJ in the 21st century. Your industry does not seek out alternative ideas.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
In this particular case it "evolved" into 96% metaphysical mythology.



When a theory "fails" to match it's core "predictions" it is typical to suggest that the theory has been "falsified" and to look for a better theory. If all the mainstream does when their predictions fail is slap in *another* liberal dose of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to "keep it alive", that is highly "dogmatic" and is a great example of letting emotional attachments get in the way of scientific progress.
Click to expand...

You're still denying (or are completely unaware of) the historical narrative of science in which scientists do sometimes make metaphysical-like assertions so that they may work in areas where empirical science is not available yet. The amazing thing is that it works (sometimes).

I'm reminded again of the lumeniferous aether. You could say that the aether was a metaphysical assertion for a long time until we were certain that light-speed was finite. If light-speed was infinite then there never would have been a conceivable way to scientifically study aether. It also wasn't really possible to study the aether until the invention of the interferometer.

So, it turned out that it was wrong. A famous theoretical physicist named Lorentz made the suggestion, after the michelson-morley experiment, that objects must contract in the direction of our motion so that we always measure the same speed of light. There was absolutely no way to test that idea because it is not a full fledged theory of relativity. We have to conclude that this was a metaphysical assertion. Lorentz wasn't ready to give up on the aether theory. In fact, Lorentz still wasn't ready to completely give up on it after Einstein introduced a more robust theory of relativity. Lorentz was still partly correct. Crazy huh?

Einstein used the contraction idea with Lorentz's math mumbo-jumbo then expanded on it. It panned out as you well know.

If science operated the way you want it to, MM, then we should have chopped this line of inquiry off when it was first claimed that a luminiferous aether exists.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Again, show me where a religious faith has established tenets that can be falsified by experiment or observation, and which if falsified would overthrow those tenets in favor of new ones.

Define for me what tests I can make on the doctrine of transubstantiation that would prove or disprove it?

Is there a test for Original Sin?

Can you produce for me even ONE miracle under controlled conditions?
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about religion in the Magnetic Reconnection Forum?
 
PingOfPong said:
You're still denying (or are completely unaware of) the historical narrative of science in which scientists do sometimes make metaphysical-like assertions so that they may work in areas where empirical science is not available yet. The amazing thing is that it works (sometimes).
Click to expand...

I respectfully suggest that you're missing a key difference here. Sometimes it works, particularly when it 'springs forth' from empirical science. The neutrinos is an excellent such example. We discovered via empirical experimentation that A) something was missing or B) the "laws" of empirical physics were being violated. Now it's true, the neutrino may not have existed, but the implications of falsifying a law *REQUIRED* us to at least consider A as a valid empirical possibility. Note here that we *KNEW THEIR SOURCE* from empirical experimentation so we could construct physical devices to look for them. We could create standard "control mechanisms" and turn off the presumed source and notice the effect on our "experiments". That's a "good' use of empirical physics, and there was a time when neutrinos could not be empirically verified.

Compare that however to "dark matter' or "dark energy". Where do they come from? Where do I get a gram of "dark matter" to play with in a lab? Where do I get a kilowatt of dark energy? How might I construct a physical experiment to test for either of them?

Let's compare that neutrino now with "inflation", shall we? What law of physics is violated in their absence? What effect might they have today in a physical experiment? What *other* scientific theory besides your one creation mythos requires them?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Except for the one empirical theory that could one day overturn your dogma. The motto of the mainstream seems to be "anything but electricity". EU theory is the "forbidden topic" of your industry. Let's see you come up with even one electrically (E field) oriented paper published in the APJ in the 21st century. Your industry does not seek out alternative ideas.
Click to expand...

Dogma?

So you challenge General Relativity and Special Relativity and pretty much the whole of modern physics in preference to the single EU theory?

I fail to see where the EU theory has a bearing on general relativity...

My point was a misunderstanding about what the limitations of the mathematical model mean... it has nothing to do with the specifics of the theory itself, be that EU or GR.

As for "E Field Orientated" I believe others have tried to explain that it is convenient for most scientists to look at the B field as from that you can easily derive what you need to know about the E field. You need to stop looking at them as separate entities, take on board what Maxwell explained to his, and treat them as two sides of the same coin.

It is like challenging the whole of the gravitational field theories saying "but where do they measure inertia? where... all they talk about is mass or momentum".

Given a certain 'definition' of inertia the concepts are interchangeable.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually Alfven's MHD theories were in fact accepted and he was given a Nobel Prize for this work. It was his application of that theory to objects in space that was *not* accepted.



How about pure ignorance then? Few if any of the astronomers I've met online have even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma where he actually applies MHD theory to objects in space. Professional jealousy does explain why his cosmology work is continually overlooked, and constantly ignored. The best the mainstream seems to be able to do with MHD theory in space is peddle a theory that Alfven himself rejected outright. They wouldn't recognize a "circuit" in space if it electrocuted them. :)



It's called "inflation", "DARK energy" and "DARK matter". :) Do you really think someone who's professionally invested themselves in "dark energy" and/or inflation for 20 years is simply going to "give up" on the ideas and try something new? I'd guess that the "dark motive" is driven by ego.
Click to expand...

New scientific theories often meet resistance. Sometimes, it has taken the passing of a generation for new theories to gain traction. Now, Alfven's stuff has been around for some time (at least twenty years) with no discernible trend for acceptance. How do you account for that?
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
New scientific theories often meet resistance. Sometimes, it has taken the passing of a generation for new theories to gain traction. Now, Alfven's stuff has been around for some time (at least twenty years) with no discernible trend for acceptance. How do you account for that?
Click to expand...
It also takes actual evidence which Mozina does not have.
 
skeptigirl said:
It also takes actual evidence which Mozina does not have.
Click to expand...

You're right about the first part (which is in fact why acceptance takes time), but you're dead wrong on the last part:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657

It seems to me PS that skepticgirl is absolutely right about the need for additional evidence to verify his work and that has taken time. Technology and time however are on Alfven's side. The mainstream can continue to try to ignore these verified "predictions" of Alfven's beliefs, but sooner or later they will have to come to terms with the fact that we live inside an electric universe. All the footdragging in the universe can't stop technological progress and the revolution that is changing our understanding of the universe.
 
Tim Thompson said:
The boundary between religion & science moved as our understanding of lightning moved from the mysterious to the practical.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the problem with Lambda-religion theory. Inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of matter have never had a "practical" use outside of the "religion" they support.
 
DazzaD said:
Dogma?
Click to expand...

What else could we call "inflation" or even "magnetic reconnection"? Inflation is dead. I can't ever hope to see it move outside the realm of dogma and into the realm of empirical physics.

So you challenge General Relativity and Special Relativity and pretty much the whole of modern physics in preference to the single EU theory?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I like GR the way Einstein taught it. It's the kludged 'dark energy' form of "blunder" theory I have no use for. EU theory is *NOT* at odds with GR theory. I have no idea where you folks get that idea. Nobody needs to abandon GR theory to embrace EU concepts.

I fail to see where the EU theory has a bearing on general relativity...
Click to expand...

It doesn't. GR theory is not "blunder" theory however and most of you refuse to acknowledge the difference between them.

As for "E Field Orientated" I believe others have tried to explain that it is convenient for most scientists to look at the B field as from that you can easily derive what you need to know about the E field. You need to stop looking at them as separate entities, take on board what Maxwell explained to his, and treat them as two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir. It's your industry that keeps insisting it's a "magnetic" process, rather than an "electromagnetic" one. You need to stop teaching children what Alfven called "pseudoscience" and start embracing the E orientation of MHD theory as Alfven taught it.

An electrical discharge is not "magnetic reconnection". Gamma rays and x-rays occur in "discharges" in a given atmosphere. You've lost touch with physics. Magnetic lines do not disconnect or reconnect to other magnetic lines. They are physically incapable of doing so because they form as a full and complete continuum. Circuits however do in fact "reconnect" and "disconnect" from other circuits. These ideas at not 100% interchangeable at the level of physics and that's the part you keep ignoring in the terms your industry has created and the idea you keep ingoring. It's not just the energy that is stored in the magnetic field that *INDUCES* current flow in the other circuit, the circuit energy of both circuits has a direct impact on the events that occur at the point of "reconnection" (short circuit).

As long as you folks keep ignoring the E orientation of MHD theory, you'll never be able to explain something like solar wind, a process Birkeland "explained" and "predicted" from standard empirical experiments over 100 years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
New scientific theories often meet resistance. Sometimes, it has taken the passing of a generation for new theories to gain traction. Now, Alfven's stuff has been around for some time (at least twenty years) with no discernible trend for acceptance. How do you account for that?
Click to expand...

MM, you have not responded to the above. So, do you see any movement towards acceptance of EU theories? If not, why not? Hasn't there been enough time for some movement towards acceptance? Two decades seems quite a bit of time. Do you see any tendency for younger astrophysicists to accept EU theories. Of all the new theories in astrophysics of the last 100 years, why would EU theories be singled out for this kind of treatment?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Not at all. I like GR the way Einstein taught it. It's the kludged 'dark energy' form of "blunder" theory I have no use for. EU theory is *NOT* at odds with GR theory. I have no idea where you folks get that idea. Nobody needs to abandon GR theory to embrace EU concepts.

It doesn't. GR theory is not "blunder" theory however and most of you refuse to acknowledge the difference between them.
Click to expand...

My post was very specific to the question about whether a singularity existed or was predicated by GR (with reference to say the 'origin' of the universe).

In that context it was quite valid (in my opinion) to explain that it was a limitation of the GR model and had nothing whatsoever to do with EU theories.

Thats all I was pointing out in that post, no more, no less.
 
DazzaD said:
My post was very specific to the question about whether a singularity existed or was predicated by GR (with reference to say the 'origin' of the universe).

In that context it was quite valid (in my opinion) to explain that it was a limitation of the GR model and had nothing whatsoever to do with EU theories.

Thats all I was pointing out in that post, no more, no less.
Click to expand...

In that case you're just wrong. Klein's "bang" model clearly demonstrates that a singularity (or a singular "lump" if you prefer) is not a necessary component in a bang theory. If your "bang" theory includes one, it's your own choice to do so.
 
Perpetual Student said:
MM, you have not responded to the above. So, do you see any movement towards acceptance of EU theories?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly seeing an improvement in the quality of published papers on that topic. That would suggest to me that it's gaining momentum, yes.

If not, why not? Hasn't there been enough time for some movement towards acceptance? Two decades seems quite a bit of time.
Click to expand...

It may "seem" that way to you, but that isn't very long in the historical context of cosmology theories or astronomy theories in general. A couple of decades is nothing. Birkeland wrote about his auroral theories in 1908. It wasn't until the early 70's that even this part of his work was "accepted" by the mainstream. It took them 50 years to take even the first 'baby step" in accepting any of the tenets of EU theory. They can't even recognize a "discharge" when they see one heat plasma to millions of degrees, so it could be another 50 years before they figure out solar physics.

Do you see any tendency for younger astrophysicists to accept EU theories.
Click to expand...

Most of the EU proponents I meet tend to be older like myself and are "burned out" on the metaphysics. I seem to have a more "receptive audience" in the younger generation when I discuss the ideas at parties and such, but adults of all ages do tend to listen. It's hard to say whether the idea is "accepted" or the listener was just being polite. :)

Of all the new theories in astrophysics of the last 100 years, why would EU theories be singled out for this kind of treatment?
Click to expand...

Well, if you have any doubts, you can go over to BAUT and you'll see that EU theory is in fact "singled out" by the mainstream as something they treat very differently than other "mainstream" cosmology theories. I suspect that "burn the heretic" mentality is mostly driven by fear, fear that their metaphysical beliefs will be laid to waste by empirical science if they don't "snuff it out" right now.
 
Last edited:
What is "Empirical" Science?

Michael Mozina said:
And that's exactly the problem with Lambda-religion theory. Inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of matter have never had a "practical" use outside of the "religion" they support.
Click to expand...
If you are suggesting that dark matter & dark energy are "religious" in nature, you are quite mistaken. Of course, we have had this discussion before, and will no doubt have it once again. Both dark matter & dark energy are 100% pure and unadulterated empirical concepts. If you intend to argue that they are not, then it is necessary to deny the validity of science altogether, which then clearly makes yours the 100% pure & unadulterated religious position.

I responded to your incredible claims by starting a discussion which did not run for very long, and to which you never contributed: Fundamental Question on the Nature of Science, which was active 10-19 April 2009. Here is a major portion of my initial post to that discussion, which I think is relevant both to the OP of this discussion, as well as to your own extremely crippled understanding of what constitutes "science".

Tim Thompson said:
So what we have here is a contest between "observation" and "controlled observation", which is really what a "controlled experiment" is. Now, Mozina's opinion is explicit enough; he says "Observations are not 'empirical experiments' ". It is not much of a stretch to read this as "observations are not empirical" period.

This impacts a wide range of fields of science where "controlled experiments" are usually impossible. Astronomy is one example, where the full complexity of a major astronomical object (planet, star, molecular cloud, galaxy & etc.) cannot be reproduced in any laboratory, ever. But so are zoology, anthropology, and a host of natural sciences affected by the crucial difference between "observations" and "controlled experiments". Are naturalists in the field, observing chimpanzees in the wild, for instance, doing science? Are they doing something "empirical"? If you observe your favorite chimps long enough to predict their behavior, and then observe them to verify the prediction (i.e., to validate the hypothesis), is that not science because it is not "controlled"? Is that not an "empirical experiment" because it is not controlled?

My own opinion is made clear in the exchange above as well, I hope. I think both controlled and uncontrolled observations & experiments are on equal standing when it comes to considering them as "empirical" or "scientific". obviously they are not the same thing, and a "controlled experiment" might well allow the experimenter to more stringently qualify their results than is done with an uncontrolled observation in the field. But that does not detract from the empirical, and experimental nature of an uncontrolled observation.

This seems to me to be a fundamental issue of importance across the scientific spectrum. So I thought it would be worthwhile to make it a topic of its own and solicit the opinions of other scientists (or anyone else who cares to join in) who might not be reading a thread with "Lambda-CDM" in the title. What do you all think? Are "uncontrolled" observations equally empirical, equally scientific, compared to controlled experiments? Do those of you working in areas where field observations are common consider yourselves to be scientists, and that you are doing science?
Click to expand...

You consistently, but wrongly, assume that only controlled laboratory experiments constitute "empirical" science. So how do you respond? Do you or do you not accept the empirical validity of uncontrolled field observations in science?
 
BenBurch said:
An utter derail of this thread.
Click to expand...

Er, no. Anyone that claims to get energy from a null point in the magnetic field and claims that magnetic lines release energy by "disconnecting" and "reconnecting" to other magnetic lines is definitely selling you a "religion" that has nothing to do with "science". In the physical world only "circuits" can disconnect and reconnect. Magnetic lines do nothing of the sort, and you can't get something from nothing.
 
Tim Thompson said:
If you are suggesting that dark matter & dark energy are "religious" in nature, you are quite mistaken.
Click to expand...

No Tim, I'm quite right. You are physically incapable of getting dark energy to do anything here on Earth. At least 70% of your religion is utterly useless in the real world.

Of course, we have had this discussion before, and will no doubt have it once again. Both dark matter & dark energy are 100% pure and unadulterated empirical concepts.
Click to expand...

Pure baloney! You're in danger of becoming the Foxnews of physics Tim. Dark energy is nothing but a fudge factor of *EPIC* proportions. Your dark energy goddess is completely and utterly impotent on Earth. You can't even tell us where it comes from. Dark energy did it is no better than God did it as it relates to empirical physics.

You consistently, but wrongly, assume that only controlled laboratory experiments constitute "empirical" science.
Click to expand...

No, I rightfully say that empirical physics shows up in real experiments.

Do you or do you not accept the empirical validity of uncontrolled field observations in science?
Click to expand...

That depends. I accept that some things are physically verified to exist and have an effect on real physical objects. I accept observational evidence of known physical things. I don't accept a circular feedback loop that attempts to use an uncontrolled observation to "verify" their pet theory about what caused that same uncontrolled observation. Godflation did not have any influence on the "bang", with or without some trumped up math.
 
Last edited:
What is "Empirical" Science? II

Tim Thompson said:
Do you or do you not accept the empirical validity of uncontrolled field observations in science?
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
I accept observational evidence of known physical things. I don't accept a circular feedback loop that attempts to use an uncontrolled observation to "verify" their pet theory about what caused that same uncontrolled observation.
Click to expand...
So, if an uncontrolled observation of nature confirms your pre-observational bias, then you accept it as scientifically valid. On the other hand, if an uncontrolled observation does not confirm your pre-observational bias, you reject it as unscientific for that sole reason. But the principle criterion for determining whether or not an observation is scientific is the method, not the result. Your argument is therefore a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

One of the essential points of science vs religion is the empirical verification of an hypothesis through observation. Dark energy & dark matter are in fact 100% empirical because their existence, as well as all of the physical properties of both, are derived entirely from observation. If you are going to claim that dark matter & dark energy are "religious", then you have no choice but to reject the validity of observation as a method for the verification of an hypothesis. This too is clearly a religious, rather than a scientific point of view.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In that case you're just wrong. Klein's "bang" model clearly demonstrates that a singularity (or a singular "lump" if you prefer) is not a necessary component in a bang theory. If your "bang" theory includes one, it's your own choice to do so.
Click to expand...

I have no singularity in "my" theory and I never said as much. I was just pointing out the limitations of ANY mathematical model to real life.

Klein or no Klein.

I never advocated the need for such a thing, (in fact, personally, I suspect I actually abhor it!).

I just wanted to help as it seems you may have become overly defensive.
 
Quote: (Perpetual Student)
Of all the new theories in astrophysics of the last 100 years, why would EU theories be singled out for this kind of treatment?
Click to expand...
Quote: (M Mozina)
Well, if you have any doubts, you can go over to BAUT and you'll see that EU theory is in fact "singled out" by the mainstream as something they treat very differently than other "mainstream" cosmology theories. I suspect that "burn the heretic" mentality is mostly driven by fear, fear that their metaphysical beliefs will be laid to waste by empirical science if they don't "snuff it out" right now.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how paranoid your response sounds?
Historically, older theories have been "snuffed out" countless times by newer theories. Why is this one (EU) so different, if it is a better theory?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Sorry, I missed this reply. FYI, I'll skip the irrelevant stuff and cut to the chase:

Yes I would say that some form of "matter" is necessary to explain the lensing data. That does not mean it is made of an exotic type of matter.
Click to expand...
On its own it doesn't mean much. But backed up by a a century of progress in physics the inevitable conclusion (if we're preserving our law of gravity) its that the matter MUST be exotic.

I won't debate the state of particle physics technologies of science with you, since even I find them to be "advanced", but how exactly do you define a level of space technology that is incapable of picking out individual stars in distant galaxies if not "primitive"?
Click to expand...
Why would I define it as primitive? Our space telescopes contain some of the most precise and hi-tech technology man has ever created!

I don't believe you can accurately do that. There is dust in distant galaxies that blocks light from distant objects. We aren't even sure how much dust is out there in space or how much light is absorbed by that dust.
Click to expand...
We know that most stars are in the bulges and the disks of galaxies. We know this is completely inconsistent with what is observed from rotation curves. You can stuff as much dust in there as you want, you're never going to rectify that situation.

You're taking "oversimplified models" and trying to apply them to everything you see in space.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. I'm using multiple observations to draw conclusions.

I see no evidence that this method you've come up with comes anywhere near the correct amount of mass in a galaxy and therefore it's time to come up with a better galaxy mass estimation technique.
Click to expand...
What method are we talking about?
No amount of you talking nonsense is going to stop the fact that the visible mass distribution and that derived from rotation curves are completely different.

Great. Demonstrate these nifty things in a lab,
Click to expand...
I'd love to. I'd probably get a Nobel.

demonstrate their *actual physical properties* and then I'll be happy to let you point at the sky and claim SUSY stuff did it.
Click to expand...
Their properties are those derived from the theory. If they don't have properties consistent with the theory they're not SUSY particles.

Until I can see these so called "properties" work on real things in a real lab, in real controlled experiments, I really have no evidence they exist. The fact that standard particle physics theory has "unanswered questions" does not mean SUSY particles get to be instantly stuffed into those gaps.
Click to expand...
I never said it did. Its just the simplest, most elegant solution which (possibly) could solve another unanswered question in physics.

SUSY particles did not show up in such experiments.
Click to expand...
They have not shown up yet. So what? They may exist. They may not. But there non-existence wouldn't mean dark matter is not exotic. It would mean it is not SUSY particle. The incontrevertible evidence for DM will not go away.

You mean you can't account for distant mass, but you could make a giant leap of faith and stuff the gaps of our ignorance of space with such particles, is that it?
Click to expand...
No. You couldn't much further off in fact. If we accept GR then the evidence DM is way way way beyond compelling. We can observe its effect in the Milky Way or Andromeda. Its not that we can't account for distant mass. We can't account for the mass distribution in our own galaxy or our nearest neighbour.
The evidence for SUSY bares no relation to the evidence for DM. That the existence of one could be the solution to the other may be complete coincidence (I've already clearly stated this), or it may not. We don't know. I'm not trying to stuff any gaps.

I don't know. I haven't seen any SUSY particle show up in a lab. I've never seen any actual 'properties' demonstrated in real life. I simply have to have "faith" in what you "think" they will probably do based on what we have never seen in a real experiment?
Click to expand...
No. What they think they will do based on what we HAVE seen in experiment. Most of the properties of SUSY particles, if they exist, are already known. Just like most of the properties of neutrinos and the top quark were already known before they're discovery.

In the sense that it is possible that collider experiments might one day demonstrate such things do exist, sure it's a 'statistical probability' even based upon pure empirical physics.
Click to expand...
Its nothing to do with statistics. They either exist or they don't. We could assign odds to whether we think they exist or not (eg what odds we'd be prepared to wager at) but their actual existence or otherwise is not a matter of probability.

On the other hand, it could just be that you're letting your "faith in the unseen" get the better of you. :)
Click to expand...
Its very much not my faith in the unseen. I've measured rotation curves for myself. I've seen visible matter distributions of galaxies with my own eyes. They're completely different.

I know something heats those coronal loops to millions of degrees and it sure as hell isn't "dark energy" or "dark matter". If you can't account for even those electrons, what faith should I have that you can find electrons in distant objects outside of our solar system?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

All the measurementsl agree that there is more mass in a galaxy than your galaxy mass estimates come up with. Don't you think it's time to toss your galaxy mass estimates out the window?
Click to expand...
All the measurements agree that the total mass distribution is completely different to the visible mass distribution given our law of gravity. No amount of dust or rocks or electrons is ever going to correct this.

The idea you can't distinguish between 'missing mass' and "non baryonic matter" is simply astonishing to me as well. The only thing that these measurements demonstrate is that your galaxy mass estimates of the amount of normal mass in a galaxy aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Period.
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong and wrong. These measurements unequivocally demonstrate that the total mass distribution is completely different to the visible mass distribution given our law of gravity. No amount of dust or rocks or electrons is ever going to correct this.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Do you have any idea how paranoid your response sounds?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, actually I do. You would need to walk a mile in my shoes to truly appreciate the irrational bias I've experienced toward an E field orientation of MHD theory over the past 6 years, not so much here on this website, but on many astronomy oriented websites and many mainstream publications.

It's really bizarre behavior and it seems to be motivated by fear, fear of change. Change will happen of course, but change takes time (and typically technology) when talking about the field of astronomy.

Historically, older theories have been "snuffed out" countless times by newer theories. Why is this one (EU) so different, if it is a better theory?
Click to expand...

It's not different, and I am very confident that it will eventually win out over time. IMO you're simply trying to judge it *before* PC/EU has had time to be fully appreciated. EU theory may have been around for awhile, but it's certainly not part of a typical astronomy curriculum or something that most individuals are exposed to in school or in the media. I consider myself to be pretty well versed in different astronomy theories, but I had never even heard of PC/EU theory prior to about 6 years ago. The internet and technologies will bring change, but this sort of drastic change typically doesn't happen overnight. The real challenge for the mainstream will occur over the next decade as new technologies come online and new papers continue to support Alfven's views on solar physics. They will have a devil of a time trying to keep the electric genie inside the magnetic bottle. :)
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
So, if an uncontrolled observation of nature confirms your pre-observational bias,
Click to expand...

What kind of "bias" are we talking about? If my "bias" is "electricity did it", I can at least demonstrate that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate and do things on Earth. If my "bias" is "magic elves did it", pointing at the sky, creating a circular feedback loop about how my magic elves did it, and slapping on a little math isn't going to be very convincing to the average skeptic. Should the *TYPE* of one's "bias" matter here too Tim?

then you accept it as scientifically valid. On the other hand, if an uncontrolled observation does not confirm your pre-observational bias, you reject it as unscientific for that sole reason.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I can reject "magic elves did it", even with pretty math because magic elves never show up in empirical experiments. It's not a "personal bias", it's an "empirical bias" and a "scientific bias" when the same observation can be explained without inventing new and mythical forces of nature.

But the principle criterion for determining whether or not an observation is scientific is the method, not the result.
Click to expand...

The "result" has always been "postdicted" since Guth first made up inflation in his head to "explain" an already recognized homogeneous layout of matter. At no time was the "result" ever in doubt Tim. The "method" he used however was completely bogus IMO, because it began with the "assumption" that all matter and energy was contained in a single clump, and that his invented/fabricated/made up force of nature was therefore necessary to explain how it got from a singular clump to a homogenous layout of matter. There was no "method" other than "I'll fudge it till it fits what I'm trying to make it fit", and then he uses the same observation (homogeneity) to then try to demonstrate the validity of his made up force of nature. The whole thing is one giant circular argument based on make believe entities and fabricated, postdicted math.

Your argument is therefore a religious argument, not a scientific argument.
Click to expand...

Boloney. Guth's argument is a religious argument based on faith, it is not a scientific entity because his make-believe friend is dead. Belief in inflation necessarily requires an act of faith on the part of the "believer" because it no longer exists in nature. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

One of the essential points of science vs religion is the empirical verification of an hypothesis through observation. Dark energy & dark matter are in fact 100% empirical because their existence, as well as all of the physical properties of both, are derived entirely from observation.
Click to expand...

I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter" and would that be a religion?

If you are going to claim that dark matter & dark energy are "religious", then you have no choice but to reject the validity of observation as a method for the verification of an hypothesis. This too is clearly a religious, rather than a scientific point of view.
Click to expand...

Sorry Tim, but any bias I have is "empirical" by nature and not personal in any way. Pointing at the sky and claiming "gravity did it" is acceptable to me because I can experience and experiment with gravity here on Earth. Even if your theory is 'wrong', it's still a viable scientific theory. If however you point at the sky and claim your invisible friends are responsible, I'll want to see some empirical evidence that your invisible friends are not a figment of your overactive imagination. Is that really too much to ask?
 
isaone said:
Science while pure in theory has one main problem. The only entities available to do it are humans and humans are the problem. Because of this human problem Science is sloppy and moves forward (and backward) in fits and starts. Over time (sometimes lots of it) Science does reject things that do not 'work'.
Click to expand...

But then when did you ever see inflation or dark energy do any work in a real science experiment on Earth?

Religion on the other had never get's it in fact the more absurd and impossible a belief is the more a religious person is admired.
Click to expand...

That "absurd and impossible" feeling sunk in when they stuffed their falsified theory with 70+ "mythical energy" that never shows up here on Earth. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom