Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

Dancing David said:
I'm done with you for today MM, the irony of your statement is offensive.

You argue for a bunch of unobserved star clusters, you have no idea of how much mass was found. That is exaclt you using a gap argument.

Very rude of you.
Later.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you find that to be "rude", but from a skeptics point of view, that's exactly how your theory seems to work. Any place that a gap in our understanding can be found, a mythical entity is automatically inserted. That's really how it looks from the vantage point of a skeptic.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/space/17univ.html

Ya, and just a couple of years ago we found out we've been *GROSSLY* underestimating the brightness of galaxies. Did you factor that mass in Tim? How about this little revelation:
Click to expand...
I see that you are staring to recycle the arguments from the other threads.
Learn to read, Michael Mozina:
The results also mean that there is about 20 percent more mass in stars than previously thought. But since stars make up such a small percentage of the universe to begin with — dark matter and dark energy account for 95 percent or so — it is a small adjustment over all.
“Basically increasing the stellar mass in the nearby universe by 20 percent has little impact,” Dr. Driver said in an e-mail message from Scotland.
Click to expand...
Stars are only a small % of the visible matter in the universe.
For example (as has been explained to you several times before but you cannot seem to understand), in a typical galaxy cluster the intracluster medium makes up (80-95%) of the matter.
 
Michael Mozina said:
This is the part that really surprises me. Why can't you guys even be bluntly honest about it, and admit the facts? I have a great deal of respect for you actually, but this sort of behavior makes me wonder what your motive is. Mainstream theory is 70+ percent dark energy. Nobody knows what "dark energy" is. It has never been seen on Earth. Stuffing it into a GR formula doesn't give it automatic credibility anymore than stuffing magic into a GR formula adds credibility to magic.
Click to expand...
Well, err yes it does. Because you know like there's observational evidence for it.

The mainstream didn't even dream up dark energy until around the 90's as I recall.
Click to expand...
Not really true. The cosmological constant was assumed to be 0 since before we got the latest generation of telescopes we were unable to see otherwise. Much like protons and neutrons were once thought to be fundamental particles until we developed the technology to "see" in to them.
Now we have better measurement and it looks like the CC isn't 0 and protons and neutrons aren't fundamental. I don't see how either of these cause a problem. It's commonly known as scientific progress. It's been very successful in the past. Your choice to shun it is, to be honest, a little bewildering. But, whatever keeps you happy.

Inflation didn't arrive until the late 70's, early 80's.
Click to expand...
Scientific progress.

The need for exotic forms of "dark matter" is also a relatively new phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Scientific progress.

None of the trio of metaphysical bad boys that I'm railing against has anything to do with GR from 50's and 60's, or BBT's from the 50's and 60's.
Click to expand...
Scientific progress.
 
Michael Mozina said:
GR theory has no need of inflation, dark energy or exotic forms of matter. Your claim is a red herring.
Click to expand...
You seem to remain ignorant of what GR, inflation, dark energy or exotic forms of matter (dark matter?). That is rather sad given the many times that these have been explained to you.
FYI (yet again and again and again :) ): GR has nothing to do with inflation, dark energy or dark energy.
  • GR is a theory of gravity.
  • Dark matter is a set of observations.
  • Dark energy is a set of observations.
  • Inflation is a scientific theory about the very early universe that explains aspects of the universe and made testable, falsifiable predictions that were tested and found to be correct.
    And no I will not yet again list those tested predictions. If you want to find them then do not be lazy and do the basic research for yourself.
It is not a red herring, MM.
Gravitational lensing is predicted by the verified in controllable empirical experiments (using Mozina-speak) theory of GR.
Gravitational lensing is observed and matches the predictions of GR.

And one more time, Michael Mozina (Any problems with this analysis of the evidence for nonbaryonic matter First asked 18 July 2009 :jaw-dropp!):

Gravitational lensing tells us that most of the intracluster medium (i.e. 80-95% of the matter) in three observations of colliding galaxy clusters
  1. Does not emit any light (is dark).
  2. Has passed through the rest of the intracluster medium without significantly interacting electromagnetically with it.
The rest of the matter in these clusters is different from that matter. It has interacted electromagnetically. It has heated up and emits light (X-rays). It has formed shockwaves.

The conclusion that a reasonably intelligent person comes up with:
The intracluster medium consists of 2 kinds of matter.
One is what we think of as normal, i.e. interacts gravitaionally and electromagnetically.
The other is not normal matter. It interacts gravitaionally. It has only weak electromagnetic interaction with either itself or normal matter.

The three observations of colliding galaxy clusters are
  1. The Bullet Cluster
  2. MACS J0025.4-1222
  3. and Abell 520
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208376
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226161428.htm

Your personal attacks aren't going to cut it DRD.

You can run if you like, but you can't hide. :)
Click to expand...
Your inability to understand what you read isn't going to cut it Michael Mozina.

Discovery of New Milky Way Star Clusters Candidates in the 2MASS Point Source Catalog
These are stars that have already been discovered :eye-poppi!
The astronomers have just found out that they are clusters of already known stars. Ditto for the news article.

You may be thinking about globular clusters (one of the above clusters is suspected to be globular). So some simple math for you, MM:
  • The estimated number of globular clusters in the Milky Way is ~200.
  • The upper end of the mass of a globular cluster in the Milky Way = 5 million solar masses (Omega Centauri).
  • So the upper limit of the expected mass of globular clusters in the Milky Way = 1000 million solar masses.
  • Mass of the Milky Way = 580,000 million solar masses.
  • Thus globular clusters in the Milky Way will have an expected upper limit of 0.71% of the total mass of the galaxy.
You can run if you like, but you can't hide. :)
 
Tubbythin said:
Nobody knows what "dark energy" is. It has never been seen on Earth. Stuffing it into a GR formula doesn't give it automatic credibility anymore than stuffing magic into a GR formula adds credibility to magic.
Click to expand...
Well, err yes it does. Because you know like there's observational evidence for it.
Click to expand...

Consider your response for a moment. By stuffing magic into a GR formula, magic somehow gains credibility? Really? Where's the empirical link between acceleration (observed/interpreted) and magic?
 
Reality Check said:
You seem to remain ignorant of what GR, inflation, dark energy or exotic forms of matter (dark matter?). That is rather sad given the many times that these have been explained to you.
FYI (yet again and again and again :) ): GR has nothing to do with inflation, dark energy or dark energy.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6232323&postcount=266

Yes, I know. I pointed that out earlier in the thread. Empirical GR has nothing to do with your impotent gods. We've all established that as fact.

Same question to you as I asked TBT. Where's the empirical link between your impotent gods and expansion or acceleration?
 
Michael, I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but I'll try once more. Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

a) A cosmological constant (CC) was included in general relativity (GR) from the very beginning in the late 1910's.

b) the CC is the unique term one can add to GR that is consistent with its underlying symmetries and that also has an effect on the universe at large scales.

c) even if one attempts to define a theory in which the CC is zero, quantum mechanics predicts it will receive corrections that make it non-zero.

d) Given b) and c), the CC must be regarded as a parameter in GR whose numerical value cannot be determined a priori, and instead should be fit using observational data (much like GR's other parameter, G).

e) as of the late 1990's, observations of distant type IA supernova indicated that the best fit value for the CC wasn't zero, but small and positive.

f) as of now, multiple independent sets of observations (several independent supernova observation groups, several independent high altitude balloon and satellite CMB experiments, observations of large scale structure) all agree on the numerical value.
 
Last edited:
What I find really fascinating about your responses thus far is the fact you've shown no signs of even being willing to reconsider your position, in light of new evidence that suggests you *MUST* do exactly that. The other fascinating behavior is that "minimalist" approach to closing the gaps between normal matter and "missing mass", with the express intent of saving room (bigger gap) for your impotent invisible gods to be stuffed right on in those GR formulas. Never mind the fact you can show no empirical link between your impotent gods and expansion, acceleration and "missing mass". It's really a fascinating case study on "faith in the unseen" even in the face of new data that closes the scientific gaps in our understanding of the material universe. The aversion to all things 'electrical" in space is evidently driven by fear. If you acknowledge that EM fields *can* accelerate physical objects and can drive expansion, it's further undermines the credibility of your religion and your faith in the unseen. It's a "high preist' sort of religion where "mere amateurs" and lurkers are irrelevant. It's based on pure denial at the top of the religious food chain where Alfven's condemnation of their fascination with pseudo-science is completely ignored. Whatever they can't explain with the imaginary entities, they chalk up to pseudoscience.

It's definitely a "religion" alright. Magical entities gain credibility simply by being stuffed into a GR formula, with no respect whatsoever for empirical physics, and the need to demonstrate cause/effect relationships. Empirical Physics be damned. Math is all that matters. "Look, magic did it because the numbers fit.".
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Michael, I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but I'll try once more. Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

a) A cosmological constant (CC) was included in general relativity (GR) from the very beginning in the late 1910's.
Click to expand...

Is it your position that magic somehow gains credibility by virtue of being stuffed into that constant? There's no point in going through all the points. This seems to be the crux of your argument.
 
sol invictus said:
What?
Click to expand...

What controlled experiment demonstrates an empirical cause/effect link between expansion/acceleration and your invisible, made up gods?

What makes you think I have any desire to let you stuff magical gods into a GR formula without demonstrating that magical gods are "real" and have a tangible and real effect on objects with mass?
 
Michael Mozina said:
What controlled experiment demonstrates an empirical cause/effect link between expansion/acceleration and your invisible, made up gods?

What makes you think I have any desire to let you stuff magical gods into a GR formula without demonstrating that magical gods are "real" and have a tangible and real effect on objects with mass?
Click to expand...

Which of those statements do you disagree with, Michael?
 
sol invictus said:
Which of those statements do you disagree with, Michael?
Click to expand...

I don't actually disagree with any of your statements. You've simply never demonstrated an empirical link between your invisible gods and that constant. Show me that your gods can have an effect on matter here and now.
 
Here's the deal sol. I can show an empirical cause/effect relationship between "expansion" (of plasma) and EM fields. I can show a cause/effect relationship here and now between acceleration of plasma and EM fields. It's not a statement of faith that EM fields move material objects. It can be physically demonstrated here and now.

What you seem to be missing is any sort of empirical demonstration of concept before handwaving at the sky and claiming your invisible gods did it. There's no way to falsify the concept because the parameters of your gods are simply 'made to fit".
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Please do let us know when you start regretting ... :p

(I predict it will be within 24 hours of you posting this ...)
Click to expand...

Ya and I predict you'll take me off ignore eventually. You're like a moth drawn to an electric flame. :)
tongue.gif
 
Michael Mozina said:
Consider your response for a moment. By stuffing magic into a GR formula, magic somehow gains credibility? Really? Where's the empirical link between acceleration (observed/interpreted) and magic?
Click to expand...

What on Earth you are you talking about? You seem to be having problems with basic reading comprehension. I never even mentioned the word magic. That was your strawman which I refuted. So you seem to be arguing with yourself. :confused:
 
Michael Mozina said:
What you seem to be missing is any sort of empirical demonstration of concept before handwaving at the sky and claiming your invisible gods did it.
Click to expand...
Stop being dishonest. Nobody is claiming any invisible God did it.

There's no way to falsify the concept because the parameters of your gods are simply 'made to fit".
Click to expand...

The parameters of the Standard model are made to fit. There's about 20 of them. Hell, the parameter of Newtonian gravity (G) is made to fit. If you want to reject a physical theory because it has a free parameter then that's almost the entirety of physics down the toilet. Where do you think your beloved EM would be without free parameters?
 
Empirical Evidence for Dark Energy

Michael Mozina said:
Where's the empirical link between your impotent gods and expansion or acceleration?
Click to expand...
  1. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant; Riess, et al., The Astronomical Journal 116(3): 1009-1038, September 1998.
  2. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae; Perlmutter, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 571(2): 565-586, June 1999.
  3. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148(1): 175-194, September 2003.
  4. Type Ia Supernovae at z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on the Dark Energy Equation of State; Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 607(2): 665-687, June 2004.
  5. The Supernova Legacy Survey: measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and w from the first year data set; Astier, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 447(1): February III 2006.
  6. Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology; Spergel, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 170(2): 377-408, June 2007.
  7. Observational Constraints on the Nature of Dark Energy: First Results from the ESSENCE Supernova Survey; Wood-Vasey, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 666(2): 694-715, September 2007.
  8. Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation; Komatsu, et al., preprint submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, version 2 dated 12 February 2010.
These listed and the many thousand citations thereto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom