<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</p><p>I don't know the details of the scalar field associated with inflation, but Guth postulated the existence of such a field with some specific properties and from that assumption was able to answer some open questions in cosmology, notably the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the apparent uniformity of the cosmic background radiation on a large scale and the small anisotropies seen on a small scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang</p><p>There is book written by Guth for a general audience that might interest you. It is <em>The Inflationary Universe. </em>You can also look into inflation more deeply through Guth's web site and references to his papers, both technical and for a general audience. http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". 
Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you. I believe that sooner or later we will have to methodically decide what methods constitute "pseudosicence" and what is considered "real emprical science". There seems to be a significant disconnect between astronomical theories and emprical scientific (controlled) testing. This is where the skepticism of these ideas utimately originates.You will have to explain then what is to be considered "rigorous support" for a given idea. For instance, what is the value of emprical scientific testing in controlled experimentation? What is the value of a purely mathematical construct like inflation that enjoys no emprical support in controlled testing? I'm paying attention, including your answers to what constitutes a "duck". Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Generally speaking, the one making the claim is the one that must provide evidence to support that claim/theory. The skeptic is typically not required to produce emprical evidence to dispute a concept, but rather the proponent of the idea is typically required to provide such evidence. For instance, I cannot "disprove" creationism theories, but I can provide evidence to support evolutionary theory. I likewise cannot disprove inflation theory. It is up to the proponent of the idea to provide emprical support of that idea. Well then, we will need a tangible, fair and objectively measurable method to determine what is to be considered "supported science" and what is not. In my industry that typically involves emprical testing, controlled experimentation, along with consumer products that are based on this demonstrated technology. There is no tangble consumer product based upon inflation however.I'm game. I will however require a set of measurable methods to determine what can be considered "science" and what is "pseudoscientific speculation". I'm quite certain that any objective method you pick (short of an appeal to popularity fallacy) will not show that inflation is "science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</p><p>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists and it is now up to you back up your assertions. You cannot ignore the questions and you cannot shirk your responsibility.</p><p>Neither can you continue to simply state that the mainstream is wrong. You are going to have to back up those assertions with real science directed at specific assertions made in print (that is what the references are) by some good physicists. </p><p>Better get cracking on a proper and meaningful response. You have your task cut out for you. Ducking and weaving is not going to work. </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.</DIV></p><p>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination? You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support,</DIV></p><p>You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science. You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity. I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points. </DIV></p><p>How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation? You have the scientific method standing on it's head. I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic. I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are required to address each question in its entirety PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. </DIV></p><p>Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck? When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points? Hoy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.</DIV></p><p>I tend to disect *ideas* by the way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda. </DIV></p><p>Excuse me? I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.</p><p>Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part. Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang". You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short put up or shut up, permanently.</DIV></p><p>I take it you don't like "critics"? "Permanently"? Really? Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what? If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not predict the Big Bang. </DIV></p><p>You're already moving the goalposts I see. I said GR does not "predict' a bang. "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2) Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3) Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda. II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity. In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergIII.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. IV.</DIV></p><p>LOL! Is that all? You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it. Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.</DIV></p><p>Gravity exists on Earth. it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang". At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity". You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.</p><p>I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories. You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in. The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct. No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence. More importantly it's "lab shy". It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment. </p><p>Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments. These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. </p><p>None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy". Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.</DIV></p><p>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination? You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support,</DIV></p><p>You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science. You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity. I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points. </DIV></p><p>How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation? You have the scientific method standing on it's head. I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic. I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are required to address each question in its entirety PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. </DIV></p><p>Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck? When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points? Hoy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.</DIV></p><p>I tend to disect *ideas* by the way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda. </DIV></p><p>Excuse me? I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.</p><p>Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part. Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang". You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short put up or shut up, permanently.</DIV></p><p>I take it you don't like "critics"? "Permanently"? Really? Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what? If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not predict the Big Bang. </DIV></p><p>You're already moving the goalposts I see. I said GR does not "predict' a bang. "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2) Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3) Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda. II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity. In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergIII.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. IV.</DIV></p><p>LOL! Is that all? You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it. Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.</DIV></p><p>Gravity exists on Earth. it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang". At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity". You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.</p><p>I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories. You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in. The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct. No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence. More importantly it's "lab shy". It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment. </p><p>Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments. These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. </p><p>None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy". Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.</DIV></p><p>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination? You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support,</DIV></p><p>You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science. You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity. I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points. </DIV></p><p>How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation? You have the scientific method standing on it's head. I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic. I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are required to address each question in its entirety PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. </DIV></p><p>Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck? When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points? Hoy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.</DIV></p><p>I tend to disect *ideas* by the way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda. </DIV></p><p>Excuse me? I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.</p><p>Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part. Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang". You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short put up or shut up, permanently.</DIV></p><p>I take it you don't like "critics"? "Permanently"? Really? Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what? If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not predict the Big Bang. </DIV></p><p>You're already moving the goalposts I see. I said GR does not "predict' a bang. "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2) Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3) Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda. II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity. In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergIII.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. IV.</DIV></p><p>LOL! Is that all? You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it. Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.</DIV></p><p>Gravity exists on Earth. it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang". At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity". You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.</p><p>I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories. You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in. The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct. No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence. More importantly it's "lab shy". It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment. </p><p>Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments. These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. </p><p>None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy". Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael Mozina.Following Meteor Wayne’s example I will provide a clear challenge to your post.</DIV></p><p>You will "challenge my post" or provide emprical physical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination? You realize there is a difference between the two, and the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that inflation exists in nature, correct?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I therefore DEMAND that you provide clear and scientifically factual support,</DIV></p><p>You don't get to "demand" anything of the "skeptic" in the halls of science. You're the one that must provide factual evidence that inflation is a real, tangible, non fictional entity. I cannot "disprove" anything upon "demand".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>including all necessary and relevant mathematics to address the following points. </DIV></p><p>How does it fall to me to provide you with mathematical models to disprove inflation? You have the scientific method standing on it's head. I'm simply fulfilling the role of pure skeptic. I see no empicical evidence that inflation exists, that gravity "predicts" a "bang" or any of the claims you have made.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are required to address each question in its entirety PARSING OF INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AND SENTENCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. </DIV></p><p>Did you recently get promoted to moderator status, or is this just your little ego running amuck? When did you get to decide *how* I respond to your points? Hoy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NEITHER ARE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER VALID QUESTIONS WITH SEMANTIC DISSECTIOINS OF THE WORDS.</DIV></p><p>I tend to disect *ideas* by the way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Failing to address these points adequately, I request that the moderators take all necessary steps to prevent further attempts to derail and hijack otherwise legitimate scientific discussions for the purpose of furthering a pseudoscientific agenda. </DIV></p><p>Excuse me? I have no "agenda" in this thread other than my original intent to point out the distinction between "MACHO" types of "dark matter" and the "new and improved", non-baryonic brands of DM that have been showing up lately and being credited with all sorts of unsubstanciated attributes.</p><p>Your comment about General Relativity "predicting" a bang was simply an obvious mistatement of fact on your part. Gravity *might* be used to "predict" a singularity, but it could not be use to "predict" a "bang". You're the one getting all huffy and puffy about it.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short put up or shut up, permanently.</DIV></p><p>I take it you don't like "critics"? "Permanently"? Really? Did you have a virtual lynching in mind or what? If I disagree with anything you might say in future, I'm just supposed to "shut up" or else?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.Provide proof that cosmological models based on general relativity do not predict the Big Bang. </DIV></p><p>You're already moving the goalposts I see. I said GR does not "predict' a bang. "Cosmological models" can do anything, including overcoming the force of gravity with all sorts of magical forces. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In particular please provide solid refutation of 1) Chapter 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis 2) Chapter 15, Part 11 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven Weinberg 3) Part II particularly Chapter 13 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 4) Chapter 28 of Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler.Provide evidence that reference to Alfven’s model is relevant and not an attempt to hijack this thread to promote your own agenda. II.Provide proof that we do not know the matter content or distribution of the universe to the degree necessary to support a model for the large-scale structure of the universe sufficient for application of models based on general relativity. In particular please provide concrete refutation for: 1) Chapters 19, 20 and 21 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles and 2) Chapter 15, Part 2 of Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity by Steven WeinbergIII.Provide rigorous refutation for 1) Chapters 8 and 10 of The large scale structure of space-time by S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis and 2) Chapter 27 of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. IV.</DIV></p><p>LOL! Is that all? You best explain how your "smaller than a breadbox" lump of matter is going anywhere, particularly *outside* of the event horizon that must suround it. Please refrain from "making up" ad hoc forces that cannot be emrpically demonstrated in a lab, including but not limited to "dark" things, "invisible" things, "magic" things, or things that are shy around a laboratory experiment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Provide evidence of the relevance of your statement to the original question as to whether general relativity predicts the Big Bang.</DIV></p><p>Gravity exists on Earth. it's doesn't predict the Earth will go "bang". At best case you might make the arguement that gravity predicts contraction of matter to a "singularity". You could never account for a "bang" from the gravity well that was created by the concentration of all that mass to a single location.</p><p>I am not required to 'refute' Lambda theories. You are required to "explain" mainstream theories just like you require I explain the theories I put my faith in. The fact you can slap math to magical forces that defy the laws of nature as we know them is not "evidence" that your theory is correct. No known vector or scalar field in nature will retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" construct and not a single consumer product is based upon it's existence. More importantly it's "lab shy". It won't show up in any controlled laboratory experiment. </p><p>Emprical science is based upon emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments. These experiments have "control mechanisms" that allow us to change the parameters of the experiment to be sure that we have correctly "interpreted" the information. </p><p>None of the typical methods of science can be applied to inflation, or "dark energy". Without these things you could never hope to get explain a "bang" from a concentration of matter. The force of gravity is going to pull things together, not make them go "bang". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</DIV></p><p>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. </DIV></p><p>My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists</DIV></p><p>You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it is now up to you back up your assertions. </DIV></p><p>The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". </p><p> The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. </p><p>The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</DIV></p><p>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. </DIV></p><p>My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists</DIV></p><p>You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it is now up to you back up your assertions. </DIV></p><p>The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". </p><p> The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. </p><p>The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</DIV></p><p>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. </DIV></p><p>My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists</DIV></p><p>You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it is now up to you back up your assertions. </DIV></p><p>The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". </p><p> The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. </p><p>The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have some questions to answer to defend and support your assertions (I - VII in my post on page 2). Those questions specifically address your earlier statements and are themselves quite specific and well-supported with specific citations to the literature.</DIV></p><p>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onus is clearly on you to respond, and respond with solid science. </DIV></p><p>My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have impuned the work of some pretty eminent physicists</DIV></p><p>You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it is now up to you back up your assertions. </DIV></p><p>The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". </p><p> The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. </p><p>The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy.</DIV></p><p>By "polluting the thread", what he means is that a critic has pointed out some problems. Oddly enough I would argue that MACHO forms of "dark matter" theory are in fact "scientific theories" in the sense that we know for sure that our equipment is limited and we cannot observe all the known baryonic matter in the universe. On the other hand the SUSY related brands of DM have in fact become more dogmatic than based upon emprical evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br /> Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>FYI, it was not my intent to hijack this particular thread to get into all the problems with BB theory. I was simply noting to DrRocket that gravity isn't going to explain a "bang". It takes more than simple gravity theory to explain a physical universe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy.</DIV></p><p>By "polluting the thread", what he means is that a critic has pointed out some problems. Oddly enough I would argue that MACHO forms of "dark matter" theory are in fact "scientific theories" in the sense that we know for sure that our equipment is limited and we cannot observe all the known baryonic matter in the universe. On the other hand the SUSY related brands of DM have in fact become more dogmatic than based upon emprical evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br /> Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>FYI, it was not my intent to hijack this particular thread to get into all the problems with BB theory. I was simply noting to DrRocket that gravity isn't going to explain a "bang". It takes more than simple gravity theory to explain a physical universe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy.</DIV></p><p>By "polluting the thread", what he means is that a critic has pointed out some problems. Oddly enough I would argue that MACHO forms of "dark matter" theory are in fact "scientific theories" in the sense that we know for sure that our equipment is limited and we cannot observe all the known baryonic matter in the universe. On the other hand the SUSY related brands of DM have in fact become more dogmatic than based upon emprical evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br /> Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>FYI, it was not my intent to hijack this particular thread to get into all the problems with BB theory. I was simply noting to DrRocket that gravity isn't going to explain a "bang". It takes more than simple gravity theory to explain a physical universe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy.</DIV></p><p>By "polluting the thread", what he means is that a critic has pointed out some problems. Oddly enough I would argue that MACHO forms of "dark matter" theory are in fact "scientific theories" in the sense that we know for sure that our equipment is limited and we cannot observe all the known baryonic matter in the universe. On the other hand the SUSY related brands of DM have in fact become more dogmatic than based upon emprical evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br /> Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>FYI, it was not my intent to hijack this particular thread to get into all the problems with BB theory. I was simply noting to DrRocket that gravity isn't going to explain a "bang". It takes more than simple gravity theory to explain a physical universe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</DIV></p><p>The obvious difference between electrodynamic theories and inflation theory is that electricity isn't shy around a lab, and it can be "tested" in normal experments with real control mechanisms. Inflation is like magic. It does whatever the math formulas say it does and don't you dare ask for a real experimental proof of concept. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</DIV></p><p>The obvious difference between electrodynamic theories and inflation theory is that electricity isn't shy around a lab, and it can be "tested" in normal experments with real control mechanisms. Inflation is like magic. It does whatever the math formulas say it does and don't you dare ask for a real experimental proof of concept. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</DIV></p><p>The obvious difference between electrodynamic theories and inflation theory is that electricity isn't shy around a lab, and it can be "tested" in normal experments with real control mechanisms. Inflation is like magic. It does whatever the math formulas say it does and don't you dare ask for a real experimental proof of concept. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</DIV></p><p>The obvious difference between electrodynamic theories and inflation theory is that electricity isn't shy around a lab, and it can be "tested" in normal experments with real control mechanisms. Inflation is like magic. It does whatever the math formulas say it does and don't you dare ask for a real experimental proof of concept. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate. MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets. Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted. Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory. Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious. Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling. I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p>
<p>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate. MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets. Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted. Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory. Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious. Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling. I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p>
<p>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate. MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets. Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted. Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory. Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious. Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling. I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p>
<p>It's heartening to see such passion in a scientific debate. MOND reminds me of the astronomers of previous centuries inventing ever more complex systems of interlocking crystal spheres to explain the observed trajectories of the planets. Still, as clear and obvious as Galileo's and Keppler's more elegant explanations seem to us now, they took a very long time to be widely accepted. Turn-of-the-century physicists struggled to accept Relativity, and even Einstein struggled to accept Quantum Theory. Every great breakthrough begins as a crazy idea, is grudgingly accepted as the evidence mounts and is eventually seen as completely obvious. Dark matter is certainly at the earliier part of this spectrum, butthe evidence so far seems compelling. I eagerly anticipate future evidence and theories.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This ultimately seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy because we both know that you can't make inflation do any tricks in a real lab. It's also a burden of proof shifting problem on your part. You can't claim gravity "predicts" anything other than perhaps a universal sized "singularity". Gravity isn't going to make you fly off the earth and gravity isn't going to make your singularity go "bang" either.My "response" is essentially "show me the inflation" in solid scientific emprical tests. Then I will have something to respond to. At the moment the only thing I have to respond to is a mythical force that defies all the known laws of nature, acts unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature and doesn't exist in a single consumer product on Earth.You mean Guth, did you have someone specific in mind, or is this sort of a strawman type thing you do for the effect?The only "assertion" I made is that your claim was false. It's up to *you* to demonstrate that your claim was not false. GR does *not* predict a "bang" as you claimed. All it "predicts" is that objects of matter will be attracted to other objects of matter. It might be use to "predict" a "singularity", but never a "bang". The only one ducking and weaving and shirking their empirical responsibilities are those who claim that "inflation" overcame all that gravitational attraction. The problem here DrRocket is that you and I both know that mainstream beliefs cannot be "explained" any better than non mainstream theories by any objective set of emprical scientific standards. You can't demonstreate inflation exists. At least the things I put my faith in show up in controlled laboratory experiments. I can even "explain" much of the emprical testing that has been done to support my beliefs. What I can't "explain" is why *anyone* puts any faith in "inflation". It does not exist in nature. It's a figment of Guth's imagination, nothing more. It never shows up in a lab, and it never shows up in a consumer product. It defies all the known laws of nature that govern other vector and scalar fields in nature that preclude anything from retaining near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Pressure" doesn't behave that way. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram