The Emprical Method - Objectively defining what constitutes an "explanation".

[michaelmozina]

<p>I'm having a tough time comprehending the objective critieria that are being used to define what theories are to be considered "explained" and what theories remain "unexplained".&nbsp; For instance, is MOND theory "explained" or "unexplained"?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How is inflation theory "explained" in light of new findings of "dark flows" in our universe which inflation theory failed to "predict"?&nbsp;&nbsp; What real emprical physical "explanation" is found in the term "dark energy".&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm trying to get a handle on what exactly constitutes an "explanation" of a phenomenon.</p><p>Using a simple analogy I would argue that Birkeland's "explanation" of a aurora was superior to Chapman's theories about energy transfers between the sun and the Earth because it was based on "emprical scientific testing', not simply mathematical elegance alone.&nbsp; What exactly can be used to differentiate correct "explanations" from theories that include mathematical models, but are ultimately incorrect, and how does any of this apply to the theories of astronomy where emprical testing becomes difficult if not impossible due to distances and time? </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm having a tough time comprehending the objective critieria that are being used to define what theories are to be considered "explained" and what theories remain "unexplained".&nbsp; For instance, is MOND theory "explained" or "unexplained"?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How is inflation theory "explained" in light of new findings of "dark flows" in our universe which inflation theory failed to "predict"?&nbsp;&nbsp; What real emprical physical "explanation" is found in the term "dark energy".&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm trying to get a handle on what exactly constitutes an "explanation" of a phenomenon.Using a simple analogy I would argue that Birkeland's "explanation" of a aurora was superior to Chapman's theories about energy transfers between the sun and the Earth because it was based on "emprical scientific testing', not simply mathematical elegance alone.&nbsp; What exactly can be used to differentiate correct "explanations" from theories that include mathematical models, but are ultimately incorrect, and how does any of this apply to the theories of astronomy where emprical testing becomes difficult if not impossible due to distances and time? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It is very simple.&nbsp; A theory is set of principles that produces a predictive model, almost always a mathematical model, the predictions of which have been verified by a large body of empirical evidence.&nbsp; That empirical evidence can be in the form of laboratory experiments or it can be in the form of precision measurements of phenomena observed in nature.&nbsp; The key element is <strong>predictive capabil</strong>ity that is in agreement with experimental data.</p><p>Predictive capability in physics is accomplished by means of mathematical models that allow the basic principles of the theory to be applied to a wide variety of situations.&nbsp; This requires that acceptable theories be quantitative rather than qualitative and descriptive in nature.&nbsp; It also imposes a requirement for rigorous formulation of the conditions under which the theory applies and the parameters that can be used to describe and predict natural phenomena.&nbsp; Quantitative descriptions are required, rather than descriptive analogies.&nbsp;</p><p>When a theory produces predictions that are contradicted by valid experimental data, it is wrong.&nbsp; It may continue to be considered a valid approximation under some circumstances, as for instance Newtonian mechanics is considered a valid method of analyzing the movement of bodies when velocities are small when compared to the speed of light and gravitational fields are modest.</p><p>When applied at the scale of astronomy, theories such as general relativity enjoy broad applicability on the basis of their validation via precise observations of natural phenomena and their predictive capability.&nbsp; So for instance general relativity enjoys acceptance due to a broad range of observations and its predictions are generally accepted unless directly contradicted by experiment or conflict with equally well-established theories (as for instance is the case near the singularity of a black hole where the conflict with quantum mechanics shows that general relativity may not be a valid approximation).&nbsp; <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very simple.&nbsp; A theory is set of principles that produces a predictive model, almost always a mathematical model,</DIV></p><p>Alright, but there must be a greater requirement.&nbsp; Otherwise, someone can simply whip up a math formula about how many elves can fit on the head of a pin, and "predict" any number.&nbsp;&nbsp; A mathematical number about "inflation" isn't particularly compelling to a "skeptic" of the existence of "inflation".&nbsp; How does one know such a thing even exists in nature? </p><p>The "predictions" of many of these arguments have also changed over time,&nbsp; They will change again and they will be modified to "explain" the recently discovered "dark currents" flowing through our universe.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the predictions of which have been verified by a large body of empirical evidence.</DIV></p><p>Without a control mechanism and without a clear way to "falsify' a particular "theory" (Lambda-CDM theory for instance), what exactly do you mean by the term "emprical evidence"? &nbsp; Got any emprical evidence of MOND theory, or any particular evidence of a particular hypothetical SUSY partical you find compelling?&nbsp; If so, why?&nbsp; What exactly constitutes "emprical evidence' unless a control mechanism is being applied to a real "experiment"?&nbsp; What empircal experiment (complete with control mechanisms) demonstrates that "inflation" has some affect on objects in nature?&nbsp; Where does "inflation" come from?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That empirical evidence can be in the form of laboratory experiments</DIV></p><p>Here we seem to be in total agreement.&nbsp; I have no problem with Birkeland's work with aurora because they were "lab tested" ideas, not simply math formulas on paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>or it can be in the form of precision measurements of phenomena observed in nature. </DIV></p><p>Well, there's a problem here without a control mechanism from a skeptics perspective. &nbsp; I might "observe" something that leads me to believe that distant objects are "accelerating'.&nbsp; &nbsp; Chalking that up to "dark" forces means nothing if the force itself has not been identified.&nbsp; Slapping math formulas to a placeholder term for human ignorance does nothing constructive for us without identifying the actual force of nature that is responsible for this observation.</p><p>Birkeland didn't just point to the aurora and claim that "dark energy" cause that phenomenon.&nbsp; He created actual empirical experiments to test "real" and "known" forces of nature.&nbsp; He "tested" his ideas in physical experiments and made careful observations as he made changes to his control mechanisms.&nbsp; He left nothing to chance.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Whereas Chapman's theories looked fine on paper and might have been computer modelled with great precision, the failed to match the energy flow of particles in our atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's model was superior because he paid attention to detail, took in-situ measurements, created emprical experiments *and* he did the math.&nbsp; Math alone did not make his theory superior to Chapman's theories.&nbsp; His empirical experiments and in situ measurements made his theory superior to Chapman's ideas. Whereas Birkeland's theories on energy flow stood the test of time, Chapman's math formulas were eventually laid to rest.&nbsp; They "predicted" the right amount of energy, but not the actual flow pattern of those energy flows. </p><p>IMO Birkeland's "methods" are "classic" methods of science.&nbsp; He built real experiments, varied the control mechanisms of his experiments and took maticulous notes.&nbsp; He took in-situ measurements of the magnetic fields of the planet during solar storms.&nbsp; He did it "by the book". &nbsp; IMO that's why his work has stood the test of time, or most of it anyway.&nbsp; We have learned a few things about our universe since that time, but the basic concepts of energy flow patterns that Birkeland produced in his lab have certainly stood the test of time and have fit with recent "observations", that Birkeland himself could not have accessed in his time. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The key element is predictive capability that is in agreement with experimental data.</DIV></p><p>I don't seem to have a problem with that logic as long as one sticks to *known and identified* forces of nature.&nbsp; When astronomers start labeling forces of nature, "dark this" or "dark that", I fail to comprehend the value of putting math to these items.&nbsp; They do not exist in nature unless you can demonstrate that they do exist in nature.&nbsp; A "dark force" tells me nothing.&nbsp; A physical experiment tells me how it works. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Predictive capability in physics is accomplished by means of mathematical models that allow the basic principles of the theory to be applied to a wide variety of situations. </DIV></p><p>The problem from a skeptics viewpoint is that these theories have become a little *too* easy to manipulate and make to fit an endless variety of various possible situations.&nbsp; Inflation for instance has 'evolved' over time, as have the various "properties' being assigned to "dark matter".&nbsp; I've now seen articles talking about the half life of 'dark matter', it's abiliity to "pass through' other forms of matter, it's ability to emit gamma rays, and most recently it's ability to release hundred billion volt electrons.&nbsp; I've yet to see anyone produce a gram of this stuff to verify any of these presumed "properties" of "dark matter" and yet I'm told it's many times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard.&nbsp; I must say, this sounds "fishy" at some point.&nbsp; How many "properties" are we allowed to ascribe to an unverified entitiy and how many mathematical "predictions" are we allowed to make *without* ever "testing" the ideas?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This requires that acceptable theories be quantitative rather than qualitative and descriptive in nature.</DIV></p><p>Here's the rub as I see it.&nbsp;&nbsp; As a skeptic of current theory, I don't have any trouble with the quantification part of what's going on in astronomy.&nbsp; It seem adequately quantified, in fact it seems overly fixated on quantification, and it's lacking in "qualification".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland didn't take Chapman's "mathematical only" approach to energy exchanges between spheres in space.&nbsp; He built actual experiments to test his ideas using real parameters that might be found in space.&nbsp; He build a sphere in a vacuum and simulated his theories in actual emprical experiments and created aurora around his spheres as he "predicted".&nbsp; There's a "qualification" aspect here that seems to be completely lacking in contemporary theories of astronomy. </p><p>It's find to "assign" properties to something you call "inflation", but when do I get to see it work in laboratory experiment with control mechanisms?&nbsp; Am I simply supposed to accept this on faith, or is there a physical force of nature called "inflation" that can be demonstrated to exist in nature? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It also imposes a requirement for rigorous formulation of the conditions under which the theory applies and the parameters that can be used to describe and predict natural phenomena. </DIV></p><p>But the "properties" being ascribed to various theories has exceeded what is "natural", at least what "naturally" shows up in emprical experimentation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Dark matter is now being presumed to emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, etc, yet it's never been done in a lab.&nbsp; Inflation is presumed to have increased volume over many orders of magnitude yet retained a near constant density.&nbsp; The "properties" being assigned to these "forces" are beyond 'natural", some of them are "supernatural".&nbsp; No other known force of nature behaves this way as it relates to density and volume.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quantitative descriptions are required, rather than descriptive analogies.</DIV></p><p>Fine, but that alone isn't enough to always distinguish between competing theories.&nbsp; Prior to recent lensing data, MOND theory was indistinguishable from "dark matter" theories as it related to "predicting" the galactic rotation patterns of galaxies.&nbsp; Chapman's math formulas were "practical" and useful at "predicting" the total amount of energy exchange between the sun and the Earth, but they failed to accurately predict the flow patterns of energy.&nbsp; Do we have to wait 70 years to verify one theory over another, like Birkeland's theory or Chapman's theory only due to a lack of information, or is there something useful in Birkeland's classic "approach" that can be applied here and now to most scenarios we might find in space?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When a theory produces predictions that are contradicted by valid experimental data, it is wrong. </DIV></p><p>In my experience that is rarely if ever true.&nbsp; I'll bet there are still a few MOND theorists who are attempting to make some mathematical sense out of the more recent lensing data.&nbsp; I'm sure that inflation theory didn't crumble when we found "holes" in WMAP data, and it will be modified again to "predict" those "dark flows" somehow.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've noticed that astronomers rarely if ever just "give up" on a theory simply because it failed to predict a specific observation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may continue to be considered a valid approximation under some circumstances, as for instance Newtonian mechanics is considered a valid method of analyzing the movement of bodies when velocities are small when compared to the speed of light and gravitational fields are modest.</DIV></p><p>I hear you, but... </p><p>For that matter, Chapman's theories still mathematically "predict" the correct overall amount of energy exchange, but his theories fail to tell us anything about our universe or how it really functions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's model was "better" and more accurate.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Can we apply his "method' here to other types of 'observations"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When applied at the scale of astronomy, theories such as general relativity enjoy broad applicability on the basis of their validation via precise observations of natural phenomena and their predictive capability.</DIV></p><p>Ok.&nbsp; Einstein's "predictions" have been veried to tell us more about the natural universe than Newton's simple concepts. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So for instance general relativity enjoys acceptance due to a broad range of observations and its predictions are generally accepted unless directly contradicted by experiment or conflict with equally well-established theories (as for instance is the case near the singularity of a black hole where the conflict with quantum mechanics shows that general relativity may not be a valid approximation).&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yet Einstein himself didn't believe in "black holes" to begin with. &nbsp;</p><p>There's another issue here that comes into play from a historical perspective.&nbsp; Einstein's simplified GR theories have an effect on material objects that in no way resembles the behaviors and movements of matter in Lambda-CMD theory.&nbsp; So many different and unique "sub-hypothesis" have been stuffed into Einstein's early GR theories that gravity no longer has the same meaning in these formulas. &nbsp;&nbsp; </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alright, but there must be a greater requirement.&nbsp; Otherwise, someone can simply whip up a math formula about how many elves can fit on the head of a pin, and "predict" any number.&nbsp;&nbsp; A mathematical number about "inflation" isn't particularly compelling to a "skeptic" of the existence of "inflation".&nbsp; How does one know such a thing even exists in nature? The "predictions" of many of these arguments have also changed over time,&nbsp; They will change again and they will be modified to "explain" the recently discovered "dark currents" flowing through our universe.&nbsp;&nbsp; Without a control mechanism and without a clear way to "falsify' a particular "theory" (Lambda-CDM theory for instance), what exactly do you mean by the term "emprical evidence"? &nbsp; Got any emprical evidence of MOND theory, or any particular evidence of a particular hypothetical SUSY partical you find compelling?&nbsp; If so, why?&nbsp; What exactly constitutes "emprical evidence' unless a control mechanism is being applied to a real "experiment"?&nbsp; What empircal experiment (complete with control mechanisms) demonstrates that "inflation" has some affect on objects in nature?&nbsp; Where does "inflation" come from?Here we seem to be in total agreement.&nbsp; I have no problem with Birkeland's work with aurora because they were "lab tested" ideas, not simply math formulas on paper.Well, there's a problem here without a control mechanism from a skeptics perspective. &nbsp; I might "observe" something that leads me to believe that distant objects are "accelerating'.&nbsp; &nbsp; Chalking that up to "dark" forces means nothing if the force itself has not been identified.&nbsp; Slapping math formulas to a placeholder term for human ignorance does nothing constructive for us without identifying the actual force of nature that is responsible for this observation.Birkeland didn't just point to the aurora and claim that "dark energy" cause that phenomenon.&nbsp; He created actual empirical experiments to test "real" and "known" forces of nature.&nbsp; He "tested" his ideas in physical experiments and made careful observations as he made changes to his control mechanisms.&nbsp; He left nothing to chance.&nbsp;&nbsp;Whereas Chapman's theories looked fine on paper and might have been computer modelled with great precision, the failed to match the energy flow of particles in our atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's model was superior because he paid attention to detail, took in-situ measurements, created emprical experiments *and* he did the math.&nbsp; Math alone did not make his theory superior to Chapman's theories.&nbsp; His empirical experiments and in situ measurements made his theory superior to Chapman's ideas. Whereas Birkeland's theories on energy flow stood the test of time, Chapman's math formulas were eventually laid to rest.&nbsp; They "predicted" the right amount of energy, but not the actual flow pattern of those energy flows. IMO Birkeland's "methods" are "classic" methods of science.&nbsp; He built real experiments, varied the control mechanisms of his experiments and took maticulous notes.&nbsp; He took in-situ measurements of the magnetic fields of the planet during solar storms.&nbsp; He did it "by the book". &nbsp; IMO that's why his work has stood the test of time, or most of it anyway.&nbsp; We have learned a few things about our universe since that time, but the basic concepts of energy flow patterns that Birkeland produced in his lab have certainly stood the test of time and have fit with recent "observations", that Birkeland himself could not have accessed in his time. I don't seem to have a problem with that logic as long as one sticks to *known and identified* forces of nature.&nbsp; When astronomers start labeling forces of nature, "dark this" or "dark that", I fail to comprehend the value of putting math to these items.&nbsp; They do not exist in nature unless you can demonstrate that they do exist in nature.&nbsp; A "dark force" tells me nothing.&nbsp; A physical experiment tells me how it works. The problem from a skeptics viewpoint is that these theories have become a little *too* easy to manipulate and make to fit an endless variety of various possible situations.&nbsp; Inflation for instance has 'evolved' over time, as have the various "properties' being assigned to "dark matter".&nbsp; I've now seen articles talking about the half life of 'dark matter', it's abiliity to "pass through' other forms of matter, it's ability to emit gamma rays, and most recently it's ability to release hundred billion volt electrons.&nbsp; I've yet to see anyone produce a gram of this stuff to verify any of these presumed "properties" of "dark matter" and yet I'm told it's many times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard.&nbsp; I must say, this sounds "fishy" at some point.&nbsp; How many "properties" are we allowed to ascribe to an unverified entitiy and how many mathematical "predictions" are we allowed to make *without* ever "testing" the ideas?Here's the rub as I see it.&nbsp;&nbsp; As a skeptic of current theory, I don't have any trouble with the quantification part of what's going on in astronomy.&nbsp; It seem adequately quantified, in fact it seems overly fixated on quantification, and it's lacking in "qualification".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland didn't take Chapman's "mathematical only" approach to energy exchanges between spheres in space.&nbsp; He built actual experiments to test his ideas using real parameters that might be found in space.&nbsp; He build a sphere in a vacuum and simulated his theories in actual emprical experiments and created aurora around his spheres as he "predicted".&nbsp; There's a "qualification" aspect here that seems to be completely lacking in contemporary theories of astronomy. It's find to "assign" properties to something you call "inflation", but when do I get to see it work in laboratory experiment with control mechanisms?&nbsp; Am I simply supposed to accept this on faith, or is there a physical force of nature called "inflation" that can be demonstrated to exist in nature? But the "properties" being ascribed to various theories has exceeded what is "natural", at least what "naturally" shows up in emprical experimentation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Dark matter is now being presumed to emit billion volt electrons, gamma rays, etc, yet it's never been done in a lab.&nbsp; Inflation is presumed to have increased volume over many orders of magnitude yet retained a near constant density.&nbsp; The "properties" being assigned to these "forces" are beyond 'natural", some of them are "supernatural".&nbsp; No other known force of nature behaves this way as it relates to density and volume.Fine, but that alone isn't enough to always distinguish between competing theories.&nbsp; Prior to recent lensing data, MOND theory was indistinguishable from "dark matter" theories as it related to "predicting" the galactic rotation patterns of galaxies.&nbsp; Chapman's math formulas were "practical" and useful at "predicting" the total amount of energy exchange between the sun and the Earth, but they failed to accurately predict the flow patterns of energy.&nbsp; Do we have to wait 70 years to verify one theory over another, like Birkeland's theory or Chapman's theory only due to a lack of information, or is there something useful in Birkeland's classic "approach" that can be applied here and now to most scenarios we might find in space?&nbsp;&nbsp; In my experience that is rarely if ever true.&nbsp; I'll bet there are still a few MOND theorists who are attempting to make some mathematical sense out of the more recent lensing data.&nbsp; I'm sure that inflation theory didn't crumble when we found "holes" in WMAP data, and it will be modified again to "predict" those "dark flows" somehow.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've noticed that astronomers rarely if ever just "give up" on a theory simply because it failed to predict a specific observation.I hear you, but... For that matter, Chapman's theories still mathematically "predict" the correct overall amount of energy exchange, but his theories fail to tell us anything about our universe or how it really functions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's model was "better" and more accurate.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Can we apply his "method' here to other types of 'observations"?Ok.&nbsp; Einstein's "predictions" have been veried to tell us more about the natural universe than Newton's simple concepts. &nbsp;&nbsp; Yet Einstein himself didn't believe in "black holes" to begin with. &nbsp;There's another issue here that comes into play from a historical perspective.&nbsp; Einstein's simplified GR theories have an effect on material objects that in no way resembles the behaviors and movements of matter in Lambda-CMD theory.&nbsp; So many different and unique "sub-hypothesis" have been stuffed into Einstein's early GR theories that gravity no longer has the same meaning in these formulas. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK it is now quite clear that you were not asking a question to which you actually wanted an answer.&nbsp; You simply wanted another thread to pursue your own personal EU agenda.</p><p>Therefore, I request that this thread be moved to The Unexplaiined.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK it is now quite clear that you were not asking a question to which you actually wanted an answer.&nbsp; You simply wanted another thread to pursue your own personal EU agenda.Therefore, I request that this thread be moved to The Unexplaiined.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What in the world is wrong with this place recently? Why in the world would you choose to move a perfectly logical thread to the "unexplained" section that was attempting to distinguish "explained" ideas from unexplained ideas?&nbsp; I never *once* even mentioned EU theory.&nbsp; Sheesh.&nbsp; This place is getting weirder by the day. </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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Cosmology is not primarily an experimental science.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cosmology is not primarily an experimental science. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Er, why not?&nbsp; Wasn't Birkeland's work with aurora based upon "experimental science"?&nbsp; Aren't experimental tests of gravity, "experimental science"? </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

Can someone please explain to me the logic of moving this thread to this forum? <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>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can someone please explain to me the logic of moving this thread to this forum? <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>Certainly.&nbsp; It is a thread that appears to be solely designed to harp on methodology being used concurrently in an active thread in the same forum.&nbsp; While arguing methodology isn't per se a bad thing, in this case it's already re-hashing what's under debate in the active thread.&nbsp; Thus, it cannot remain. It's already becoming a virtual duplicate of the Dark Matter thread.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, why not?&nbsp; Wasn't Birkeland's work with aurora based upon "experimental science"?&nbsp; Aren't experimental tests of gravity, "experimental science"? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That's physics, not Cosmology.&nbsp; Cosmology primarily focuses on the large scale structure of the Universe.&nbsp; Your refs of Birkeland's work didn't have anything to do with cosmology from what I have seen.&nbsp; The Big Bang, Ekpyrotic Theories, Expansion, etc... That is Cosmology.&nbsp; Auroras, for the purpose here, are natural occurrences on Earth.&nbsp; That's earth sciences/physics/heliophysics/atmospherics/plasma/etc..&nbsp; Cosmology it isn't. </p><p>It's kind of difficult to put the Universe in a petri dish and poke it with a stick.&nbsp; But, certain valuable inferences can be made using experimental sciences in order to confirm Cosmology based theories. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's physics, not Cosmology.</DIV></p><p>What makes you sure they are different?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Cosmology primarily focuses on the large scale structure of the Universe.&nbsp; Your refs of Birkeland's work didn't have anything to do with cosmology from what I have seen.&nbsp; The Big Bang, Ekpyrotic Theories, Expansion, etc... That is Cosmology.&nbsp; Auroras, for the purpose here, are natural occurrences on Earth.&nbsp; That's earth sciences/physics/heliophysics/atmospherics/plasma/etc..&nbsp; Cosmology it isn't. It's kind of difficult to put the Universe in a petri dish and poke it with a stick.&nbsp; But, certain valuable inferences can be made using experimental sciences in order to confirm Cosmology based theories. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>It seems to me that anything that attempts to "predict" observations and preports to explain the "causes" of distant observations is a type of "cosmology".&nbsp; Birkeland could not shoot a satellite into space to confirm the energy flow patterns that his models "predicted", but he did attempt to "predict" events around distant objects based on emprical physics.&nbsp; I don't see why you believe that phyaics and cosmology are necessarily different.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Certainly.&nbsp; It is a thread that appears to be solely designed to harp on methodology being used concurrently in an active thread in the same forum.&nbsp; While arguing methodology isn't per se a bad thing, in this case it's already re-hashing what's under debate in the active thread.&nbsp; Thus, it cannot remain. It's already becoming a virtual duplicate of the Dark Matter thread. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>But yevaud, my whole point in starting a new thread was so that my conversation with DrRocket could "evolve" and become more focused.&nbsp; It was my hope that our conversation would evolve and become more focused on the value of emprical scientific testing, and to get a clear understanding of what it means to "explain" a scientific theory.&nbsp;</p><p> I intentionally started this new thread so that my conversation with DrRocket would not become a hijack of the dark matter thread.&nbsp; I even refocused my arguement so that we would all have a clear understanding of what it takes to "explain" a theory in astronomy.&nbsp; I specifically cited more "mainstream" topica and I specifically avoided the EU issue altogether so as to avoid any unnecessary hostilities or hard feelings.&nbsp; Even still, I got accused of promoting EU theory and the thread got "banished" to the unexplained forum.&nbsp; Hoy. I'm just trying to figure out what it means to "explain" a theory in astronomy! &nbsp;&nbsp; I can't "play by the rules" if their aren't any clear rules to work with. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But yevaud, my whole point in starting a new thread was so that my conversation with DrRocket could "evolve" and become more focused.&nbsp; It was my hope that our conversation would evolve and become more focused on the value of emprical scientific testing, and to get a clear understanding of what it means to "explain" a scientific theory.&nbsp; I intentionally started this new thread so that my conversation with DrRocket would not become a hijack of the dark matter thread.&nbsp; I even refocused my arguement so that we would all have a clear understanding of what it takes to "explain" a theory in astronomy.&nbsp; I specifically cited more "mainstream" topica and I specifically avoided the EU issue altogether so as to avoid any unnecessary hostilities or hard feelings.&nbsp; Even still, I got accused of promoting EU theory and the thread got "banished" to the unexplained forum.&nbsp; Hoy. I'm just trying to figure out what it means to "explain" a theory in astronomy! &nbsp;&nbsp; I can't "play by the rules" if their aren't any clear rules to work with. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>See my first post in this thread.&nbsp; There is no need for a debate.&nbsp; You asked for the mainstream position and you got it.&nbsp; I did not make that stuff up.</p><p>If you like you can take that answer, go back to the other thread, and respond to my list of questions.</p><p>Or you can sit back and relax in having successfully sidestepped any need to actually apply the criteria that were given to address those questions.</p><p>In any case there is no need for further discussion as to what a theory really is and the basis for its acceptance as valid.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I don't see why you believe that phyaics and cosmology are necessarily different.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Because they are.</p><p>Nowhere did I say they weren't related nor did I imply that much of the substance of one relies on the knowledge of another.&nbsp; However, studying "aurora" is not "Cosmology."</p><p>It's a simple matter of definitions, nothing more.&nbsp; You can't take a shoe and label it as a hat and put it on your head without looking somewhat strange.&nbsp; Similarly, you can't label studying "aurora" (or whatever it was) and call it Cosmology without looking just as strange. </p><p>However, just as Cosmology is dependent upon all sorts of avenues of investigation, that does not mean a discovery in one of those could not lead to new ideas in Cosmology.&nbsp; However, the significance has to be demonstrated in context first.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I intentionally started this new thread so that my conversation with DrRocket would not become a hijack of the dark matter thread.</p><p>[...] </p><p>I can't "play by the rules" if their aren't any clear rules to work with. </p><p> Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>The rules are clear.&nbsp; You began a new thread that is covering the exact same territory as the Dark Matter thread, regardless how it's couched in "trying to discuss Methodology."&nbsp; That falls simply under the "duplicate thread" rule.</p><p>You are the sole person in quite a long time who's insisted the rules are uncertain. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>For the time being I am copying one of Michaelmozinas posts in another thread before it is deleted there as being off topic.</p><p>"</p><p>All this talk of "banning" the skeptic.&nbsp; Wow!</p><p>I really don't understand how this discussion became oriented around me personally or it became about my beliefs rather than the specific laim that was made in the article about this presumed "property' of dark matter.&nbsp;</p><p>The really amazing part of this discussion from my perspective is that I am in fact a "dark matter" advocate.&nbsp; I personally happen to believe that 'dark matter' (AKA "missing mass") explanations of lensing studies and rotation observations of various galaxies are "better" than MOND theories and other idea that also attempt to explain rotation patterns of distant galaxies.&nbsp; I do not however simply take at face value every single claim of a "property" that is now being associated with "dark matter" theories.&nbsp; That distinction between emprically demonstrated forms of 'dark matter", like MACHO brands of dark matter, and exotic brands of theoretical matter that have unevidence attributes.&nbsp; That is all I was trying to&nbsp; explain in these recent threads.</p><p>To be honest, I don't really know the best way to go about being a "skeptic" around astronomers.&nbsp; This is a touchy bunch from my point of view..&nbsp; I honestly fail to understand how a simple expectation of empirical support (qualification) for a specific mainstream "dark matter" claim comes to be seen as a "hijack" of the thread that is now somehow related to my personal beliefs.&nbsp; I really don't "get it".&nbsp; A skeptic expects empirical support of *all* scientific claims, not just the ones being made by astronomers.&nbsp; It's completely and totally "impersonal" from my perspective, but some folks around here are evidently taking this "skepticism" very personally. </p><p>The "skeptic" has a useful function in science.&nbsp; The skeptic typically requires emprical support of all ideas, not just the ones that are "popular".&nbsp; &nbsp; Pure skepticism and empirical experimentation is not personal, nor is it related to a single scientific theory.&nbsp; It's not as though asking for emprical support is unique to field of astronomy.&nbsp; It is a requirement of all other fields of science as well.&nbsp; It's a common expectation in all branches of science that one will be able to "reproduce" one's claim in controlled experimentation, and to be able to produce hard emprical support for one's scientific idea.&nbsp; This is true of evolutionary theory, quantum physics, particle physics, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; Skepticism and the expectation of emprical physical support are not personal or specific to any scientific industry or any scientific theory. &nbsp; It's just an "emprical" way of "qualifying' all ideas in science. </p><p>I intentionally used the neutrino "hunt" as an example of a "classical" scientific quest for knowledge that was strongly based upon the emprical "classical" method of science.&nbsp;&nbsp; I explained how their use of control mechanisms (known source of neutrinos) was an invaluable asset in enabeling them to "qualify' the mathematical models that were used to calculate the number of neutrino collision reactions that they expected to observe in their "experiments".&nbsp; These control mechanisms allowed them to verify and corroborate the accuracy of their mathematical models.&nbsp;</p><p>I then explained the difference between an emprical "qualification" process as was done with neutrinos, and pure "quantification" arguements.&nbsp; I compared and contrasted the "classic method" of science that was applied by neutrino advocates with the claim that "dark matter" emits high energy photons.&nbsp; I shwed that such presumed particles enjoy *no* emprical support from any sort of "controlled experiment".&nbsp; There is in fact a tangible and demonstrateble difference here between an emprically verifiable statement, and an unsupported claim that is simply a "wild guess" and that utterly lacks for any sort of empirical support.&nbsp; That's all I've been trying to demonstrate this week. </p><p>I know that my own beliefs are "unpopular", they can "frustrating" to the mainstream, and evidently now they are "off limits" in this specific forum.&nbsp; From my point of view at least, I have actually gone to great lengths over the past week to try to keep the topics focused specifically on the lack of emprical support for mainstream claims about "dark matter" and what "dark matter" can "emit" in terms of gamma ray photons and other high energy particles.&nbsp; In retrospect, it was probably rather unfortunate that the most recent observation attributed to "dark matter" happened to be high energy electrons rather than some other arbitrary "property", since the observation of high energy electrons has invariably led to implications as it relates to my own personal beliefs.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I did however point out that this skepticism applies to *all* the presumed "properties' being assigned to "dark matter", including it's presumed "darkness" attribute.&nbsp; In other words it's not just the high energy electrons that can't be emprically verified, it's *all* of the "properties" being assigned to "exotic" forms of matter, starting with it's non interference with photons.&nbsp; None of these criticism are specific to the one claim about dark matter emitting high energy photons and electrons, but rather to *all* the various "properties" being assigned to "dark matter".&nbsp; I believe that some folks here are confusing honest "skepticism" of exotic forms of matter as some sort of a plug for EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; That was not my intent.&nbsp; </p><p>I think that given the amount of hostility that has been generated by my skepticism of these DM "properties" that keep popping up in the media and various papers, that it's time I take a break from this place and allow things to 'cool off" a bit.&nbsp;&nbsp; I thought that my several week absence after the last "go round" would give everyone a chance to chill, but evidently the mainstream is really "touchy" about any sort of criticism of mainstream claims, as well as any sort of mention of one specific theory in astronomy.&nbsp; I'm sorry that's the case, but I didn't invent the theory, and my criticisms of DM claims are urelated to my favorite cosmology theories.<br /><br />IMO honest skepticism shouldn't be a threat to anyone, and "disagreement" isn't always "bad" for "science".&nbsp; IMO I'm simply fulfilling a necessary and important role in keeping things "honest".&nbsp;&nbsp; If and when someone can demonstrate that "dark matter" emits high energy electrons, I'll be the first to congradulate them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Simply pointing to an observation of high energy electrons and attributing them to "dark matter" isn't however going to "cut it" with any true "skeptic".&nbsp; Emprical science works for all fields of science and all scientific claims require emprical support.&nbsp; That is what separates "science" from "faith".<br /><br />FYI, I'll check back in a few weeks and see what's new around here.&nbsp; For now I've got plenty of programming to do at work.&nbsp; It seems to me that we could all use some time to 'chill out' and take things less personally.&nbsp; I'm really not anyone's enemy, and I'm only here looking for exactly the same thing everyone here is looking for, namely "truth", emprical scientific truth.</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> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Another michaelmozina post moved to the appropriate thread prior to deletion.</p><p>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/abs/nature07477.html</p><p>I had some trouble with your previous link to the actual paper in Nature, but the link above seems to work. </p><p>For the record, I never said that lab experiments were the *only* way to do science.&nbsp; That's your own quaint little strawman Wayne.&nbsp; It is going to be absolutely *necessary* to "scale" any and all empirical forces of nature to "size", irrespective of what cosmology theory or what known physical concepts we attept to apply to the universe.&nbsp; No one is denying this point.&nbsp; I have no trouble allowing anyone to "scale" the force of gravity to size because gravity is not shy around a lab.&nbsp; I may not be able to hold that scaled object in my hand, or touch it, but I know that gravity exists and I know that large gravity wells exist in space.&nbsp; I empricially know and experience that gravity exists in nature, even if I can't fully explain what it is, or what "causes" gravity.&nbsp; I can "test" it on a small scale to find it's "properties" and I can verify these "properties" in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; I can then make some reasonable and logical calculations about how these "properties" might scale to size.</p><p>FYI, this seems to be a pretty good presentation on this topic: </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory</p><p>This is in fact a SUSY related theory Wayne.&nbsp; This is an "extra-dimensional', non standard particle physics/GUT theory that is based upon the "assumed" existence of additional dimensions of reality.</p><p>The problem is that I don't have any emprical evidence that space/time is composed of five dimensions or that this hypothetical form of dark matter that is mentioned in the paper actually exists in nature.&nbsp; It is a hypothetical form of matter that does not, emprically exists in a strickly four dimensional space/time continuum. &nbsp; I have no empirical evidence to suggest that extra dimensional matter even exist in nature Wayne.&nbsp; I have no idea if this material exists or that it emits anything, let alone high energy electrons into this dimension.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, I have no idea of such material is actually 'dark' to photons, or that it has any sort of longevity.&nbsp; I don't have any idea how such particles might "annihillate", what conditions might be necessary for such an event to occur, etc. &nbsp; I certainly don't know if any 'extra dimensions' exist in nature! &nbsp; I therefore am required engage in huge "acts of faith" in something that cannot be emprically demonstrated and that may not even exist.&nbsp; I have no way to test or verify these "assumptions" of the "properties" of this presumed form of "matter", so the mathematical analysis isn't particularly helpful in resolving anything related to determining whether it actually exists. </p><p>The incredibly ironic part of all this controversy from my perspective is that this is a grand unified GUT theory (like all GUT's) that attempts to link gravity with EM fields.&nbsp; This particular one attempts to link electromagnism with gravity as a five dimensional space time manifold.&nbsp; It seems like a natural "fit" with the other theories that I actually do believe have emprical merit.&nbsp; Even were this form of multiple dimensional matter actually found to exist in LHC "experiments", it would seem to act as an electrical "power source" in four dimensional space time, and I would personally be thrilled to know that gravity and electromagnatism are directly related.&nbsp; It is not the least bit threating to any other beliefs I have.</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Mod Hat On****DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO SUCH A DISCUSSIONThere already exists such a thread which has been moved to the Unexplained, where you are free to continue it.Mod Hat Off****I would suggest you move this last post to that thread.It will be deleted from this one, since it is off topic. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>For the record Wayne, I've gone out of my way to participate on many other less "controversial" threads around here, and I've really tried to keep "on topic" in these threads too.&nbsp; It's really not my fault that someone found high energy electrons or that you resent me from talking about them and their presense, and the implications of their presense.</p><p>About all I can do now is "lay low" and try some less controversial topics for awhile and beg for your forgiveness for not having faith in a GUT theory that actually would fit with all the rest of my cosmology beliefs.&nbsp; It is just that I can't take that concept on "faith" alone. &nbsp; I require some emprical evidence to support the idea.&nbsp;&nbsp; In this particular case however, LHC may in fact provide us with a way to "settle" such a debate, and patience will be required. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But yevaud, my whole point in starting a new thread was so that my conversation with DrRocket could "evolve" and become more focused.&nbsp; It was my hope that our conversation would evolve and become more focused on the value of emprical scientific testing, and to get a clear understanding of what it means to "explain" a scientific theory.&nbsp; I intentionally started this new thread so that my conversation with DrRocket would not become a hijack of the dark matter thread.&nbsp; I even refocused my arguement so that we would all have a clear understanding of what it takes to "explain" a theory in astronomy.&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Your other posts are so long I don't have the time to count, but do you realize how often you repeat yourself, even within a single post?&nbsp; This time you even managed to do so the very next sentence.&nbsp; I count three times in a row in that little paragraph that you explain why you started the thread, all of them saying exactly the same thing.&nbsp; I never read your long posts anymore for that very reason...all you do is rehash rehash rehash. &nbsp;</p><p>I'm not sure why you even brought up MOND.&nbsp; It has failed miserably as a theory a long time ago, based on the criteria DrRocket gave for theories.&nbsp; It was/is not capable of predicting what we actually see in the universe.&nbsp; If they modify it to fit the results, it will be a completely new theory, but all it is is a curve fit, they have absolutely no explanation for why gravity would behave like that, so its only a theory in a very loose sense. &nbsp;</p><p>I've tried saying this before to no avail but it should be repeated:&nbsp; NOBODY here has any problem whatsoever with Birkeland's experiments.&nbsp; They worked, they were great, people still talk about them today, just like they do with Alfven's work.&nbsp; Our problem is with your interpretation of it.&nbsp; So yes, this thread is about EU to you.&nbsp; We all agree his aurorae experiments were correct, so the only thing that could be argued is whether they support EU or not. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The bottom line is, DrRocket gave you the answer, and you responded with an enormous diatribe about Birkeland, someone whose methods nobody here has ever questioned.&nbsp; How is that any different from the way you acted in the other dark matter thread or the EU thread? </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm having a tough time comprehending the objective critieria that are being used to define what theories are to be considered "explained" and what theories remain "unexplained". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />I would like your feedback on the electromass concept, correctly identified without the word "theory."</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before reading where this thread is going, I would like your feedback on the electromass concept, correctly identified without the word "theory."&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I realize this is the unexplained, but isn't that a little off topic, even for a michaelmozina thread?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I realize this is the unexplained, but isn't that a little off topic, even for a michaelmozina thread?&nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />No, because electromass agrees with birkland.&nbsp; If you do take the time to read through it, please provide feedback under the electromass discussion thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, because electromass agrees with birkland. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>That may be so, but this thread isn't about Birkeland...its about the scientific method.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That may be so, but this thread isn't about Birkeland...its about the scientific method.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />In that case, I'll discuss the scientific method.&nbsp; First an idea develops an hypothesis.&nbsp; Then the hypothesis is tested.&nbsp; Only when a valid hypothesis fails to be disproved, does it become a theory.&nbsp; Throwing that word around is a shame to science.&nbsp; I guess that's all I really had to say.&nbsp; Was kind of looking for Mike's feedback as well, since he is seemingly versed&nbsp;in ideas of electrical plasma physics.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In that case, I'll discuss the scientific method.&nbsp; First an idea develops an hypothesis.&nbsp; Then the hypothesis is tested.&nbsp; Only when a valid hypothesis fails to be disproved, does it become a theory.&nbsp; Throwing that word around is a shame to science.&nbsp; I guess that's all I really had to say.&nbsp; Was kind of looking for Mike's feedback as well, since he is seemingly versed&nbsp;in ideas of electrical plasma physics.&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />Yes he thinks he is. In the lab anyway... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes he thinks he is. In the lab anyway... <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Yeah, if a Walmart plasma ball on your desk constitutes a laboratory experiment. </p><p>http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&resnum=0&q=plasma+ball+lamp+Walmart&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>