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

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "textbook" Einstein used is not the one used in Lamba-CDM theory today.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I stopped reading your post after the very first sentence.&nbsp; No, seriously... I just blew right past the rest of your posts and went to Speedfreek's.&nbsp; All you do is repeat yourself ad infinitum and I'm sure I've read everything you typed...&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I stopped reading your post after the very first sentence.&nbsp; No, seriously... I just blew right past the rest of your posts and went to Speedfreek's.&nbsp; All you do is repeat yourself ad infinitum and I'm sure I've read everything you typed...&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Actually, you could save me some time as i don't have much anymore.&nbsp; Next time you post something new and fresh, could you put in bold and underline at the beginning of the post as such so I know it is worth reading?&nbsp; Something like...</p><p><u><em><strong>This is a new and fresh statement: </strong></em></u></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Hubble proportionality constant is estimated to be H0&nbsp;=&nbsp;70.1 &plusmn; 1.3 (km/s)/Mpc. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>This is a determination made based upon an (one) 'interpretation' of the observation of reshifted photons. Arps work would suggest there is more to this story and tired light theories have been around since the start.&nbsp; While "spacetime expansion" (objects in motion stay in motion) can be verified in the lab, the notion of "expanding space" seem to be impossible to verify here on Earth.</p><p>This would effectively be a "soft (software) science" theory, not a "hard (hardware) science" theory.&nbsp; The trouble most skeptics have with this idea is that it cannot be demonstrated in a controlled emprical test. &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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The trouble most skeptics have with this idea is that it cannot be demonstrated in a controlled emprical test. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If it turns out to be the <em>correct</em> solution, but cannot be demonstrated in a controlled empirical test, what then? If no other empirical model ends up being able to explain our observations as well as Lambda-CDM, will the skeptics remain skeptical forever?</p><p>There are no tired-light theories that I know of that can explain the time-dilation in SNe Ia light-curves.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is a determination made based upon an (one) 'interpretation' of the observation of reshifted photons. Arps work would suggest there is more to this story and tired light theories have been around since the start.&nbsp; While "spacetime expansion" (objects in motion stay in motion) can be verified in the lab, the notion of "expanding space" seem to be impossible to verify here on Earth.This would effectively be a "soft (software) science" theory, not a "hard (hardware) science" theory.&nbsp; The trouble most skeptics have with this idea is that it cannot be demonstrated in a controlled emprical test. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is just ridiculous.</p><p>Arp and tired light theories have been debunked so many times and so thoroughly that there is simply nothing left to say.&nbsp; Those who continue to cling to this nonsense are simply not thinking rationally.</p><p>"Objects in motion tend to stay in motion" may be correct Newtonian mechanics, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the expansion of space.&nbsp; To state that it is "soft (software) science" is to exhibit complete and total ignorance of general relativity.&nbsp; The expansion of space (yes of space itself) was baked into general relativity long before the ivention of either digital computers or software.&nbsp; That notion is simply ludicrous.&nbsp; Clinging to that notion is not rational.</p><p>Your concept of a "controlled&nbsp; empirical test" is so far off the mark that there is no hope for a rational resolution.&nbsp; The expansion of space is supported by a HUGE amount of empirical data from very precise measurements derived from space instruments.&nbsp; That is empirical data.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>The trouble that most skeptics have is a complete lack of understanding of physics, and especially a totally distorted notion of what is implied by general relativity and available empirical data.</p><p>There is a temendous difference between being skeptical and just plain wrong.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>I was going to pick up on the "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion" comment too. Is Michael suggesting we are at the centre of the universe? If redshift is indicative of relative motion (be it inertial or cosmological), then either the universe is expanding <em>metrically</em> or everything is moving inertially, directly away from us.</p><p>The mechanism that might cause the universe to expand <em>metrically</em> is what is in question. Is it a property of space that causes the metric that defines distance to change over time, or is it something else entirely? Whatever it is, the various redshift relationships <em>cannot</em> be explained by the phrase "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was going to pick up on the "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion" comment too. Is Michael suggesting we are at the centre of the universe? If redshift is indicative of relative motion (be it inertial or cosmological), then either the universe is expanding metrically or everything is moving inertially, directly away from us.The mechanism that might cause the universe to expand metrically is what is in question. Is it a property of space that causes the metric that defines distance to change over time, or is it something else entirely? Whatever it is, the various redshift relationships cannot be explained by the phrase "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion". <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>All we can do is post corrections for the benefit of lurkers.</p><p>This topic has been thrased, as is usual with Michael, ad nauseum.&nbsp; He refuses to believe in the expansioin of space.&nbsp; Rather he insists that space does not expand, and he believes on in general relativity "as taught by Einstein."&nbsp; Nothing, not even direct references to Einstein, can convince him that is stance is self-contradictory.</p><p>The basic problem is that Michael has completely misconstrued essentially all of general relativity.&nbsp; We can add to that also, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics and classical electrodynamics.&nbsp; He has even managed to distort Alflven beyond all recognition.&nbsp; As a result there is no possibility of a rational scientific discussion.</p><p>To discuss a "metric expansion" of space would require the notion of a metric.&nbsp; To discuss a metric would involve the use of mathematics, or what Michael calls "math magic".&nbsp; There is simply no way to engage in a meaningful discussion.&nbsp;</p><p>But we can hope to limit the damage to onlookers.&nbsp; I think that you posts do a real service in that arena.&nbsp; Keep it up.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it turns out to be the correct solution, but cannot be demonstrated in a controlled empirical test, what then?</DIV></p><p>Then I would have exhasted every other means possible to explain such a thing. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If no other empirical model ends up being able to explain our observations as well as Lambda-CDM, will the skeptics remain skeptical forever?</DIV></p><p>No. I suspect if you could emprically demonstrate inflation, and space expansion, the criticisms would probably go away very quickly.&nbsp; It's the fact these two items remain impossible to verify that make the skepticism continue.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no tired-light theories that I know of that can explain the time-dilation in SNe Ia light-curves. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1</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'>This is just ridiculous.Arp and tired light theories have been debunked so many times and so thoroughly that there is simply nothing left to say.&nbsp; Those who continue to cling to this nonsense are simply not thinking rationally.</DIV></p><p>This is the kind of comment that gives skeptics raised eyebrows and only adds fuel to the fire and increases the skepticism all that much more.&nbsp; The fact you *refuse* to even consider other alternatives shows a lack of credibility to most skeptics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Objects in motion tend to stay in motion" may be correct Newtonian mechanics, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the expansion of space.</DIV></p><p>Yes, I know.&nbsp; I believe in "spacetime" expansion, but not "space expansion".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To state that it is "soft (software) science" is to exhibit complete and total ignorance of general relativity. </DIV></p><p>False. You *assume* that redshift is related to space expansion.&nbsp; Demonstrate it empirically.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The expansion of space (yes of space itself) was baked into general relativity long before the ivention of either digital computers or software.</DIV></p><p>Not by Einstein.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That notion is simply ludicrous.&nbsp; Clinging to that notion is not rational.</DIV></p><p>This statements comes from the guy that can't tell a cosmology theory from a solar theory from a individual opinion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your concept of a "controlled&nbsp; empirical test" is so far off the mark that there is no hope for a rational resolution. </DIV></p><p>My concept of a controlled empirical test is not off the mark, it's emrpical physics.&nbsp; If you can't demonstrate your claims, don't blame empirical science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The expansion of space is supported by a HUGE amount of empirical data from very precise measurements derived from space instruments. </DIV></p><p>Then show me a controlled experiment where it occurs under controlled conditions.&nbsp; I can easily show you experiments that make plasma ebb and flow based on EM fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is empirical data.</DIV></p><p>The empirical data is that photons undergo redshift.&nbsp; Expansion of space theory is an "interpretation" of that phenomenon.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The trouble that most skeptics have is a complete lack of understanding of physics,</DIV></p><p>Did you ever figure out what form of energy you were going to add or subtract from the zero pressure vacuum yet?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and especially a totally distorted notion of what is implied by general relativity</DIV></p><p>Eintein personally rejected your constant being stuffed into GR.<br /></p>You whole post on serves to demonstrate why skeptics remain skeptical. You can't tell the difference between "observation" and 'interpretation" and you refuse to open your mind to other options.<br /><p><br /></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'>I was going to pick up on the "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion" comment too. Is Michael suggesting we are at the centre of the universe? </DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; Read those papers from Ari. </p><p><br /></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'> He refuses to believe in the expansioin of space. </DIV></p><p>That is because you can't demonstrate that it does expand in any emprical test.&nbsp; If you could, the debate would be over.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather he insists that space does not expand,</DIV></p><p>That is false actually.&nbsp; I simply "lack belief" that it does expand, I do not believe that it does not expand.&nbsp; There is a subtle by important difference that is much like the difference between "hard atheism" and "soft atheism".&nbsp; A hard atheist believes that God does not exist, whereas a "soft atheist" simply lacks belief that God exists.&nbsp; I would be the equivilant of a soft atheist toward the idea of space expansion.&nbsp; I simply don't see any compelling evidence that space expands based on emprical testing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and he believes on in general relativity "as taught by Einstein."</DIV></p><p>Yes I believe Eintein on the topic of GR, and MHD theory as taught by Alfven too.&nbsp;&nbsp; What a jerk I must be.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nothing, not even direct references to Einstein, can convince him that is stance is self-contradictory.</DIV></p><p>Like what?&nbsp; He rejected the introduction of a constant when he did it himself.&nbsp; What makes you think he'd be happier when you try to do it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The basic problem is that Michael has completely misconstrued essentially all of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>False. That's DrRocket's way of saying he doesn't like the fact that I disagree with him over the issue of space expansion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We can add to that also, quantum mechanics,</DIV></p><p>OMG, I won't even go there with you till you figure out that "particles" reconnect in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Newtonian mechanics and classical electrodynamics. </DIV></p><p>Boloney.&nbsp; FYI, the best two books on MHD theory that DrRocket owns are a direct result of my suggestions and are the works of Hannes Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has even managed to distort Alflven beyond all recognition.</DIV></p><p>Which explains why you refuse to answer any of my actual questions in the one decent thread you started on EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a result there is no possibility of a rational scientific discussion.</DIV></p><p>Translation:&nbsp; He won't agree with me, and I can't empirically demonstrate my claim, so I'm going to resort to personal attacks.&nbsp; This behavior only makes a skeptic doubt you that much more DrRocket.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To discuss a "metric expansion" of space would require the notion of a metric.&nbsp; To discuss a metric would involve the use of mathematics, or what Michael calls "math magic". </DIV></p><p>It's only when he tries to stick a minus sign in a pressure formula that he math becomes "magic". </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is simply no way to engage in a meaningful discussion.&nbsp;But we can hope to limit the damage to onlookers.&nbsp; I think that you posts do a real service in that arena.&nbsp; Keep it up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is DrRocket's way of "hearding the flock" into his own personal belief system. </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'>Did you ever figure out what form of energy you were going to add or subtract from the zero pressure vacuum yet? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Certainly, and I posted the answer immediately following your question.&nbsp; When are you going to answer my question, which is "What specific nuclei do believe undergo fission to provide any significant portion of the energy from the sun ?"</p><p>This question has been asked at least four time and you have yet to even attempt an answer.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>Just a quick note here: I will not be able to post much, if at all, for the next couple of days or so. But I am not running for the hills, I am on a work related trip to Liverpool.</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just a quick note here: I will not be able to post much, if at all, for the next couple of days or so. But I am not running for the hills, I am on a work related trip to Liverpool. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Why is it called Liverpool?&nbsp; Is there liver there?&nbsp; Pools?&nbsp; What's up with that?</p><p>Good luck, safe journey and best wishes for a speedy return! </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'>Certainly, and I posted the answer immediately following your question.&nbsp; When are you going to answer my question, which is "What specific nuclei do believe undergo fission to provide any significant portion of the energy from the sun ?"This question has been asked at least four time and you have yet to even attempt an answer. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>When are you going to keep solar theory and EU theory straight, and when did you intend to answer my last question to you in the DrRocket's crusade against EU theory Debunked thread?</p><p>This thread is directly related to the emprical scientific method, not any specific theory per se.&nbsp; Stop hijacking my threads. </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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When are you going to keep solar theory and EU theory straight, and when did you intend to answer my last question to you in the DrRocket's crusade against EU theory Debunked thread?This thread is directly related to the emprical scientific method, not any specific theory per se.&nbsp; Stop hijacking my threads. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Well if you'd just answer the bloody question in ONE of your threads we all wouldn't have to keep repeating it.</p><p>Oh that's right, you said you did answer it, but you can't send us to that post....sorry.</p><p>{insert sarcasm shield above keyboard}</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well if you'd just answer the bloody question in ONE of your threads we all wouldn't have to keep repeating it.Oh that's right, you said you did answer it, but you can't send us to that post....sorry.{insert sarcasm shield above keyboard} <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I intend to answer all the "piling up" solar questions in the thread on that topic as soon as I am convinced that everyone understands that cosmology theory, solar theory, and individual opinions are all separate topics and must be treated separately. </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I intend to answer all the "piling up" solar questions in the thread on that topic as soon as I am convinced that everyone understands that cosmology theory, solar theory, and individual opinions are all separate topics and must be treated separately. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Prediction:&nbsp; this will never happen to your satisfaction, and we will be left hanging indefinitely.&nbsp; Your requirement is entirely unrelated to the questions.&nbsp; If my advisor or someone interested in my work asks me a question, I can't say "I'll answer this as soon as China converts to democracy, all the world's children are fed, and I get a brand new car".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Prediction:&nbsp; this will never happen to your satisfaction, and we will be left hanging indefinitely.&nbsp; Your requirement is entirely unrelated to the questions.&nbsp; If my advisor or someone interested in my work asks me a question, I can't say "I'll answer this as soon as China converts to democracy, all the world's children are fed, and I get a brand new car".&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm not asking for the moon here.&nbsp; All I'm asking for is for DrRocket to understand and acknowledge the difference between Alfven's EU cosmology theory, Birkeland's solar model, and my personal opinions.&nbsp; How much is that to ask?</p><p>Assuming yevaud doesn't close the thread, I will answer all your solar theory questions once the EU debate is put to bed.&nbsp; I can see now that it is futile to attempt to debate all these issues at one time, because all it does is confuse the issue further. </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>