Method for accepting science

[Trogool]

I suppose, "nothing" is wrong with that attitude, assuming you apply that same concept to ALL topics, including the topic of God.



It's tad more than a mathematical model in the sense that it suggests/requieres that there are many new whole dimensions of spacetime that we know absolutely nothing about. If you'd entertain a concept that "far out", and still call it "science" what can't be considered "science"? Certainly there are more empirical concepts of "God" that don't require ANY extra dimensions.



Oh boloney. Any number of issues/problems related to EU/PC theory could easily be used to "falsify" the concepts that I put forth. For that matter PC/EU theory isn't even a "mainstream" theory to begin with, in fact it's a MINORITY position within any cosmology group. Awareness isn't NECESSARILY unfalsifiable either, so nothing I've proposed is unfalsifiable, certainly not the extreme of something like string theory, or inflation.



No, it simply requires MULTIPLE extra dimensions to exist, none of which can be shown to exist. Talk about FAITH!



You mean BESIDES all those extra dimensions? You certainly can't claim to have EVIDENCE that extra dimensions exist. What else can you call it besides 'faith'?



No, but they'll still take your funding/money anyway.



I've tried the publishing route too. I see no evidence whatsoever that the astronomy community is even INTERESTED in making any "progress". They keep dumbing down events in space to "magnetism" when they know perfectly well it's an "ELECTROmagnetic process". Birkeland explained why the solar atmosphere is hotter than it's surface over 100 years ago! He also explained coronal loops to them over 100 years ago. They aren't the LEAST BIT interested in PROGRESS IMO.



Not at all. I have no "vendetta" for starters. I embrace real empirical physics and real "science", I simply reject ONE cosmology theory. I like and respect actual "science".

Most branches of science actually produce TANGIBLE goods and/or services. Astronomers do too. They produce good satellites, nice pictures, and bad dogma. I enjoy the satellites and I appreciate the images, I simply reject one creation mythos.

Astronomy isn't like other branches of 'science' IMO. I simply dislike "supernatural", and empirically impotent (in the lab) ideas like inflation and dark energy and such. It's nothing personal toward anyone. Like many other skeptics that reject mainstream cosmology concepts, I simply prefer a more 'empirical' view of the universe around me. That preference for empirical physics is hardly something that most atheists complain about. Astronomers on the other hand.......

I have however met a lot of astronomers online. Most of them are quite nice, really wonderful people who keep an open scientific mind. Some (admittedly a minority) of them are downright irrational and highly aggressive. Their strong emotional and professional attachment to their dark dogma is very much cult-like in it's zealousness at times.

Unfortunately most of them (even the nice ones) know almost nothing about MHD theory as it relates to solar physics, my personal field of interest. They go out of their way to ignore the effect of electrical current in events in space to the point of shear absurdity. The high coronal temperatures would NOT have been a "mystery' to Birkeland. The fact it's still a mystery to astronomers today, 100 years later, is a powerful testament to the fact that mainstream astronomers have absolutely no interest or desire in progress, or at least no aptitude for it.

Probably because most scientists find it annoying when people come along and start criticizing widely accepted and supported theories in their field when they obviously haven't the faintest clue what they are talking about.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” --Isaac Asimov

 

[Michael]

I was referring to YOUR OWN WORDS, not any study. You're telling us two different things:
1) You can't scientifically study whether prayer has any discernible effect
2) You can observe and scientifically study prayer having effects

Which is it? Does prayer have an observable effect or not?

Hmmm. "Observable effect"? I dunno. QM experiments, as well as the "placebo effect", demonstrate that our thoughts can have a direct effect on the outcome of various experiments. I would assume that applies to prayer as well as "thoughts". Even the "belief" that one is taking a drug that might help them improve can improve someone's heath (placebo effect). Our behaviors (like attending church) can also have a positive effect on something as tangible as longevity. I certainly can't rule it out in ALL situations.

 

[Michael]

Probably because most scientists find it annoying when people come along and start criticizing widely accepted and supported theories in their field when they obviously haven't the faintest clue what they are talking about.

Unfortunately however, most of them do not own, nor have they ever read on book on the topic of plasma physics. They don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about. All you have to do to demonstrate this fact is ask them where "dark energy" comes from. It's the single largest part of their theory and they don't even have even the slightest clue where it comes from.

 

[mkatzwork]

Unfortunately however, most of them do not own, nor have they ever read on book on the topic of plasma physics. They don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about. All you have to do to demonstrate this fact is ask them where "dark energy" comes from. It's the single largest part of their theory and they don't even have even the slightest clue where it comes from.

Actually, they'll say..."what do you mean by "where does it come from?""? The question is ill-formed.

Dark energy is a mathematical solution to the problem that the universe appears (APPEARS) to be expanding at a rate that is increasing - one obvious way of explaining that increase in rate is a propulsive force, hence the negative pressure that is part of all dark energy models.

There are other theories that are equally mathematical, based on that the increasing rate of expansion of the universe is an optical illusion. There are other ideas that have less support. Again - it's about consensus. Anybody is free to propose other mechanisms that fit the observations, it's just that dark energy is ONE of them that hasn't yet been refuted, and the mathematics works very well with it. If someone showed that a) it was mathematically not possible or b) showed another theory to be more correct or more likely...then consensus would shift.

 

[Trogool]

Unfortunately however, most of them do not own, nor have they ever read on book

*patiently*

Because real scientists get information on their field in research journals, not books.

on the topic of plasma physics.

I'm pretty sure I covered the basics of plasma in high school physics.

They don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about.

You're right, you, a layman who has read an unspecified book no doubt has a better understanding of cosmology than thousands of research scientists. I'm totally going to take you seriously here.

All you have to do to demonstrate this fact is ask them where "dark energy" comes from. It's the single largest part of their theory and they don't even have even the slightest clue where it comes from.

And you think this is a problem... why?

 

[RickG]

Probably because most scientists find it annoying when people come along and start criticizing widely accepted and supported theories in their field when they obviously haven't the faintest clue what they are talking about.

 

[Michael]

Actually, they'll say..."what do you mean by "where does it come from?""? The question is ill-formed.

No it's not. If I asked you where neutrinos or electrons come from you could certainly cite a source! They simply don't know the answer. It's really that simple.

Dark energy is a mathematical solution to the problem that the universe appears (APPEARS) to be expanding at a rate that is increasing - one obvious way of explaining that increase in rate is a propulsive force, hence the negative pressure that is part of all dark energy models.

How does that help resolve the SOURCE question?

There are other theories that are equally mathematical, based on that the increasing rate of expansion of the universe is an optical illusion.

Then why do they keep claiming that over 70 percent of the universe is made of 'dark energy'?

There are other ideas that have less support. Again - it's about consensus.

You mean "popularity" in the final analysis.

Anybody is free to propose other mechanisms that fit the observations,

I handed you a whole 95 pages worth of alternatives.

it's just that dark energy is ONE of them that hasn't yet been refuted,

I don't recall anyone refuting Ari's ideas on "tired light".

and the mathematics works very well with it.

Of course it does. It's a POSTDICTED fit.

If someone showed that a) it was mathematically not possible or b) showed another theory to be more correct or more likely...then consensus would shift.

Define "more likely". How is less likely that redhshift is related to tired light and "more likely" it actually related to acceleration? When was acceleration ever empirically linked to "dark" anything?

 

[Michael]

*patiently*

Because real scientists get information on their field in research journals, not books.

Most I've met know very little about MDH theory in general. I can't tell you have many astronomers I've heard claim or let slide the claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma for instance.

I'm pretty sure I covered the basics of plasma in high school physics.

I'm pretty sure most folks don't.

You're right, you, a layman who has read an unspecified book no doubt has a better understanding of cosmology than thousands of research scientists. I'm totally going to take you seriously here.

I do know more about plasma physics and the behaviors of plasma than most of them. I don't "know" anything about "dark energy" and neither do you. If you can't even tell me where it comes from, why would I believe you actually "know" anything about it?

And you think this is a problem... why?

Because it's "made up", it doesn't actually exist, and that's why you and nobody else has a clue where it comes from, that's why.

 

[Michael]

That's more than a little ironic of a comment from my perspective considering the fact that not one astronomer on planet earth can even tell me where 70+ percent of their theory even comes from. They don't KNOW anything. All those "dark" variables are placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance in the final analysis.

 

[mkatzwork]

No it's not. If I asked you where neutrinos or electrons come from you could certainly cite a source! They simply don't know the answer. It's really that simple.

What do you mean by "come from"? You are asking a meaningless (or unclear) question and then drawing conclusions when people go..."uh?". What do you mean? Do you mean did it come into existence at the big bang? Something metaphysical or philosophical?

How does that help resolve the SOURCE question?

It doesn't. That's not the question being worked on...

Then why do they keep claiming that over 70 percent of the universe is made of 'dark energy'?

Because that's what several of the hypotheses currently in play would seem to show, that's what would fit the model of what we observe....

You mean "popularity" in the final analysis.

Why is that a bad thing? The majority think it is the best fit to the evidence. Playing the underdog card for the other theories is cute, but not scientific.

I handed you a whole 95 pages worth of alternatives.

Almost none of which I think you understand well enough to be able to discern which ones are stronger or better supported than others...

I don't recall anyone refuting Ari's ideas on "tired light".

[0804.3595] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

[0709.0520] Starburst Intensity Limit of Galaxies at z~5-6

And lastly, but not least - nobody has suggested a valid mechanism by which a photon could lose energy and not suffer a change in momentum, which inherently would lead to a blurring in distant images that is not observed.

Do you have one?

Of course it does. It's a POSTDICTED fit.

What else did you think a hypothesis was?

Define "more likely". How is less likely that redhshift is related to tired light and "more likely" it actually related to acceleration? When was acceleration ever empirically linked to "dark" anything?

Tired light has major problems fundamental in the theory - it has equally with dark energy not been observed directly, but the difference is that no mechanism for photon energy loss has been suggested that wouldn't have side effects that we know haven't been observed...so the consensus still remains on the dark energy theory, as its somewhat better supported by indirect evidence Somewhat.

It is a possible solution to an observed phenomenon, one of several. Dark energy is proposed as the cause of acceleration due to negative pressure. It's still a hypothesis. You ever heard of "work in progress"?

 

[mkatzwork]

That's more than a little ironic of a comment from my perspective considering the fact that not one astronomer on planet earth can even tell me where 70+ percent of their theory even comes from. They don't KNOW anything. All those "dark" variables are placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance in the final analysis.

Again, define "come from". Where do electrons 'come from', in your definition of 'come from'?

 

[Michael]

Again, define "come from". Where do electrons 'come from', in your definition of 'come from'?

Electrons "come from" atoms.

 

[mkatzwork]

Most I've met know very little about MDH theory in general. I can't tell you have many astronomers I've heard claim or let slide the claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma for instance.

I'm pretty sure most folks don't.

I would know enough to call it MHD and not MDH. How many astronomers have you heard that from though - 10? 20? 100? 1000? Approximately?

I do know more about plasma physics and the behaviors of plasma than most of them. I don't "know" anything about "dark energy" and neither do you. If you can't even tell me where it comes from, why would I believe you actually "know" anything about it?

Again, what do you mean by "comes from"? You're appealing to your own ignorance and assuming others to be the same. It's a hypothesis. We can derive properties mathematically that it should have if it is to fulfill the hypothesis, predominantly negative pressure, and there are certain things that should result from its existence, if it does, which we can check.

Tired light is equally unobserved - but it requires that photons lose energy without losing momentum, and there is no mechanism for that that wouldn't result in the blurring of distant images, which is NOT observed.

Because it's "made up", it doesn't actually exist, and that's why you and nobody else has a clue where it comes from, that's why.

It's hypothesized, just like tired light and all the other hypotheses, and the hypothesis makes VERY specific predictions about what properties it should have. People are trying to test the hypothesis by making further observations and seeing if they correlate with the known data that the hypothesis was designed to fit. What about this do you not get?

 

[mkatzwork]

Electrons "come from" atoms.

If you'd said that the best theory so far is that they originally came from photon collisions, I could have at least given you credit for knowing something about cosmological theories...

You've still not defined what you mean by "come from". Electrons are PART of atoms NOW, but were almost certainly not always. Atoms are hardly their origin...

 

[Michael]

What do you mean by "come from"?

I mean, where can I get some to play with in a lab?

You are asking a meaningless (or unclear) question and then drawing conclusions when people go..."uh?".

My question is perfectly clear. If I asked you where electrons or neutrinos come from, you'd have no trouble answering the question.

What do you mean? Do you mean did it come into existence at the big bang? Something metaphysical or philosophical?

I'm looking for a PHYSICAL explanation of what dark energy is, where it comes from and how to acquire some so that I KNOW for sure it's not a figment of your overactive imagination.

It doesn't. That's not the question being worked on...

Nothing is being "worked on" as far as I can tell. It's being "dreamed up" apparently.

Because that's what several of the hypotheses currently in play would seem to show, that's what would fit the model of what we observe....

You mean you could not or would not let your redshift interpretations die a nature scientific death, so you invented a nice metaphysical "gap filler" to save your otherwise falsified theory. How cute.
'

Why is that a bad thing? The majority think it is the best fit to the evidence. Playing the underdog card for the other theories is cute, but not scientific.

It still amounts to an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Almost none of which I think you understand well enough to be able to discern which ones are stronger or better supported than others...

I love how the personal attacks start flying....

[0804.3595] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

[astro-ph/0602500] Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift

[0709.0520] Starburst Intensity Limit of Galaxies at z~5-6

And lastly, but not least - nobody has suggested a valid mechanism by which a photon could lose energy and not suffer a change in momentum, which inherently would lead to a blurring in distant images that is not observed.

Do you have one?

Sure:

Menu
arXiv.org Search

What else did you think a hypothesis was?

In this case it's metaphysical "gap filler" to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

Tired light has major problems fundamental in the theory - it has equally with dark energy not been observed directly, but the difference is that no mechanism for photon energy loss has been suggested that wouldn't have side effects that we know haven't been observed...so the consensus still remains on the dark energy theory, as its somewhat better supported by indirect evidence Somewhat.

But again, that's just "your" opinion on this topic, and it's a highly subjective one at that.

Dark energy is proposed as the cause of acceleration due to negative pressure. It's still a hypothesis. You ever heard of "work in progress"?

Even the concept that something exists that has "negative pressure" is highly dubious. I've not seen ANY "progress" in determining where dark energy comes from or how to create it, let alone how to control it. It's the ultimate form of "ad hoc" metaphysical gap filler because it only fills one gap of one otherwise DEAD cosmology theory.

 

[RickG]

That's more than a little ironic of a comment from my perspective considering the fact that not one astronomer on planet earth can even tell me where 70+ percent of their theory even comes from. They don't KNOW anything. All those "dark" variables are placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance in the final analysis.

Don't misunderstand, my comment was not about astronomy or anything anyone posted specifically; rather science in general. The only message I was trying to convey was that there are people who are completely ignorant in particular areas of science that will argue from their ignorance that experts in a specific field of science are clueless. It is known as the Dunning - Kruger Effect. Okay? Have a nice day.

 

[Michael]

If you'd said that the best theory so far is that they originally came from photon collisions, I could have at least given you credit for knowing something about cosmological theories...

Photons? Where did the very first "photons" even come from in standard theory? Photons come from atoms and electrons too by the way.

You've still not defined what you mean by "come from". Electrons are PART of atoms NOW, but were almost certainly not always. Atoms are hardly their origin...

I can go to the store and buy a battery and get a measured quantity of electrons to play with in my garage if I like. I can get some measured quantity of neutrinos from a nuclear reactor too, not that I'd want to play with one in my garage. Atom are a certainly a SOURCE of electrons and photons. You guys can't even name a source of "dark energy".

 

[Michael]

Don't misunderstand, my comment was not about astronomy or anything anyone posted specifically; rather science in general. The only message I was trying to convey was that there are people who are completely ignorant in particular areas of science that will argue from their ignorance that experts in a specific field of science are clueless. It is known as the Dunning - Kruger Effect. Okay? Have a nice day.

I've certainly seen that behavior play out in cyberspace too, but it's not applicable in this case. Unlike most of the astronomers I've met, I actually own and have read several books on the topic of MHD theory. I've read plenty of papers and books on their theories too of course, I just doubt most astronomers know very much about PC/EU theory. What they actually "know" about their "dark" stuff is actually quite limited when we get to the actual PHYSICS. What they don't know on the other hand (like where to get some) could fill VOLUMES.

 

[mkatzwork]

Photons? Where did the very first "photons" even come from in standard theory? Photons come from atoms and electrons too by the way.

Photons, according to the standard model came from the cooling of the quark-gluon plasma (which only has certain similarities with the plasma you are more familiar with) - which allowed hadronic matter to form.

I can go to the store and buy a battery and get a measured quantity of electrons to play with in my garage if I like. I can get some measured quantity of neutrinos from a nuclear reactor too, not that I'd want to play with one in my garage. Atom are a certainly a SOURCE of electrons and photons. You guys can't even name a source of "dark energy".

Sure we can, by that standard. Space itself would appear to be the source of dark energy, by your standard - that you can go and 'get some' electrons and photons from an atom.

Actually, for the neutrinos, you probably already have some - inside you. They won't hang about for long though...and you couldn't contain the ones from the nuclear reactor either. In fact, you couldn't observe the neutrino at all, only the paths of the mesons produced by the collisions the neutrinos had with protons...

Where can you go "get" some potential energy or kinetic energy? It would seem from your statements that you think dark energy is like a liquid, or a solid, or something you can put in a box - are you grasping the concept of energy?

In terms of a physical description - what is your physical description of potential energy, for example? Just so I know what your standard is...

WMAP, and observations of type A supernovae - two independent observations based on different scientific ideas - yield very close approximations to how much of the universe should be dark energy, which is why the 70% number seems about right.

 

[NGC 6712]

I see this thread is still active. And I will provide some analysis of Michael's plasma paper link and special relativity paper link. I haven't forgotten - I had emergency surgery the other day - I snapped my achilles tendon and tore my ACL & MCL in my right leg at the same time. Not pleasant. Bed ridden and unable to stand at the moment.