Michael Mozina wrote:Nereid wrote:Questions asked of Michael Mozina, that remain unanswered.
Stardate Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:04 pm (numbers added)
1) in the [Michael Mozina] view of the nature of cosmology, the science, just what is 'legal' in terms of theoretical constructs?
When did this conversation become about me personally?
You're the only one making these claims ... even harry seems content to merely 'cut and paste', with an occassional, oblique question.
As it relates to skepticism and science, I'm simply following "standard operating procedure" as it relates to the scientific processes, nothing more.
And that includes the 'alternatives need to do at least half as good a job of accounting for the same sets of good results'?
If one intends to invent a whole new particle of field, one should have substantial evidence *outside* of their pet theory to support it. If not, I'm going to treat such a concept rather "skeptically". "Dark energy"? "Inflation fields"? What's are they? How do they relate back to particle physics, GR and QM? What is the relative size of such things compared to say an electron or neutrino? How do such things interact with matter, do they have mass, etc? If these questions cannot be answered, what would you have me say about such ideas?
How about "in the case of DE, it's just a shorthand; within GR, there are several ways to produce effects that account - consistently - for three quite different sets of observational results. One key aspect of current observational research is to constrain the range, in parameter space, of those GR-consistent hypotheses"
Or, if you prefer, standard science.
Wrt inflation, I already answered your question (and even provided you a reference) - did you not read what I wrote? Would you like me to repeat it?
Plasma cosmology requires none of that stuff. When does Occum's razor come into play as it relates to ideas Nereid?
Right at the beginning - by answering the questions I've already asked you (at least once) about the track record of 'plasma cosmology' when it comes to accounting for Olbers' paradox, the CMB, the large-scale structure of the universe, ... (
quantitatively, of course).
Perhaps you would be kind enough to state, unambiguously, just how important it is, in the Michael Mozina view of cosmology, for a theory to have consistency with good observational results (in its domain of applicability)?
Don't you think it's a pretty "out there" step to simply invent new fields and particles? Shouldn't we be able to quantify them and measure them like we measure neutrinos, especially if they are presumed to be able to affect matter and the flow of matter?
That's certainly a worthy objective.
However, the ability to account for observational results is also important, as is internal consistency, and consistency with other well-established theories.
For example, we know that the Standard Model (of particle physics) is incomplete. There are several approaches (extensions) that are both more general and internally consistent. Some of these also have the benefit of producing 'inflation fields'; others 'dark matter particles'. We know that what we can produce, and test, in our Earth-bound labs is very limited wrt what the universe produces in abundance and with ease, so we welcome every opportunity to devise testable hypotheses, involving these extensions, as long as they are also consistent with GR (mostly).
In other words, we engage in science.
2) In the [Michael Mozina] view of the science of astronomy, must an entity be "documented in a lab" before it can be 'legal'?
Whenever and wherever possible, sure. I certainly see no point in simply inventing particles and fields that do not exist, and are not necessary in GR, QM or particle physics. How does dark energy relate to particle physics? Inflaton fields? How do they fit into particle physics?
Glad you asked ... I hope that you have now had a chance to read up on some of the background; if you'd like more references, please ask.
Oh, and BTW, how much more massive than the proton is the top quark?
How much more energetic than the best Fermilab, CERN, etc can produce are the most energetic cosmic ray particles observed to date?
Or, how does the energy of the
gamma rays detected by CANGAROO and H.E.S.S. compare with the highest energy
particle beams produced by CERN?
3) there are theories, in physics, astronomy, cosmology, ... which are NOT creations of {someone's} mind?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Birkeland currents were a "creation of Birkeland's mind" in the sense that he was not "sure" that electricity flowed between the sun and the earth, but he didn't invent the concept of electricity like Guth did! It's one thing to "create" an "explanation" based on known laws of physics and lab tests. It's quite another thing to simply invent new fields and particles we've never seen before.
So Higgs is not doing science (in the Michael Mozina view), nor was Murray Gell-Mann, nor Dirac, ... and the people who dreamed up super-symmetry, well!
4) wrt "the first law of thermodynamics", can you show that inflation violates this? With math (not just words)?
Sure 0+0=0. The energy of this universe must have predated the BB.
[snip]
Why?
More generally, can you show that 'energy' is conserved in GR?
I was not the one that said it does not exist at all. The problem has "very little" to do with me evidently.