Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 7:35 AM
140 online now:
kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 138 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 61 of 70 (443624)
12-26-2007 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by cavediver
12-25-2007 7:13 PM


Dark matter a logical conclusion?
At Cambridge, analysis is covered in a Part IA course (1st year) and is very thorough.

Diplomatically put, cavediver. Chiroptera clearly doesn't know what mathematical analysis and mathematical proof entails.

Now, I don't hide behind jargon. If there is a simple way of describing something I use that. I'm not here to prove I am some sort of clever clogs.

I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution and behaviour of matter in the universe. I used the appropriate term "expansion" with regards spacial distribution as matter is seen to be moving away from the origin. Someone then decided expansion meant something else despite the obvious context.

I'm getting off-topic comments (Chiroptera - personal gripe about what happened in another thread), cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page), nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known), and defensive responses (groundless accusations that I am "defending" creationism).

If the politics of this thread is anything to go by, scientific "logic" is prone to all manner of fallacy.

A quick google reveals this as a summary -

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8631-gravity-theory-dispenses-with-dark-matter.html

Looks like there were problems a little closer to home, too, with the Pioneer spacecraft.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 12-25-2007 7:13 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 7:33 AM sinequanon has responded
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 8:18 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 62 of 70 (443629)
12-26-2007 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by sinequanon
12-26-2007 6:10 AM


Re: Dark matter a logical conclusion?
Chiroptera clearly doesn't know what mathematical analysis and mathematical proof entails.

Given all of our conversations, I think Chiroptera is more than well-aquainted with mathematical analysis and mathematical proof.

Now, I don't hide behind jargon. If there is a simple way of describing something I use that.

The word is "terminology", not jargon, and it is essential in order to be able to converse meaningfully in this subject.

I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution and behaviour of matter in the universe.

Simply parrotting what you have read from weak popular science press is not "knowing". Typically, we do not "predict" the distribution of matter in the Universe, we take that as an observation. The one major exception would have been the prediction of the CMBR, which of course is one of the greatest success stories in Cosmology. And in terms of behaviour, the Lambda-CDM model is phenomenally successful. If you wish to discuss it, I suggest some reading, or going back and taking Part III.

I used the appropriate term "expansion" with regards spacial distribution as matter is seen to be moving away from the origin. Someone then decided expansion meant something else despite the obvious context.

There is only one meaning of expansion in the context of Cosmology (without extensive caveat.)

cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page)

You wouldn't be refering here to your blatently obvious mistake of thinking that Ned and I were disagreeing, would you? I hope not, because if you are then it strongly suggests that you are hopelessly incompetent or exceptionally dishonest. I wouldn't like to think either, so please clarify this for me.

nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known)

As yet, you have singularly failed to point to any problem. You have waved your arms wildly, lashing out at cosmology and even the entirety of science, but have yet to produce anything of coherence that can be discussed in a meaningful and productive manner. Given the presence of myself and another professional comsologist, not to mention a host of exceptionally well-informed scientists/professionals from other disciplines, I suggest you treat your background reading with far more seriousness and diligence.

Of course there are a few issues and problems with the Standard Model of cosmology; that is why cosmologists don't work on the Standard Model, but on expanding and refining it. Moffatt is simply playing his part in expanding and extending our knowledge of gravitational physics. This is nothing new - it's what I used to do - and the whole field is looking for the next step, whether that is in String Theory, LQG, Moffat's STV, or any of the other approaches.

But if you think for a second that something like the "Pioneer Anomaly" means that the whole of GR and Cosmology is falsified, in the sense of being consigned to the bin, then I'm afraid you will appear as an incompetent fool. I'm sure that you would rather avoid that, and personally I'd rather like to salvage some credibility for my academic home.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : more typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:10 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 8:24 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 63 of 70 (443636)
12-26-2007 8:16 AM


Dark Matter
Dark Matter has received some strong, independent confirmation with observations of the Bullet Cluster.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608407v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3572v2.pdf

The first paper is very readable. Here's the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster. Which is very accurate.


Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 8:20 AM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 8:23 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 64 of 70 (443637)
12-26-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by sinequanon
12-26-2007 6:10 AM


Re: Dark matter a logical conclusion?
sinequanon writes:

I am not a physicist, but I know that existing laws of physics predict an incorrect distribution...

The distribution of matter in the universe is measured, not derived from theory. Are you perhaps thinking of efforts to match variations in the CMBR to the distribution of matter?

...and behaviour of matter in the universe.

Anomalies such as Pioneer 10 and the structure of rotating galaxies are being studied. Science wouldn't be very interesting if we'd already figured everything out. Scientists are delighted to have problems like these. Reputations are made not by adding decimal places to existing knowledge but by discovering new science. You seem to see anomalies as indicative of something rotten at the core of scientific practice, but there has never been a time when there were not scientific anomalies. There's never been a period in science when all known phenomena were explained by existing theory.

Wouldn't throwing out GR be grossly premature? It seems strange that anyone would push for discarding so successful a theory while options consistent with GR exist and while research is still ongoing. Discarding GR would put you in a somewhat awkward position if, as is one of the likely possibilities, GR is eventually found consistent with the anomalies, or perhaps requires modest modification.

GR currently makes the most accurate predictions, such as with slingshotting around Jupiter and with the precession in the orbit of Mercury. As a practical matter you cannot discard GR because naturally astrophysicists would continue to use it, as there is at present no alternative and it explains the vast majority of phenomena. What sense would it make to designate GR falsified and discarded while it was still predominate and making successful predictions.

I'm getting off-topic comments (Chiroptera - personal gripe about what happened in another thread), cronyism (pretending you're all on the same page), nit-picking (complaining about semantics when the problem is well-known), and defensive responses (groundless accusations that I am "defending" creationism).

I think we'd all like you to stay focused on the topic.

If the politics of this thread is anything to go by, scientific "logic" is prone to all manner of fallacy.

Again, I think we'd all like you to stay focused on the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 6:10 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 70 (443638)
12-26-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Son Goku
12-26-2007 8:16 AM


Re: Dark Matter
Son Goku

I have a stupid question to ask concerning the missing mass problem. How much contribution to mass in the universe is presented by vacuum energy?

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 8:16 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 10:17 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 66 of 70 (443639)
12-26-2007 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Son Goku
12-26-2007 8:16 AM


Re: Dark Matter
I mentioned this back in Message 59, thanks for providing the references.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Son Goku, posted 12-26-2007 8:16 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 67 of 70 (443640)
12-26-2007 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by cavediver
12-26-2007 7:33 AM


Re: Dark matter a logical conclusion?
I wouldn't like to think either, so please clarify this for me.

It's clear enough. I'll leave the politics to you. I have no wish to engage in a public relations exercise regarding inadequacies in your field of study.

For any neutral person reading this, the issue is summarised in the link at Message 61.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 7:33 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 8:43 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 70 (443645)
12-26-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by sinequanon
12-26-2007 8:24 AM


Re: Dark matter a logical conclusion?
sinequanon

I have no wish to engage in a public relations exercise regarding inadequacies in your field of study

That sounds vaguely like the admittance of defeat. Cavediver offers valid criticisms of your position and the best you can do is this?
When challenged by an expert in the field to which you are making claims it is hard to see your response as anything other than a running away.
It is a shame for you not to at least enter the ring to show us what you have to offer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-26-2007 8:24 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 69 of 70 (443658)
12-26-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by sidelined
12-26-2007 8:20 AM


Re: Dark Matter
Having just written this, I've reread your question and realised you didn't say Dark Energy, but vacuum energy. Although arguably the same thing, it changes the direction of the question. Let me know if you were asking something different.

I have a stupid question to ask concerning the missing mass problem. How much contribution to mass in the universe is presented by vacuum energy?

Hopefully SG won't mind me butting in on a pet hate of mine. You always see these stupid pie-charts showing the relative contributions of visible mass, dark matter, and dark energy... contributions to what exactly???

"Energy" supposedly. But the "energy" of dark energy is effectively negative, so it doesn't really work.

The ratio of matter to dark matter is a very sensible ratio, and does indeed reflect a sense of known to unknown, as we don't know yet what constitutes the dark matter; but it is a tangible, clumpliable (tm), something that seriously outweighs the visible matter.

Dark energy on the other hand is best seen as a modification to the physical laws (Lagrangian) as in the addition of an all-pervading cosmological constant and/or new (effectively scalar) field. It's just not sensibly comparable with the matter content in this naive way.

My answer to your question would be that it contributes nothing to the mass in the Universe, but it contributes to the geometry of the Universe in its own way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 12-26-2007 8:20 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AdminPhat, posted 12-26-2007 11:13 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1907
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 70 of 70 (443665)
12-26-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by cavediver
12-26-2007 10:17 AM


Re: Dark Matter
Cavediver? Would you be willing to have a Great Debate with this
person?

If so, let me know here. Thanks! ~~AdminPhat

Edited by AdminPhat, : oops

Edited by AdminPhat, : oops again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 10:17 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019