Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 106 of 305 (665140)
06-08-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by zaius137
06-08-2012 3:16 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
Here is a link to that broken one you are using only the abstract is presented
See the blue "PDF" link in the upper right corner, the one that links to the full paper?
quote:
We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. Mendeley - Reference Management Software
Do you see test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies.
Yes. Do you see "periodic non-cosmological redshifts"?
quote:
Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006).
In particular, what are these selection effects? Are they a result of the mean of the zConf parameter as described by Hartnett?
For anything not contained in that paper, you'll have to ask them. Do you have any reason to doubt their capabilities?
quote:
To construct the lower histogram we have partially removed the effect of host galaxy contamination (by excluding extended objects), limited the sample to a uniform magnitude limit of i < 19.1 (accounting for emission-line effects)
What is the host galaxy contamination? Is that the redshift from the supposed parent galaxy from which the QSO was ejected?
For anything not contained in that paper, you'll have to ask them. Do you have any reason to doubt their capabilities?
I see you are ignoring sonme critical questions:
I addressed this problem as smearing the data remember?
I saw claims of "smearing the data", in your messages and some of the papers to which you linked. Nowhere have I seen any demonstration that this alleged "smearing" exists or is a problem.
So what's the definition of "smearing the data" and how is it an issue?
The paper you cite criticizing Hartnett is not even a paper (it is a commentary) and is below peer review. How is it that I provide the more reasonable arguments and all you can say is Ain't no quantized redshift. It is because if quantized redshifts are real the Milky Way is near the center of the universe. Indeed, we are a special creation in God’s site.
Yup, it's a commentary, by an expert in the field. It's hard to find recent peer-reviewed papers debunking quantized redshift; the vast majority of astrophysicists aren't interested in wasting time addressing crackpot ideas.
It seems to me that Dr. Bridgman provided a valid and powerful criticism, peer-reviewed or not. Do you have any response?
I take it you have no response?
From Bell & McDiarmid.:
  • Why did they perform a one-dimensional analysis of a 3D dataset? Dr. Bridgman's comments, at which you scoff, applies here.
  • Why did they not use statistical techniques to estimate the significance of the sample? Parts of Fig. 5 look like peaks near the predicted values, parts look like troughs near the predicted values, parts look like peaks far from the predicted values. Visual evaluation of such data is notoriously suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 3:16 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:56 PM JonF has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 107 of 305 (665153)
06-08-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Panda
06-03-2012 11:55 PM


W and Z
Panda my friend
"The physics of the electroweak epoch is less speculative and much better understood than the physics of previous periods of the early universe. The existence of W and Z bosons has been demonstrated, and other predictions of electroweak theory have been experimentally verified."
Apparently from the WIKI.
Actually the total physics of the electroweak epoch is now in question since the Higgs Boson has not been discovered.
quote:
Particle interactions in this phase were energetic enough to create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons.
Also from the WIKI
quote:
This is a time when energy fields are figuring themselves out as the bosons that mediate them come into play. The Higgs field may be making its first appearance, setting into place a framework in which all matter can come into existence.
Scientific Explorer: Our Universe Part 6: Electroweak Epoch
You see particle physics is about to be re-written. The BB is in very serious trouble. Now for God created to become the dominate view.
Just a footnote, those W and Z bosons are not observed as particles.
quote:
The discovery of the W and Z particles is a major CERN success story. First, in 1973, came the observation of neutral current interactions as predicted by electroweak theory. The huge Gargamelle bubble chamber photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move, seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable, so the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction. Error 403(Invalid User)
They are simply assumed to mediate reactions observed in bubble chambers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 06-03-2012 11:55 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 06-08-2012 7:51 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 06-08-2012 9:22 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 111 by dwise1, posted 06-08-2012 10:12 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 117 by Son Goku, posted 06-09-2012 4:47 PM zaius137 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 108 of 305 (665154)
06-08-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
06-08-2012 7:43 PM


Re: W and Z
Now for God created to become the dominate view.
Since "God Created" is a content free phrase that does not increase knowledge of how anything happened and adds no value towards understanding anything it would be a totally worthless view.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:43 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 109 of 305 (665155)
06-08-2012 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by JonF
06-08-2012 4:14 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
My friend JonF
You can lead a horse to water but only Chuck Norris can make him drink.
Thanks for the dialog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by JonF, posted 06-08-2012 4:14 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 06-09-2012 8:19 AM zaius137 has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 110 of 305 (665162)
06-08-2012 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
06-08-2012 7:43 PM


Re: W and Z
zaius137 writes:
Apparently from the WIKI.
Nice. You start off by calling me a liar.
I expected a little more from you, but I can't say I am surprised.
zaius137 writes:
Actually the total physics of the electroweak epoch is now in question since the Higgs Boson has not been discovered.
This is just some random conjecture by you.
It is also unrelated to my post.
zaius137 writes:
You see particle physics is about to be re-written. The BB is in very serious trouble. Now for God created to become the dominate view.
This is some more random conjecture by you.
And even your own links don't support your claims.
It is also unrelated to my post.
Since the electroweak epoch is after the BB, the BB will not be affected by any changes to the electroweak epoch.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:43 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 111 of 305 (665164)
06-08-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
06-08-2012 7:43 PM


Re: W and Z
Now for God created to become the dominate view.
Whatever makes you think that it isn't? That is not a rhetorical question!
In the general public, most are theists and I believe that Christians enjoy a bare majority in the USA and Canada. Which would mean that most believe in "God" (whatever that might mean in the many different forms of monotheism out there) as "the Creator". Which would make "God created" the dominant view.
Several years ago, I met on-line a fundamentalist Christian, Carl Drews, who is an opponent of "creation science". He and his family had found a fundamentalist church that they liked and whose outreach programs they really liked. But when his pastors advocated the teaching of outright lies (ie, "creation science"), he found that he had to leave that church. His entire story, in his own words, are at http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html.
Part of his story concerns his earliest exposure to this "issue" (in quotation marks, because any "controversy" is purely of creationist manufacture) -- of course, since you have the link to that page, you can read it in its entirety rather than have to rely on my abbreviated quoting of it:
quote:
I went to good public schools. I remember Mr. Reed, my 8th-grade science teacher, explaining to us about science and religion. He told us that science is not qualified to speak on matters of faith, and demonstrated this with a few gedanken (thought) experiments. He explained some of the differences between the two realms.
It wasn't until sometime in high school that I first heard the idea that the theory of evolution and the Bible are in conflict. This idea puzzled me. "What's the problem?" I thought. "God said, 'Let there be light, earth, plants, and animals' and evolution produced all these things." I didn't know it at the time, but that was my first simple definition of theistic evolution.
I graduated from Stanford University in 1982 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, with a concentration in Computer Science. I've worked professionally developing software ever since.
In about 1985 I was attending a Young Singles Bible Study at my church when creationism first came up. Someone had brought in a small pamphlet attacking evolution. It was a comic book featuring an overweight goateed college professor and a clean-cut handsome male student who easily refuted all the professor's teaching about evolution. "I've seen that one!" reported a friend named Rick gleefully. "That guy really slams evolution!" I volunteered to check it out and report back to the group. My attitude was, "I knew that evolution had some holes in it. Let's see what he found." I went to the public library to look up the references that were cited in the pamphlet.
The first citation wasn't quite what the original source had said. The second one contained some distortion, too. So did the third. It got worse and worse. None of the original authors would have agreed with the conclusions drawn in the pamphlet. I was shocked and upset! This Christian pamphlet contained substantially wrong information! I was able to locate most of the references, and all the ones I found had twisted the meaning of original information. I remember that in one example the author had neglected to mention the chemical benzene that was involved in an experiment to form oil quickly.
I brought my findings back to the Young Singles group and presented them. I tried to be gentle, but the writing was on the wall. The group was shocked, surprised, and angry. Afterwards Rick said in a small voice that he thought that somewhere there was some information that could disprove evolution.
I wrote to the publisher of the pamphlet and asked them why a Christian would put together such a poor pamphlet. I got a fairly lengthy response that admitted no wrong, misinterpreted several things I had said, defended the pamphlet, and supplied additional examples to replace the ones I had rejected.
This experience was so upsetting to me that I refused to discuss evolution for many years after that.
Basically, religion tells you "what" happened and "who" had dunnit, while science tells the "how." Science cannot and does not have anything to say about religion, but it most definitely has a lot to say about how the universe works. You want to promote a "God created" viewpoint? OK, fine, so do it! Science has nothing whatsoever to say about it, though people and groups with views that differ from yours may have something to say, though when they do so then they also are dealing outside of science. Though, of course, when you make false statements about what science should show if your particular excessively narrow religious ideas were true, then you should not have the audacity to act surprised when the evidence contra-indicates your claims.
To reiterate, what Carl Drews was taught was that while religion deals with "who dunnit", science deals with "what actually happened, including how it was dun." As a basic approach, I think that should work well to show that there really isn't any actual conflict between science and religion. The only conflict happens when religion decides to decree that reality must be different than it actually is, which is now the standard creationist position.
BTW, that pamphlet Carl mentioned was the original Chick Pubs tract, Big Daddy? I had also read it, back circa 1970; since then, a second edition has come out which appears to have been written by Kent Hovind. Back circa 1970, my high school best friend's mother and a few other family members converted to Christian fundamentalism as part of the "Jesus Freak Movement" of that time. As "fellow travellers" (a term I borrow from McCarthyism's anti-Communism -- though HBO's most excellent Hemingway and Gellhorn, currently showing, indicates that the term also applied much earlier, both before and during WWII), we not only learned what fundamentalism taught (and which we disagreed with), but we also were free to peruse their propaganda, including countless Chick Pubs tracts. Those were the most hilarious things that we had ever read! Many years later, I found some Chick Pubs tracts in public restroom stalls. My reaction was that they were sorely inadequate as an alternative source of TP -- I have receive instruction on how to convert a page from the Sears and Roebuck's catalog to serve as TP; you need to crumple it up a lot.
OK, so more scientists are skeptical than is the general public. But how much is that due to religionists' falsely insisting that any naturalistic explanation is an argument against God? You want to falsely force scientists to choose between God and science? You know what's going to win! Instead, why not couch it in real terms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:43 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by zaius137, posted 06-09-2012 3:07 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 112 of 305 (665168)
06-09-2012 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by dwise1
06-08-2012 10:12 PM


Re: W and Z
Science has nothing whatsoever to say about it, though people and groups with views that differ from yours may have something to say, though when they do so then they also are dealing outside of science. Though, of course, when you make false statements about what science should show if your particular excessively narrow religious ideas were true, then you should not have the audacity to act surprised when the evidence contra-indicates your claims.
dwise1 my friend
quote:
A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.
Isaac Newton
I am not a newcomer to the Bible or to science and I have never encountered any real scientific evidence that shows me that the Bible and science are incompatible. As for evolution and Big Bang cosmology, they are just bad science and will fade away with new scientific evidence, but the Bible will remain standing as God said it would. I never will intentionally, as you say make false statements about religion or the science to propound my own unsupportable viewpoint. If we are talking truth, the Bible is the higher authority and the science is the raging sea of change. I explore the science from a very sound and literal vantage point.
There is no reason to fear the truth.
I have to wonder how much of the evidence you really understand when you make such statements. You know we as Christians have been set free to weigh the facts rather than just ingest every piece of garbage thrust in front of us labeled truth.
If you find yourself uncomfortable by arguments from the other side of the fence it is only natural. It is the epiphany of the moment that follows that can free your mind to learn something new or close it off to new ideas. One is liberating the other is stifling. If a personal Worldview is so fragile that it must be protected by retreating from the facts then intellectual growth is stifled. Whenever fear shapes an opinion, the truth suffers. How liberating it is to dive into the science without fear of being wrong. Maxwell and Faraday thrived on that liberation. Jesus Christ was Lord and master of them both.
Zaius137
As for me I have found immutable ground. I have found a solid rock that is worthy of trust. Find that truth and that truth shall set you free. No one should ever fear the facts.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by dwise1, posted 06-08-2012 10:12 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 10:55 AM zaius137 has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 113 of 305 (665173)
06-09-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by zaius137
06-08-2012 7:56 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
I see that you can't support your claims.
Ain't no periodic non-cosmological redshift (quantized redshift is a misnomor).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:56 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by zaius137, posted 06-09-2012 4:11 PM JonF has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 114 of 305 (665175)
06-09-2012 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by zaius137
06-09-2012 3:07 AM


Re: W and Z
am not a newcomer to the Bible or to science and I have never encountered any real scientific evidence that shows me that the Bible and science are incompatible. As for evolution and Big Bang cosmology, they are just bad science and will fade away with new scientific evidence
Indeed. Given the ease with which you dismiss scientific evidence that disagrees with you, I think your "never encountered" claim is easy to understand. If evidence or analysis disagrees with you, it is simply wrong, and then labeled not "real".
And of course, the standard for looking to cranks and bad science and giving it weight over non-crank science is whether there is agreement with your favorite interpretation of the Bible. What I see here is no different from any of those people who insist that man has never been to the moon or that general relativity is wrong with motivation identical to yours.
I never will intentionally, as you say make false statements about religion or the science to propound my own unsupportable viewpoint.
I can accept the statement that you are not intentionally making false statements. But my acceptance does not change the truth that your false statements are motivated by your religious view point. And because of that motivation, there is little incentive to point out the weaknesses in your arguments. You can never accept them. If you cannot address those weaknesses you'll simply be silent about any points made against them.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Grammar fixups. Nothing of substance

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by zaius137, posted 06-09-2012 3:07 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by zaius137, posted 06-09-2012 4:39 PM NoNukes has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 115 of 305 (665179)
06-09-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by JonF
06-09-2012 8:19 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
I know I have failed to convince you but for sake of others, I wish to clarify the misunderstanding between our points of view.
As I understand it, there are two studies. One concerning the ejection of quasar like objects from galaxies and the other concerns real periodic redshifts of galaxies implying concentric shells of those galaxies extending in radial rings from our Milky Way galaxy. My argument for periodic redshifts concerned only the latter (galactic periodicity) implying that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe.
The misconception occurred when citations for the hypothesis of mass ejections of distance galaxies were erroneously cited in our conversation.
There are three causes of astronomical redshift:
Total redshift effects can be represented by:
Page not found – Asterism.org
Periodic redshifts of galaxies (concerning Z total):
http://www.mendeley.com/...g-sdss-and-2df-grs-galaxy-surveys
Now the studied redshifts of QSOs are different from the studied redshifts for galaxy periodicity. The QSOs only concern Non Doppler redshifts or intrinsic redshifts, in particular gravitational and cosmological (space expansion) redshifts. The principle is simply described in the following:
quote:
If high-redshift quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are ejected from the nuclei of low-redshift galaxies, as some have claimed, a large portion of their redshift must be intrinsic (non-Doppler). If these intrinsic components have preferred values, redshifts will tend to cluster around these preferred values and produce peaks in the redshift distribution.
ShieldSquare Captcha
The idea of QSOs being ejected from galaxies is highly disputed but the periodic redshifts of galaxies in general is well supported. I believe I cited almost 10 separate papers (some older and one from 2008) which are verifications of the observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 06-09-2012 8:19 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 06-09-2012 7:50 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 116 of 305 (665180)
06-09-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
06-09-2012 10:55 AM


Re: W and Z
NoNukes my friend
I can accept the statement that you are not intentionally making false statements. But my acceptance does not change the truth that your false statements are motivated by your religious view point. And because of that motivation, there is little incentive to point out the weaknesses in your arguments. You can never accept them. If you cannot address those weaknesses you'll simply be silent about any points made against them.
Yes I advocate an opinion but do not believe your point of view is anymore objective. By all means let us discuss the science. If I am wrong it will not be the first time, but I only convey my opinions after careful and logical consideration, so be prepared to be exhaustive in your replies.
NoNukes are good nukes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 10:55 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 6:35 PM zaius137 has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 117 of 305 (665181)
06-09-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
06-08-2012 7:43 PM


Re: W and Z
Actually the total physics of the electroweak epoch is now in question since the Higgs Boson has not been discovered.
One of the people I work with has been working on one of the alternatives to the Higgs boson (known as Technicolor). In this model all of this electroweak epoch physics works out the same.
This is because the Higgs is only a proposal for what provided the electroweak charge in empty space that split the force into two seperate forces (electromagnetic and weak nuclear). However as far as the physics of the electroweak epoch goes, what did it doesn't matter what provided the charge. All the different ideas of what provided that charge (Higgs, Technicolor, e.t.c.) give you the same physics in the electroweak era, particularly as far as the Big Bang is concerned.
There is no debate on this. If you write down a quantum field theory to describe the electroweak force, the parts of it that relate to the electroweak epoch are unaffected by the mechanism of what eventually split the force in two.
You see particle physics is about to be re-written. The BB is in very serious trouble. Now for God created to become the dominate view.
Just a footnote, those W and Z bosons are not observed as particles.
They are simply assumed to mediate reactions observed in bubble chambers
This is completely false. The quantum field theories which contain W and Z particles give very precise predictions for angles of emission, momenta and energies of particles that come out of the bubble chambers. This predictions match what is seen incredibly well.
An example:
In the graph here, the vertical axis represents the number of electron pairs which rebound of each other and into a detector at the Tevatron. The horizontal axis is the energy (basically from their speed) of the electron pair.
The blue line is the prediction of the Electroweak quantum field theory. The red dots with errors bars are the number actually detected at the Tevatron. Notice not only do the predictions and experiment match, but the theory predicts a spike at the Z-boson mass, around 90 GeV, which we see here. We see the same spike in several other such graphs (for other pairs of particles).
We do not simply look at bubble chamber graphs and assume we see a Z-boson. We see exactly what the electroweak theory predicts and every single graph which is predicted to have the Z-boson spike displays exactly that spike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:43 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM Son Goku has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 118 of 305 (665184)
06-09-2012 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by zaius137
06-09-2012 4:39 PM


Re: W and Z
By all means let us discuss the science.
Then do so. Stop the shucking and jiving.
Stop evading questions or points made by others. Continuing to insist that the absence of the Higgs means that the BBT is what I expect you to do. But let's not pretend that you haven't been provided with reasons to the contrary. I have yet to see you address any of those points head on.
You made a specific complaint regarding problems with the analyses that do not show quantified red shifts, but I have yet to see you address my posts demonstrating that you were wrong in the only case you have yet identified.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by zaius137, posted 06-09-2012 4:39 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 4:15 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 119 of 305 (665185)
06-09-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by zaius137
06-09-2012 4:11 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
The idea of QSOs being ejected from galaxies is highly disputed but the periodic redshifts of galaxies in general is well supported. I believe I cited almost 10 separate papers (some older and one from 2008) which are verifications of the observation.
Yes, you cited several out-of-date papers and a couple of recent ones, both of which have serious failings.
Number of papers cited doesn't mean much, especially when almost all of them are obsolete. What really counts is the validity of the arguments. You haven't established any validity, and those papers have not either. You have a lot of questions to answer.
Don't waste bandwidth pontificating. Answer the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by zaius137, posted 06-09-2012 4:11 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 120 of 305 (665226)
06-10-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Son Goku
06-09-2012 4:47 PM


Re: W and Z
Son Goku my good friend
I want to thank you for that great post truly I enjoyed it.
This is completely false. The quantum field theories which contain W and Z particles give very precise predictions for angles of emission, momenta and energies of particles that come out of the bubble chambers. This predictions match what is seen incredibly well.
I agree the Quantum field theory has made amazing predictions such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson, its exact mass and particle interactions. Except that the Higgs is missing, (I have very good reasons to say this). Inconsistencies in a theory are a very good indication the theory needs replacement.
You will never catch me criticizing Einstein’s field equations because they seem to work regardless of how bad the theoretical framework is that utilize them, namely Big Bang and the Quantum field theory.
An after the fact theory can always be shown to hold some transient truth but a real predictive theory holds consistently to reality.
It has been proposed that the quantum interactions we observe are mere shadows of a deeper reality. The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity and has become a patchwork of inconveniences.
Do not herald a theory that makes a pseudo prediction about a clean unification prediction and then crashes and burns on a prediction like the Higgs.
The biggest train wreck in scientific history (the Higgs) is simply because the theorists have fallen asleep at the throttle.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Son Goku, posted 06-09-2012 4:47 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2012 2:34 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2012 4:39 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 129 by vimesey, posted 06-10-2012 6:03 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 132 by Son Goku, posted 06-11-2012 4:41 AM zaius137 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024