My argument still stands actually. There has never been empirical laboratory evidence to support SUSY theory. It's never been anything other than a 'non-standard', and less popular particle physics theory in the first place. It's more popular with astronomers perhaps, but in terms of particle physics, SUSY theory was *always* a non-standard physics theory. It's never enjoyed any empirical support either.
I was more focused on your argument about falsification. This, as I've stated in earlier post, is something I'll try to lift out of our discussion.
In this case they keep "changing the parameters" because all the "popular" SUSY theories were falsified. The whole argument has now become an "exotic matter of the gaps" argument, and the gaps keep getting smaller. They keep moving the numbers to fit in those ever shrinking gaps, only because their *primary* claims have already been falsified by the data!
And there you have it. Falsified. That isn't so bad, is it?
The astronomers and SUSY proponents didn't actually take that falsification to heart, and let their theories die a "natural" scientific death. Instead they elected to "surf the gaps" for as long as they can get away with it!
And how on earth is that a problem? If they're valid (as in mathematically sound) "gaps" then how can you protest against it? That the "gaps" shrink, which I assume is what you meant, is something extremely positive. Eventually it'll either result in something very exact or the scrapping of the theories/hypotheses.
If history is any indication, they just make up a new ad hoc entity to make the math work right again.
Like Neptune once was?
By that logic, Bigfoot must exist because I've seen images of what is supposed to be Bigfoot and recordings that allegedly come from Bigfoot. Not all "evidence" is equal.
You're certainly correct on that all evidence isn't equal, but what matters is the bodies of evidence and how rigorous they are.
That's why I stated that the term was superfluous, it's the bodies of evidence that's supposed to be used to form conclusions and not individual pieces of evidence (no matter how strong).
Individual pieces of evidence might induce further study of the subject in question if they're controversial and strong enough to affect the certainty of the conclusion drawn by the earlier body of evidence.
Note that included in the body of evidence is also the negative results, even though they often don't get published (which I raged at when I found out) which can severely skewer the initial impression.
In *reality* however, positrons and gamma rays are empirically and physically related to electrical discharges. Only in *creation mythos* does exotic matter supposedly "do" anything, or emit positrons. Exotic matter concepts are complete dud in the lab to date, and not a single positron has ever been empirically linked to any form of exotic matter.
The evidence for positron emissions from electrical discharges is nothing at all like the so called "evidence" of positron emissions from exotic matter theory. One type of "evidence' is entirely empirical in nature, and the other is entirely *mathematical speculation*! Not all evidence is equal in terms of empirical physics, and I put emphasis on empirical physics.
Pssh, reality is overrated
Jokes aside, positrons and such is way over my education.
Swaying an audience is a time honored tradition in debate. I'd say that I grandstand a lot less about mainstream claims in terms of the statements that I make vs the claims that the mainstream makes about EU/PC theory.
It may be so but to throw mud 'because they started it' is no way to debate.
To use the terms 'crackpot' or otherwise derogatory/inflammatory terminology is worse than worthless. That goes for everybody.
It can sometimes, in verbal debates, be used to bring the opponent off balance, to great effect, but I hold the position that if you think you're correct you won't need those underhanded methods.
At the worst cases it would be enough to provide with one serious reply and refer to that reply if there's a repeat return by the person he/she'd call 'crackpot' or similar.
It's extremely hard to "straighten up" the usage of terms when the mainstream is constantly referring to Lambda-CDM as a 'theory' and a 'model' yet their so called "theory" requires 95 percent "hypothetical entities' to make it work! Don't blame me for the confusion, it's not my fault.
I agree here. As you probably saw with my short exchange with David, I'd hold everybody to that standard and I find it deplorable that the experts, especially, would be so lax with their use.
Or perhaps they are so *emotionally* and *professionally* invested in their beliefs, that it makes more sense to "make up" ad hoc gap filler than to simply let their theory die a natural empirical death. Either way, their creation of ad hoc gap filler wasn't real impressive to start with. The fact they can't site a single source of the stuff some 15 years later is also less than impressive.
That they've managed to replace some of the placeholder is impressive though. That shows that there is something to it.
As for the emotional investment, I don't see why they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to write themselves as the founder of some knockout new view of the universe.
Well, you could interpret it that way I suppose. Then again, there is a *subjective* element involved that doesn't relate to the actual data, and not everyone reacts to data sets the same way. It *might* be possible to falsify inflation theory *if* there were only one of them, *and* inflation actually existed and actually had some effect on "things". Since none of that is true however, the falsification process becomes *personally subjective*, and requires the "believer" to make "choices' that are not related to empirical physical data. It might be possible to falsify the theory for some people. David however is a perfect example of someone that cannot be swayed by the data, regardless of the data. Even when I first asked him about that 4 billion light year long structure in space, he didn't ever once question his beliefs, nor did he leave open any room at all for that particular observation to be useful as a falsification mechanism. He immediately *assumed* he could "break it into smaller pieces" to achieve his goals. I haven't had time to read his rebuttal paper yet, but even before he could present me with one, he had already made up his mind!
Actually, how I perceived it he seemed to have heard something about someone who'd studied the phenomenon you're talking (writing) about and gave his initial impression. Which later seemed to be consistent with the paper.
If my memory serves me right.
They don't either. That's the whole point. Gravitational curvature can accelerate objects of mass as well.
Umm... Isn't that energy as well? Potential energy.
They however need something to accelerate "space", not mass. They can't even demonstrate that "space" (physically undefined) an even "expand", let alone "accelerate". Both concepts (expansion and acceleration of space) are pure "acts of faith" of the part of the believer.
Inflammatory terminology.
I'll lift out the question about whether space and/or spacetime is defined or not as well (since we keep returning to that as well).
So it's fine by you if I just call it "God energy" then too, right?
No. The term god has luggage that is unnecessary. And I'm talking some major luggage.
So you'll sit by and watch the mainstream drawing strawmen about EU/PC theories, strawmen related to invisible ad hoc entities and not bat an eye, but should you see something from my lips that looks like a strawman, that's worth commenting on?
So I have a better grasp of "the mainstream" than the "EU/PC theories", can you blame me? One that I have had a rudimentary education of and some sporadic exposing of due to news articles. One that I heard about for the first time a few years ago.
I can't go further than my current understanding of something.
I know how I can differentiate between the "wrong' and "right" impressions in science. I simply use a completely empirical standard. I have no idea how you determine "right" or 'wrong' impressions however as it relates to physics. Care to explain? Surely it's not related to how you "feel" about my personal presentation style?
Wrong in this case would mean that I'd later change my mind based upon the information I have gathered. I didn't mean and form of 'objective wrong'.
Oddly enough we actually share that fondness for science in common. I too am biased toward "empirical science". That is why EU/PC theory is so attractive to me personally.
The difference is that I also tend to reject *metaphysical entities* regardless of the source. The label "science" doesn't impress me when it's associated with invisible hypothetical entities anymore than the label 'religion' impresses me when it's describing invisible hypothetical entities. I apply the *same* standard, whereas you apparently do not.
It isn't the label that impresses me. It's whether I need to spend time to get what they're talking about.
If I need to, then I'll weigh for and against whether I'll actually engage.
Science, unfortunately (?), demands much more than non-scientific endeavors.
When it comes to religions and philosophical arguments I'm much better suited and actually able to instantly, or near so, start working with what's given.
Often, I admit, I'll take a sample and judge according to that but I'll make damn certain that I'm aware of that and that I don't give the impression of otherwise.
I don't want to have to spend weeks sorting through and examining observational data sets and similar to form an opinion that won't ever affect me.
You do a pretty good job actually. The only dead 'give away' is that you don't ask david any questions.
That's mainly because the initial reasons I approached you wasn't scientific inquiry (as easily seen if backtracking). It was pretty much to improve the discussion.
(In this particular backtrack I landed on
post 407 in "Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)" )
I'd like to think I've been consistent in my 'starts'
What is "dark energy" if not a claim that has no evidence? Even *if* we assume the universe is accelerating over time, what actual evidence can you present that 'dark energy did it' or that "God energy" didn't do it?
It doesn't really matter what I can present does it? Because if it does, science is in big trouble.
I'd suggest looking for the evidence that led to the theory/hypothesis.
Well, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think is save to assume a law is likely to be true. That's hardly an illogical premise.
I agree.
I hope you can see the difference between claiming that an EM field is responsible for accelerating something vs claiming that "God accelerates the universe'. I can name a *source* of EM fields. I can *control* them in real experiments. I can show in a lab that they can and do have a direct effect on charged particles. This is actual "knowledge'.
This is something I think we might deal with with the 'separate thread' suggestions.
Some vague claim about 'dark energy did it" means absolutely nothing in terms of 'knowledge". That isn't actually 'knowledge" at all, it's a "statement of faith". Knowledge isn't the same as *blind speculation*.
Dark energy did it explains nothing, sure, but from what I've seen they actually have a lot more explaining than that.
Bear with me. I've got a lot of conversations going now, and limited time during the day. If I miss anything, just keep doing what you've been doing and cite the link for me. I'll eventually get to it.