An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

How do we rule things out from unknown causes?

Lets say i have a box the size of a lunchbox. I dont let you look in it.
You do not know what is inside.
but you know what cant be inside. for one thing you wont fit a hippo in there so thats pretty safe to rule out.

But wait a minute you say. I dont know what is inside so i cannot rule out that a hippo might be inside the lunchbox!

Thats how you can rule things out from a unknown something.
Now i dunno if EM was ruled out or weither there simply was no evidence for it yet. but perhaps somebody does.

I can cite *tons* of evidence to support it, starting with solar flare activity. What do you mean it's "dark energy"? It shows up like a brilliantly lit sore thumb in every high energy solar image.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_eit_195.mpg

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Sure, I'll be happy to. Let's start with a solar flare:

[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits

That's nice, but doesn't address "dark energy" or "dark matter".

These issues involve the observed motion of stars in a galaxy.

How are you going to use electricity to explain why stars orbiting the center of a galaxy do not move with velocities consistent with those predicted by Newtonian gravity?

...and...

Observed expansion of the universe.

How are you going to account for the increasing acceleration of expansion of objects in the universe with electricity?

 

[SithDoughnut]

That would explain why it is not working for you hopping on the backs of the mainstream. You certainly don't look clever at all presenting your "dark energy" claim or refuting Michael's electricity claim. Your best response is "I don't know"; "we don't know"; "nobody knows". I have certainly contributed more than that to this conversation, showing that I at least know something. You have contributed nothing but "unknown darkness" because the mainstream told you so.

Wild claims do not a contribution make. There is energy out there that we cannot detect, we can merely see its effects. Dark energy seems like a good name for it to me. Unless, of course, you'd like to prove that this energy that no one can detect is electricity. I'm sure undetectable electricity would be a very interesting concept.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Easy, its dark energy untill we know what it is.
Thats not to say your not allowed to guess at what it might be. But untill you can proof your right its gonna remain dark energy.

Again, I really dont care what you think it might be. All i know is its not proven yet so dark energy remains dark untill further notice.

 

[Michael]

I haven't seen the empirical verification, all I've seen is claims that it exists.

I suggest you start with the empirical lab work done by Kirstian Birkland in his terella experiments. I then suggest you study the work of Hannes Alfven. Alfven was given an Nobel prize for his work in MHD theory which is used in solar physics and any work with plasma. Between the two of them they A) empirically verified that it works in a lab, and B) quantified it a great deal.

What I've seen about plasma cosmology isn't exactly very convincing.

Keep in mind that there is a philosophical difference between Plasma Cosmology and other brands of what I (and Alfven) would call "prophetic Cosmology". The prophetic brand of cosmology seeks to explain a "creation event". It pretty much "assumes" such a thing and sets out to demonstrate that "theory". Unfortunately it always requires "faster than light expansion" and all sorts of things that simply don't fly in terms of actual physics, where objects made of mass cannot and do not exceed the speed of light.

Plasma cosmology seeks to understand how a solar system "functions". It then builds from that point outward, not necessarily trying to explain where we all came from, etc, but simply to "explain" in real physical terms, how things "work" in terms of empirical physics. In essence plasma cosmology is a pure form of "empirical physics" and tends to focus on what *can* be explained in terms of empirical physics rather than delving into the metaphysical and purely speculative "prophetic" side of life.

 

[Michael]

That's nice, but doesn't address "dark energy" or "dark matter".

What exactly would "address" what you call "dark energy" if not by demonstrating the electrical nature of the solar system?

 

[Michael]

Easy, its dark energy untill we know what it is.
Thats not to say your not allowed to guess at what it might be. But untill you can proof your right its gonna remain dark energy.

I can prove that EM fields accelerate solar wind. I can prove they create solar flares. I can demonstrate that EM fields cause plasma to "accelerate". What's it gonna take exactly?

See, this is exactly the problem with simply "making up" a term and having no empirical way to validate any of it's so called "properties". The term "acceleration" is easily and clearly associated with EM fields and plasma. The term "dark energy" is utterly meaningless and leads us to pure confusion on how to even communicate to replace your placeholder term for human ignorance with a real honest to goodness empirical force of nature.

 

[Doveaman]

Nice try but solar panels aren't plugs.

That's debatable.

Also, the pictures aren't of electrical energy or the Hubble would've have shorted out.

Did your microwave short out from the electrical energy going to it?

You will just stay in the dark ages despite your penchant for electricity.

If it is electricity there is nothing dark about it. Only to those who are blind and can't see it.

The day that you can show me this magical electrical energy electrocuting people is the day I'll believe your fairy tales.

Magical Electrical Energy Strikes Man.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

What exactly would "address" what you call "dark energy" if not by demonstrating the electrical nature of the solar system?

You would provide a model that predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe using electricity.

I mean that is the whole reason people postulated dark energy in the first place.

...

And while I'm at it...yes, everyone knows that electromagnetism is a central component of the universe, it is one of the four fundamental forces after all.

The thing is since positive and negatively charged objects tend to come together, electrical forces tend to be negligible on very large scales (say interstellar and larger).

The paper you gave simply addresses certain kinds of transient high energy processes.

 

[Michael]

Wild claims do not a contribution make. There is energy out there that we cannot detect, we can merely see its effects.

Sure, we see it's effects in solar wind too. That's a phenomenon that the mainstream still cannot explain, whereas Birkeland's physical empirical model "predicted" it's existence.

What causes the solar wind acceleration if not "dark energy"? If the mainstream can't explain it, why can't I call that "dark energy" too, and then show you how Birkeland created that process with EM fields?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I can prove that EM fields accelerate solar wind. I can prove they create solar flares. I can demonstrate that EM fields cause plasma to "accelerate". What's it gonna take exactly?

But none of that has anything to do with dark energy.

Yes, the solar wind is a stream of charged particles.

So what?

See, this is exactly the problem with simply "making up" a term and having no empirical way to validate any of it's so called "properties". The term "acceleration" is easily and clearly associated with EM fields and plasma. The term "dark energy" is utterly meaningless and leads us to pure confusion on how to even communicate to replace your placeholder term for human ignorance with a real honest to goodness empirical force of nature.

Like I said, provide a model using electricity to describe the observed expansion of the universe.

 

[Michael]

You would provide a model that predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe using electricity.

There is no physical way to create a "faster than light" expansion process from EM fields. In fact there is no empirical physical way to achieve faster than light expansion period. FYI, only two known theories require "faster than light expansion", young earth creation theory, and Lambda-CDM theory. Pure coincidence?

 

[Michael]

But none of that has anything to do with dark energy.

Of *COURSE* it does. The mainstream can't explain that observation of acceleration with EM fields evidently, so we'll just start by calling it "dark energy" for now since they can't offer you a real empirical force of nature to explain it, right?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

There is physical way to create a "faster than light" expansion process from EM fields. In fact there is no empirical physical way to achieve faster than light expansion period. FYI, only two known theories requires "faster than light expansion", young earth creation theory, and Lambda-CDM theory. Pure coincidence?

Now you are talking about inflationary cosmology. That is a model for that past.

It has been observed that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.

That is an *observation* of what is going on *right now*.

As none of the existing physics can explain that that causes one to postulate new physics (i.e. "dark energy").

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Of *COURSE* it does. The mainstream can't explain that observation of acceleration with EM fields evidently, so we'll just start by calling it "dark energy" for now since they can't offer you a real empirical force of nature to explain it, right?

When one cannot explain an observation with existing physics, one naturally considers that there might be *new physics* which explains it, and looks for evidence to get at what that new physics might entail.

So what?

We look for new physics all the time.

That is the whole point of the LHC.

Are you trying to assert that general relativity and the standard model are the end of physics and we have found it all?

 

[Michael]

Now you are talking about inflationary cosmology. That is a model for that past.

Inflation is another of those "make believe" thingies. I can even tell you the name of the guy that "made it up" in his head. It was Alan Guth. Only in make believe world does matter travel faster than light.

It has been observed that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.

And? In no way does that necessitate a new form of energy. EM fields do that.

That is an *observation* of what is going on *right now*.

So is the solar wind process they can't explain so let's call that observation of acceleration "dark energy" too, ok?

As none of the existing physics can explain that that causes one to postulate new physics (i.e. "dark energy").

What "physics"? EM fields can certainly "accelerate" plasma.

 

[Michael]

When one cannot explain an observation with existing physics, one naturally considers that there might be *new physics* which explains it,

Acceleration of plasma doesn't require any new form of physics. How and when did we go from "I don't know" to "new physics is *REQUIRED*"?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

And? In no way does that necessitate a new form of energy. EM fields do that.

How? By what physics?

So is the solar wind process they can't explain so let's call that observation of acceleration "dark energy" too, ok?

If the existing model of physics fails to explain it there is something wrong with the model. Thus we need *new physics*, even if it only boils down to our models of electromagnetism being wrong (in which case "dark energy" would simply be the difference between our present models of EM and a more correct one).

What "physics"? EM fields can certainly "accelerate" plasma.

How? I mean, in an astronomical model.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Acceleration of plasma doesn't require any new form of physics. How and when did we go from "I don't know" to "new physics is *REQUIRED*"?

How?

 

[Michael]

How? By what physics?

The state of matter called "plasma" is extremely sensitive to the EM field because A) it's an excellent conductor (nearly perfect actually), and B) because it's composed of charge particles that are accelerated by electromagnetic fields.

You can demonstrate that with an ordinary plasma ball. Simply plug it in and turn it on.

If the existing model of physics fails to explain it there is something wrong with the model.

The mainstream's solar model fails to explain the constant acceleration of solar wind. There is something wrong with it, no? Can't we call that observation of acceleration (in fact any observation of acceleration) "dark energy" until we identify it's actual empirical cause?

Thus we need *new physics*,

How can you be so sure "new physics" is necessary? Didn't you first tell me it was simply a placeholder term for human ignorance that could represent *ANYTHING*, including known forces of nature?

even if it only boils down to our models of electromagnetism being wrong

It's not that the models are wrong, the mainstream simply refuses to use them.