An Empirical Theory Of God

[Delphiki]

I disagree about the "impossible to know" part. That "assumption" seems to "assume" that God does not want to be "known" and does not interact with us in any conscious way. The "God helmet" demonstrates that an aware electric universe could indeed empirically interact with humans via an ordinary EM field.

Actually, all it demonstrates is that we can artificially induce the 'feeling' that we are in the presence of God.

Do you believe that it's possible for a hamster to "know" something about a human being that feeds it and plays with it everyday?

All a hamster would know is that every time the big thing comes along and makes a ruckus in it's world, it's able to eat again -- if it's even capable of making that relationship. Dogs and cats are usually smart enough to relate the two. There's no reason to believe that the hamster is in anyway capable of realizing the magnitude of what a human actually is, or what a human thinks, or is made of, or even the word "human" or that it's even determine whether or not the big noisy thing is actually another living thing. A hamster has absolutely no idea how dependent it actually is on the big noisy thing. Hamsters will forever and always be limited in this way.

As such, a hamsters understanding of humans is actually not that bad of an analogy.

That's not to say there's no point in learning about the universe. While we may never have empirical knowledge of a god, the amount of knowledge there is to learn about our universe is still endless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, assuming you've read this thread in it's entirety, you are at least being extremely "subjective" about what you consider "evidence".

Since your premise is false, your conclusion is unsound.

God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should give you a pretty good overview. Suffice to say that there is a neurological connection between human thoughts and externally generated EM fields.

Undoubtedly, as human thought originates from electrical phenomena in the brain. A sufficiently powerful external electromagnetic field that can alter these phenomena can quite plausibly alter human thought. Moreover, if you're suggesting that plasma filaments on a universal scale act as a sort of 'God helmet', the fact remains that any such filaments are far too weak to have any sort of impact on the human brain, not least one which is empirically observable. After all, the God helmet works on specifically the temporal lobe, while a universe-scale 'God helmet' couldn't be aimed at every individual's temporal lobe at once - not without affecting the entire brain uniformly, which defeats the point.

I admit it's an interesting idea, that humanity's belief in deities arises from electromagnetic fields from the large-scale structures in the depths of space, and that this structure may in fact be the origin of God's conciousness on par with how neurological circuitry seems to create human conciousness. However, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence for this, so it remains just an interesting idea.

Hannes Alfvén - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's also an empirical connection between EM fields and the acceleration of plasma in space. The work of Hannes Alfven also demonstrates the existence of "circuits" in space, along with an abundance of EM fields in space.

Perhaps, but plasma cosmology in general does not have the explanatory power nor the abundance of successful predictions that Relativity and the Big Bang have: large-scale homogeneity at ~100 Mpc, nucleosynthesis products from the early Big Bang, the CMBR, etc, all fit very accurately to the Big Bang model, while being largely or wholly unaccounted for in plasma cosmology.

So I'm sceptical that Alfven's work is as important as you make out. There are undoubtedly plasma filiments and other electrical phenomena in the large-scale structure of the universe, but it's by no means proven that these filaments actually generate a divine conciousness.

Consciousness has also been linked to "circuitry" in living organisms.

All of these findings "just so happen" to be 100 percent consistent with Pantheism. Why is that?

For the same reason they're 100% consistent with the supposition that I have a cheese toasty in my hand.

Likewise you can point at the sky all day and claim "my invisible friend did it", but until you can demonstrate your friend has any effect on real plasma in the lab, you have no empirical evidence that your friend exists, let alone that "he did it". Guth had *NO* scientific precedent for inflation. He literally just 'made it up' and endowed it with supernatural density defying properties that are unlike any other vector or scalar field found in nature.

Indeed. Try telling that to theists

At this point, I've tried pretty much every approach in the book, and it doesn't really matter. It all comes back to faith in magic math with magic sky entities. Of course the sky entities are either dead or impotent on Earth like most religious sky deities. Inflation and dark energy have no effect whatsoever on anything in the lab. It's all an act of faith on the part for the 'believer' in the unseen (in the lab). Nice or not, there is no empirical justification for Guth's inflation sky entity.

Allegedly. As I said, a great many others would disagree that there is no evidence for inflation.

How about you show me a half dozen papers published in the US or UK mainstream astronomy publications that uses the term 'circuits' in relationship to events in space. It's the "forbidden term" in astronomy today. All *electro*magnetic events are always "dumbed down" in press conferences and published material to "magnetic" yada, yada, yada, instead of *ELECTROmagnetic* yada, yada, yada.

'Magnetic' and 'electromagnetic' ultimately refer to the same phenomenon. There's no Great Censor, it's just a natural evolution in the language used by academia. Which is more likely: 1) there's a great conspiracy involving thousands of institutions and millions of scientists, all to clamp down on the Great And Terrible Truth Of Plasma Cosmology (GATTOP), even though such a conspiracy would yield zero benefit and a massive net detriment for those involved, or 2) scientists use the terms 'electromagnetic' and 'magnetic' interchangeably?

*WITHOUT* pointing at the sky, show me *ANY* sort of empirical evidence for either inflation or dark energy.

Why can't I point at the sky, when it contains the most compelling evidence for both? Inflation, for instance, is best evidenced by the uniformity of the CMBR, pointing to a time when the universe was in thermal equilibrium - but I would need to point to the sky to cite the CMBR.

Your so called "experts" can't even tell us where "dark energy" comes from. Your so called 'experts' can't show that inflation isn't a figment of their collective imagination and a meme that was simply created in the imagination of a single individual. It has NO empirical justification whatsoever. Guth quite literally 'made it up'. It can't show up in a lab because Guth *killed it too*.

There is *ZERO* empirical justification for mainstream theory. It's all one giant SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of the phenomenon of redshift. The rest of it is purely "made up" from "sky entities" that are entirely impotent in the lab.

Allegedly.

I've show all sorts of *REAL* empirical connections between external EM fields and human thought, circuits in space, and statistical connections related to human thoughts and beliefs on the topic of God. I've cited atheists reporting to have 'met God' during near death experiences. These are all things that occur in labs here on Earth.

Indeed. So?

What you're talking about is a CREATION MYTHOLOGY that requires "faster than light speed expansion" of a universe full of MASS that is physically incapable of performing that trick. In fact, the only two theories I'm aware of that require 'faster than light expansion' are young earth creation theory, and Lambda creation mythologies. Pure coincidence?

Yes.

Alan Guth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm slightly amused at the fact that you evidently have never read Guth's work for yourself, yet you evidently "trust" his work implicitly. Why?

For the same reason that I have never personally read Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers, yet I am fully aware of general relativity. I don't need to be aware of Guth, nor of his paper, to be aware of inflation in general. As scientists, we should only be concerned with the evidence supporting a claim, not the man making it.

Talk about "pure faith" in anything labelled "science".

Wait till you discover he needs 'negative pressure' from a 'vacuum' to make it all work, and his original theories were actually falsified and replaced with a new inflation sky entity anyway.

Mhm.

It demonstrates that the statement "love your neighbor" is 'true', irrespective of the "religion", and irrespective of a lack of belief in God entirely.

Indeed. Again, how does that demonstrate the veracity of Christianity?

The golden rule simply demonstrates a "universal truth" that was taught by a man named Jesus. If you want to OBJECTIFY this issue we need to look at it scientifically, and statistically. The fact that half of the planet considers Jesus to be at least a great "prophet" of God demonstrates that the teachings of Jesus are considered to be "true" by general consensus.

Indeed. Again, how does that demonstrate the veracity of Christianity? Jesus taught the Golden Rule, and Christians account for approximately one third of the planet - so what? The Golden Rule has been taught by many different people both before and after Jesus, and a religion's membership is no measure of its veracity. So, again, how does the Golden Rule demonstrate the veracity of Christianity?

 

[Michael]

Actually, all it demonstrates is that we can artificially induce the 'feeling' that we are in the presence of God.

Well, it does demonstrate the link between external EM influence, and internal human "experiences". If the universe is aware and able to communicate with us in this manner, it would explain a lot about human behaviors over the centuries.

All a hamster would know is that every time the big thing comes along and makes a ruckus in it's world, it's able to eat again -- if it's even capable of making that relationship. Dogs and cats are usually smart enough to relate the two. There's no reason to believe that the hamster is in anyway capable of realizing the magnitude of what a human actually is, or what a human thinks, or is made of, or even the word "human" or that it's even determine whether or not the big noisy thing is actually another living thing. A hamster has absolutely no idea how dependent it actually is on the big noisy thing. Hamsters will forever and always be limited in this way.

As such, a hamsters understanding of humans is actually not that bad of an analogy.

That's not to say there's no point in learning about the universe. While we may never have empirical knowledge of a god, the amount of knowledge there is to learn about our universe is still endless.

I'd be inclined to agree with you that the amount we still have to learn about the universe is virtually endless, but I do think it's possible (even historically documented) to have a "personal relationship" with God. That isn't to say I fully understand everything there is to know about God, but I understand that my very existence and survival is dependent upon God/The Universe.

 

[rjc34]

Basically what I got from reading the first couple pages then the last couple pages is this:

Michael is still asserting his 'plasma cosmology' and EM field universe god, and calling modern cosmologists and theoretical physicists 'religious' because they don't do more research into his fringe beliefs he holds so dear.

Everyone else is saying 'Er, no, that's not quite right...' and then being utterly ignored with exactly the same arguments.

tl;dr thread hasn't moved an inch.

 

[Michael]

Undoubtedly, as human thought originates from electrical phenomena in the brain. A sufficiently powerful external electromagnetic field that can alter these phenomena can quite plausibly alter human thought.

It's actually been demonstrated in a lab.

Moreover, if you're suggesting that plasma filaments on a universal scale act as a sort of 'God helmet', the fact remains that any such filaments are far too weak to have any sort of impact on the human brain, not least one which is empirically observable.

You're assuming the universe has limits on how it "controls" it's own EM fields? The EM fields seem to stream plasma by the Earth at over a million miles an hour and often light up aurora. What do you mean it's 'too weak'?

After all, the God helmet works on specifically the temporal lobe, while a universe-scale 'God helmet' couldn't be aimed at every individual's temporal lobe at once - not without affecting the entire brain uniformly, which defeats the point.

You seem to AGAIN be suggesting that there are limits on how and where God might be able to control EM fields. How do you know EM fields are only manipulated on a MACROSCOPIC scale?

I admit it's an interesting idea, that humanity's belief in deities arises from electromagnetic fields from the large-scale structures in the depths of space, and that this structure may in fact be the origin of God's conciousness on par with how neurological circuitry seems to create human conciousness. However, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence for this, so it remains just an interesting idea.

Let's look at the empirical evidence for a moment in terms of the REAL things that we can link to EM fields in the lab. We can link EM fields and circuitry to "awareness" in various living creatures. We can link external EM fields to changes in human thoughts and experiences. We can link EM fields to the acceleration of plasma.

You can't empirically link dark energy to anything in the lab. It has no physical, tangible effect on anything in the lab. Ditto on Guthflation. They are both entirely impotent in terms of empirical physics in the lab.

At least my cosmology beliefs and ideas have EMPIRICAL justification. Your ideas have none. Whatever "evidence" I have or do not have is better than "none".

Perhaps, but plasma cosmology in general does not have the explanatory power nor the abundance of successful predictions that Relativity and the Big Bang have:

Woah, you're already mixing ideas here. The theory of general relativity is in no way dependent upon "dark energy" or "inflation". It's stands on it's own merits without either of these metaphysical monstrosities.

Big Bang theory is pretty "general". Alfven had a "bang" theory, although it wasn't a "creation event" where all matter originated from a single point. EU theory has a "bang' theory that was written by Alfven and Lerner has since improved on it.

large-scale homogeneity at ~100 Mpc,

You cannot empirically demonstrate that inflation has anything to do with "homogeneity" in the lab. You simply expect me to "have faith' that it does what you claim it does. How about demonstrating that Guth didn't just make it up?

nucleosynthesis products from the early Big Bang,

All of these concepts seem to be predicted on the notion that elements inside of suns do not mass separate by the element, but rather they stay "mixed together". All you know based upon the actual "dust" in space is which elements most readily escape gravity wells, the lightest elements in particular.

the CMBR,

Again, you can't show any link between photon output and inflation. It's something I have to 'believe' or not.

etc, all fit very accurately to the Big Bang model, while being largely or wholly unaccounted for in plasma cosmology.

Again, PC theory has a "bang" theory of it's own. I'll rustle you up a link if you like.

So I'm sceptical that Alfven's work is as important as you make out.

Whereas I'm skeptical that you've studied his work very much or that you understand the implication of that work as it relates to events in space.

There are undoubtedly plasma filiments and other electrical phenomena in the large-scale structure of the universe, but it's by no means proven that these filaments actually generate a divine conciousness.

Even a move from "dark" mainstream theory to PC theory (without pantheism) would be a step in the right empirical direction IMO. Whether the circuits do or not give rise to awareness is another debate, but ANY move toward empiricism would be a huge improvement IMO. Current theory is 96% faith in the unseen (in the lab), so there's lots of room for improvement IMO.

For the same reason they're 100% consistent with the supposition that I have a cheese toasty in my hand.

That's a bit flippant don't you think? There are a lot of empirical pieces of information that fit nicely together in terms of human beliefs, cosmology process, laboratory testing of "awareness", and in terms of pantheism in general.

There isn't even a *SINGLE* empirical justification for claiming "dark energy did it" anymore than there is justification for claiming that "God energy" did it. I can't empirically link God energy to the acceleration of anything anymore than you can link 'dark energy" to acceleration.

Indeed. Try telling that to theists

It turns out that astronomers don't care either.

Allegedly. As I said, a great many others would disagree that there is no evidence for inflation.

A great many others don't matter one iota in terms of empirical physics and justifying one's claim empirically. If I claimed EM fields accelerate plasma, I can justify that claim in lab. Guth quite literally 'made up' and then 'killed off' his invisible friend. It had no scientific precedent prior to Guth, and Guth's original theory was eventually falsified. That didn't stop the "meme" from catching on. So what? In terms of empirical physics they can't produce anything the runs, uses or employs inflation or dark energy to do anything in a lab. It's pure creation mythology at it's finest, and purely unfalsifiable as a result.

'Magnetic' and 'electromagnetic' ultimately refer to the same phenomenon.

Not really. Is an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere a 'magnetic event'?

There's no Great Censor, it's just a natural evolution in the language used by academia.

The censors are the editors and proofreaders of the mainstream publications. Access to publishing channels means you either toe the party line, or you lose your job.

Which is more likely: 1) there's a great conspiracy involving thousands of institutions and millions of scientists, all to clamp down on the Great And Terrible Truth Of Plasma Cosmology (GATTOP), even though such a conspiracy would yield zero benefit and a massive net detriment for those involved, or 2) scientists use the terms 'electromagnetic' and 'magnetic' interchangeably?

So when you stick a knife in your wall socket, you know it won't hurt you because it's just a "magnetic' process, right? You can use terms interchangeably all you like but an electrical discharge is distinctly different and unique and is not the same as a "magnet". Yes, it involves a magnetic field, but the electric horse does the work not the magnetic cart. The mainsteam consistently insists on putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

Why can't I point at the sky, when it contains the most compelling evidence for both? Inflation, for instance, is best evidenced by the uniformity of the CMBR,

You can't empirically show me that. I have to 'believe you' based on some mythical properties that Guth dreamed up in his head. You can't show me any experiment where inflation generated a uniform set of photons.

pointing to a time when the universe was in thermal equilibrium - but I would need to point to the sky to cite the CMBR.

I don't have any problem with you pointing at the photons. I just have a problem when you say 'inflation did it'

Allegedly.

Allegedly? That should be easy enough to demonstrate if you can make either one of them show up in a controlled experiment on Earth. Can you?

Indeed. So?

So that way more than you can do with dark energy or inflation. I can empirically link EM fields to everything I'm postulating. You can't even get dark energy to accelerate/separate two atoms in the lab.

For the same reason that I have never personally read Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers, yet I am fully aware of general relativity. I don't need to be aware of Guth, nor of his paper, to be aware of inflation in general. As scientists, we should only be concerned with the evidence supporting a claim, not the man making it.

Einstein wrote about something that I experience here on Earth, gravity. Guth pointed at his dead sky deity and claimed his invisible dead friend did it billions of years ago and then inconveniently died shortly thereafter. WE there can never experience his dead friend here on Earth, we just have to 'believe him' anyway. Slight difference don't you think?

Indeed. Again, how does that demonstrate the veracity of Christianity? Jesus taught the Golden Rule, and Christians account for approximately one third of the planet - so what? The Golden Rule has been taught by many different people both before and after Jesus, and a religion's membership is no measure of its veracity. So, again, how does the Golden Rule demonstrate the veracity of Christianity?

The veracity of Christ's teachings are found in the influences they leave on large numbers of human beings. "Christianity" as you perceive it is simply another "religion". I'm talking about the tangible effects of a MAN and his teachings on the psyche's of real human beings. That's where the 'veracity' is demonstrated.

 

[Delphiki]

Well, it does demonstrate the link between external EM influence, and internal human "experiences". If the universe is aware and able to communicate with us in this manner, it would explain a lot about human behaviors over the centuries.



I'd be inclined to agree with you that the amount we still have to learn about the universe is virtually endless, but I do think it's possible (even historically documented) to have a "personal relationship" with God. That isn't to say I fully understand everything there is to know about God, but I understand that my very existence and survival is dependent upon God/The Universe.

In that case, you seem to be suggesting that "God" and "universe" are interchangeable terms. If so, that would make you a pantheist.

 

[Michael]

Basically what I got from reading the first couple pages then the last couple pages is this:

Michael is still asserting his 'plasma cosmology' and EM field universe god, and calling modern cosmologists and theoretical physicists 'religious' because they don't do more research into his fringe beliefs he holds so dear.

No, I call them "religious" because they consistently put their faith in the unseen in the lab, and they put their faith in things that can NEVER be seen in the lab, just like any other religion. I call them religious because they refuse to even entertain empirical physical solutions. Instead they try to judge empirical physics based strictly upon how well they personally think it "compares" (mathematically not empirically) with their "made up" invisible trio of ad hoc entities.

I really don't even care if they explore pantheism in my lifetime, but their overt aversion to PC theory and empirical physics makes them a "religion". They are actually more of a 'cult' than a "religion". There aren't even enough astronomers to make up a decent sized religion. It's actually a relatively small community that actually believes in "Guthianity".

The problem is that none of you can make inflation or dark energy show up in the lab, and somehow that's all my fault. Most of you however turn right around and refuse to believe in God because God doesn't show up at your command in a laboratory setting. What's up with the empirical double standard?

 

[Michael]

In that case, you seem to be suggesting that "God" and "universe" are interchangeable terms. If so, that would make you a pantheist.

The only 'beef' I have with Wiki's definition of pantheism is that they try to suggest that the universe/God is "impersonal". That has certainly not been my experience, and it wouldn't explain human behavior and human belief in God, whereas a "personal" God/Universe would explain human behaviors.

 

[Upisoft]

In that case, you seem to be suggesting that "God" and "universe" are interchangeable terms. If so, that would make you a pantheist.

Well, the universe is all-powerful, all power is in it. It is all-knowing, all knowledge is in it. Now, there is a slight problem. Unless there is a way to communicate and transport energy/matter FTL, this deity will be also all-waiting...

 

[Michael]

Well, the universe is all-powerful, all power is in it. It is all-knowing, all knowledge is in it. Now, there is a slight problem. Unless there is a way to communicate and transport energy/matter FTL, this deity will be also all-waiting...

I suppose that depends on the speed of awareness. I have no idea how fast awareness actually travels. AFAIK it isn't particularly tangible, so it may not have any speed limits.

 

[Michael]

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

FYI, in my experience God is *extremely* personal, not particularly anthropomorphic, but he/it is in fact the creator of "me" or whatever I have of a "self' identity. In terms of whether or not the universe/God is a "creator", well, I suppose that depends on how you interpret the word "creator'.

 

[sandwiches]

I suppose that depends on the speed of awareness. I have no idea how fast awareness actually travels. AFAIK it isn't particularly tangible, so it may not have any speed limits.

Awareness requires information and the speed limit for the propagation of information is the speed of light.

 

[Delphiki]

Well, the universe is all-powerful, all power is in it. It is all-knowing, all knowledge is in it. Now, there is a slight problem. Unless there is a way to communicate and transport energy/matter FTL, this deity will be also all-waiting...

The idea is that there could be this means to communicate/transport/think as you're describing, this but it would be on a scale imperceptible to humans -- which is why we'd never know.

Also, I don't quite agree with the second bit of the wikipedia definition Matthew posted. I don't think one necessarily has to be deistic to be a pantheist. There are pantheists who believe in a personal, interacting god. Since god would be the universe and everything happening within it, some can perceive this as personal.

 

[rjc34]

No, I call them "religious" because they consistently put their faith in the unseen in the lab, and they put their faith in things that can NEVER be seen in the lab, just like any other religion. I call them religious because they refuse to even entertain empirical physical solutions. Instead they try to judge empirical physics based strictly upon how well they personally think it "compares" (mathematically not empirically) with their "made up" invisible trio of ad hoc entities.

I really don't even care if they explore pantheism in my lifetime, but their overt aversion to PC theory and empirical physics makes them a "religion". They are actually more of a 'cult' than a "religion". There aren't even enough astronomers to make up a decent sized religion. It's actually a relatively small community that actually believes in "Guthianity".

The problem is that none of you can make inflation or dark energy show up in the lab, and somehow that's all my fault. Most of you however turn right around and refuse to believe in God because God doesn't show up at your command in a laboratory setting. What's up with the empirical double standard?

You realize it's inflammatory and libellous reactions like this that keep banned from the jrf boards and why nobody here takes you seriously.

You speak like a holocaust denier, or an illuminati conspiracy theorist. Seriously, read what you replied to me with, and then read it again and again. Then google for some sites on holocaust denial or illuminati conspiracy. You'll hear all about how 'mainstream historians are following their beliefs like a religion', and how 'the illuminati is covering up all it's actions so nobody will notice when they implement the NWO!' etc, etc...

 

[Michael]

Awareness requires information and the speed limit for the propagation of information is the speed of light.

In terms of the physical inputs to awareness, and the physical outputs of awareness, perhaps that is true, perhaps there is a "speed limit" associated with inputs and outputs to consciousness. In terms of the speed of "awareness" itself however, I have no idea if any speed limits even apply.

 

[Michael]

You realize it's inflammatory and libellous reactions like this that keep banned from the jrf boards and why nobody here takes you seriously.

Do you actually believe that "Christians" here take your lack of belief in God seriously? Who cares what they think of me? I stopped worrying about how religious organizations judged me DECADES ago.

It's really not my personal fault that the mainstream puts their faith in things like inflation and "dark energy" and stuff that not only fails to show in the lab, but that by design, can *never* show up in a lab. That's their personal choice, not mine. I put my faith in empirical physics. Period.

If my remarks about their mainstream cosmology beliefs makes them feel uncomfortable, *good*. IMO, they should be ashamed of themselves for peddling that metaphysical nonsense to unsuspecting and naive students, while making *massively inaccurate* claims. They love to claim to "newbies" that their theory "predicts" this, and "predicts" that, never bothering to mention to them that none of those things were actual "predictions" in the first place, they were ad hoc postdictions from the start. They love to try to "sell' their mainstream theory by riding the coattails of GR theory, yet never bothering to mention to their students that GR theory is in no way dependent upon either inflation or dark energy. I don't really care if they don't like my views. If my words offend them, that's their choice, not mine. I'm simply telling it like it is in terms of empirical physics.

The moderators at jref have busted my chops on a few occasions for attacking "individuals" rather than topics, and IMO that's reasonable and fair. I don't really have much to complain about frankly. I'll be posting there again on Friday, so it's not like they actually "banned" me, they just let me "chill" for awhile. Who can blame them?

You speak like a holocaust denier, or an illuminati conspiracy theorist. Seriously, read what you replied to me with, and then read it again and again.

Do you think it's actually news to me that my position is "against the mainstream"? It's not like I'm anti-science, I just prefer empirical physics over a prophetic creation mythology that begins by requiring that I have faith in a now non-existent sky entity. PC theory is a purely empirical theory that requires no forms of "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab. It's not like I have nothing "better" to offer, or that I have provided no logical alternatives to choose from. It's not like I personally "invented" PC/EU theory *or* pantheism. There have always been scientific alternatives to mainstream cosmology theory.

FYI, your choice to view my statements as "inflammatory" has at least as much to do with your personal distaste for "religions" and for "faith in the unseen" as it has to do with my choice of words. Most theists aren't all that insulted by the comparison. That emotional reaction to my statements is your personal choice, not mine.

 

[rjc34]

Do you actually believe that "Christians" here take your lack of belief in God seriously? Who cares what they think of me? I stopped worrying about how religious organizations judged me DECADES ago.

It's really not my personal fault that the mainstream puts their faith in things like inflation and "dark energy" and stuff that not only fails to show in the lab, but that by design, can *never* show up in a lab. That's their personal choice, not mine. I put my faith in empirical physics. Period.

If my remarks about their mainstream cosmology beliefs makes them feel uncomfortable, *good*. IMO, they should be ashamed of themselves for peddling that metaphysical nonsense to unsuspecting and naive students, while making *massively inaccurate* claims. They love to claim to "newbies" that their theory "predicts" this, and "predicts" that, never bothering to mention to them that none of those things were actual "predictions" in the first place, they were ad hoc postdictions from the start. They love to try to "sell' their mainstream theory by riding the coattails of GR theory, yet never bothering to mention to their students that GR theory is in no way dependent upon either inflation or dark energy. I don't really care if they don't like my views. If my words offend them, that's their choice, not mine. I'm simply telling it like it is in terms of empirical physics.

The moderators at jref have busted my chops on a few occasions for attacking "individuals" rather than topics, and IMO that's reasonable and fair. I don't really have much to complain about frankly. I'll be posting there again on Friday, so it's not like they actually "banned" me, they just let me "chill" for awhile. Who can blame them?

Do you think it's actually news to me that my position is "against the mainstream"? It's not like I'm anti-science, I just prefer empirical physics over a prophetic creation mythology that begins by requiring that I have faith in a now non-existent sky entity. PC theory is a purely empirical theory that requires no forms of "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab. It's not like I have nothing "better" to offer, or that I have provided no logical alternatives to choose from. It's not like I personally "invented" PC/EU theory *or* pantheism. There have always been scientific alternatives to mainstream cosmology theory.

FYI, your choice to view my statements as "inflammatory" has at least as much to do with your personal distaste for "religions" and for "faith in the unseen" as it has to do with my choice of words. Most theists aren't all that insulted by the comparison. That emotional reaction to my statements is your personal choice, not mine.

Seriously, read your stuff like 5 times before you post it. Replace any mention of 'mainstream cosmology' with 'the holocaust' and what ever you're peddling with 'holocaust didn't happen' and it would still work. (Well, with changing all of the straw man descriptions of modern cosmology to relevant holocaust strawmen.

If you want to be heard stop trying to level ad hominem attacks against cosmologists and cosmology and try perhaps convincing people based on the veracity of your claims (which quite obviously got left in the dust decades ago by everyone but your fringe bunch).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're assuming the universe has limits on how it "controls" it's own EM fields? The EM fields seem to stream plasma by the Earth at over a million miles an hour and often light up aurora. What do you mean it's 'too weak'?

You seem to AGAIN be suggesting that there are limits on how and where God might be able to control EM fields. How do you know EM fields are only manipulated on a MACROSCOPIC scale?

You are welcome to posit some sort of divine control on EM fields, but that would render the whole plasma filament thing moot - why not just posit the existence of a generic deity who imbues us with a 'sense of God'? If you want to stick to the science, then it's up to you to demonstrate that otherwise inert plasma filaments thousands of light years away can have a very specific impact in one part of the brain of all humans, and not have an effect on any other part of the brain of any human.

Otherwise, what's the point in mentioning God helmets and plasma filaments?

Let's look at the empirical evidence for a moment in terms of the REAL things that we can link to EM fields in the lab. We can link EM fields and circuitry to "awareness" in various living creatures. We can link external EM fields to changes in human thoughts and experiences. We can link EM fields to the acceleration of plasma.

You can't empirically link dark energy to anything in the lab. It has no physical, tangible effect on anything in the lab. Ditto on Guthflation. They are both entirely impotent in terms of empirical physics in the lab.

In the lab? Perhaps. But why restrict yourself to laboratory science? There are these marvellous devices called 'telescopes' - perhaps you've heard of them - which allow us to advance science without technically observing things in a Petri dish. And so what? Astronomy is in no way diminished just because it uses telescopes.

At least my cosmology beliefs and ideas have EMPIRICAL justification. Your ideas have none. Whatever "evidence" I have or do not have is better than "none".

Indeed, though it's by no means settled that you have empirical justification, nor that I have none.

Woah, you're already mixing ideas here. The theory of general relativity is in no way dependent upon "dark energy" or "inflation". It's stands on it's own merits without either of these metaphysical monstrosities.

Indeed, which is why I mentioned it

Big Bang theory is pretty "general". Alfven had a "bang" theory, although it wasn't a "creation event" where all matter originated from a single point. EU theory has a "bang' theory that was written by Alfven and Lerner has since improved on it.

Perhaps, though it's standard practice to refer to the mainstream theories as the general term. For instance, 'evolution' technically refers to a great many concepts, but it's standard to use it as a placeholder for the more bulky "modern theory of common descent".

You cannot empirically demonstrate that inflation has anything to do with "homogeneity" in the lab. You simply expect me to "have faith' that it does what you claim it does. How about demonstrating that Guth didn't just make it up?

Inflation predicts that, in the early stages of the Big Bang (up to about 15 minutes, I believe), the universe largely homogeneous, and was in thermal equilibrium. That's one of the things inflation says. And, lo and behold, we find a largely homogeneous universe in thermal equilibrium. Moreover, this homogeneity is far less 'cherry picked' than a general "Step 1, presume a homogeneous universe". In other words, inflation explains the homogeneity of the universe.

All of these concepts seem to be predicted on the notion that elements inside of suns do not mass separate by the element, but rather they stay "mixed together". All you know based upon the actual "dust" in space is which elements most readily escape gravity wells, the lightest elements in particular.

We know a great deal more than that. We know enough about particle physics to know the proportion of particles that would fuse or fission, at what rates, etc. These allow us to predict just what proportion of elements we should see in the universe at large - and, lo and behold, our models come out on top. The Big Bang theory, for instance, predicts a larger abundance of H[sub]2[/sub], He[sub]3[/sub], He[sub]4[/sub], Li[sub]6[sub], and Li[sub]7[/sub], from high initial temperatures than would otherwise exist without said temperatures (i.e., from just stellar nucleosynthesis alone). It also predicts that stellar nucleosynthesis, primarily novae and supernovae, should be the only discernible contributor to the other, heavier elements.

Lo and behold, that's what we see - the abundance of elements and their isotopes fits what we know about nucleosynthesis in stars, novae, and the early stages of the Big Bang.

Again, you can't show any link between photon output and inflation. It's something I have to 'believe' or not.

Inflation, among other things, predicts thermal equilibrium in the early universe. The uniformity of the CMBR demonstrates this beautifully - a uniform, omnidirectional, minimally variable 'glow' of light, which is exactly what we would expect if the universe expanded faster than the speed of light for a short period.

That's a bit flippant don't you think?

These posts are getting long, and I don't feel the need to repeat myself or go off on any more tangents than we are already

There isn't even a *SINGLE* empirical justification for claiming "dark energy did it" anymore than there is justification for claiming that "God energy" did it. I can't empirically link God energy to the acceleration of anything anymore than you can link 'dark energy" to acceleration.

I disagree.

A great many others don't matter one iota in terms of empirical physics and justifying one's claim empirically. If I claimed EM fields accelerate plasma, I can justify that claim in lab. Guth quite literally 'made up' and then 'killed off' his invisible friend. It had no scientific precedent prior to Guth, and Guth's original theory was eventually falsified. That didn't stop the "meme" from catching on. So what? In terms of empirical physics they can't produce anything the runs, uses or employs inflation or dark energy to do anything in a lab. It's pure creation mythology at it's finest, and purely unfalsifiable as a result.

On the contrary, it has produced testable predictions that have been proven right to surprising degrees of accuracy, for example with COBE and WMAP.

Not really. Is an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere a 'magnetic event'?

Yes, since electricity and magnetism are the same thing. When we flip a coin, we say it's 'tails' when it comes up tails, but we all know the 'head' is still there on that same coin.

The censors are the editors and proofreaders of the mainstream publications. Access to publishing channels means you either toe the party line, or you lose your job.

So when you stick a knife in your wall socket, you know it won't hurt you because it's just a "magnetic' process, right? You can use terms interchangeably all you like but an electrical discharge is distinctly different and unique and is not the same as a "magnet". Yes, it involves a magnetic field, but the electric horse does the work not the magnetic cart. The mainsteam consistently insists on putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

I don't think you quite understand what that idiom means. besides, If I put a knife in a plug socket, I know it will hurt me because of the magnetic process: the magnetic potential is strong enough to travel up the knife and into my body, seriously harming me in the process.
Referring to magnetism instead of electricity is like referring to electron holes instead of electrons - they're just different ways of describing the exact same phenomena, and sometimes it's more convenient to use the latter than the former (e.g., in semiconductor band physics).

It's also notable that you've yet to demonstrate any possible motive for scientists to 'toe the line', since a) the Big Bang theory is the quintessential case of scientists not toeing the line, and b) scientific publications would garner far higher dividends by publishing material that overturns the established theories - that's how scientific revolutions occur, and that's what all scientists dream of.

You can't empirically show me that. I have to 'believe you' based on some mythical properties that Guth dreamed up in his head. You can't show me any experiment where inflation generated a uniform set of photons.

I don't have any problem with you pointing at the photons. I just have a problem when you say 'inflation did it'

Why? That's how science works: the hypothesis of inflation predicts a uniform and omnidirectional 'glow' of light. The CMBR is a perfect example of this prediction being found true.

So that way more than you can do with dark energy or inflation. I can empirically link EM fields to everything I'm postulating. You can't even get dark energy to accelerate/separate two atoms in the lab.

No, you haven't. You've got a number of phenomena that involve electricity. You have yet to demonstrate that they're at all related. Electricity is ubiquitous in the universe, but it certainly doesn't mean that all electrical phenomena are any more related than that. That really is putting the cart before the horse.

Einstein wrote about something that I experience here on Earth, gravity. Guth pointed at his dead sky deity and claimed his invisible dead friend did it billions of years ago and then inconveniently died shortly thereafter. WE there can never experience his dead friend here on Earth, we just have to 'believe him' anyway. Slight difference don't you think?

No, since the whole point is that inflation make predictions about afterglows and thermal equilibria - testable predictions that have been found true.

The veracity of Christ's teachings are found in the influences they leave on large numbers of human beings. "Christianity" as you perceive it is simply another "religion". I'm talking about the tangible effects of a MAN and his teachings on the psyche's of real human beings. That's where the 'veracity' is demonstrated.

That is not what 'veracity' means. Veracity refers to the accuracy or precision of a given claim or set of claims - in this case, the accuracy of Christianity (the God of the Bible exists, Jesus existed, having faith in the death and resurrection of Christ garners salvation, etc). The sheer fact that many people are Christians tells us nothing about the veracity of Christianity. It tells us nothing about how likely it is that God exists, that Jesus existed, that people go to Hell if they die unless they're Christians, etc. Remember, this is what Inan3 and I were originally talking about.

 

[Michael]

Seriously, read your stuff like 5 times before you post it. Replace any mention of 'mainstream cosmology' with 'the holocaust' and what ever you're peddling with 'holocaust didn't happen' and it would still work. (Well, with changing all of the straw man descriptions of modern cosmology to relevant holocaust strawmen.

This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison since the holocaust happened to real people, right here on Earth, pictures and everything, whereas inflation presumably did it's thing and died before the Earth even existed. You're comparing metaphysical apples to empirical oranges. Worse yet, you are evidently intent on utterly ignoring the fact that there are other scientific alternatives to chose from.

If you want to be heard stop trying to level ad hominem attacks against cosmologists and cosmology and try perhaps convincing people based on the veracity of your claims (which quite obviously got left in the dust decades ago by everyone but your fringe bunch).

The only thing that got "left in the dust" was any appreciation for empirical physics on the part of the mainstream. That is not my fault. The ad hom attacks are not leveled at individuals, but rather my comments target very specific statements and claims (like "predictions" that aren't actually predictions at all), and *concepts* that have no empirical support or precedent like inflation.

 

[Michael]

You are welcome to posit some sort of divine control on EM fields, but that would render the whole plasma filament thing moot - why not just posit the existence of a generic deity who imbues us with a 'sense of God'?

Unless there's some physical mechanism to explain the physical connection between God and man, it's not much of theory.

If you want to stick to the science, then it's up to you to demonstrate that otherwise inert plasma filaments

Inert? What makes you *assume* that it's inert? Are the current carrying chemicals in my brain "inert"?

thousands of light years away

What makes you think that the only relevant circuitry is "light years away"? Is the sun light years away?

can have a very specific impact in one part of the brain of all humans, and not have an effect on any other part of the brain of any human.

Otherwise, what's the point in mentioning God helmets and plasma filaments?

The point was to demonstrate that externally generated EM fields can and do have a direct empirical effect on human experiences.

In the lab? Perhaps. But why restrict yourself to laboratory science?

Why do you lack belief in God again?

There are these marvellous devices called 'telescopes' - perhaps you've heard of them - which allow us to advance science without technically observing things in a Petri dish. And so what? Astronomy is in no way diminished just because it uses telescopes.

I never suggested otherwise. All a telescope shows you are photons. How you "interpret" them is another issue entirely.

Indeed, though it's by no means settled that you have empirical justification, nor that I have none.

I'm getting tired now so I am going to stop here for now. I'm going to ask you to provide us with some empirical justification for either dark energy or inflation *without* pointing to the sky.

I can easily show an empirical connection between EM fields and plasma acceleration *without* pointing to the sky. *THAT* is an empirical justification for the claim that EM fields can accelerate plasma. Can you do that with "dark energy"? Pointing at the sky and claiming "Godflation did it and then promptly died" is not a "scientific explanation", is an "act of pure faith" on the part of the "believer". Inflation is not only impotent in the lab today, but it will continue to be impotent on Earth forever and ever. Ditto for "dark energy". If that isn't a pure "act of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), what is?