No, I'm saying the sun is a *part of* God, as is the Earth, the moon, everything we observe. Suffice to say however that the sun is the single largest energy source and circuit concentration in this solar system. The only thing that might rival it in terms of shear circuitry would be the combined total of living things on planet earth.
What solar circuitry are you referring to?
What it demonstrates is a possible empirical *cause* of human experiences that are in fact "external" to the human brain. Yes, I think that did eventually need to be demonstrated in a lab. It may not have been possible for instance to trigger anything particularly "spiritual' in terms of the persons response to external EM input. Those experiments demonstrate that it's definitely possible to trigger such things in the human psyche via an external EM input.
And from that result, you conclude... what? That electrical phenomena in space are therefore the inner working's of a physical divine brain?
All you actually observe in your telescope are photons. What you do with that information is entirely up to you. If you intend to point at the sky and claim "God energy did it", don't you think it would be prudent to make sure "God energy" isn't a figment of your imagination in terms of empirical physical cause/effect relationships between photons and "God energy"? So what if you can postdict a fit to a photon pattern with 'God energy'? Does that demonstrate "God energy" did it?
Yes. A good theory explains the data. The sheer fact that the data was accrued before a given hypothesis was proposed, doesn't mean that said hypothesis isn't the best we have. Take evolution, for instance: since Darwin proposed his idea, data we had hitherto accrued suddenly became evidence for evolution. That's just how science works.
Are you actually "open" to the possibility of looking upwards at the sky and finding 'awareness' at a macroscopic level? If not, why not? Looking up at the sky is fine by me. If you intend however to claim that things in the sky are not made of the same things as the things of the Earth, I will expect you to empirically demonstrate your case. Awareness exists here on Earth. I have no reason to believe it cannot exist 'out there in space'.
But neither do you have any reason to believe it does. The sheer existence of electromagnetism proves nothing. It's an interesting idea, but nothing more.
No, "inflation" does not empirically 'predict' anything. Your 'dogma' related to the inflation sky deity *postdicted* uniform distribution of SOME kinds of photons. Woop-de-do. You cannot get your dead sky deity to create, emit, distribute, or otherwise do anything to any kind of photon at any wavelength in the lab. It's all an 'act of faith' in Guth's postdicted, 'supernatural' "dogma".
Those photons had already been observed *before* Guth dreamed up his inflation sky genie. That is called a POSTDICTED FIT.
Guth devised the idea of inflation in the late seventies, and proposed it in the early eighties. COBE and WMAP completed their surveys in 1992 and 2003, respectively. You might want to check your dates.
Moreover, since both COBE and WMAP could have blown inflation out of the water (by, for instance, showing large-scale heterogeneity), they constitute large and accurate falsification tests - in other words, inflation made a prediction, and that prediction came true.
FYI, there were actual "predictions' about a background emission related to light emissions and interaction with dust in space, long before it was actually 'observed'. In fact those particular predictions were orders of magnitude 'closer' to the actual observations than early BB predictions.
Source?
I don't condemn the mainstream for 'looking up'. I condemn them for claiming that everything 'up' is nothing like 'here' in terms of elemental composition, matter types, energy types, ect, etc. The data simply suggests "redshift happens". It says nothing about the "cause" of the redshift. Since you can't actually demonstrate any empirical connection between the observation of redshifted photons and inflation or dark energy deities, it's all about "dogma" related to "faith in the unseen'.
Nonsense. Galactic rotation curves and redshift, coupled with general relativity, allow us to probe the distribution of mass in the universe. We come up with a deficit. The evidence shows that there is more mass out there than can be account for directly using optics - that is, not every iota of mass is directly absorbing or emitting photons. Whatever this mass is, it's 'dark'. Hence the name, 'dark matter'.
It is entirely conceivable, and indeed positively expected, that there exist things in this universe which we don't yet understand. The evidence thus far shows that there is more mass than we expect. The current mainstream theory is dark matter. Like it or lump it, that's what the evidence shows.
I'd really like to know why you "lack belief" in God, and what you consider 'empirical' in terms of the "empirical cause" of photons and redshifted photons in particular.
I already told you why I don't believe in God: I see no evidence for his existence.
You cannot possibly be 'blaming me' for *THEIR* dogma? Guth is the one that "killed off" inflation thereby making it impotent on Earth forever and ever. The mainsteam is the one that *assures* me that 'dark energy' has so little effect on objects on Earth that it's impossible to detect it. I can't be responsible for the outcome of *their* claims. The fact they are "impotent on Earth today" seems to be an actual "design characteristic" so that their metaphysical dogma can never be empirically overturned.
Nonesense. I'm condemning you for making the
a priori assumption that dark matter and inflation are false.
I'll pick at the parts of the rest of your post from yesterday as I get time today. I'll skip the redundant stuff, but there are a few things we need to 'set straight' about the scientific record and the order of things.
Inflation does not "predict" anything in the way the EM field allows us to 'predict' things in the lab. EM fields have a physical, empirical effect on things in the real world. We can "create" them, 'control' them, "test" their properties on various materials, etc, etc. If I have doubts about EM fields, I can personally do that work myself and see it have a real and tangible effect right here on Earth, right now.
Wonderful. Your point? The ease of studying electrodynamics relative to studying, say, stellar dynamics does not detract from the latter.
Inflation is a "dogma" that was created by a single individual. It was without any sort of scientific precedent. It was unlike any other "natural' field in nature. It has no empirical effect on anything.
It is a proposed explanation of a set of phenomena. That, and that alone, is qualifies it as a scientific hypothesis.
Guth never 'predicted' squat with his inflation friend. He POSTDICTED a 'fit' to 'known observations'. Had he not done that, it would have been meaningless gibberish. Inflation does not now, nor apparently will it *ever* have any effect on any photons in any lab on Earth. I will never be able to "test" any of Guth's *outrageously unsupported claims*. I will never be able to demonstrate any cause/effect links between photons and inflation in a controlled experiment to verify any of his claims. I simply have to "have faith' that Guth's dead sky deity had the supernatural properties he claimed. I can't experimentally verify any of it!
See any empirical difference between an EU based "prediction" and "make believe math with sky entities galore"?
Yes: you use civil language for the former, and spit vitriol for the latter. That belies your prejudices and biases, and hardly makes one inclined to talk to you. If you want a civil discussion, try not to be so emotional and hysterical.
... well at least in the way that I was.
