An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Spacetime. Matter/energy allow us to measure and detect spacetime, but in no way says that spacetime is dependent on them.

The way you are usign it, "dependent upon" = "cannot exist without".

You've yet to explain what GR is actually dependent upon in terms of actual physics. You seem fine with removing all matter and energy from the universe, but then what's left?

 

[lucaspa]

You are subjectively "choosing" *not* to interpret it literally, even though from the standpoint of QM and empirical physics it makes perfect sense to interpret it literally as well as figuratively.

The text makes it clear not to interpret it literally or in terms of physical unity. You have taken the verses out of context; if you read the entire chapter it contradicts pantheism.

Again, I haven't read the entire thread, so please provde the evidence from QM and "empirical physics" to interpret it literally. Peer-reviewed scientific papers. Not websites, unless they reference the peer-reviewed literature, which is where you find "empirical physics".

God's "awareness' is not "of this world", and neither was the consciousness of Christ.

Well, you just blew away pantheism!

Physically speaking Jesus was "of this world", but in terms of his conscious connection to God, he was not of this world.

Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. There is no separation of physical body and consciousness. Both attributes were together.

There is no "separation' between God and humans on Earth because Christ talks about sending the Holy spirit to us today.

But that is not pantheism. Pantheism would be that we are God. Instead, the Holy Spirit must come to us because we are not God. Instead, the Holy Spirit allows God to communicate with us. If we are God, we don't need an intermediary for communication.

Jesus came to our world. How is that creating separation between the Earth and the Universe the Earth resides in?

"came to". If there is no separation, Jesus doesn't have to "come from" anywhere! He would already be here.

In Christianit Jesus is God incarnate. God in physical form. And it is the only time God is incarnate. Pantheism has God incarnate in everything.

I believe that I am one in God as Jesus was one in God in a very "physical" way.

So tell me which of your cells or organs are God?

In terms of consciousness and awareness however, that's where "separation' typically takes place.

That couldn't if we were physically God. If our brain is physically God and our thoughts come from our brains -- which they do -- then our thoughts come from God. No possibility of separation. Our thoughts and God's thoughts would be one.

I notice you never countered any of my comments that particular verses in John 17:16-22 contradicted pantheism.

 

[rjc34]

That's not all that is necessary to be a Christian. You must also believe in Trinity. See the Nicene Creed, which defines the beliefs necessary and sufficient to be Christian.

This isn't quite true... there's quite a few denominations that do not believe in the trinity. All the Nicene Creed defines is the beliefs necessary to be a Nicene creed Christian...

While yes, a whole lot of trinitarian Christians consider it heresy to not believe in the Trinity, there is still quite a large following of nontrinitarian Christians who exist.

Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Without matter and energy GR doesn't exist. GR is a description the curvature of spacetime in the PRESENCE OF MATTER. Without matter and energy, no GR.

What exactly do you think GR describes in the absence of matter? What's generating any 'curvature' of spacetime in such a scenario?

Nothing: in that scenario, there would be nothing warping spacetime, so it would be smooth.

What exactly are you claiming is "expanding"? Start with your near singularity thing, just prior to inflation. What is "expanding"? Do any Higgs Bosons exist yet?

Spacetime is expanding.

Sure, when we're talking about "real" particles that show up in real experiments.

So why do you deny that an inflaton can decay into a shower of particles, when that sort of thing happens all the time? Until we know just what the inflaton is (besides being the proposed inflation field), you have no basis to dogmatically deny that such a particle could decay into a shower of particles.

Who's to say God cannot decay in the same thing? I don't see the point of such arguments in terms of empirical physics.

Of course you don't.

No, it simply demonstrates that no other known vector or scalar field in nature does that 'supernatural' thing that Guth endowed his deity with.

How about showing me that inflation can decay into *ANYTHING* in a controlled experiment. You can't simply claim that inflation decays into *MORE INFLATION* and therefore it's density remains constant while it expands exponentially. Talk about creation mythologies at their religious finest! I have to take the whole thing on 'blind faith in the supernatural creation entity'.

No, you don't. There is sufficient evidence demonstrating the Big Bang and the inflationary epoch to warrant serious consideration of the inflaton. Your religious preoccupations prevent you from seeing this, but, frankly, that's your business.

Please show me that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination and that it actually decays into *ANYTHING*.

If I told you that electrons exist and they "annihilate" with positrons to create gamma rays, that claim is something that I might hope to physically demonstrate in a lab. Since Guthianity begins with a dead inflation entity, you're up a metaphysical creek without an empirical paddle. I can't "disprove" something that doesn't even exist, let alone demonstrate that it violates anything by decaying into anything. Your inflation religion is evidently predicated upon the need for others to "disprove' your metaphysical religion.

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong to assume a priori that inflation is impossible.

Does that work for me too? Does pantheism automatically get a free pass unless and until you can physically and personally disprove it?

Since that's not what I said, your point is moot.

Notice what you're saying now. I can't "prove" that anything "supernatural" does not exist. I can't "prove' the Guth made it up in his head, although I can prove that his idea had *absolutely* no scientific precedent.

It's a scientific and physical impossibility to prove a negative. Guthanity is based upon a dead, supernatural entity that now has as many metaphysical variations on the same theme as "Christianity" (almost). It's gotten so bad you now expect me to "prove" that something that's never been seen cannot "decay" in a way that allows it to grow exponentially, yet experience little or no change in density. Even though this behavior is completely and absolutely *unlike* any other vector or scalar field in nature, you expect *ME* to disprove something that cannot possibly be 'disproven".

IMO, you sound every bit like a theist *insisting* that an atheist disprove their beliefs, rather than the theist attempting to support their own beliefs scientifically as I am trying to do in this thread. Nobody can prove a negative. It's a scientific impossibility.

Indeed, and that is my whole point: you asserted it was impossible, you asserted it was disproven, while in the same breath you asserted there was no evidence on the subject. So which is it? Has inflation been empirically discredited, or is there zero evidence regarding inflation? Either way, you were wrong to make the grandiose assertions that you did.

FYI, PC theory was what renewed my interest in pantheism, so actually that isn't a true statement from my perspective. Pantheism passed a 'test' I'd never even considered before. That's what piqued my scientific curiosity.

You've never put Guthanity to any empirical tests. You have shown no empirical connections between photons and Guth's mythical entity, let alone any specific wavelength of photon and his mythical creature. You've shown nothing remotely like an empirical demonstration of concept.

Indeed, because you're an obtuse person whose vitriole is matched only by your close-mindedness. I have no inclination to present the evidence to you, since you've shown no willingness to consider it.

Not only can I show you Birkeland's working model of a cathode sun, I can show you an empirical link between EM fields and human thought. I can show a link between intelligence and circuitry. I can show that the universe is full of circuits. I can do all these things *EMPIRICALLY*.

Yet, you can't show how any of these things are related. Yes, both the brain and the Sun exhibit electromagnetic phenomena. Marvellous.

You can't even get inflation to release a single photon in a lab, let alone move a couple of atoms around. Man, talk about faith in something you cannot every personally hope demonstrate and that will forever remain an act of faith!

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Close-minded and dogmatic to the end.

I routinely reject *all* supernatural concepts on the same empirical grounds. I "lack belief' in anything and everything that lacks empirical support. How can you not accept that? You rationalize a "lack of belief" in God don't you? I really don't get it.

Because your proposed 'evidence' for pantheism is nothing of the sort - it's wild conjecture and leaps of faith (namely, from 'the brain is electrochemical' to 'the universe is the mind of god!').

I've gone out of my way to reject metaphysics since I became an atheist at about age 15. For a time I couldn't explain God, but I never *insisted* that God was supernatural even after embracing theism again. I fail to see why you would accept me claiming that Godflation did it, and I likewise fail to see why you would expect me to believe "Guthflation did it'. Neither statement has an empirical leg to stand on in the lab.

Because I disagree with the latter statement: first, you arbitrarily and falliciously restrict yourself to petri-dish physics, and second, you systematically deny any evidence that contradicts your a priori assumption that inflation might possibly be valid.

You're still ignoring the fact that DNA is real and it mutates here on Earth in a lab, whereas inflation is a complete dud in the lab. 30 years after Guth invented inflation, and nobody has ever linked a photon to inflation in a lab. In fact it's impossible based on Guth's theory for that to ever happen (again). It's the ultimate act of faith on the part of the believer.

Non sequitur. You've gone, once again, from 'no lab-based evidence' to 'no evidence'. That is fallacious.

Well, you're going to have to throw in awareness in there sooner or later. If you accept that awareness is a 'natural' physical process, then pantheism is by far the single most 'natural' and most empirical theory of the universe that could ever be written. It's based on pure empirical physics, like atoms and circuits and awareness.

"Awareness" is what allows me to 'observe" changes over time and therefore to explore the universe through "science". Without awareness, there is no 'science'.

You missed the point! The fact that your computer works at all is testament to the fact that EU/PC versions of pantheism have tangible value. Circuit theory works. It's value is found in consumer products galore. Inflation theory doesn't 'work' at the store. The only place it even exists in in *ONE* creation mythos, and that's the only place it's of any 'value". It has no intrinsic empirical value whatsoever.

FYI, you're also comparing the 'natural' circuitry of the universe to "intelligently designed hardware" which really fails as an analogy. I really don't see how you're even helping your case in any way by such silly comparisons. Either way, if the universe is aware, or it's just "intelligently designed", atheism goes down in flames from the standpoint of physics.

Why? You've not demonstrated anything other than "the universe contains electromagnetic plasma filaments". How does that, in any way, demonstrate the existence of any sort of deity?

 

[lucaspa]

You've yet to explain what GR is actually dependent upon in terms of actual physics. You seem fine with removing all matter and energy from the universe, but then what's left?

You are confusing what GR is dependent on and what spacetime is dependent on. GR is a theory of gravity. GR states that gravity results from a warping of spacetime by matter. The classic analogy is a rubber sheet with balls of various weights on it. The balls represent matter, the dimple in the sheet is the gravity produced.

I told you before: take all matter and energy out of the universe, you still have spacetime. It would be complete flat with none of the "dimples" caused by matter.

Try this, it might help you: Spacetime, Warped Branes, and Hidden Dimensions Science May 14, 2002

 

[Michael]

It's not true about either one. I posted references about empirical data supporting inflation.

There is a difference here between 'empirical data'/observation and "interpretation". Guth already knew that the universe contained a background radiation. He already *knew* that matter was pretty evenly distributed. These were not "predictions" of his theory, they were "postdictions" that he personally added into his theory so that it would match known observation. By pointing back to those same observations as 'proof' for inflation, you've essentially created a circular feedback loop. *Whatever* he might have used to POSTDICT a fit would by definition be "real" because it is 'empirically supported by data" by your logic, even if he called it "magic energy". Since no empirical cause/effect link can or has been demonstrated between inflation and any of Guth's claims, it's a pure 'act of faith" on the part of the "believer". How is that *not* a "religion" that requires "faith in the unseen"? What make "science" different from "religion" in your opinion?

All you have is a pattern of redshifted photons. How you SUBJECTIVELY choose to interpret that information is up to you. Not everyone assumes that space expands as you do.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

[Michael]

You are confusing what GR is dependent on and what spacetime is dependent on.

The term "spacetime" is directly related to GR theory is it not? How are they empirically different?

 

[lucaspa]

This isn't quite true... there's quite a few denominations that do not believe in the trinity.

And they are not Christian. They believe some things about Christ but they are not Christian.

All the Nicene Creed defines is the beliefs necessary to be a Nicene creed Christian...

Nope. The Nicene Creed defines what is a Christian. There are several other religions that have different versions of Christ's relationship to God -- different Christologies (Nestorians, Gnostics, Marcionists, Mormons, JWs, etc). To be Christian you must believe in the Trinity. That's one of the Christologies.

While yes, a whole lot of trinitarian Christians consider it heresy to not believe in the Trinity, there is still quite a large following of nontrinitarian Christians who exist.

Of course there are a lot of nontrinitarians. But think: what is a heresy? It's a belief that is excluded from Christianity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nope. The Nicene Creed defines what is a Christian. There are several other religions that have different versions of Christ's relationship to God -- different Christologies (Nestorians, Gnostics, Marcionists, Mormons, JWs, etc). To be Christian you must believe in the Trinity. That's one of the Christologies.

With all due respect, who are you to declare that those groups are not Christian? Who are you to say the Nicene Creed defines what's Christian?

 

[rjc34]

And they are not Christian. They believe some things about Christ but they are not Christian.

Nope. The Nicene Creed defines what is a Christian. There are several other religions that have different versions of Christ's relationship to God -- different Christologies (Nestorians, Gnostics, Marcionists, Mormons, JWs, etc). To be Christian you must believe in the Trinity. That's one of the Christologies.

Of course there are a lot of nontrinitarians. But think: what is a heresy? It's a belief that is excluded from Christianity.

Likely because you yourself are a Christian who excludes those who do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, you thus describe 'Christianity' with more clauses than the normal definition holds.

And about heresy, I specifically said that a lot of trinitarians hold that nontrinitarians are heretics, which fits perfectly with the definition you described. While they may not fit your definition (and that of most Christians) they still perfectly fit every standard definition of 'Christian' that I can find.

Honestly, when I was a Christian and in my crisis of faith I studied the bible a lot, and tried to see if I could find support for the doctrine of the Trinity (personally didn't find any good support for it).

 

[lucaspa]

There is a difference here between 'empirical data'/observation and "interpretation". Guth already knew that the universe contained a background radiation. He already *knew* that matter was pretty evenly distributed. These were not "predictions" of his theory, they were "postdictions" that he personally added into his theory so that it would match known observation.

The very rough CMBR was known in 1979. It was known that we had the CMBR from every direction, which was evidence of the Big Bang. NOT evidence of inflation.

However, by itself that CMBR would not give the universe we observe. It wouldn't give the fine clumping of matter that we see in galaxies or even galaxy structures. Instead, inflation predicted very fine and small variations in the CMBR if we looked at different parts of the sky. IOW, at the time Guth formulated inflation in 1979, these small variations were unknown.

It wasn't until WMAP was done in 2006 that the small variations temperature in different parts of the sky were seen. These variations matched those predicted by inflation.

So it's not a postdiction, but a prediction.

All you have is a pattern of redshifted photons. How you SUBJECTIVELY choose to interpret that information is up to you. Not everyone assumes that space expands as you do.

The redshift and WMAP are two different things. Yes, the photons in the CMBR are redshifted, but that is not the same as the redshift in galaxies that tell us the universe is expanding.

And that the universe is expanding is a conclusion or inference, not an assumption.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

The paper accets that redshift means the universe is expanding.
"Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities"

Instead, the paper is arguing against the idea that the expansion is ever superluminal, faster than lightspeed. Yes, the universe is expanding, but that expansion is never faster than light -- superluminal.
"Other commonly believed consequences of this phenomenon are superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies ... apparently superluminal velocities and `acausal' distance to the horizon are in fact a direct consequence of special-relativistic phenomenon of time dilation ... Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities, these special-relativistic effects must be at least partly responsible for the cosmological redshift and the aforementioned `superluminalities', commonly attributed to the expansion of space."

You need to read the material more carefully and not look at it thru your preconceptions. See what the authors are really saying. Sometimes it is subtle.

 

[lucaspa]

The term "spacetime" is directly related to GR theory is it not? How are they empirically different?

As I said, GR is a theory of gravity. Gravity is explained as warping of spacetime by matter.

In GR, there are 3 dimensions of space and one of time: spacetime. There is also matter/energy. BUT, in GR the existence of spacetime is not dependent on the existence of matter/energy. You can have spacetime without matter/energy.

The converse, however, would not be true. It would not be possible to have matter/energy without a spacetime. Why? Because matter has 3 dimensions of space and exists at a particular time!

 

[lucaspa]

Well, you're going to have to throw in awareness in there sooner or later. If you accept that awareness is a 'natural' physical process, then pantheism is by far the single most 'natural' and most empirical theory of the universe that could ever be written. It's based on pure empirical physics, like atoms and circuits and awareness.

Again, you need to describe what you think pantheism is.

We know "awareness" only in biological entities. There it is the result of signals passed between neurons and specific firing patterns in networks of neurons. It arises from chemistry and evolution.

There is nothing to suggest that such awareness is God. After all, God is not required to be biological beings.

As far as I know, the universe as a whole has nothing comparable to the specific firing patterns of neurons. When one neuron fires, it triggers one or more of the neurons it has connections with. It does not send signals to every neuron in the brain simultaneously.

Any "plasma circuit" between stars is not specific. Yes, our sun emits plasma, but there is no specific direction. It is not directed at only Sirius or only Alpha Centauri. Instead, the plasma simply goes randomly into space. So there can be no "circuits" and, thus, no awareness of the universe as whole.

Nor is there any empirical evidence that the stars are God or part of God.

The fact that your computer works at all is testament to the fact that EU/PC versions of pantheism have tangible value.

Non sequitor. That the computer works says nothing about whether God is the computer or the computer is God.

Inflation theory doesn't 'work' at the store.

So what? Is that the criteria for being true? Let's see, electrons didn't work at the store until the last 100 years. Did they not exist before then?

The only place it even exists in in *ONE* creation mythos, and that's the only place it's of any 'value". It has no intrinsic empirical value whatsoever.

You think "empirical value" means being able to sell a product? Then where is our bottle of "gravity" to buy in a store?

Inflation explains the macro distribution of matter in the universe. It also explains the clumping of matter into galaxies. That has value for astronomy.

Either way, if the universe is aware, or it's just "intelligently designed", atheism goes down in flames from the standpoint of physics.

If the universe is "aware", I don't see any harm to atheism. After all, that "awareness" is not God. It's just a property of circuits. Our awareness is a property of circuits and that hasn't had any effect on atheism. The "aware universe" wouldn't be concerned with human life and it certainly wouldn't incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth or resurrect from the dead!

Now, if the universe were directly manufactered by a deity ("intelligently designed") then, yeah, atheism is toast. But so far there is no unambiguous empirical evidence for that.

 

[lucaspa]

The April 2011 Scientific American has an article on inflation. I'm going to quote from it:
"What gave Guth’s idea its appeal was that theorists had already identified many possible sources of such energy. The leading example is a hypothesized relative of the magnetic field known as a scalar field, which, in the particular case of inflation,
is known as the "inflaton" field. ...
Like all fields, the inflaton has a certain strength at every point in space, which determines the force it exerts on itself and on other fields. During the inflationary phase, its strength is nearly constant everywhere. Depending on how strong a field is, it has a certain amount of energy in it—what physicists call potential energy. The relation between the strength and the energy can be represented by a curve on a graph. For the inflaton, cosmologists hypothesize that the curve looks like the cross section through a valley and a gently sloped plateau. If the field begins with a strength corresponding to some point on the plateau, it will gradually lose both strength and energy, as if sliding down the slope. In fact, the equations are similar to those of a ball rolling down a hill of the same shape as the potential energy curve."

So much for the claim that inflation is unique. Similar equations to the very simple equations of a ball rolling down a plateau and over a hill.

"The case for inflation can be summarized by three dictums. First, inflation is inevitable. Developments in theoretical physics since Guth’s proposal have only strengthened the hypothesis that the early universe contained fields that could conceivably drive inflation. Hundreds of them appear in unified theories of physics, such as string theory. In the chaotic primeval universe, there was sure to be some patch of space where one of these fields met the conditions for inflation.

Second, inflation explains why the universe is so uniform and flat today. No one knows how uniform or flat the universe was when it emerged from the big bang, but with inflation there is no need to know because the period of accelerated expansion stretched it into the right shape.

Third, and probably the most compelling, inflationary theory is powerfully predictive. For example, numerous observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of galaxies have confirmed that the spatial variations in energy in the early universe were nearly scale-invariant."

So much for the claim that there is no field that could serve as the inflation field. Turns out there may be hundreds of candidates.

Also, so much for the claim that inflation has no "empirical" or predictive value.

 

[Michael]

Again, you need to describe what you think pantheism is.

FYI, I did that in the opening post of this thread.

We know "awareness" only in biological entities. There it is the result of signals passed between neurons and specific firing patterns in networks of neurons. It arises from chemistry and evolution.

How do you know that the universe isn't a macroscopic version of a biological entity?

There is nothing to suggest that such awareness is God. After all, God is not required to be biological beings.

I'm certainly not suggesting God is a 'microscopic lifeform", or even one that fits on a planet.

As far as I know, the universe as a whole has nothing comparable to the specific firing patterns of neurons. When one neuron fires, it triggers one or more of the neurons it has connections with. It does not send signals to every neuron in the brain simultaneously.

The sun emits 'cathode jets' in highly directional patterns actually.
NASA - Twisting Solar Jets in STEREO

FYI, Birkeland actually empirically predicted such jets from the experiments he performed in his lab with a 'cathode sun'.

What makes you think the sun sends the same signals to the same stars at the same time?

Any "plasma circuit" between stars is not specific. Yes, our sun emits plasma, but there is no specific direction. It is not directed at only Sirius or only Alpha Centauri. Instead, the plasma simply goes randomly into space. So there can be no "circuits" and, thus, no awareness of the universe as whole.

It's not actually "random' as you seem to imagine. It's directly related to 'current' and current flow patterns:
Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist | Space.com

The current running through the stars creates a "Birkeland Current" of spiraling energy, much like you find inside an ordinary plasma ball:

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nor is there any empirical evidence that the stars are God or part of God.

What kind of empirical evidence would you accept?

Non sequitor. That the computer works says nothing about whether God is the computer or the computer is God.

It does demonstrate that all the core tenets of the theory show up in labs on Earth. It shows that a PC/EU oriented view of cosmology has uses and value that are related to thing *outside* of a cosmology theory.

So what? Is that the criteria for being true? Let's see, electrons didn't work at the store until the last 100 years. Did they not exist before then?

No, lightning has been striking the Earth since before humans first evolved here.

You think "empirical value" means being able to sell a product? Then where is our bottle of "gravity" to buy in a store?

Gravity is free, and everyone experiences it. Who experiences "inflation" in their daily life?

Inflation explains the macro distribution of matter in the universe.

Except you can't even show it moves two atoms in a lab.

It also explains the clumping of matter into galaxies.

Gravity does that too. Why do I need inflation for that?

That has value for astronomy.

Neither idea seems to have any value at all outside of astronomy.

If the universe is "aware", I don't see any harm to atheism. After all, that "awareness" is not God. It's just a property of circuits. Our awareness is a property of circuits and that hasn't had any effect on atheism. The "aware universe" wouldn't be concerned with human life...

How do you know it wouldn't be concerned about us? Your source?

and it certainly wouldn't incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth or resurrect from the dead!

Assuming the universe is aware, who did?

Now, if the universe were directly manufactered by a deity ("intelligently designed") then, yeah, atheism is toast. But so far there is no unambiguous empirical evidence for that.

Whether the universe is 'alive' or it's intelligently designed, atheism is toast. The presence of those uncounted trillions of "circuits" in space certainly doesn't support atheism. The only "things" that contain such large numbers of circuits are either "living organisms" or "intelligently designed" objects. Neither one of those possibilities bodes well for atheism.

 

[rjc34]

Whether the universe is 'alive' or it's intelligently designed, atheism is toast. The presence of those uncounted trillions of "circuits" in space certainly doesn't support atheism. The only "things" that contain such large numbers of circuits are either "living organisms" or "intelligently designed" objects. Neither one of those possibilities bodes well for atheism.

Well since atheism isn't a belief, there's nothing really to be 'toast' about it. I reject theistic claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. If a theist (or God himself) one day meets that burden of proof, there wouldn't be anyone who would reject the notion that a god exists.

 

[Michael]

Well since atheism isn't a belief, there's nothing really to be 'toast' about it.

If God exists, then atheism is pretty pointless wouldn't you agree?

I reject theistic claims because they haven't met their burden of proof.

Pfft. At the level of empirical physics I've provided you with more "proof" than you've provided me for "Guthianity". I can show empirical links to everything I've proposed and it all shows up on Earth! Your inflation sky entity is utterly and completely impotent on Earth.

If a theist (or God himself) one day meets that burden of proof, there wouldn't be anyone who would reject the notion that a god exists.

Indeed.

 

[Delphiki]

Any "plasma circuit" between stars is not specific. Yes, our sun emits plasma, but there is no specific direction. It is not directed at only Sirius or only Alpha Centauri. Instead, the plasma simply goes randomly into space. So there can be no "circuits" and, thus, no awareness of the universe as whole.

Not that's I'm agreeing with Michael, but we could consider a scenario similar to Olbers' paradox.


(edit: oops, name.)

 

[Michael]

The April 2011 Scientific American has an article on inflation. I'm going to quote from it:
"What gave Guth’s idea its appeal was that theorists had already identified many possible sources of such energy. The leading example is a hypothesized relative of the magnetic field known as a scalar field, which, in the particular case of inflation,
is known as the "inflaton" field. ...
Like all fields, the inflaton has a certain strength at every point in space, which determines the force it exerts on itself and on other fields. During the inflationary phase, its strength is nearly constant everywhere.

Here's were it went south. You just compared Guth's mythical entity to a known field of nature that does *NOT* retain constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. In fact, like all fields made of photons, the effect changes over distance^2. Only in Guth's mythical make believe world do fields retain constant density while they grow exponentially in size.

Depending on how strong a field is, it has a certain amount of energy in it—what physicists call potential energy. The relation between the strength and the energy can be represented by a curve on a graph. For the inflaton, cosmologists hypothesize that the curve looks like the cross section through a valley and a gently sloped plateau. If the field begins with a strength corresponding to some point on the plateau, it will gradually lose both strength and energy, as if sliding down the slope. In fact, the equations are similar to those of a ball rolling down a hill of the same shape as the potential energy curve."

So *unlike* all "natural" fields, this one is "supernatural" and has a completely different shape and energy curve than anything that exists on Earth. It's "supernatural" by design.

So much for the claim that inflation is unique. Similar equations to the very simple equations of a ball rolling down a plateau and over a hill.

The problem is that no known vector or scalar field in nature has such equations! The EM field you just compared inflation to does not act like that, it drops over distance^2. Light doesn't act like that. What other field that shows up in a lab actually does that? Not one!

"The case for inflation can be summarized by three dictums. First, inflation is inevitable.

That's definitely a statement of faith....

Developments in theoretical physics since Guth’s proposal have only strengthened the hypothesis that the early universe contained fields that could conceivably drive inflation.

In other words, "faith in the unseen (aka religion) has grown over time.

Hundreds of them appear in unified theories of physics, such as string theory.

And they owe their very existence to one guy's wild imagination.

In the chaotic primeval universe, there was sure to be some patch of space where one of these fields met the conditions for inflation.

Again, this appears to be another statement of pure faith on the part of the "believer". Unfortunately, I lack such belief.

Second, inflation explains why the universe is so uniform and flat today. No one knows how uniform or flat the universe was when it emerged from the big bang, but with inflation there is no need to know because the period of accelerated expansion stretched it into the right shape.

Guth did that on purpose using a "supernatural" entity. Big deal. It's hardly an "empirical" explanation.

Third, and probably the most compelling, inflationary theory is powerfully predictive.

You mean powerfully *Postidcted* to fit from day one.

For example, numerous observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of galaxies have confirmed that the spatial variations in energy in the early universe were nearly scale-invariant."

And that was assumed by Guth from the start. Of course you folks really haven't much dealt with some of the basic "holes" in the theory except by covering them up with more metaphysical claims.

WMAP's cold spot shows giant void in space - CERN Courier
Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space | Space.com

Anything that doesn't jive with the preconceived dogma is simply swept under the carpet.

So much for the claim that there is no field that could serve as the inflation field. Turns out there may be hundreds of candidates.

You mean there are HUNDREDS of variations on the same metaphysical theme, not one of which actually shows up in the lab.

Also, so much for the claim that inflation has no "empirical" or predictive value.

It doesn't. Guth "postdicted" a fit in terms of the homogenous layout of matter and in terms of the background radiation. You're now calling them "predictions" when in fact they were 'postdictions" that actually "predicted" nothing Guth didn't already know.

 

[rjc34]

If God exists, then atheism is pretty pointless wouldn't you agree?

Can something that didn't ever have a point to begin with ever be 'pointless'?

Pfft. At the level of empirical physics I've provided you with more "proof" than you've provided me for "Guthianity". I can show empirical links to everything I've proposed and it all shows up on Earth! Your inflation sky entity is utterly and completely impotent on Earth.

I thought we went over your abrasive tone and rude attitude like 50 posts ago? I'm going to let Lucaspa mop the floor with your beliefs, as I tired of your silly dogmatic antics days ago.