An Empirical Theory Of God

[selfinflikted]

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

Not if god insists on not leaving any evidence of his existence lying around.

 

[Michael]

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

I guess you've never met an evangelical atheists before.

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.

You're still ignoring my main point!

Empirically speaking, I can link all of my basic beliefs to things that show up on Earth in real experiments. That's a lot more than you can do with at least 96% of the stuff in your theory, not even counting inflation. If we toss inflation into the deal *less than 4 percent* of your whole theory can be demonstrated in the lab.

Compared to any empirical theory of the universe (like pantheism or PC theory), your belief system lacks any real empirical support. If you lack belief in God, you certainly should also lack belief in mainstream cosmology theory as well. Even if you can't justify either theory empirically to your satisfaction at the moment, only one of them *might be* something that can eventually be demonstrated in a standard empirical manner, and it isn't mainstream theory.

 

[Michael]

Not if god insists on not leaving any evidence of his existence lying around.

That hasn't been my "experience".

 

[Michael]

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

I've never seen anyone try to claim that spacetime exists in the absence of all matter and energy. In fact I've heard many astronomers try to claim that "spacetime" did not exist prior to the bang.

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.

If you say so.

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!

FYI, I personally fail to see what "spacetime" would even relate to or "do" in a universe filled with "nothing". There can be no movement, no curvature, no distance, no nothing.

Let's play this out step by step and you tell me when the first Higg's formed relative to the inflation phase.

 

[sandwiches]

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

(edit: oops, name.)

I think Lucaspa's point is that whether there's currents, specific or not, that's still not empricial evidence of a deity.

What Michael is claiming with his talk about the "God helmet," EM fields, awareness, etc would be like me claiming that because reptiles exist, fire exists, winged animals exist, and giant animals exist, then giant, flying, fire-breathing dragons exist.

 

[rjc34]

I guess you've never met an evangelical atheists before.

Well if you consider spreading logic and reason to be 'evangelical' then I guess you could consider me one as well.

You're still ignoring my main point!

You've been parroting exactly the same paragraphs for weeks now, and you've got nobody else on your side. I don't 'believe' in mainstream cosmology. It doesn't affect my life much, I just let the physicists and cosmologists go about their research. Have they come up with a single, nearly universally accepted full explanation yet? No. Do I accept some of the things they've tested and found to make valuable predictions? Yes.

I went back and forth with you for a bit, because I thought you were just a little off the path, exploring some 'alternate explanations' or something, but I wasn't prepared for you to go full conspiracy theory on me. Like I said before, you're an absolute classic case of a conspiracy theorist, whether it's UFO, the illuminati or holocaust denial, you're right up with those guys in your fervor and bluster.

 

[selfinflikted]

That hasn't been my "experience".

Yes, but that's a problem. Everyone doesn't get to partake in a "universal" experience. No one gets to experience the "god experience" in the same way, or even at all. But, my point was, even if god exists, there would still be atheists as long as god isn't leaving behind any evidence of his existence.

 

[sandwiches]

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?

I have to agree with Lucaspa here. "Christian" has a specific meaning and using it as Michael is merely misusing it. Jesus as being God and God NOT being the universe itself is part of Christianity. So, no matter how much you want to be a polytheist and Christian, you can't; same goes with pantheism. Christianity, by definition is monotheistic but the problem now is that many people struggle with their old beliefs and the current knowledge they posses and they try to stuff Christianity into something it's not by simply adding "Christian" to the name.

Now, it seems like many people, theists and not, follow a definition of "Christian" similar to the one used in Religious Tolerance's website:

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they understand them to be. "

To me, this renders the word "Christian" meaningless. It's like saying that the word "cactus" can mean whatever you understand it to be. However, this really has nothing to do with the OP, so I'll stop. =P

 

[Michael]

I have to agree with Lucaspa here. "Christian" has a specific meaning and using it as Michael is merely misusing it. Jesus as being God and God NOT being the universe itself is part of Christianity. So, no matter how much you want to be a polytheist and Christian, you can't; same goes with pantheism.

I'm always amused when an atheist lectures me about whether or not I am a "Christian" or what it means to be a "Christian". One can in fact be a "Christian", profess Christ as their lord and savior, and still embrace God as the universe. You'll have to just trust me on this.

I can't lecture you about what it means to be an "atheist", nor can you lecture me about what it means to be a "Christian" and whether that fits or does not fit with pantheism.

Christianity, by definition is monotheistic

Yes, as is pantheism by definition.

but the problem now is that many people struggle with their old beliefs and the current knowledge they posses and they try to stuff Christianity into something it's not by simply adding "Christian" to the name.

Well, I've seen what you're talking about, but I embraced PC theory WILLINGLY and only after I did that could I see any value in pantheism in terms of "science" or physics. It was only then that I willingly embraced pantheism. In no way does it conflict with "Christianity" to my knowledge. Jesus was the one who said we should look within to find the kingdom of heaven, not me.

Now, it seems like many people, theists and not, follow a definition of "Christian" similar to the one used in Religious Tolerance's website:

To me, this renders the word "Christian" meaningless. It's like saying that the word "cactus" can mean whatever you understand it to be. However, this really has nothing to do with the OP, so I'll stop. =P

Well, "Christians" do not all think alike. There are probably more "sects" of "Christians" than there are variations of inflation theory. In other words there are a whole lot of them. The only one we will all have to answer to AFAIK is Jesus of Nazareth. The rest is pretty much "debated dogma" even among various sects of Christianity. For instance Catholics embrace evolutionary theory. Baptists not so much. The only person we all agree we will answer to is Christ.

 

[Michael]

Yes, but that's a problem. Everyone doesn't get to partake in a "universal" experience.

In the sense that I believe that God *is* the physical universe, it is a "universal experience" from my perspective even if our individual life experiences are unique to us as individuals.

No one gets to experience the "god experience" in the same way, or even at all.

Is it even desirable to all experience God exactly the same way? Would it even matter in terms of our opinions? We all see and experience the current President in pretty much same way (TV) yet we all have various and differing opinions about him.

The statement "even at all" seems to be an emotional/internal intellectual process, not a "physical reality" from my vantage point. In other words, we all live inside God IMO. Some just communicate with him and some do not. At the level of physics, the experiences are similar. At the level of *internal contact* they are unique experiences. That seems "typical" to me actually since we are all unique individuals with different wants and needs.

But, my point was, even if god exists, there would still be atheists as long as god isn't leaving behind any evidence of his existence.

From my perspective, that's the issue. Some folks want to 'see' God in "small form" do some sort of parlor trick that defies the laws physics. That's simply not how it works and we don't get to dictate God's behaviors.

 

[Michael]

Well if you consider spreading logic and reason to be 'evangelical' then I guess you could consider me one as well.

I don't see any "reason" to be an atheist. I did for awhile, but I don't anymore. Somehow you feel it's more 'logical' to believe in supernatural inflation entities than it is to believe in a "natural" creator (of planetary life). I see no logic in that.

You've been parroting exactly the same paragraphs for weeks now, and you've got nobody else on your side.

Nobody? Did you take a poll? Does popularity determine reality?

I don't 'believe' in mainstream cosmology. It doesn't affect my life much, I just let the physicists and cosmologists go about their research. Have they come up with a single, nearly universally accepted full explanation yet? No. Do I accept some of the things they've tested and found to make valuable predictions? Yes.

The fact you even believe that mainstream theory makes any actual 'predictions' at all shows just how brainwashed you've become IMO. Twenty some years ago, mainstream theory 'predicted' a decelerating or constantly expanding universe. When those concepts were falsified by observation/interpretation they abandoned ship, and stuffed the theory full of new and improved "dark energies" galore. Now it supposedly "predicts" acceleration. Wow, some "prediction".

I went back and forth with you for a bit, because I thought you were just a little off the path, exploring some 'alternate explanations' or something, but I wasn't prepared for you to go full conspiracy theory on me.

I didn't. You just got all upset when I pointed out that the emperor Guth had no empirical clothing.

Like I said before, you're an absolute classic case of a conspiracy theorist, whether it's UFO, the illuminati or holocaust denial, you're right up with those guys in your fervor and bluster.

The really amusing part from my perspective is that I'm into PC/EU theory and 'empirical physics", whereas your the one pointing at they sky and claiming "dark bigfoot did it". The moment anyone asks you for a picture of bigfoot? "Oh he's "dark" of course so you can't really see him......" In fact in terms of the missing mass thing, you're the one *insisting* it's necessarily a completely different kind of matter than the kind we find right here on Earth.



The other thing I find very amusing about your accusation is that you personally seem to think all religions are a giant conspiracy theory, not me. On both counts, you're the one acting like every UFO must come from another planet, everything anyone says must be true based on consensus and empirical physics be damned.

 

[Michael]

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

Spacetime is expanding.

Talk about metaphysics. "What" (physically) is expanding if there is no mass and no energy?

*Objects* can expand and in that way 'spacetime' can expand, but you aren't talking about that. You're trying to claim "nothing' expands.

So why do you deny that an inflaton can decay into a shower of particles,

Because it's not a part of particle physics theory for one thing. Got any empirical evidence it does such a thing?

when that sort of thing happens all the time?

Ya, it happens all the time to *REAL* things that REALLY show up in REAL experiments. Guthanity has not such animal.

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.

A) You simply 'assumed" inflation into existence
B) You simply "assumed" it does a decay thing into "particles" but you can't even specify which kind.

No, you don't. There is sufficient evidence demonstrating the Big Bang and the inflationary epoch to warrant serious consideration of the inflaton.

Only if you're a "believer" like yourself. If you are *outside* of the religion, and lack belief in that idea, well, it's all a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo with no empirical legs to stand on.

Your religious preoccupations prevent you from seeing this, but, frankly, that's your business.

IMO your need for 'science' to be your surrogate source of "truthiness" prevents you from seeing the truth. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

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

When it comes to ideas, there's "possible" and there is "probable" and then there is "likely". Every single theory of God is "possible". Not all of them are "probable". Even few still are "likely". I've picked the one I think is most likely.

In terms of inflation theory, sure anything and everything is "possible". It's not exactly "probable" because it presumably happened one time and only one time in billions of years. It certainly isn't "likely" because you can't even produce a single experiment that demonstrates it wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.

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.

No, Guth's brand is apparently dead. There are other metaphysical brands to choose from but nobody is peddling Guth's original theory anymore. It's not possible to falsify them all in one fell swoop however. It's therefore devolved into an unfalsifiable theory.

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.

You only feel that because you cannot empirically demonstrate your case. If you could, A)I would not be asking you to do it, B) we'd both agree it exists. You're like a theist that doesn't want to present evidence to an atheist for fear the atheist will find empirical fault in it.

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

Er, actually I can show these things are *all* related to an ordinary EM field. That is in fact "marvelous" from the standpoint of empirical physics and it's way more than you can do with inflation.

I'll have to take a look at the rest of your post a bit later.

 

[Michael]

FYI, the moment your inflation particle supposedly "decays' into something else, there are less of them after the decay takes place and the density should DECREASE not stay consistent. How do you account for that small problem?

If they are in fact individualized particles that decay, then their density must necessarily decrease proportionally to volume increases, not stay constant over time. How did you intend to fix that problem?

 

[rjc34]

I don't see any "reason" to be an atheist. I did for awhile, but I don't anymore. Somehow you feel it's more 'logical' to believe in supernatural inflation entities than it is to believe in a "natural" creator (of planetary life). I see no logic in that.

I don't believe in any 'supernatural inflation entities'. Just because we observe the universe expanding and haven't got a full answer on why that is yet, doesn't mean you can just walk in and start calling it 'supernatural' and other silly things. It's insulting to your own academic honesty that you'd even think of using such ad hominems on an idea.

Nobody? Did you take a poll? Does popularity determine reality?

No, it does not. You're intentionally acting stupid here, and honestly it's insulting. I'm talking about anybody you've tried to convince on the forums. Got any converts?

The fact you even believe that mainstream theory makes any actual 'predictions' at all shows just how brainwashed you've become IMO.

Just because you have to explain them away by making up some crazy story about how Guth 'postdicted' the observations into his theory, doesn't give your ideas any more solid ground, it just makes you look silly.

I didn't. You just got all upset when I pointed out that the emperor Guth had no empirical clothing.

You don't even know what the word 'empirical' means.

"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation."

So your whole silly argument of 'you can't reproduce that in the lab!' is just that... a silly argument. You insult the intelligence of everyone here (especially yourself) when you continue to parrot it.

The really amusing part from my perspective is that I'm into PC/EU theory and 'empirical physics", whereas your the one pointing at they sky and claiming "dark bigfoot did it". The moment anyone asks you for a picture of bigfoot? "Oh he's "dark" of course so you can't really see him......" In fact in terms of the missing mass thing, you're the one *insisting* it's necessarily a completely different kind of matter than the kind we find right here on Earth.

I'm not insisting it's anything. Neither are scientists. It's a placeholder term, and you've decided to take it as literal and then make fun of it. You're attacking a straw man, and getting nowhere. The more you say things like 'dark bigfoot did it' the more you're just digging your own hole.

The other thing I find very amusing about your accusation is that you personally seem to think all religions are a giant conspiracy theory, not me. On both counts, you're the one acting like every UFO must come from another planet, everything anyone says must be true based on consensus and empirical physics be damned.

When did I ever say religions are a giant conspiracy theory? I'd appreciate you not making straw men. Your ad hominem attacks are so very revealing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Talk about metaphysics. "What" (physically) is expanding if there is no mass and no energy?

*Objects* can expand and in that way 'spacetime' can expand, but you aren't talking about that. You're trying to claim "nothing' expands.

No, I am claiming that spacetime expands. The spacetime continuum is an actual, physical object, albeit qualitatively different from ordinary chunks of matter. This follows from the premises of General Relativity.

Ya, it happens all the time to *REAL* things that REALLY show up in REAL experiments. Guthanity has not such animal.

A) You simply 'assumed" inflation into existence
B) You simply "assumed" it does a decay thing into "particles" but you can't even specify which kind.

Indeed. So what? Inflation posits the inflaton, and posits it decays into other particles, and posits this decay keeps the energy density of the universe constant. This is as much as we know about the inflaton, as it is the proposed particle that induces inflation. It has all the empirical support that inflation has (yes, yes, you're going to say "Since inflation has no evidence, neither does empirical support!", or something about dead gods).

Only if you're a "believer" like yourself. If you are *outside* of the religion, and lack belief in that idea, well, it's all a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo with no empirical legs to stand on.

IMO your need for 'science' to be your surrogate source of "truthiness" prevents you from seeing the truth. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

How so? What better method do we have of ascertaining truth, than science?

When it comes to ideas, there's "possible" and there is "probable" and then there is "likely". Every single theory of God is "possible". Not all of them are "probable". Even few still are "likely". I've picked the one I think is most likely.

I disagree with that assessment.

In terms of inflation theory, sure anything and everything is "possible". It's not exactly "probable" because it presumably happened one time and only one time in billions of years. It certainly isn't "likely" because you can't even produce a single experiment that demonstrates it wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.

Nonetheless, it is a cosmological hypothesis supported by the evidence. It is a proposed explanation of the facts.

No, Guth's brand is apparently dead. There are other metaphysical brands to choose from but nobody is peddling Guth's original theory anymore. It's not possible to falsify them all in one fell swoop however. It's therefore devolved into an unfalsifiable theory.

You only feel that because you cannot empirically demonstrate your case. If you could, A)I would not be asking you to do it, B) we'd both agree it exists. You're like a theist that doesn't want to present evidence to an atheist for fear the atheist will find empirical fault in it.

And like a theist, I cite Matthew 7:6 - "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Had you a civil tongue, I'd discuss the evidence with you. I happily discuss the evidence for evolution with AV1611VET, because he is at least polite. I don't discuss such evidence with dad, however, as he is vitriolic.

You, unfortunately, fall into the latter category. Mind your manners, and maybe we'll get somewhere. If you can be bothered or not, is up to you.

Er, actually I can show these things are *all* related to an ordinary EM field. That is in fact "marvelous" from the standpoint of empirical physics and it's way more than you can do with inflation.

Nonetheless, how does it prove that the random, chaotic, and unrelated electromagnetic phenomena in the unvierse are actually a coherant and singular phenomenon, that is, God?

FYI, the moment your inflation particle supposedly "decays' into something else, there are less of them after the decay takes place and the density should DECREASE not stay consistent. How do you account for that small problem?

The energy density of the universe remains constant, not the density of inflatons. Thus, the decay of inflatons can keep the energy density of the universe constant even though its volume is effectively increasing.

If they are in fact individualized particles that decay, then their density must necessarily decrease proportionally to volume increases, not stay constant over time. How did you intend to fix that problem?

It is not a problem, and indeed is an essential part of inflation: they decay. They're gone. Finitio.

 

[lucaspa]

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

That was a mishmash of pantheism and panentheism.

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

Partly for the reasons I gave in the post you are responding to. Partly because the universe doesn't have anabolism, doesn't respond to stimuli, and doesn't reproduce.

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

I never said you did. You are misinterpreting what I said.

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

The article says the sun ejects plasma in streams. BUT, those streams are not directed toward any particular point in space. What's more, the point of aim changes with each jet. Thus, their target is non-specific. Contrast that with neurons who have only a limited number of adjacent neurons. Like I said, a neuron does not indiscriminantly and randomly send out signals to every other neuron in the brain. But the jets are indiscrimantly and randomly "aimed" at distant stars and galaxies. This cannot be circuit.

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

To have a circuit or awareness, there has to be a specific pattern. You admit that is lacking.

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 link doesn't support your claim. First, it's not about our sun. Second, this slinky is no more aimed and specific than the jets emitted from our sun.

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

Again, the link doesn't support your claim. The Bikeland current is between the sun and earth. There is no indication that there are such currents between stars.

What kind of empirical evidence would you accept?

Remove God and see if the stars disappear.

It does demonstrate that all the core tenets of the theory show up in labs on Earth.

Not even close. A core statement is that there are Birkenhead currents between stars. Do we have 2 stars on earth to see if there are currents between them?

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

So? Did we know they were electrons? No.

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

But there is no bottle of gravity, is there? You are moving the goalposts again. I counter the original claim and you just move the goalpost instead of admitting the claim is false. Fortunately, we don't need your acquiescence to determine the claim is false.

We experience inflation every time we look at the sky and see stars and galaxies. Who experiences much of QM in their daily life? Experiencing a theory in daily life has nothing to do with the accuracy of the theory. You are making nonsense criteria.

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

So? We don't experience fusion in a lab, either. Nor do we experience gravity to the point of forming a black hole. We don't experience the evolution of fish to amphibians in a lab. I can go on. Being in the lab is not a criteria for a theory being accurate. A lab is one place to experience the universe, but not the only place.

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

Gravity doesn't explain the macro uniform distribution of matter into galaxies. That uniformity is either an extremely small likelihood or it means that the universe was, at some point, nearly uniform.

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

Moved the goalposts again. Your first claim was that the idea had no value. Now you concede it has value. So you move the goalposts to value outside astronomy. But again I will ask: So? Why would you think this has anything to do with the accuracy of a theory? Cell theory has no value outside biology. Do you think it is wrong because of that? Morphine as an analgesic has no value outside of medicine. So what? The theory is still accurate, isn't it?

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

Logic. What's human life in the scheme of the entire universe? Shoot, bacteria outmass us by billions to one and outnumber us trillions to one. On the basis of numbers, the universe would be more concerned with bacteria. Why would connections between stars even notice a local decrease in entropy on one planet of a hundred billion stars in our galaxy and billion of galaxies.

Assuming the universe is aware, who did?

Assuming the universe is aware, it wouldn't happen. You need to assume a God outside the universe to get an incarnate Jesus.

Whether the universe is 'alive' or it's intelligently designed, atheism is toast.

Only if the universe is manufactured is atheism toast. As I said, if the universe is aware, that aware universe would not qualify as God. It would just qualify as another mortal lifeform.

The presence of those uncounted trillions of "circuits" in space certainly doesn't support atheism.

First, there are no such circuits. You haven't demonstrated any circuits between stars. All you have is undirectional and non-specific plasma jets from the sun. I don't think those would even hold together long enough to be identifiable at the orbit of Pluto, much less at Alpha Centauri. Why don't I think that? Because otherwise we would be detecting such plasma circuits as they entered the solar system and intersected earth on the way to the sun. That doesn't happen, does it?

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.

Living organisms don't bother atheism. After all, atheism has no trouble with the living organisms on the planet. Why should it have a problem if the universe is a large living organism (which it is not)?

 

[lucaspa]

Well since atheism isn't a belief,

Yes, it is.

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

Atheism can start out this way, but only a little reflection is going to show that atheism generates it's own statements of faith that can't meet a burden of proof. Here is one of them:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

However, this thread is complicated enough. If you really want to start a discussion on this, please start a new thread "Atheism is not a faith" and we can discuss it there.

 

[Michael]

I don't believe in any 'supernatural inflation entities'.

When are you going to admit that inflation has density defying properties that are unlike any other known form of energy? When did you intend to cop to the fact that Guth gave his imaginary friend "supernatural" density defying properties? Name one other field that can experience exponential growth in size/distance/volume yet still retain near constant density? Name even one.

Just because we observe the universe expanding and haven't got a full answer on why that is yet, doesn't mean you can just walk in and start calling it 'supernatural' and other silly things.

It's not "silly" to notice that Guth endowed his entity with capabilities that are unlike anything on Earth. It's simply a statement of fact.

It's insulting to your own academic honesty that you'd even think of using such ad hominems on an idea.

I'm attacking an *IDEA*, not a person, so it's not really an ad hom, even if you personally find the term "supernatural" to be insulting for some reason.

No, it does not. You're intentionally acting stupid here, and honestly it's insulting. I'm talking about anybody you've tried to convince on the forums. Got any converts?

Convert them to what? PC theory? Sure. Pantheism? Na, probably not anyone that wasn't already considering the idea. I just started exploring the idea on this forum and that's the only place I've ever discussed it. Wanna be my first convert?

Just because you have to explain them away by making up some crazy story about how Guth 'postdicted' the observations into his theory, doesn't give your ideas any more solid ground, it just makes you look silly.

IMO it makes folks look silly to claim that mainstream theory 'predicted' anything. It's always been "postdicted" from the start, beginning with the very first observations of redshift by Hubble in fact. Up until that point in time, 'static universe' theory had prevailed. Guth didn't actually 'predict' anything he didn't already know or thought he knew. "Dark energy' was just the latest ac hoc gap filler to prop up an otherwise falsified theory. There are no 'predictions' related to BB theory that weren't actually "postdicted" to fit some specific observation, typically of redshifted photons.

[QUOTEYou don't even know what the word 'empirical' means.

"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation."[/quote]

The only empirical data you have is empirical evidence of redshift. You have no empirical evidence that inflation had anything at all to do with that redshift because inflation doesn't do anything to photons that you can actually 'demonstrate' in an empirical way. Instead you keep pointing at sky and claiming inflation did it, almost regardless of the observation in question.

So your whole silly argument of 'you can't reproduce that in the lab!' is just that... a silly argument. You insult the intelligence of everyone here (especially yourself) when you continue to parrot it.

Yet you lack belief in God not because God failed to materialize on Earth for you but because......?

I'm not insisting it's anything. Neither are scientists. It's a placeholder term, and you've decided to take it as literal and then make fun of it.

Oh boloney. They make all kinds of "claims", like only 4% of the universe is made of ordinary matter. They actually know *NOTHING* of the sort as those previous articles and papers I cited earlier demonstrate.

You're attacking a straw man, and getting nowhere. The more you say things like 'dark bigfoot did it' the more you're just digging your own hole.

But it's somehow ok for you to compare me to a holocaust denier and talk about UFO's and stuff?

When did I ever say religions are a giant conspiracy theory? I'd appreciate you not making straw men. Your ad hominem attacks are so very revealing.

Well, if you intend to compare me personally to a holocaust denier it's a little thin skinned of you to get all uptight about me comparing "dark" theories to "bigfoot", don't you think?

 

[lucaspa]

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

Michael claims to have empirical evidence to support his claims. But he doesn't. There is evidence to support plasma jets, even that they are initially in a helical pattern due to the magnetic field of the sun. There is even one observation of a helical pattern in the constellation Orion. But it does not connect stars. But it does show that we can observe helical plasma jets. So why don't we see them connecting all the stars in the galaxy in a complex and specific pattern? Because the critical piece of evidence -- connections between stars -- is not there.

The Olber's paradox is a paradox only if the universe is infinitely old. As such, it is evidence against a static universe. Now we know that the universe is not infinitely old, it's no longer a paradox.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Scalar fields don't do this. Sorry. As long as the field is on the "plateau" part of the line, then yes, there can be multiple exponential increases in volume with very little loss of density.

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.

First, the article did NOT compare inflation to the EM field. Nice strawman but it fails. It compared the scalar field to the potential energy of a ball rolling along a nearly flat plateau. During that roll, the ball covers a lot of distance but doesn't lose energy.

Second, the article specifically says scalar fields have such equations. You can assert all you want, but the science contradicts you.

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

Empirical denotes information gained from observation. In the case of inflation, initial observation was the apparent uniformity of the distribution of matter on large scales. BUT, when Guth proposed inflation, we had only seen a small part of the visible universe due to limitations in telescopes. Inflation predicted that the distribution of matter in the universe would remain uniform thruout the universe. That got confirmed when we had better telescopes.

Again, an empirical prediction of inflation was the small anisotropies in the temperature of the CMBR. That wasn't known in 1979. It wasn't until 2006 that the data was observed.

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

No, I mean predicted. Didn't you read the article? I realize that the Land of Denial is comfortable for you, but it's not reality.

Inflation is inevitable. Because there are hundreds of potential scalar fields that can act to produce inflation. Now, this is like the lottery. It may be unlikely that you will hold the winning lottery ticket, but if enough tickets are sold it is inevitable that someone will have the winning ticket. With hundreds of scalar fields, it is inevitable that one of them will meet the conditions for inflation. No faith, but simply math.

The scalar fields owe nothing to Guth. Their existence is independent of inflation.

And that was assumed by Guth from the start.

You apparently missed the "confirmed" in the sentence:
"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."

See the empirical? These are not "assumptions" like you are using the term. Instead, they are predictions. IF inflation is correct, then the observations should so an early universe that was nearly scale-invarient. But the observations didn't exist when Guth formed the theory. That's why they are predictions.

Your pantheism predicts plasma jet connections between stars. If we would see them then that would be confirmation and support for the theory. The problem is we don't see them, and we should. So pantheism fails because it fails to accurately predict what we should see.

Now, it is possible that the observations would have shown that the early universe was not "scale-invariant". If that would have been the case, then inflation would have been refuted.

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.

ROFL! "swept under the carpet"?! Where did you find these? In news releases by scientists. They are trumpeting these findings, not hiding them!

The reason no one is saying inflation is dead is because these don't contradict inflation. For instance, take the first link. Even a thousand million (billion) light year gap is nothing compared to a universe that is 26.4 billion light years across! It represents less than 4% of the diameter of the universe. On the large scale, it's nothing.

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

No metaphysical theme. There are hundreds of scalar fields. And again, it doesn't have to show up in a lab to be real. Labs are very little things when it comes to the size of the universe. Not everything can fit in a lab.

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.

As I've shown, the data came in long after Guth proposed the theory in 1979. Your repeating the same refuted claim reminds me of the dead parrot sketch by Month Python. No matter how you try to dress up this claim as "alive", it's still dead.