Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

Because they are the first two that came to mind.

I'm sorry, but that logic simply doesn't fly. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If anything yet to be observed in the lab is "supernatural" in origin, then half of "science" is based on faith in finding "supernatural" entities. If you can call a search for SUSY particles or gravitons a "scientific" endeavor, then a search for soul is not any different. It's either all a form of "theoretical physics", or it's all a form of faith in the "supernatural". It's one or the other, and you can only pick one.

Now, all you need to do is capture a soul and put it inside the LHC.

Yours first.

 

[Davian]

That was actually the whole point of my statement to Guy1. <snip>

I was not referring to his logic, but the flaws in yours.

 

[Guy1]

I do not think 'consensus' as you are using it here means what you intend it to mean. It certainly does not ensure that the majority is right, or the minority position is wrong.

It seems he thinks I'm saying the majority is probably right specifically because they are the majority.

 

[Davian]

It seems he thinks I'm saying the majority is probably right specifically because they are the majority.

But if there is a consensus on something he doesn't like, such as the big bang theory, then that is "religion" (in a bad way, not a good way, like Christianity). It's like he is trying to ride a horse in two different directions at once.

My point I made to him a while back was that he does not appear to delineate between scientific consensus (supported by scientific methodology), and consensus of opinion.

 

[Michael]

It seems he thinks I'm saying the majority is probably right specifically because they are the majority.

That is EXACTLY what you insinuated along with a CLAIM about me being a "slack-jawed hillbilly" for daring to doubt them. It turns out however that unlike YOUR opinions which are born of pure ignorance and faith an anything with the label "science" attached to it, my opinions are born of sweat equity and an understanding not only of the strengths and weaknesses of mainstream theory, but based also upon a knowledge of ALTERNATIVE THEORIES. You don't even understand MAINSTREAM theory apparently, so who are you to judge me anyway?

 

[Michael]

I was not referring to his logic, but the flaws in yours.

Oy Vey. I USED HIS LOGIC!

 

[Michael]

But if there is a consensus on something he doesn't like, such as the big bang theory, then that is "religion" (in a bad way, not a good way, like Christianity). It's like he is trying to ride a horse in two different directions at once.

Er no. I labeled ONE SPECIFIC so called "scientific" theory a "religion" because it requires "blind faith' in not one, not two, but THREE different metaphysical and invisible "sky entities", two of which which apparently never appear on Earth. That's what makes it a "religion", not the fact I personally disagree with it.

My PREFERENCE is for empirical physics and things that actually show up on Earth and in a lab. Apparently the mainstream doesn't much care for, nor appreciate empirical physics these days.

My point I made to him a while back was that he does not appear to delineate between scientific consensus (supported by scientific methodology), and consensus of opinion.

That is because there any difference in the case of BB theory. Regardless of the "consensus" (scientific or otherwise), inflation and dark energy are total duds in the lab, and more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".

 

[Non sequitur]

I never said that wisdom could be mined from natural science. We would have to consult the bible on that. Through faith we understand that no action, whether prayer or otherwise, is without consequence.

These were your questions, that I had answered.

And you can show that it [prayer] has been unanswered?

What is this "standard evidence?"

Your response above isn't even in the same realm.

You used to be less vague and esoteric. What happened?

 

[Davian]

Er no. I labeled ONE SPECIFIC so called "scientific" theory a "religion" because it requires "blind faith' in not one, not two, but THREE different metaphysical and invisible "sky entities", two of which which apparently never appear on Earth. That's what makes it a "religion", not the fact I personally disagree with it.

That only applies to your straw man version of it. The actual theory does not incorporate your "never appear on Earth" issue.

My PREFERENCE is for empirical physics and things that actually show up on Earth and in a lab. Apparently the mainstream doesn't much care for, nor appreciate empirical physics these days.

Or it may be that your demands for stuff 'showing up on Earth or in a lab' is not a valid objection. Don't you say, if they can't hand you some in a bottle, it isn't real? So much for your average deity.

That is because there any difference in the case of BB theory. Regardless of the "consensus" (scientific or otherwise), inflation and dark energy are total duds in the lab, and more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".

Still, inflation and dark energy are not duds when it comes to astronomical observations.

I still find it hilarious when a theist uses 'religion' as a pejorative. That must be a hard habit to break. And using the concept of "God" as a low mark for impotency is a new one. May I use that?

 

[Elendur]

Er no. I labeled ONE SPECIFIC so called "scientific" theory a "religion" because it requires "blind faith' in not one, not two, but THREE different metaphysical and invisible "sky entities", two of which which apparently never appear on Earth. That's what makes it a "religion", not the fact I personally disagree with it.

My PREFERENCE is for empirical physics and things that actually show up on Earth and in a lab. Apparently the mainstream doesn't much care for, nor appreciate empirical physics these days.



That is because there any difference in the case of BB theory. Regardless of the "consensus" (scientific or otherwise), inflation and dark energy are total duds in the lab, and more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".

Several others have written this but could you stop with the caps? It's no good way to argue. Also, avoid trying to provoke emotional responses, that's another mistake.

Also, you might be interested in:
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

 

[Michael]

That only applies to your straw man version of it. The actual theory does not incorporate your "never appear on Earth" issue.

When can I expect inflation to show up in lab on Earth?

Or it may be that your demands for stuff 'showing up on Earth or in a lab' is not a valid objection. Don't you say, if they can't hand you some in a bottle, it isn't real? So much for your average deity.

It's certainly a valid criticism of their sky religion. My concept of God doesn't require faith in ANYTHING that doesn't also appear on Earth. Even awareness exists on Earth in great abundance. Compared to Lambda-CDM, even an empirical theory of God walks all over it in terms of QUALIFICATION. There's no valid falsification mechanism to any of parts of Lambda-religion, particularly since plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab and they STILL cling to ONE possible "interpretation" of redshift and they completely ignore EVERY OTHER PROVEN WAY TO get it.

Still, inflation and dark energy are not duds when it comes to astronomical observations.

Oh yes they are! Neither one of them can be linked to movement of atoms in a lab. Their only value at ALL is in ONE cosmology theory, and they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the lab. They are MORE impotent on Earth than your average religious concept of "God". They do nothing at all in a lab, so any claim that they do anything somewhere else, or during some other time in the past, is pure nonsense. It's "made up"'. It's a "religion" based on a PROPERTIES were were assigned to their invisible buddies in a purely ad hoc fashion.

I still find it hilarious when a theist uses 'religion' as a pejorative. That must be a hard habit to break. And using the concept of "God" as a low mark for impotency is a new one. May I use that?

Be my guest. Every theist I know believes that God has a tangible effect on Earth today. They all seem to understand that some of their beliefs are based on "faith" in thing unseen in the lab. No astronomer I know of thinks inflation has any effect on Earth today. Not every "dogma" of every religion represents "truth". Likewise not every form of "science" on the planet represents truth. Theists tend to understand that many "beliefs", even "scientific" beliefs require "acts of faith" on the part of the "believer". Only atheists seem to believe that "science" is superior to "religion", or that "science" is something that doesn't require any "acts of faith". My point in making these comparisons is to get the atheists to wake up and smell the coffee. Science isn't superior to religion. Religion is but one small subset of "science" actually. Every "dogma package", be it a religious dogma package, or a scientific dogma package is in fact "open to scrutiny". Not all brands of "science" have a tangible effect in the lab. Likewise it's irrational to insist that God has to show up at your door in person to be "real" and to exist in "reality" as we understand it.

 

[Michael]

Several others have written this but could you stop with the caps? It's no good way to argue. Also, avoid trying to provoke emotional responses, that's another mistake.

Also, you might be interested in:
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

Thanks for the feedback. It seems that bad habits are hard to break.

 

[Elendur]

Thanks for the feedback. It seems that bad habits are hard to break.

 

[Michael]

Also, you might be interested in:
http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

Ya know...

It's exactly this sort of distortion of truth, and these kind of outright LIES by the mainstream, and this kind of attack on empirical physics, that ultimately motivates me to publicly attack mainstream dogma.

Let's start with the outright lies in his Rob's claims. They start in the second sentence:

Non-cosmological redshifts are a crank theory in astronomy that a scary fringe element keeps whinging on about.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

BS! This is exactly the kind of dishonest mainstream behavior that irks me no end. Not only has plasma redshift been demonstrated in the lab, the astronomers keep outright LYING ABOUT IT! Oy Vey. What a blatant liar!

The worst part of his presentation is his continued use of loaded language like "crackpot" and "crank" in relationship to pure empirical physics! That's just irrational behavior to begin with. What's worse is either Rob is entirely ignorant of the fact that plasma redshift has been documented in the lab, or he is outright LYING about it, one or the other. Which is it? It's bad enough that Rob decided to diss a theory he does not even understand properly, but when he started LYING about the fact, that's the part that makes me angry. What a load of crap!

 

[Michael]

from Rob:

Here's the thing, though. Even if the "standard" explanation has a flaw, when you introduce an alternate explanation to address that flaw, your alternate explanation must explain everything the standard explanation already explains.

. First of all, there is no actual "explanation" in standard theory. It's not an "explanation" to begin with since 96 percent of it is composed of "dark" terms that are ultimately just placeholder terms for human ignorance. The standard theory isn't even an "explanation" to begin with! Secondly, his logic is all screwed up. No theory must explain EVERYTHING in it's first incarnations, nor is it required to REPLACE standard theory before rejecting standard theory on whatever grounds one choose to reject it. I can reject a theory of God for any reason I chose, *WITHOUT* having a "better" explanation for the observation in question. Likewise I can reject Lambda-religion because it's 96 percent metaphysical fudge factor, and only 4% actual physics. I don't NEED any other reason or any other explanation of anything to reject their theory anymore than an atheist has to KNOW how the universe got here to reject "supernatural" claims about God.

This notion that PC/EU theory (or any other theory) must evolve to the point that it "explains" everything before they'll even consider the possibility that these events CAN be explained via empirical physics is complete nonsense. Not only doesn't their precious theory actually "explain" anything as he claims, it's absolutely incapable of EVER explaining anything until they get rid of the "dark" elements of their theory, which at the moment make up a full 96 percent of their religion. That' isn't an "explanation", that's a dark sky religion based on "FAITH".

Even more telling is the fact that Rob simply IGNORED the fact that Ari and other tired light proponents HAVE already "explained" many of the features he's talking about using PC theory. In other words, not only did the author of that blog outright lie about the facts related to PC theory and plasma redshift theories, he outright lies again when he claims that these issues haven't been addressed in PC theory, and he claims that they haven't been "explained" in PC theory. It's bad enough that he claims mainstream theory offers any actual "explanation", but to LIE about the fact that PC theory has addressed these same issues is inexcusable IMO. His whole presentation in one giant distortion of the truth, and it's ultimately one big "LIE".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ya know...

It's exactly this sort of distortion of truth, and these kind of outright LIES by the mainstream, and this kind of attack on empirical physics, that ultimately motivates me to publicly attack mainstream dogma.

Time to don your tin foil hats...

[snip]
What a load of crap!

Those same words spring to my mind, too .

 

[Elendur]

Ya know...

It's exactly this sort of distortion of truth, and these kind of outright LIES by the mainstream, and this kind of attack on empirical physics, that ultimately motivates me to publicly attack mainstream dogma.

Let's start with the outright lies in his Rob's claims. They start in the second sentence:



ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

BS! This is exactly the kind of dishonest mainstream behavior that irks me no end. Not only has plasma redshift been demonstrated in the lab, the astronomers keep outright LYING ABOUT IT! Oy Vey. What a blatant liar!

The worst part of his presentation is his continued use of loaded language like "crackpot" and "crank" in relationship to pure empirical physics! That's just irrational behavior to begin with. What's worse is either Rob is entirely ignorant of the fact that plasma redshift has been documented in the lab, or he is outright LYING about it, one or the other. Which is it? It's bad enough that Rob decided to diss a theory he does not even understand properly, but when he started LYING about the fact, that's the part that makes me angry. What a load of crap!

More BS from Rob:


More BS. First of all, there is no actual "explanation" in standard theory. It's not an "explanation" to begin with since 96 percent of it is composed of "dark" terms that are ultimately just placeholder terms for human ignorance. The standard theory isn't even an "explanation" to begin with! Secondly, his logic is all screwed up. No theory must explain EVERYTHING in it's first incarnations, nor is it required to REPLACE standard theory before rejecting standard theory on whatever grounds one choose to reject it. I can reject a theory of God for any reason I chose, *WITHOUT* having a "better" explanation for the observation in question. Likewise I can reject Lambda-religion because it's 96 percent metaphysical fudge factor, and only 4% actual physics. I don't NEED any other reason or any other explanation of anything to reject their theory anymore than an atheist has to KNOW how the universe got here to reject "supernatural" claims about God.

This notion that PC/EU theory (or any other theory) must evolve to the point that it "explains" everything before they'll even consider the possibility that these events CAN be explained via empirical physics is complete nonsense. Not only doesn't their precious theory actually "explain" anything as he claims, it's absolutely incapable of EVER explaining anything until they get rid of the "dark" elements of their theory, which at the moment make up a full 96 percent of their religion. That' isn't an "explanation", that's a dark sky religion based on "FAITH".

Even more telling is the fact that Rob simply IGNORED the fact that Ari and other tired light proponents HAVE already "explained" many of the features he's talking about using PC theory. In other words, not only did the author of that blog outright lie about the facts related to PC theory and plasma redshift theories, he outright lies again when he claims that these issues haven't been addressed in PC theory, and he claims that they haven't been "explained" in PC theory. It's bad enough that he claims mainstream theory offers any actual "explanation", but to LIE about the fact that PC theory has addressed these same issues is inexcusable IMO. His whole presentation in one giant distortion of the truth, and it's ultimately one big "LIE".

That was just a little provocation from me I wanted to see if you would use your caps. (note that it's 1,5 years old)

 

[Michael]

That was just a little provocation from me I wanted to see if you would use your caps. (note that it's 1,5 years old)

Like I said, old habits die hard.

 

[Michael]

Time to don your tin foil hats...

Ya, that evil dark energy might get me.

 

[Michael]

(note that it's 1,5 years old)

Note that Ari's plasma redshift ideas are far older than 5 years. It was a lie 5 years ago too.