Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

[1303.6058] Inflation and primordial power spectra at anisotropic spacetime inspired by Planck's constraints on isotropy of CMB

FYI, and so it begins. What "used to be" promoted as a "successful prediction" of inflation theory has now turned into it's worst nightmare in PLANK data sets.

These comments at the start of the paper were quite revealing about the damaging nature of the PLANK observations:

I. INTRODUCTION The cosmological principle assumes that the universe is statistically isotropic and homogeneous at large scales. Recently, this principle has been rigorously tested by the CMB anisotropy observations from the Planck satellite [1]. The Planck satellite [2] has found deviations from isotropy (around 3&#963. In addition, several anomalies of the CMB anisotropy havebeen confirmed, such as the quadrupole-octopole alignment [3], the hemispherical asymmetry [4, 5], the parity asymmetry [6–10], and etc.. Besides the Planck’s results, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) [11] has previously found evidence for the deviations from isotropy and the anomalies. Via dealing with the WMAP dataset, the level of statistical anisotropy was constrained to be g [FONT=&quot]∼[/FONT]0.15 [12–14] in the primordial power spectra of the form P (k) = P(k)(1 +g(k·n)2) where n denotes a privileged direction in the space. These anomalies might stem from certain primordial magnetic fields [15–17].

To incorporate the observed deviations from isotropy in the Planck data into the standard cosmological model, we should try to investigate properties of inflation at an anisotropic spacetime. The natural framework of anisotropic spacetime is the so-called Finsler geometry [18]. Finsler geometry gets rid of the quadratic constraint on the metric [19–21]. The Finsler spacetime admits certain privileged axes and permits less symmetries than the Riemann one [22–24]. Thus, the Finsler geometry is a reasonable candidate to reveal the deviations from isotropy of the spacetime.

Translation: "Inflation theory failed yet another key predictive "test" in high resolution. Rather than admit that inflation was falsified by these observations, we propose to change (kludge) the various metaphysical properties of inflation so as to now "predict" what we actually observe in PLANK images."

Sheesh! There's just no logical or scientific way to kill off the metaphysical kludge of a religion called "inflation theory". There are now more metaphysical brands of inflation theory to choose from than brands of peanut butter, including a new "ad hoc postdicted fit" to observation.

So, it turns out that "inflation theory" spectacularly failed to actually "predict" these observed features found in PLANK data sets, and the universe isn't homogeneously distributed as their theory claim(ed). Rather than let their theory die a natural scientific death by letting it rise and fall on the value of it's predictions, "Big Bang" proponents ignore all the falsification mechanisms entirely, and work around whatever they need to work around simply by changing the parameters of their mythical metaphysical sky entity!

 

[Michael]

[1303.6896] Gravitational lensing evidence against extended dark matter halos

We find that the mass-to-light ratio of the lensing galaxies does not depend on radius, from inner galactic regions out to several half-light radii. Moreover, its value does not exceed the value predicted by stellar population models by more than a factor two, which may be explained by baryonic dark matter alone, without any need for exotic matter. Our results thus suggest that, if dark matter is present in early-type galaxies, its amount does not exceed the amount of luminous matter and its density follows that of luminous matter, in sharp contrast to what is found from rotation curves of spiral galaxies.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Michael]

It would seem that most of the papers written on Planck data sets are pretty much intent on "moving the goal posts" as fast as possible.

Apparently the "anomalies" observed in WMAP all turn out to be verified by Planck, and it reveals a few more anomalies as well. It would appear that the 'solutions' to these "problems" falls into two basic camps. Either they attempt to modify inflation theory (like two field inflation), or they modify the beginning geometric parameters.

Essentially there is no possible falsification mechanism for Big Bang theory because like string theory, the various metaphysical parameters can be "manipulated at will" with the stroke of a pen. Because all the metaphysical 'fudge factors' are "made up on the fly" in a purely ad hoc manner, no amount of data conflict could even put a dent in the 'religion' that has become Lambda-CDM and inflation theory.

There are now more various brands of inflation theory than there are various denominations of 'Christians'. Talk about metaphysical disasters! The manipulations range from "more early geometric manipulation" to "more inflation manipulation". Never once is there any consideration of 'falsification'.

What I find astounding is that even *after* finding multimillion degree plasmas around various galaxies and galaxy clusters, and even *after* discovering that dust has blocked half the light we see from various galaxies, they still allow for *zero* inelastic scattering! Hoy Vey.

The basic problem is that the moment they "acknowledge" that plasma goes a long way to explaining 'dark matter', their entire theory goes up in metaphysical smoke. Like a house of cards, all the calculations related to how much hydrogen and helium and such that should exist in the universe come tumbling down.

Lambda-CDM is a *metaphysical kludge* that utterly defies any type of empirical falsification. It's a "religion" (several religions actually), it's not a form of 'empirical physics". If you can't falsify it, it's not physics.

 

[Michael]

AMS experiment measures antimatter excess in space | CERN press office

Geneva 3 April 2013. The international team running the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS1) today announced the first results in its search for dark matter. The results, presented by AMS spokesperson Professor Samuel Ting in a seminar at CERN2, are to be published in the journal Physical Review Letters. They report the observation of an excess of positrons in the cosmic ray flux.

And like always, the 'false advertizing' begins almost immediately, even in that first paragraph.

Never once have the production of "positrons" been directly associated with "dark matter". In fact, several "simple" SUSY theories were falsified at LHC! What that article also fails to mention is that our own sun has been observed emitting exactly those same positrons during flare events, and they have been observed coming from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. The fact of the matter is that the event in question, aka the release of positrons is related to *ordinary plasma physics*, not "dark matter".

Pretty much the entire sales pitch of mainstream cosmology theory is based upon "bait and switch" tactics of false advertizing. While no positrons have ever been created from mythical forms of matter, nor observed coming from mythical forms of matter, positrons are routinely released in ordinary solar flares, and ordinary physical discharge processes in plasma.

That whole article is typical of the constant stream of false advertizing and typical nonsense that comes from astronomers today. The article never even bothered to mention that LHC crushed all the simple versions of SUSY theory. They also never bothered to mention that electrical discharges emit positrons on a regular basis, both on Earth and in the solar atmosphere. What a garbage article! The mainstream is utterly petrified by the concept of electrical discharges and electrical current in space. It's the forbidden topic of astronomy in fact.

 

[Elendur]

In the case of those huge structures found in space, I'd personally call the gigantic structures definitive evidence *against* inflation theory, and pretty much BB theory in general. The whole basis of GR being used to justify BB theory is called into question by those observations IMO.

I'm sorry, but I'll still need the definition. I can't know what significance you assign it until I understand your terminology.

Well, you already assumed that "force" is causing acceleration. How did you decide that?

Decide an assumption? No.
It wasn't an assumption. I've deduced, from the limited resources I have (those two equations more specifically), that a force is (or rather may be) causing acceleration.
Thus by definition it's no assumption.

I 'could' be a lot of things that affect those photons. How do I know?

It was confusing in how you were unspecific in the difference between the energy and the acceleration caused by it. (Note that right now I'm writing as if in a hypothetical situation where it's true)

When it comes to the topic of God, everyone in the thread expects 'tangible evidence' to either exist or have the ability to exist, even me. When it comes to any other possible astronomy theory, you play by another set of rules IMO. No only do you not require empirical cause/effect justification, you don't need it to *ever* be done or ever be doable in a lab.

Topics of god usually include consequences of personal significance and most often contain logical fallacies to the brim, that makes me motivated and suited to evaluate for myself how valid it is (not that I'm guaranteed to reach the correct conclusion, mind you).
Macro-astronomical topics is the exact opposite. It is of no personal significance and requires knowledge in areas that I'm unsuited to evaluate by myself.

However, I do recognize when something obviously unreasonable is demanded, very close to a strawman.

Is it sound to to reject something due to an arbitrary demand that cannot be fulfilled even though that demand couldn't be fulfilled even though it would be true?
Please take care to answer this question.

Ok, so how about those huge structures in space? Why should they 'falsify' current BB theory?

I don't know, I don't know the first thing about them (nor do I expect to learn enough about them or the BB theory to be able to judge for myself).

An ordinary EM field or an intrinsic curvature of spacetime come to mind.

Have we had examples of those curvatures?
Are those electromagnetic fields valid? Not ignoring glaring problems, like your photon scattering?

DE fails point one. The only 'real occurrence' is "photon redshift'. The rest is simply *speculation* as to 'cause' of that redshift.

Not even that mind you. We'd have to be very careful in stating what we've observed.
The redshift itself is speculation as well.

DE isn't known to exist.

What is?
Anyway, that's the definition I'd like the most since (coupled with the correct assumptions) we're able to promote very well supported (!) ideas to the status of a fact.
However, I'd be extremely careful with it since the demand to accept something other than simple empirical experiences as facts will be extremely difficult for anyone who'd honestly use the term.

Only photon redshift is a real occurrence. The rest is *assumed*.

Incorrect.
Note that I include some assumptions now (we're discussing about the natural sciences after all) to take the step to state the photons are the real occurance.
The photons are the real occurrence. The rest (included the redshift) is deduced, both by the same principles.

By *that* definition, God must be "fact". Is that fine by you?

Nope. By that same standard we have several factual Napoleons wandering about. TBH that is one badly thought through definition but I guess that it comes from some vaguer use of the term.

Nobody can get DE to "do" anything in *any* circumstance.

Just as we can't with what we've deduced, from our observations and assumptions, to be the observable universe.

Point 4. is the only applicable one. Is that suffient for you to accept the existence of God? If not, don't expect me to buy point 4 as a valid reason to believe that "dark energy" exists or does anything.

At first I thought you meant that point 4 was the one you meant when you mentioned facts. Honestly, that was one horrid moment.

The reason I mentioned the definition (/-s) of fact was that the term fact for me coincide best with point 1-3 and makes it though to make anything other than direct observations facts (and not individual ones).
I got the impression that you were lenient in your use of the term and I don't approve of that.


Edit: Added some things.

 

[Michael]

I'm sorry, but I'll still need the definition. I can't know what significance you assign it until I understand your terminology.

Largest structure in universe discovered - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News

"Mind boggling" sounds like the right terminology. I mean, the only way to ever actually "falsify" a theory is to let it die a natural scientific death based on it's own merits. If you keep shifting the goal posts every 6 months, or even every few years, there becomes no effective way to falsify anything.

The Planck data set now seems to confirm all the 'anomalies' found in WMAP, including a preferred direction of the universe. None of that stuff is "predicted" in inflation theory!

Last decade, they were claiming that a 'smooth and even' layout of matter was a "verified prediction" of inflation theory. Next decade they'll be claiming that a "non homogeneously distributed universe is a "verified prediction" of (now new and improved) inflation theory. Regardless of what that data shows us, it's always "inflation did it"!

Decide an assumption? No.
It wasn't an assumption. I've deduced, from the limited resources I have (those two equations more specifically), that a force is (or rather may be) causing acceleration.

How do you know it's not a smooth curvature rather than a force?

Thus by definition it's no assumption.

It's both apparently.

It was confusing in how you were unspecific in the difference between the energy and the acceleration caused by it.

EM fields accelerate plasma in a lab and 98 plus percent of the universe is in a plasma state, including that million degree plasma that surrounds every galaxy.

You aren't claiming dark energy accelerates plasma however, you've got it doing magic tricks on a metaphysical term called "space" that hasn't been physically defined in any way. It's got religious overtones from day one.

Topics of god usually include consequences of personal significance and most often contain logical fallacies to the brim, that makes me motivated and suited to evaluate for myself how valid it is (not that I'm guaranteed to reach the correct conclusion, mind you).

It does have "personal significance" in the sense it has the ability to change your life.

Macro-astronomical topics is the exact opposite. It is of no personal significance and requires knowledge in areas that I'm unsuited to evaluate by myself.

That's a cop out. If you can evaluate whether or not God has any effect on humans in controlled experimentation, then you can evaluate whether or not 'dark energy' has any effect on anything in controlled experimentation. If you can "lack belief" in one, you can certainly "lack belief" in all metaphysical claims.

However, I do recognize when something obviously unreasonable is demanded, very close to a strawman.

You mean like when they start "moving the goalposts' by first claiming that the universe is smooth and homogeneously distributed due to 'inflation', and now they're claiming it's not smooth, it's got a preferred direction, and it's got huge gigantic 'clumps' in it because of inflation? How much wiggle room must exist inflation theory if it can accommodate any mass arrangement in the universe? It sure sounds like a fairytale inflation sky deity to me.

Is it sound to to reject something due to an arbitrary demand that cannot be fulfilled even though that demand couldn't be fulfilled even though it would be true?
Please take care to answer this question.

Why exactly do you lack belief in *all* concepts of God? If it's not reasonable to judge "supernatural" concepts of God, why would you reject any "supernatural' constructs of God? How is inflation theory not a 'supernatural' construct? What other type of energy does such a thing?

I don't know, I don't know the first thing about them (nor do I expect to learn enough about them or the BB theory to be able to judge for myself).

Again, that's just a cop out IMO. The government keeps spending my tax dollars on "dark energy" stuff and hunting for exotic types of matter. I have a right to and a civic duty to A) look at the results, and B) decide if it's worth my tax money being spent on that issue.

The largest structures that were actually "predicted" by inflation theory and BB theory prior to now was about 1/4th of that size. Why can't we use that observation to *falsify* inflation theory since it *failed* that prediction?

Have we had examples of those curvatures?

Right back at you with "dark energy"? We do actually have examples of curvatures of spacetime due to the presence of matter.

Are those electromagnetic fields valid? Not ignoring glaring problems, like your photon scattering?

Valid in terms of what? EM fields do not "accelerate space", they accelerate charged particles, AKA plasma.

Not even that mind you. We'd have to be very careful in stating what we've observed.
The redshift itself is speculation as well.

I'd say the redshift is well enough documented, but not the "cause" of that observation. Only inelastic scattering and the *movement of objects* "causes" redshift in the lab.

What is?

You. Me. EM fields. Gravity. Higgs Bosons. All kinds of stuff can and does show up in a real lab.

Anyway, that's the definition I'd like the most since (coupled with the correct assumptions) we're able to promote very well supported (!) ideas to the status of a fact.

The "well supported" idea is a farce, or at least a fallacy. It's not 'well supported' in any lab on Earth. It's not the least bit useful outside of *one* specific (otherwise falsified) cosmology theory either.

Incorrect.
Note that I include some assumptions now (we're discussing about the natural sciences after all) to take the step to state the photons are the real occurance.
The photons are the real occurrence. The rest (included the redshift) is deduced, both by the same principles.

Ok, I'll buy that. However, I'm willing to concede that based on basic physics, and simple logic, there is physical evidence of "photon redshift". We see spikes in elemental outputs that are consistent with photon redshift. Futhermore such redshift is observed in plasma in the lab. It's probably also been documented with to occur from object movement in the lab as well. Not only is the evidence in the observational data, it's produced in the lab.

Nope. By that same standard we have several factual Napoleons wandering about. TBH that is one badly thought through definition but I guess that it comes from some vaguer use of the term.

Ah, so now you wish to have your cake and eat it too. You are applying two different standards, one to science, and a different one to 'religion'.

How many variations of inflation are there already? How many more variations come out every week on Arxiv based on Planck data sets?

Just as we can't with what we've deduced, from our observations and assumptions, to be the observable universe.

That's only true in *your* universe. Electric universe theory actually works in the lab.

At first I thought you meant that point 4 was the one you meant when you mentioned facts. Honestly, that was one horrid moment.

The reason I mentioned the definition (/-s) of fact was that the term fact for me coincide best with point 1-3 and makes it though to make anything other than direct observations facts (and not individual ones).
I got the impression that you were lenient in your use of the term and I don't approve of that.

IMO you're a lot more lenient than I am. All that your leniency seems to require is the term 'science', and you'll believe just about anything they say. The moment the term 'God' gets used however, you apply a different set of standards apparently.

Even my definition of "God" is entirely "empirical" and everything found in space exists on Earth, including awareness an a wide variety of "forms'. I really don't see how you can reasonably justify no less that three pure "acts of faith' in something you cannot see, and never hope to see in your lifetime, yet you actively seem to "lack belief' in any form of an "intelligent creator". I fail to see why your faith in one is "so strong" and your faith in the other is nonexistent. What's the empirical difference?

 

[Michael]

MIT-led space experiment believed to yield preliminary evidence of dark matter - Science - The Boston Globe

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer provided one possible way to detect dark matter, based on a theory that predicts that when particles of dark matter smash into and annihilate one another, the collision generates particles called positrons. Positrons are the reverse of ordinary electrons, antiparticles with the same mass, but carrying a positive charge.
The theory predicts the collision leaves a trail, which would be seen as an excess of positrons that seem to emanate from all around, not from any particular direction. Theories also predict that at greater energy levels, the excess of positrons should rise and then drop off rapidly.
The observations reported by Ting and collaborators fulfilled part of those requirements, he reported at a scientific seminar at CERN in Switzerland and at a NASA press conference. The instrument picked up an excess of positrons that increased at higher energies.

This is a *perfect* (classic textbook) example of "false advertizing". Never once has Dr. Ting demonstrated that "dark matter" emits positrons. He *assumes* this *in spite of* the LHC results to date. Furthermore he puts *no constraints at all* on either the emission locations, or emission spectrum in any way. Whatever he "sees" from space, automatically becomes 'evidence' of dark matter.

Over its first year and a half of operation, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer registered 25 billion cosmic rays, high-energy particles that are detected by the instrument. The space instrument has a lifetime of 10 years, however, and Ting and others expressed confidence that further data will allow them to draw a conclusion.

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

What evidence? It seems that Dr. Ting has already drawn his own conclusions that are in fact *contrary* to recent LHC results, and are based upon a "pure leap of faith" in both a particle that has never been observed, and the ejection of a positron from a particle that has never been observed. It's a two-for-one leap of faith, not just a *single* leap of faith.

Apparently it's "anything goes" in astronomy. No amount of those pesky LHC falsifications of easy versions of SUSY theory matter to astronomers. They don't care one iota about empirical physics. In fact their entire belief system stands in *direct opposition* to empirical findings to date!

This is pure bait and switch nonsense. There's a known and obvious source of all positron emissions, namely "electrical discharges'. Positrons are emitted by discharges in the Earth atmosphere and discharges in the solar atmosphere. There is no demonstrated cause/effect relationship between 'dark matter' and positron emissions. It's a pure *leap of faith* that defies all the LHC results that have been run to date.

 

[Elendur]

Largest structure in universe discovered - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News

"Mind boggling" sounds like the right terminology. I mean, the only way to ever actually "falsify" a theory is to let it die a natural scientific death based on it's own merits. If you keep shifting the goal posts every 6 months, or even every few years, there becomes no effective way to falsify anything.

The Planck data set now seems to confirm all the 'anomalies' found in WMAP, including a preferred direction of the universe. None of that stuff is "predicted" in inflation theory!

Last decade, they were claiming that a 'smooth and even' layout of matter was a "verified prediction" of inflation theory. Next decade they'll be claiming that a "non homogeneously distributed universe is a "verified prediction" of (now new and improved) inflation theory. Regardless of what that data shows us, it's always "inflation did it"!

What I got from this part:
1. Updating (as in changing to accommodate for new information) any theory or hypothesis is forbidden.
2. No further clarification of the definition I asked for.

How do you know it's not a smooth curvature rather than a force?

I didn't and don't. I came to that conclusion with both its origins and strength clearly stated.

It's both apparently.

No. Assumptions aren't concluded. Conclusions can be based upon bad assumptions and bad conclusions (not to mention other things) but that does not make them assumptions.

EM fields accelerate plasma in a lab and 98 plus percent of the universe is in a plasma state, including that million degree plasma that surrounds every galaxy.

You aren't claiming dark energy accelerates plasma however, you've got it doing magic tricks on a metaphysical term called "space" that hasn't been physically defined in any way. It's got religious overtones from day one.

I'm not claiming anything about cosmology. How often do I need to repeat this?
Also, don't give me the crap that space isn't defined, both space and spacetime have mathematical definitions (especially the first one, just see the Euclidean geometry for an example).

It does have "personal significance" in the sense it has the ability to change your life.

I beg to differ. Feel free to provide a counter-example.

That's a cop out. If you can evaluate whether or not God has any effect on humans in controlled experimentation, then you can evaluate whether or not 'dark energy' has any effect on anything in controlled experimentation. If you can "lack belief" in one, you can certainly "lack belief" in all metaphysical claims.

Your "If-then" construct is impressively lacking. Please expand on that.

You mean like when they start "moving the goalposts' by first claiming that the universe is smooth and homogeneously distributed due to 'inflation', and now they're claiming it's not smooth, it's got a preferred direction, and it's got huge gigantic 'clumps' in it because of inflation? How much wiggle room must exist inflation theory if it can accommodate any mass arrangement in the universe? It sure sounds like a fairytale inflation sky deity to me.

That is in no way what I was referring to. Here's some quotes related to what I meant:

Here's two examples of your claims, I'll explicitly explain why I don't like them and whether I accept them or not.

Claim 1
No space expansion has been observed in the lab.
1. I'll accept that claim due to the expected expansion rate from the predicting theory/hypothesis.
2. The claim is redundant because it doesn't lower the credibility of the predicting theory/hypothesis.
3. The claim is redundant because it doesn't lend your theory/hypothesis any credability.

Claim 2
No space expansion has occurred in the lab.
1. I'll reject that claim because it would need support in form of an experiment that has high enough sensitivity to detect the space expansion at that level, something I've understood is far from our current technology.
2. The claim is redundant because it doesn't lend your theory/hypothesis any credability.

...
You'll have to ask yourself, are your demands reasonable regarding the space expansion?
...
Yes. The burden of proof lies at the claimants.
You, however, are one of those.
It's one thing to reject their claims, it's another to claim the negative.

Their claim:
The space expands.
This position holds the burden of proof.

Neutral claim (in this case, mine):
The space may or may not expand.
This position doesn't hold the burden of proof.

Your claim:
The space doesn't expand.
This position holds the burden of proof.

You're trying to lend validity to your position by stating that no expansion has been observed in the lab. It doesn't, because it's not expected to be observable at that level.

You then take it even further by stating that no expansion occurs in the lab (notice the difference), a statement that implies that you've produced an experiment that would detect expansion at that scale and have produced evidence that it doesn't expand.

You can reject their claims all you want, I won't argue.
However, when you make demands that seem to be related to the discussion, dude up high knows why, you're out of bounds.
When you're making claims of your own, back them up!
...

I can produce more quote from earlier posts since you return to this without addressing it properly.

Why exactly do you lack belief in *all* concepts of God? If it's not reasonable to judge "supernatural" concepts of God, why would you reject any "supernatural' constructs of God? How is inflation theory not a 'supernatural' construct? What other type of energy does such a thing?

Lack of belief != rejection.
You didn't answer my question, even though I explicitly stated that I wanted an answer:

Is it sound to to reject something due to an arbitrary demand that cannot be fulfilled even though that demand couldn't be fulfilled even though it would be true?
Please take care to answer this question.

Again, that's just a cop out IMO. The government keeps spending my tax dollars on "dark energy" stuff and hunting for exotic types of matter. I have a right to and a civic duty to A) look at the results, and B) decide if it's worth my tax money being spent on that issue.

See, that's the first argument in a long time that I can relate to.
What would you base your decision on? More importantly, how are you going to guarantee that you've made an informed decision?

The largest structures that were actually "predicted" by inflation theory and BB theory prior to now was about 1/4th of that size. Why can't we use that observation to *falsify* inflation theory since it *failed* that prediction?

Assuming that was a failed prediction, then it would be falsified.
However, at what level would if be falsified?
A constant needing revising or scrapping of the entire theory?

Right back at you with "dark energy"? We do actually have examples of curvatures of spacetime due to the presence of matter.

No we don't. We've got observations which we extrapolate the conclusions of spacetime curvatures.
Also, I don't need to show anything with dark energy.

Valid in terms of what? EM fields do not "accelerate space", they accelerate charged particles, AKA plasma.

Valid in terms of how the second question clarified.

I'd say the redshift is well enough documented, but not the "cause" of that observation. Only inelastic scattering and the *movement of objects* "causes" redshift in the lab.

You'd say but you'd still be wrong. How could we observe redshift when we only can observe photons (in this case I'm limiting the term observation to only include sight)?

You. Me. EM fields. Gravity. Higgs Bosons. All kinds of stuff can and does show up in a real lab.

How can you convince me that I exist? That's something I've assumed since a long time ago and I'm really interested in knowing how you know this.

The "well supported" idea is a farce, or at least a fallacy. It's not 'well supported' in any lab on Earth. It's not the least bit useful outside of *one* specific (otherwise falsified) cosmology theory either.

I was talking (writing) about the general concept, not anything specific.
It'd take the redshift we've observed and promote it to a fact. As you'd in-explicitly assumed already.
Please keep in mind that if I use general terminology, I most likely am talking about the general concepts.

Ok, I'll buy that. However, I'm willing to concede that based on basic physics, and simple logic, there is physical evidence of "photon redshift". We see spikes in elemental outputs that are consistent with photon redshift. Futhermore such redshift is observed in plasma in the lab. It's probably also been documented with to occur from object movement in the lab as well. Not only is the evidence in the observational data, it's produced in the lab.

Again with the lab. That is an unnecessary criteria.
Also, that plasma redshift is what we've discussed earlier, correct? If so, that observed lack of scattering is unconvincing.

Ah, so now you wish to have your cake and eat it too. You are applying two different standards, one to science, and a different one to 'religion'.

How many variations of inflation are there already? How many more variations come out every week on Arxiv based on Planck data sets?

That's only true in *your* universe. Electric universe theory actually works in the lab.

My universe is, I assume, the same as your universe.
You're not careful enough with your terminology and you're not keeping in mind what the base for the scientific framework is.
If we're going down to the philosophical bases you cannot make statements like that and get away with it.

IMO you're a lot more lenient than I am. All that your leniency seems to require is the term 'science', and you'll believe just about anything they say. The moment the term 'God' gets used however, you apply a different set of standards apparently.

Nope. You're failing to see the difference between neutrality and acceptance. Sometimes you also confuse neutrality with rejection.
Honestly, there's such a concept as "not taking a stance in the matter". I'm a big fan of that since it relieves me of much work required to take honest informed decisions.

Even my definition of "God" is entirely "empirical" and everything found in space exists on Earth, including awareness an a wide variety of "forms'. I really don't see how you can reasonably justify no less that three pure "acts of faith' in something you cannot see, and never hope to see in your lifetime, yet you actively seem to "lack belief' in any form of an "intelligent creator". I fail to see why your faith in one is "so strong" and your faith in the other is nonexistent. What's the empirical difference?

It's no difference. The lack of faith is there in both cases (in as many as I can imagine, in fact).
As stated before, you're confusing neutrality with the two other stances.

 

[Michael]

What I got from this part:
1. Updating (as in changing to accommodate for new information) any theory or hypothesis is forbidden.

If there is no logical way to falsify the theory, it's not 'science', it's 'religion'. I'm fine with the mainstream having a pet religion as long as they identify it as a religion rather than a form of *empirical science*. On the other hand, attempting to market a "religion" as a form of "science' is in fact "false advertizing'. It's a "buyer beware" claim and a dubious one at that.

It's fine if they want to "update" their theory, but when the "update" involves changing virtually every parameter *and the layout of matter* claims they made, then it's just another "supernatural inflation god' claim. There's no way to actually falsify the theory because they keep changing the core claims to match observation!

2. No further clarification of the definition I asked for.

I'm not sure what definition you're looking for at this point. In terms of the numerous definitions of inflation, most of them impose limits on the largest physical structures that can exist at around 1 billion light years, postdicted of course to fit the largest structures known to exist.

Now we find that there are structures about 4 times that size. David is apparently *desperate* (and intent) on 'breaking it apart' into smaller chunks, and shows no signs of 'giving up his religion'. In fact, based on Arxiv papers on Planck data sets, it's clear that the entire industry is doing "an about face" on the whole "homogenous" issue. Now they're moving the goal posts at record speeds *away from* homogenous distribution of matter.

I didn't and don't. I came to that conclusion with both its origins and strength clearly stated.

So "dark energy" need not even be an actual form of 'energy' as far as you know? What is actually left of your term now, the term "dark"? How is that any better than claim "I don't know", or "God did it", or "it's magic"?

Honestly, if you can't be sure it's even "energy" that's driving acceleration, how can you even be sure there is "dark energy" in the universe?

No. Assumptions aren't concluded. Conclusions can be based upon bad assumptions and bad conclusions (not to mention other things) but that does not make them assumptions.

But that's the entire problem in a nutshell from my perspective. You're starting off with a bad set of assumptions and therefore arriving at bad conclusions. Guth "assumed" the universe had no preferred direction, and had no 4 billion year long structures in it. He made up a whole "religion" to explain why the universe was so evenly distributed, claiming that his 'free lunch' theory solved a "missing monopole" problem too! None of his assumptions or "justifications" turns out to have any merit whatsoever in Planck data sets. The universe has a preferred direction, and it's got 4 billion year long "structures" embedded in it. Physics tells us there cannot be a "free lunch" since energy cannot be created nor destroyed and our universe is filled with energy. Monopoles and unicorns need no explanation as to the *reason for their non existence*. All of Guth's claims were bogus.

Dark matter is falsely "assumed" to release positrons, yet every simple SUSY theory bit the dust at LHC. Therefore any "conclusion" they make about positrons in space is necessarily a "bad conclusion". Since they go out of their way to hide the fact that electrical discharges are a natural and a known source of positrons, both in the Earth's atmosphere and the solar atmosphere, it's hard to take them seriously. Their entire argument is a "bait and switch" game!

I'm going to have to break this down in chunks today, but I'll nibble at it as I get time.

 

[Michael]

I'm not claiming anything about cosmology. How often do I need to repeat this?

You do seem to defend it as a form of "science" when it fact it's an unfalsifiable claim. Why are you defending Lambda-CDM theory?

Also, don't give me the crap that space isn't defined, both space and spacetime have mathematical definitions (especially the first one, just see the Euclidean geometry for an example).

"Distance" is defined in geometry, and 'spacetime' is defined in GR. "Space" is a metaphysical kludge devoid of definition or support.

I beg to differ. Feel free to provide a counter-example.

I think you're talking inflation, and I'm talking God. In fact many humans have reported life change due to the influence of something they call "God" in their lives. Jesus is one example.

Your "If-then" construct is impressively lacking. Please expand on that.

If it's possible for your to "lack belief" in all supernatural and even all natural concepts of God, then it's entirely possible for you to 'lack belief' in concepts of inflation, or all concepts related to "dark energy", or all concepts related to magic. What controlled experimental evidence from the lab do you have to support any of these ideas/claims? Why "lack belief" in one, yet not "lack belief" in all of them?

That is in no way what I was referring to. Here's some quotes related to what I meant:

I can produce more quote from earlier posts since you return to this without addressing it properly.

My position is one of "lack of belief". I "lack belief" that inflation is anything other than a "religion" that Alan Guth dreamed up in his head one day. It's morphed into a whole series of "religions" now since there are almost as many variations on inflation as there are variations of 'Christianity'.

Lack of belief != rejection.

If they cannot demonstrate their claims in court, it's "false advertizing". I simply lack believe that inflation exists(ed) or moves(d) anything. I lack belief that dark energy accelerates anything. I lack belief in exotic forms of matter that emit positrons when they burp (or self destruct). None of these mainstream claims enjoys even the least bit of empirical support at the level of experimental physics. I therefore "lack belief" in Lambda-CDM and their claims are clearly "bait and switch" in nature.

You didn't answer my question, even though I explicitly stated that I wanted an answer:

Is it sound to to reject something due to an arbitrary demand that cannot be fulfilled even though that demand couldn't be fulfilled even though it would be true?

Please take care to answer this question.

Is it sound for you to reject all forms of God, even ones that do not assume that God 'meddles" in his creation?

I can choose to "lack belief" in something that fails to have any effect on me, can't I? What evidence do you even have that "dark energy" is in fact a form of energy rather than a curvature of spacetime?

I'd say I have every right to 'lack belief' in mainstream claims.

See, that's the first argument in a long time that I can relate to.
What would you base your decision on? More importantly, how are you going to guarantee that you've made an informed decision?

I started by reading about five textbooks on plasma physics and electric universe theory for starters. I have continuously studied the claims of mainstream theory, along with all their moving of the goalposts. I've got numerous ways to explain acceleration that do no involved "new" forms of energy or matter. I've got numerous ways to explain the emission of positrons without resorting to exotic matter claims, most of which went up in smoke at the LHC.

I'm putting my free time now into studying inelastic scattering papers and such.

What more 'information' do I need to finally dismiss a "religion" that keeps failing it's key predictions and keeps being modified with ever more complex 'metaphysics'?

Assuming that was a failed prediction, then it would be falsified.
However, at what level would if be falsified?

Several SUSY theories made predictions about the energy states of various 'sparticles', all of which were falsified at LHC. That hasn't stopped them from "moving the goalposts" further up the energy scale, and it hasn't stopped them from ignoring the obvious causes of positron emissions in favor of exotic matter of the gaps claims.

Likewise I've watched them modify their 'largest structure' claims to fit an every more "complex" set of features we find in the universe. I've watched them backpeddle like crazy over the homogenous layout of matter claims. I've watched them write more papers to simply "ignore their failed predictions" without respect to any sense of "falsification'. How much evidence is necessary before it's logical to simply "lack belief" in a claim that has no falsification mechanism, and that is predicated upon three forms of theoretical forms of matter and energy?

A constant needing revising or scrapping of the entire theory?

You tell me. When is "enough' simply 'enough' in terms of the problems with any given cosmology theory (or other scientific theory)? When do we 'give up" on SUSY theory? Are the next round of 'tests' at LHC enough to toss out WIMP theory altogether, or shall the "gaps' beyond LHC provide amply 'gaps' for the theory to 'live on' inside the imagination of the mainstream?

I think you're *assuming* that I'm required to support my claims, when it fact I simply "lack belief" in the claims made by the mainstream. Whereas electrical discharges are a known source of positrons in both the Earth's atmosphere and the solar atmosphere, exotic matter has never been observed, nor has it been observed emitting any positrons. Whereas EM fields do show up in experiments and do accelerate plasma, "dark energy" has never accelerated so much as a single electron or positron in a controlled experiment.

 

[Michael]

No we don't. We've got observations which we extrapolate the conclusions of spacetime curvatures.

True, but we have real examples of curvature and deflection of photons without dark energy or inflation.

Also, I don't need to show anything with dark energy.

You do if you expect to claim it 'causes' anything to happen.

You'd say but you'd still be wrong. How could we observe redshift when we only can observe photons (in this case I'm limiting the term observation to only include sight)?

I observe bumps in spectral outputs that are related to the energy states of various valence shells in various atoms. I can use that information to extrapolate an amount of 'redshift' at *some* wavelengths. I'd go that far. I won't go so far as to try to claim "dark energy did it" or "inflation did it". I'd simply agree that "redshift happens". Cause is another question entirely.

How can you convince me that I exist? That's something I've assumed since a long time ago and I'm really interested in knowing how you know this.

For starters, you regularly and intelligently respond to my posts. You're consistent in terms of "personality" as well.

I was talking (writing) about the general concept, not anything specific.
It'd take the redshift we've observed and promote it to a fact. As you'd in-explicitly assumed already.
Please keep in mind that if I use general terminology, I most likely am talking about the general concepts.

It's noteworthy that you're correct that some "extrapolation"/subjective determination takes place to even come to the agreement that we observe redshift. I'm not really arguing that point however so I fail to see why it's even an issue.

Again with the lab. That is an unnecessary criteria.

Why is it a necessary criteria when it involves the topic of God?

Also, that plasma redshift is what we've discussed earlier, correct? If so, that observed lack of scattering is unconvincing.

Those experimental laboratory verifications of inelastic scattering, along with those observed "limited amount of scattering" from high redshifted objects isn't convincing to you perhaps, but it's plenty convincing to me.

You'd literally need the laws of physics in plasma in space to work *differently* than they do in the lab for *zero* amount of inelastic scattering to occur in space.

My universe is, I assume, the same as your universe.

You'd think they would be the same universe, but my universe includes a highly visible God, and it doesn't include any dark energy or dark matter, or inflation. We "seem" to live in the very same universe, but we clearly perceive that universe quite differently.

You're not careful enough with your terminology and you're not keeping in mind what the base for the scientific framework is.
If we're going down to the philosophical bases you cannot make statements like that and get away with it.

Let's keep a sense of humor here. You have to at least admit that philosophically speaking, the universe that I describe, and the the universe that you describe are very different. My universe includes 'electric suns', a highly *visible* and interactive God, and the universe is composed of exactly the the same elements and energies that we find on Earth. Is that the universe you live in?

Nope. You're failing to see the difference between neutrality and acceptance. Sometimes you also confuse neutrality with rejection.

Maybe. It get's subtle at times.

Honestly, there's such a concept as "not taking a stance in the matter". I'm a big fan of that since it relieves me of much work required to take honest informed decisions.

In my experience it's very hard to sit on the razor's edge without forming opinions that skew one's viewpoints one way or the other.

A "lack of belief" is typically used by atheists to justify their active *disbelief* in God, not "neutrality". Just listen to one of Krauss's speeches sometime.

It's no difference. The lack of faith is there in both cases (in as many as I can imagine, in fact).
As stated before, you're confusing neutrality with the two other stances.

I'd say that you come closer than most to a 'neutral' perspective, but then you're attempting to justify a supposedly 'neutral' perspective *in spite of* the evidence IMO. All the simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC and the Higgs was found at an energy state that is entirely consistent with the standard particle physics model. There is no evidence of exotic matter.

Likewise the universe contains structures that are larger than should exist if "inflation did it" according to all their previous predictions. Now you're just fine with them moving the goal posts to "make it fit" with whatever we happen to observe in space. The whole concept of being "neutral" in that way precludes one from ever falsifying anything!

 

[Elendur]

If there is no logical way to falsify the theory, it's not 'science', it's 'religion'. I'm fine with the mainstream having a pet religion as long as they identify it as a religion rather than a form of *empirical science*. On the other hand, attempting to market a "religion" as a form of "science' is in fact "false advertizing'. It's a "buyer beware" claim and a dubious one at that.

That's a big if.

It's fine if they want to "update" their theory, but when the "update" involves changing virtually every parameter *and the layout of matter* claims they made, then it's just another "supernatural inflation god' claim. There's no way to actually falsify the theory because they keep changing the core claims to match observation!

Isn't that a good thing? Or is it that you're bothered with the name?

I'm not sure what definition you're looking for at this point. In terms of the numerous definitions of inflation, most of them impose limits on the largest physical structures that can exist at around 1 billion light years, postdicted of course to fit the largest structures known to exist.

It's hard to try to sort out what you're trying to communicate when you're using terminology that is redundant some times. Therefore I asked what you meant (asked you to define) when you mentioned "definitive evidence".

Now we find that there are structures about 4 times that size. David is apparently *desperate* (and intent) on 'breaking it apart' into smaller chunks, and shows no signs of 'giving up his religion'. In fact, based on Arxiv papers on Planck data sets, it's clear that the entire industry is doing "an about face" on the whole "homogenous" issue. Now they're moving the goal posts at record speeds *away from* homogenous distribution of matter.

I have no idea what significance that entails.

So "dark energy" need not even be an actual form of 'energy' as far as you know? What is actually left of your term now, the term "dark"? How is that any better than claim "I don't know", or "God did it", or "it's magic"?

My claim hasn't differed from "I don't know", however I showed you how I could make a simple conclusion (no matter if correct or not) that would result in some kind of energy.

If redshift occurs.
Then I 'know' of one 'mechanism' that could produce it, acceleration.
If acceleration occurs.
Then I 'know' of one 'mechanism' that could produce it, energy.

Honestly, if you can't be sure it's even "energy" that's driving acceleration, how can you even be sure there is "dark energy" in the universe?

Have I given you the impression that I'm sure, or even if I think there is?

But that's the entire problem in a nutshell from my perspective. You're starting off with a bad set of assumptions and therefore arriving at bad conclusions. Guth "assumed" the universe had no preferred direction, and had no 4 billion year long structures in it. He made up a whole "religion" to explain why the universe was so evenly distributed, claiming that his 'free lunch' theory solved a "missing monopole" problem too! None of his assumptions or "justifications" turns out to have any merit whatsoever in Planck data sets. The universe has a preferred direction, and it's got 4 billion year long "structures" embedded in it. Physics tells us there cannot be a "free lunch" since energy cannot be created nor destroyed and our universe is filled with energy. Monopoles and unicorns need no explanation as to the *reason for their non existence*. All of Guth's claims were bogus.

How do you know energy cannot be created or destroyed?
That seems like a huge assumption to me.

Dark matter is falsely "assumed" to release positrons, yet every simple SUSY theory bit the dust at LHC. Therefore any "conclusion" they make about positrons in space is necessarily a "bad conclusion". Since they go out of their way to hide the fact that electrical discharges are a natural and a known source of positrons, both in the Earth's atmosphere and the solar atmosphere, it's hard to take them seriously. Their entire argument is a "bait and switch" game!

I don't think it's very nice of you to rant only about things I don't know anything about.
I don't know if they've assumed anything about the positrons, which kind of gives away that I don't know what they've assumed and possibly why.
I don't know if it "bit the dust".
I don't know about your "therefore".
I don't know if they hide the "hide the fact that electrical discharges are a natural and a known source of positrons" (which I doubt, since that another conspiracy indication).
I don't know (though I have a strong suspicion of the opposite) if it's a ""bait and switch" game".

I'm going to have to break this down in chunks today, but I'll nibble at it as I get time.

Sure thing.

 

[Elendur]

You do seem to defend it as a form of "science" when it fact it's an unfalsifiable claim. Why are you defending Lambda-CDM theory?

It's not defending that so much as that I'm not letting your claims slide, since plenty of them are containing either obvious errors and/or redundancy that induces lack of objectivity in the reader.

"Distance" is defined in geometry, and 'spacetime' is defined in GR. "Space" is a metaphysical kludge devoid of definition or support.

Distance in what room? Distance in 1-D? 2-D? 3-D? n-D? The complex plane?
Distance comes after defining defining the room, in many cases called space. Especially if you're talking about 3-D.

I think you're talking inflation, and I'm talking God. In fact many humans have reported life change due to the influence of something they call "God" in their lives. Jesus is one example.

Ah, I was under the impression you were talking (writing) about the physics. Well, that's a good example of what I was talking (writing) about.
Many people have also reported life change from waking up in cold sweat during the night due to nightmares about hell.
Just saying, if someone want me to accept something that is of utmost personal significance they'd better have some very convincing evidence.

If it's possible for your to "lack belief" in all supernatural and even all natural concepts of God, then it's entirely possible for you to 'lack belief' in concepts of inflation, or all concepts related to "dark energy", or all concepts related to magic. What controlled experimental evidence from the lab do you have to support any of these ideas/claims? Why "lack belief" in one, yet not "lack belief" in all of them?

I do.
I'd be crazy to believe something just because of a label.
I do however concern myself with, what I perceive as, demands of "take-whatever-claim-you'd-like" that are ill-formed.
If I'd see someone who'd ask an explanation of the Taxi-Cab geometry from genesis 1, I'd also protest. Possibly until I'd been sufficiently convinced that I'm wrong.
"Huh, guess what, they'd actually explain the T-C geometry in great detail there. I had no idea."

Likewise, if I see someone who asks inflation to be shown "in the lab", where it wouldn't be expected to be measured with the current technology.
Likewise, if I see someone who claims that something can be replaced, but cannot explain obvious flaws in the replacement.
(Not that the last one is a direct comparison, it's more of a close relative)

My position is one of "lack of belief". I "lack belief" that inflation is anything other than a "religion" that Alan Guth dreamed up in his head one day. It's morphed into a whole series of "religions" now since there are almost as many variations on inflation as there are variations of 'Christianity'.

That's not "lack of belief". That's rejection.
Also, note the derogatory terminology you use. That's kind of a give-away that you're not close to being neutral.

If they cannot demonstrate their claims in court, it's "false advertizing". I simply lack believe that inflation exists(ed) or moves(d) anything. I lack belief that dark energy accelerates anything. I lack belief in exotic forms of matter that emit positrons when they burp (or self destruct). None of these mainstream claims enjoys even the least bit of empirical support at the level of experimental physics. I therefore "lack belief" in Lambda-CDM and their claims are clearly "bait and switch" in nature.

Yet you've given me plenty of reasons to believe that you're rejecting it.

Is it sound for you to reject all forms of God, even ones that do not assume that God 'meddles" in his creation?

I don't reject them. I lack belief in them.
(Not all, of course, some I've actually had time and interest to form an opinion about and reject)

I can choose to "lack belief" in something that fails to have any effect on me, can't I? What evidence do you even have that "dark energy" is in fact a form of energy rather than a curvature of spacetime?

Lack belief, yes. Reject is harsher and demand more of an honest person.
(I have a slight memory that I'd actually confused the two in an earlier post, some months ago, but cut me a slack I'm 23, still a kid basically)
I have no evidence. Nor have I observed enough evidence to form an honest, informed decision. Therefore I remain neutral.

I'd say I have every right to 'lack belief' in mainstream claims.

Indeed.

I started by reading about five textbooks on plasma physics and electric universe theory for starters. I have continuously studied the claims of mainstream theory, along with all their moving of the goalposts. I've got numerous ways to explain acceleration that do no involved "new" forms of energy or matter. I've got numerous ways to explain the emission of positrons without resorting to exotic matter claims, most of which went up in smoke at the LHC.

I have 15+ books about mathematics and I still don't feel as if I have enough to debate math seriously. There is some stuff that I feel as if I have a grip on but those things are refined and simplified results that aren't near controversy.
Five books isn't all that impressive to me.

I'm putting my free time now into studying inelastic scattering papers and such.

Great.

What more 'information' do I need to finally dismiss a "religion" that keeps failing it's key predictions and keeps being modified with ever more complex 'metaphysics'?

How about just plain "more about the subject"?
(Ignoring your use of derogatory terminology)

Several SUSY theories made predictions about the energy states of various 'sparticles', all of which were falsified at LHC. That hasn't stopped them from "moving the goalposts" further up the energy scale, and it hasn't stopped them from ignoring the obvious causes of positron emissions in favor of exotic matter of the gaps claims.

As mentioned in the previous post:
I don't think it's very nice of you to rant only about things I don't know anything about.
I get the impression that it's only because you want to "win some cheap points".

Likewise I've watched them modify their 'largest structure' claims to fit an every more "complex" set of features we find in the universe. I've watched them backpeddle like crazy over the homogenous layout of matter claims. I've watched them write more papers to simply "ignore their failed predictions" without respect to any sense of "falsification'. How much evidence is necessary before it's logical to simply "lack belief" in a claim that has no falsification mechanism, and that is predicated upon three forms of theoretical forms of matter and energy?

You'd need no evidence to lack belief.
You'd need a lot more to make an informed decision.
Again:
I don't think it's very nice of you to rant only about things I don't know anything about.

You tell me. When is "enough' simply 'enough' in terms of the problems with any given cosmology theory (or other scientific theory)? When do we 'give up" on SUSY theory? Are the next round of 'tests' at LHC enough to toss out WIMP theory altogether, or shall the "gaps' beyond LHC provide amply 'gaps' for the theory to 'live on' inside the imagination of the mainstream?

What makes you think I'm qualified to determine any of that?

I think you're *assuming* that I'm required to support my claims, when it fact I simply "lack belief" in the claims made by the mainstream. Whereas electrical discharges are a known source of positrons in both the Earth's atmosphere and the solar atmosphere, exotic matter has never been observed, nor has it been observed emitting any positrons. Whereas EM fields do show up in experiments and do accelerate plasma, "dark energy" has never accelerated so much as a single electron or positron in a controlled experiment.

Should I interpret this as you don't feel as if you have to back up claims you make?
That's kind of a logical step from how you should debate/discuss things.

You're making actual claims against "the mainstream" and outright rejecting results and constructs by them. That isn't lacking belief.
Similarly, I'm not lacking belief in your scattering idea. I reject it due to my perceived contradictions of expected observations and actual observations.


I'm taking a break, will respond to the third part in an hour or two. Depending on how long time the response takes to write.

 

[Elendur]

True, but we have real examples of curvature and deflection of photons without dark energy or inflation.

Well, real derived examples at best

You do if you expect to claim it 'causes' anything to happen.

If you mean you as in the general sense, then I'd agree fully (within reasonable bounds of "show anyhing").
If you mean you as in me, then I'd have to protest and state that I'm not claiming anything of the sorts.

I observe bumps in spectral outputs that are related to the energy states of various valence shells in various atoms. I can use that information to extrapolate an amount of 'redshift' at *some* wavelengths. I'd go that far. I won't go so far as to try to claim "dark energy did it" or "inflation did it". I'd simply agree that "redshift happens". Cause is another question entirely.

And that is a prime example of the power of conclusions from observations.

For starters, you regularly and intelligently respond to my posts. You're consistent in terms of "personality" as well.

Well I'll give you that it's a kind of evidence, however strictly speaking one can't really trust that evidence because you'd still, fundamentally, have to assume that you exist.
I've yet to find a way around that. Of course, I haven't explored it so much since it feels as a reasonable assumption.

It's noteworthy that you're correct that some "extrapolation"/subjective determination takes place to even come to the agreement that we observe redshift. I'm not really arguing that point however so I fail to see why it's even an issue.

It's an issue because I'm trying to keep the discussion at a level where we can sort out fundamental differences (and hopefully learn something on the way there).
It's obvious we have different knowledge of the issues we discuss and that we've got different opinions in 'high-level' issues.
Since I cannot spend enough time to take my knowledge to your level and then work from there I'd have to take the discussion down to a level where we can come to an agreement and then work our way upward to the point where we had the original issues (if we still remember it ) or, at some point, agree to disagree.

I like to exemplify it by imagining two persons standing and getting ready to fence only to discover that they're standing on two completely separate mountains.
They can fence around all they want on each side, without any real use coming from it, or work their way down to common ground.

Of course, it may seem unnecessary if one doesn't value the path to the goal as much as the goal (or even more, as I do)

Why is it a necessary criteria when it involves the topic of God?

It certainly isn't. It's a redundant criteria, as I have stated since I first took notice of your use of it.

Those experimental laboratory verifications of inelastic scattering, along with those observed "limited amount of scattering" from high redshifted objects isn't convincing to you perhaps, but it's plenty convincing to me.

You'd literally need the laws of physics in plasma in space to work *differently* than they do in the lab for *zero* amount of inelastic scattering to occur in space.

Sure, that's something I've agreed to a long time ago.

If there occurs scattering in plasma and there is plasma in space then there occurs scattering in space.

However, to me there seems to be an obvious lack of amount of said scattering to explain the redshift due to lack of expected consequences.

You'd think they would be the same universe, but my universe includes a highly visible God, and it doesn't include any dark energy or dark matter, or inflation. We "seem" to live in the very same universe, but we clearly perceive that universe quite differently.

Well honestly, I haven't perceived any of those. From what others have claimed it's quite a lot I haven't perceived and I'd say it's safe to assume that it's (i.e. what I've perceived) closer to 0% than any other integer percentage.

Let's keep a sense of humor here. You have to at least admit that philosophically speaking, the universe that I describe, and the the universe that you describe are very different. My universe includes 'electric suns', a highly *visible* and interactive God, and the universe is composed of exactly the the same elements and energies that we find on Earth. Is that the universe you live in?

I'd have to answer "I don't know".
Depending on how I divide that sentence and analyze each part I find things I agree with, things I disagree with and things I honestly, and quickly, can state that I don't know. All depending on definitions and base assumptions.

Maybe. It get's subtle at times.

Indeed. I can't say that I haven't failed a countless number of times myself.
It's easier to point than see.

In my experience it's very hard to sit on the razor's edge without forming opinions that skew one's viewpoints one way or the other.

I agree, I think the trick is to try to carefully memorize, analyze and distance oneself from those opinions before they fade from ones awareness (if one is aware of them to begin with).

A "lack of belief" is typically used by atheists to justify their active *disbelief* in God, not "neutrality". Just listen to one of Krauss's speeches sometime.

Yeah. I can't really argue against that.
I like to think they try to make the distinction of belief and where they can go without belief though. That was at least how I started out and then I discarded all beliefs I couldn't defend (of course, assuming I found them to begin with). The surviving ones were few and I've put them as basic assumptions.

I'd say that you come closer than most to a 'neutral' perspective, but then you're attempting to justify a supposedly 'neutral' perspective *in spite of* the evidence IMO. All the simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC and the Higgs was found at an energy state that is entirely consistent with the standard particle physics model. There is no evidence of exotic matter.

I don't think I possess enough knowledge of the matter to form an honest educated opinion. I don't even think I could start to evaluate most of the evidence before educating myself on several areas.

Likewise the universe contains structures that are larger than should exist if "inflation did it" according to all their previous predictions. Now you're just fine with them moving the goal posts to "make it fit" with whatever we happen to observe in space. The whole concept of being "neutral" in that way precludes one from ever falsifying anything!

Sure, it's a hassle to falsify things. But if they have no bearing on your life, do they need to be falsified?
I'd rather take an arduous road to inform myself and then properly state my opinion along with my reasons for doing so than to state my opinion and do a lot of research retroactively to inform others of what I haven't taken into account.
Why I'd to that research retroactively is because I want my thought process to be as transparent as possible so that others, who'd take part of my opinion, would be helped in forming their own. Or, more importantly, point out the errors in my reasoning.

That's my ideal, for now. I have my goal and strive to accomplish as much of it as I possibly can.

 

[Michael]

That's a big if.

Our conversation is getting rather lengthy my friend. I will have to pick and choose what to respond to as I get time, probably one idea at a time. If I miss something that you feel is important, let me know.

How exactly could we ever hope to falsify Lambda-CDM theory?

Since there is no 'laboratory data' to work with related to inflation, dark energy or dark matter, there is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics. The mainstream for instance asserts that *all* inelastic scattering events must produce a significant photon deflection based apparently on a few laboratory tests related to *Compton* (and only Compton) scattering, and one published astronomy paper written in 1929. Since there is some *ancient/limited* laboratory data to 'latch on to', it's possible to at least 'argue against' some specific *physical* idea. In the case of the mainstream, they use that small laboratory data set, and apparently only one published astronomy paper, to argue against "inelastic scattering" as the real 'cause' of photon redshift. I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.

If they can also start shifting the goal posts at will related to the "made up properties" that they can assign to the their invisible 'sky gods', the religion becomes completely unfalsifiable! The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.

How then can we ever hope to falsify or even argue against such a theory? The whole thing is a religious 'creation mythology' that comes with ever changing math.

How can such a theory ever be falsified. You tell me.

 

[Michael]

Isn't that a good thing? Or is it that you're bothered with the name?

I'm bothered by the lack of empirical laboratory support, and the lack of an ability to ever falsify the 'religion'. Since their belief system lacks any empirical support, and experienced some empirical *falsification* at LHC, there is no way to ever fully falsify "dark entity of the gaps" arguments in the lab. If the various "properties" of their sky entities can be modified at will to suit any occasion, and any observation, what possible falsification mechanism is possible? That isn't "science" anymore, that's "religion", in fact it's "bad religion" that actually goes *against* the empirical findings thus far at LHC.

It's hard to try to sort out what you're trying to communicate when you're using terminology that is redundant some times. Therefore I asked what you meant (asked you to define) when you mentioned "definitive evidence".

The concept of 'definitive evidence' seems to be *highly subjective*. For instance, there is 'definitive evidence' IMO that electrical discharges are the actual "cause" of positron creation. Such events create them in our own atmosphere, and electrical discharges create them in the solar atmosphere as well. Rhessi observes this on a *daily* basis when pointed at Earth. It's the known "natural" cause of positron emissions inside of our solar system.

On the other hand, the mainstream is trying to claim "dark matter did it" in *spite of* the LHC data. All their "simple" SUSY theories bit the dust, and their entire argument has become a 'SUSY particle of the gaps" argument.

The most obvious 'cause' of plasma acceleration is the EM field. We use EM field to accelerate plasma at LHC in fact. Instead of attempting to describe acceleration based on EM fields however, the mainstream simply 'dreamed up' a magical form of energy. Why?

I have no idea what significance that entails.

Assuming it "holds up", it's a deal breaker for mainstream theory. If they simple 'fudge around it', they effectively leave no logical way to falsify the theory.

My claim hasn't differed from "I don't know", however I showed you how I could make a simple conclusion (no matter if correct or not) that would result in some kind of energy.

But even *if* acceleration is occurring, it need not involve *energy* at all! That's the whole point!

If redshift occurs.
Then I 'know' of one 'mechanism' that could produce it, acceleration.
If acceleration occurs.
Then I 'know' of one 'mechanism' that could produce it, energy.

Sure, *EM* energy! Gravitational field energy too.

Have I given you the impression that I'm sure, or even if I think there is?

Not personally. I don't however see much consistency in your application of neutrality. I don't see you defending "God" concepts for instance with the same "vigor" that you've defended inflation, dark energy and mythical forms of matter. Why not? The "neutrality" thing seems a bit fuzzy to me.

How do you know energy cannot be created or destroyed?
That seems like a huge assumption to me.

It's a "law" of physics. I have to 'assume' the "laws" of physics are accurate until someone demonstrates it's false.

I don't think it's very nice of you to rant only about things I don't know anything about.

You don't know anything less about "dark energy", 'dark matter' or inflation than any other scientist on the planet. Not one of them can tell you where any of it comes from either. :")

I don't know if they've assumed anything about the positrons, which kind of gives away that I don't know what they've assumed and possibly why.

According to the quotes from the guy in charge of the program, they 'assume' they may come from a mythical form of matter. They never even *mentioned* the *known* cause, the *natural* cause, and the the "likely" cause, specifically *electrical discharges*. The whole mainstream avoids electricity in space like the plague when it comes to high energy events. They simply *run* from the *obvious* solution to these observations, and *pretend* that some mythical sky entity did it.

I don't know if it "bit the dust".

All the "simple" and "popular" SUSY theory expected various 'sparticles" to exist in the energy ranges that we have already studied at LHC. Nothing has been seen. The gaps are going higher and higher up the energy spectrum now. The "popular" brands of SUSY theory 'bit the dust'. What's left now are the "least popular" (going into the LHC experiments), and the "newly made up" brands of SUSY theory. It's literally become a SUSY theory of the gaps argument.

I don't know about your "therefore".
I don't know if they hide the "hide the fact that electrical discharges are a natural and a known source of positrons" (which I doubt, since that another conspiracy indication).

Did you see any mention of electrical discharges in the interview? Did they mention the fact that positrons are released in electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere? Why not? Being dishonest isn't always based upon what one says, but what one does *not* say.

I don't know (though I have a strong suspicion of the opposite) if it's a ""bait and switch" game".

When the "natural" cause is clear, in this case "electrical discharges", and they never bother to mention it, I can't help but start to wonder. Either the most "likely" cause never actually crossed their mind, or they failed to consider it. They never bothered to mention it. Assuming there is no "'conspiracy", then there is a *blatant* problem with their lack of knowledge about basic plasma physics. Which is it?

 

[Michael]

'Dark Lightning' Zaps Airplane Passengers With Gamma Rays, Scientists Say

Hey look, I found their positron emissions from "dark matter". It's actually "dark electrical discharges".

 

[Michael]

It's not defending that so much as that I'm not letting your claims slide, since plenty of them are containing either obvious errors and/or redundancy that induces lack of objectivity in the reader.

And you think the mainstream's attitude is "objective"? Who's going to defend empirical physics against "bad metaphysical religion" if I don't do it? Did you actually think my intent in this thread was to leave the reader with a 'neutral' viewpoint toward mainstream astronomy?

Distance in what room? Distance in 1-D? 2-D? 3-D? n-D? The complex plane?
Distance comes after defining defining the room, in many cases called space. Especially if you're talking about 3-D.

Again, "distance" is physically defined. "Spacetime" is physically defined in GR. "Space" is not defined in GR and it's not defined in any meaningful way. It's a "metaphysical" term. What exactly 'expands' when 'space' expands?

Ah, I was under the impression you were talking (writing) about the physics. Well, that's a good example of what I was talking (writing) about.
Many people have also reported life change from waking up in cold sweat during the night due to nightmares about hell.
Just saying, if someone want me to accept something that is of utmost personal significance they'd better have some very convincing evidence.

It's the term "convincing evidence" that gets "subjective" almost immediately. Humans for instance will specifically tell you that "God" had some influence on their lives. Nobody "tells you" that inflation had some effect on them one day. Inflation isn't even fully defined because there isn't *one* of them to start with, there are *dozens* of variations on the same metaphysical theme.

Sorry about picking apart your posts like this, but it's the only way I'll be able to respond to your posts today.

 

[Michael]

AMS experiment measures antimatter excess in space | CERN press office

Conspiracy or incompetence?

However, the AMS measurement can not yet rule out the alternative explanation that the positrons originate from pulsars distributed around the galactic plane. Supersymmetry theories also predict a cut-off at higher energies above the mass range of dark matter particles, and this has not yet been observed. Over the coming years, AMS will further refine the measurement’s precision, and clarify the behaviour of the positron fraction at energies above 250 GeV. “When you take a new precision instrument into a new regime, you tend to see many new results, and we hope this this will be the first of many,” said Ting. “AMS is the first experiment to measure to 1% accuracy in space. It is this level of precision that will allow us to tell whether our current positron observation has a Dark Matter or pulsar origin.”

The fact that Ting never even once cites or mentions the *known and natural* source of positrons and the cause of high energy gamma ray emissions can be explained either by "conspiracy", or by pure incompetence. Which is it Elendur, you tell me?

 

[Michael]

I have 15+ books about mathematics and I still don't feel as if I have enough to debate math seriously. There is some stuff that I feel as if I have a grip on but those things are refined and simplified results that aren't near controversy.
Five books isn't all that impressive to me.

In my experience, that's typically five (sometimes four) more plasma physics textbooks than any of the 'electric universe haters" have ever, or will ever read.

It's hard to gauge too much about the mainstream competence in plasma physics based on my experiences around the internet, but I can tell you that they are generally pretty EU phobic, and few if any seem to understand much about plasma physics. I've seen *bunches* of them argue that "magnetic reconnection" can occur *without* any plasma particles in fact. It borders more on incompetence IMO, but there is a very small, vocal and active 'haters' cult that seems to delight in slamming empirical physics.

The absence of the mention of electrical discharges in space however is somewhat of a horse of a different color IMO. There is in fact a "knowledge" that these events occur, but there is in fact a complete lack of discussion about it within the various groups. I've sat in at whole meetings at LMSAL on the topic of solar physics where the term "electrical discharge" was never once mentioned. The feeling in the room is bit like the one you get when everyone in the room is dancing around the hat (or topic), while trying desperately *not* to touch the hat. It's almost entertaining if it weren't so sad.

When I see that kind of behavior being combined with articles like the one I cited that never mention the *known* cause of positrons, I start to worry about the integrity of the entire industry. The group as a whole cannot be that incompetent, and I've seen the way they behave on the internet.

As mentioned in the previous post:
I don't think it's very nice of you to rant only about things I don't know anything about.
I get the impression that it's only because you want to "win some cheap points".

I think you know more than the 'average joe' on this topic, and my intent is to "evoke change" from the mainstream, not simply "win cheap points". It's their aversion to empirical physics I find offensive, and that *must* change for any scientific progress to occur.

You'd need no evidence to lack belief.

I need no evidence to reject their claims. I have evidence however that their claims are bogus. It's bad enough to *not* mention that the simple SUSY theories have already been tested and falsified, but the fact they fail to mention the term 'electrical discharges' is preposterous and absurd. They have zero credible evidence that the emissions in question have anything at all to do with "dark matter". They have all the evidence in the universe that such high energy emissions are related to 'electrical discharges'. "There are none so blind as those who will not see"!

You're making actual claims against "the mainstream" and outright

That is correct. In the title of the thread I essentially claimed that they are engaging in deceptive advertizing. As time goes by I have continued to demonstrate my point, including the article related to positrons and gamma ray emissions. They never even *mentioned* the *most common* source!

rejecting results and constructs by them.

Actually, I'm doing something far worse from their perspective. I'm using science and the their own scientific results to demonstrate the fallacious nature of their claims. Simple and popular SUSY theories *have already been* tested at LHC. They all failed. We're into the 'dark matter of the gaps' realm now, waiting on the LHC upgrades. The astronomers are crossing both fingers, and praying to God (or their alternate sky gods in Krauss's case) that something shows up when they fire up LHC next year, or it's pretty much curtains for their religion.

Similarly, I'm not lacking belief in your scattering idea. I reject it due to my perceived contradictions of expected observations and actual observations.

That the place where your claim about 'neutrality' falls apart IMO. In fact we do have laboratory confirmation that inelastic scattering A) occurs in plasma, and B) causes photon redshift, and C) comes in various flavors.

Based apparently on one actual published paper from 1929 that talked about Compton scattering only, you *assume* somehow that inelastic scattering in the plasmas of spacetime *never* happens? How could such a *miracle* take place? How could every photon miraculously dodge and weave it's way around every plasma and dust particle, and every EM field and temperature gradient in spacetime over billions of light years?

In fact, we do have laboratory confirmation that EM fields accelerate plasma, and inelastic scattering in plasma produces redshift. You reject all that evidence.

You have absolutely ZERO laboratory data to link photons or plasma to dark energy or inflation or exotic matter. You buy their claims "hook line and sinker" and willingly publicly defend them? How exactly are you being "fair" in your "neutrality" here?