Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

One could say that there is "observational evidence' of fairies in human literature. Whatever.

Not really. Even in human literature, "fairies" typically appear as "fictional" characters. That's rather different from how God is portrayed in human literature.

So you agree that the mass is there. What the mass consists of is to be discovered.

A lot of "missing mass" has been "discovered" in recent years, but none of it in exotic forms of matter.

Milky Way Galaxy is dwarfed by its massive hot gas "halo"

Gibberish. How can you be sure that the universe is not expanding?

The universe would have to be expanding at faster than the speed of light for redshift to actually be related to expansion, and inelastic scattering occurs in nature, and in the lab.

If you have nothing, then just say you have nothing.

Exactly what sort of evidence do I need to reject your mythical 'invisible/dark sky deities' anyway? Can you show any cause/effect relationships between electrons and "dark energy" in a controlled test of your claim?

You did not address the question. We know what the field strengths are of the "god" helmut, MRIs, etc.

Likewise we know (or have some idea) about the voltages of a sun from Birkeland's work and Alfven's work.

What is the field strength of your "electric universe" on the biology on this planet?

Solar storm of 1859 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I certainly cannot hand you a single EM field strength number that applies in all places at all times. Is that what you're actually looking for? I'm not even certain of what you're asking me to give you.

 

[Davian]

Not really. Even in human literature, "fairies" typically appear as "fictional" characters. That's rather different from how God is portrayed in human literature.

Are you unfamiliar with the Cottingley Fairies?

A lot of "missing mass" has been "discovered" in recent years, but none of it in exotic forms of matter.

Milky Way Galaxy is dwarfed by its massive hot gas "halo"

What has that to do with my point?

The universe would have to be expanding at faster than the speed of light for redshift to actually be related to expansion, and inelastic scattering occurs in nature, and in the lab.

I asked, how can you be sure that the universe is not expanding?

Exactly what sort of evidence do I need to reject your mythical 'invisible/dark sky deities' anyway? Can you show any cause/effect relationships between electrons and "dark energy" in a controlled test of your claim?

To reiterate, if you have nothing, then just say you have nothing.

Likewise we know (or have some idea) about the voltages of a sun from Birkeland's work and Alfven's work.

Solar storm of 1859 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I certainly cannot hand you a single EM field strength number that applies in all places at all times. Is that what you're actually looking for? I'm not even certain of what you're asking me to give you.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Substantiate this statement.

 

[Michael]

Are you unfamiliar with the Cottingley Fairies?

Why yes, I was. However, according to your own link:

In the early 1980s Elsie and Frances admitted that the photographs were faked using cardboard cutouts of fairies copied from a popular children's book of the time, but Frances maintained that the fifth and final photograph was genuine. The photographs and two of the cameras used are on display in the National Media Museum in Bradford.

Not much there to work with in the literature I'm afraid, particularly since the cousins can't even agree on which ones might be faked, and they both agree that at least most of the images were faked. I'm afraid that's a far cry from a "holy book" of virtually any "religion" in terms of how "seriously" anyone treats it.

What has that to do with my point?

I asked, how can you be sure that the universe is not expanding?

I just told you. It would require that objects travel faster than the speed of light for redshift to be related to "spacetime" expansion. Objects in motion will stay in motion, but no object of mass can move faster than C. The universe is larger than 28 billion light years wide. Redshift can therefore *not* be completely related to expansion. I cannot rule out "spacetime expansion", where objects in motion stay in motion, but I can rule out magical claims about 'space" doing "magical expansion". What is "space" and how would it "expand"?

As I said, I think it's possible that *some* redshift could be related to Doppler shift, but not much.

To reiterate, if you have nothing, then just say you have nothing.

When you can get an object of mass to travel faster than C, then you can tell me I have "nothing". Until then, I have the laws of physics on my side. "Space" isn't even defined in GR, just distance and "spacetime". An explanation based on the Doppler shift of moving objects cannot and does not explain the redshift patterns we observe.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Substantiate this statement.

I did that in the previous link I handed you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

The EM fields from that flare of 1859 blew out every electrical piece of gear in use at the time. Another such flare would be likely to blow out huge chunks of the world's power grid if it caught us unprepared. That's unlikely IMO, but it's happened in the past. An EM universe has a real EM effect on humans and other objects.

 

[Michael]

continues:

Apparently I missed this entire post. We're already tackling the issues around SR/GR, so I'll ignore that stuff, but there are a few points worth responding to:

So anybody who defends a theory, no matter how incorrect or correct, can be described as emotionally attached to it as a rebuttal?

No, absolutely not. It all depends on how one *acts* as they "defend" their ideas. You're unique in the sense that you rely upon personal attack as your primary means of personal and emotional defense. You seem to have some strong emotional need to "kill the messenger" with a vengeance for having the audacity for pointing out the flaws in your beliefs.

You've only shown me Holushko (demonstrably wrong, faulty premise, not actually relevant to your idea even if it weren't wrong),

Since you didn't respond to the two VP papers I handed you, your claim about Holushko rings hollow. His work and their work are related works. They are all related to that MAGIC paper as well.

Ashmore (demonstrably wrong, errors in equations and doesn't satisfy conservation of energy-momentum which is entirely applicable on the quantum level),

Really? Then how did you deal with those two VP papers on a quantum level that I handed to you on a silver platter? Did I miss that response somewhere as well?

Chen (completely irrelevant as describes an entirely different induced effect that doesn't match observation)...

Only according to you, someone that seem intent on denying the effects of EM fields in space.

any others?

Actually, there could be countless others I'm simply not aware of, or I forgot to mention in this thread, like Emil Wolf's work, etc.

So, no you've not got any mathematical support.

You mean except that MAGIC paper, those VP papers, the whole body of Alfven's work, Birkeland's work, etc?

Yes, but that's not the end of the story...that's not the calculation.

That's not the calculation that *you* want to work with, that's all. I have no idea exactly how VP's interact photons in every possible scenario, and frankly neither do you. You're winging it based upon your own fixations. Whatever the actual process might be, the loss of energy from the photon results in a gain of energy from in the medium in all forms of inelastic scattering. Even a "unique" type of forward scattering would simply result in the particle/VP's/medium picking up that exact amount of energy. No energy would be gained or lost in *any* inelastic scattering, even forward scattering events.

Then prove it. Show me an equation with A) adding up to B). It's not hard.

I'm sure it's not hard if you simple *assume* that you don't have to learn anything about those VP papers I handed you, or ever respond to them!

You won't be able to precisely because you are wrong. It IS a violation of conservation of energy-momentum. Simply saying it's "not" isn't good enough. Prove it.

It couldn't actually be "proven" mathematically by the way, it would have to be "proven" in the lab like Chen did it, only you'd have to test for the scattering angle aspects.

......because you don't know what you're talking about.

No, only when classical conservation of energy can be thought of in a meaningful sense, which is a subtlety you don't understand, because you don't understand this subject.

This, along with all your high school references, are perfect examples of the emotional and aggressive nature of your zealous defense of your "religion". You apparently have a very hard time simply *accepting* that every theory has it's own unique 'weaknesses', including your sacred dark sky theory. No theory is perfect. Instead of simply noting and accepting the problems of your theory you seem to have a strong need to "lash out" at anyone and everyone that points them out to you. You attack the *INDIVIDUAL* not the *TOPIC*. It's that kind of behavior that makes you unique. Not all "scientists" have the need to kill the messenger, and many of them recognize and accept the problems within their cosmology beliefs. Few if any feel the need to 'defend" their cosmology beliefs publicly.

I repeat.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I repeat, this conversation isn't about me, and I know enough to call you on your desire to even *start* with GR, when you have no business in the universe starting with anything other than SR! Cornering you over that issue is more than most folks will ever do.

I have stuff to do tonight, so I'll stop here for now and see if there was anything important I missed as I get time.

 

[Michael]

No, they're hypotheses with solid mathematical models that can be falsified, and people are actively trying to do so. Religion professes absolute truth. Science does not.

This point caught my eye, and I just had to respond.

You ignored the implications of those mathematical models as it relates to SUSY theory and that falsification process you claim to hold so dear. SUSY theory *failed* it's "golden test" in the lab. Not one single hint of *any* SUSY particle has been observed, and all the "popular" models *were already falsified*. You're clinging now to a dark matter of the gaps argument.

You utterly and completely ignored the falsification process and your beloved math formulas as it relates to that 4 billion long structure in space too!

On top of it all, you pretty much outright ignored all that plasma around the galaxy (euphemistically called "gas" by your industry) which is not accounted for in your mathematical models in terms of it's location! You really don't CARE one iota as far as I can tell about the actual *falsification* potential of those mathematical models you present, otherwise SUSY theory is toast, along with WIMPS and all SUSY particles. Your galaxy mass estimates were a joke. SUSY theory already failed it's "golden test"! What other falsification mechanism is possible at the moment since you can simply stuff the gaps up the energy ladder as far as you want and I can't stop you?

Your "faith' in Lambda-CDM seems pretty darn strong to me, so much so that you feel the emotional need to attack the messenger in nearly every post. That type of emotional reaction and unethical nonsense is not unlike the strong emotional reaction of any two bit religious zealot.

 

[Elendur]

Wait... Michael...

Do you believe in absolutes?

If yes:
Do you believe that we have discovered any of those absolutes and sucessfully defined them?

 

[davidbilby]

Since you didn't respond to the two VP papers I handed you, your claim about Holushko rings hollow. His work and their work are related works. They are all related to that MAGIC paper as well.

Why, yes I did. I did respond. My response was simple...it was along the lines of "surely you can't be so silly as to think that virtual particles are the solution to all your problems".

Because that would be so catastrophically ridiculous and contradictory as to make you look like a fool. And I don't like to do that but...well, you asked for it.

Your complaint about non-baryonic dark matter is, in essence, that it is made of hypothetical particles that have never been observed, a purely mathematical construct at this juncture, a hypothesis built to explain certain observations. It is "shy in the lab" (your lousy terminology, not mine). Therefore they don't exist, according to you.

But wait.

Virtual particles are...hold on a minute...yes...they are hypothetical particles that have never been observed, a purely mathematical construct at this juncture, a hypothesis built to explain certain observations!.

So your reliance upon them as mechanism of redshift is absurd, since it logically contradicts your insistence upon "if I can't see it in the lab, it doesn't exist". Absurd. If you thrash about wildly without knowing what you're talking about, you make silly mistakes like this. I'd not really answered it because frankly, it was such a ridiculous suggestion coming from your position. You are apparently fine with 'unobservable in the lab' particles, just provided they seem to support your position. Heh.

Secondly, if you insist upon suggesting VPs as a luminiferous aether so you can relate it to Holushko, it only shows that you did NOT understand the 2 VP papers. Because that is not what they say. At all. At any point. In the slightest.

If you'd like to state otherwise, that is a truly extraordinary claim - please cite the portion of the paper that you think does propose them as an aether or aether-like solution. Please.

Holushko's nonsense is not related to these papers in any way.

Next you'll be telling me that the missing baryonic matter and non-baryonic matter is to be found in virtual particles....

 

[davidbilby]

I repeat, this conversation isn't about me, and I know enough to call you on your desire to even *start* with GR, when you have no business in the universe starting with anything other than SR! Cornering you over that issue is more than most folks will ever do.

Beg pardon? I have no "business" with it? What kind of crazy statement is that?

General Relativity is one of the most solid empirically tested mathematical theories ever....you have a bizarre relationship with it, sometimes you seem to love it, sometimes you seem to hate it, but you never seem to actually post anything intelligent as regards it. (I'm yet to see it anyhow).

Specifically, please point to any part of GR that you think I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Davian]

Why yes, I was. However, according to your own link:

Not much there to work with in the literature I'm afraid, particularly since the cousins can't even agree on which ones might be faked, and they both agree that at least most of the images were faked. I'm afraid that's a far cry from a "holy book" of virtually any "religion" in terms of how "seriously" anyone treats it.

All I need to show is that someone believed faires to be real. As for the comparison to gods, we are just arguing percentages.

I just told you. It would require that objects travel faster than the speed of light for redshift to be related to "spacetime" expansion. Objects in motion will stay in motion, but no object of mass can move faster than C. The universe is larger than 28 billion light years wide. Redshift can therefore *not* be completely related to expansion. I cannot rule out "spacetime expansion", where objects in motion stay in motion, but I can rule out magical claims about 'space" doing "magical expansion". What is "space" and how would it "expand"?

As I said, I think it's possible that *some* redshift could be related to Doppler shift, but not much.

If you understood the standard model, you would know that c is not a limiting factor.

Got anything else?

When you can get an object of mass to travel faster than C, then you can tell me I have "nothing". Until then, I have the laws of physics on my side. "Space" isn't even defined in GR, just distance and "spacetime". An explanation based on the Doppler shift of moving objects cannot and does not explain the redshift patterns we observe.

To reiterate, if you have nothing, then just say you have nothing to support your claim. Another swing at the standard model is irrelevant. A swing and another miss, at that.

I did that in the previous link I handed you.

Solar storm of 1859 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EM fields from that flare of 1859 blew out every electrical piece of gear in use at the time. Another such flare would be likely to blow out huge chunks of the world's power grid if it caught us unprepared. That's unlikely IMO, but it's happened in the past. An EM universe has a real EM effect on humans and other objects.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Don't move the goalposts to "other objects". Substantiate your statement, or concede that you do not have anything.

 

[Michael]

Wait... Michael...

Do you believe in absolutes?

Hmmm. That's an interesting question.

The knowledge of the existence of "God" would be the closest thing to an "absolute" from my perspective, but I'm not emotionally attached to any specific physical theory of God per se. I simply "have faith" in God with nearly "absolute" conviction. At this stage of my life, my "experiences" of God have been so consistent, and so prevalent, for so long in my life, my "faith" in God is pretty much absolute at this stage of my life. That's probably the closest thing to an "absolute" in my life.

I'd add one caveat and point out that my stint as an atheist in my youth allowed me to become comfortable living with "doubt" and ambiguity. There is some honest scientific 'doubt' in there somewhere, but I've simply learned to become "comfortable' with that ambiguity.

There may also be "absolute truths" as they relate to the laws of physics as it relates to photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons, etc, as well. Such physical laws as I understand them may be temporal in nature however. I simply don't know.

If yes:
Do you believe that we have discovered any of those absolutes and sucessfully defined them?

In terms of the laws of physics, I"d say that we are at least scratching the surface at this point. I'm certainly benefiting in a tangible way from an incomplete understanding of natures "laws". My computer is one such example.

I would say that humans also have an incomplete understanding of "God" as well, but again, I'd be the first to admit that it's an incomplete understanding of God, certainly in my case.

 

[Michael]

Why, yes I did. I did respond. My response was simple...it was along the lines of "surely you can't be so silly as to think that virtual particles are the solution to all your problems".

So your response amounts to personal ridicule and arguments from incredulity? Really? Your need a new song and dance routine.

Because that would be so catastrophically ridiculous

Only to you because you've become so emotionally attached to *one* specific solution.

and contradictory as to make you look like a fool. And I don't like to do that but...well, you asked for it.

More "attack the messenger" nonsense. Yawn. You really do spend an inordinate amount of time arguing against the individual rather than sticking to the topic. It gets old after awhile. We don't have to be "enemies" you know.

Your complaint about non-baryonic dark matter is, in essence, that it is made of hypothetical particles that have never been observed, a purely mathematical construct at this juncture, a hypothesis built to explain certain observations. It is "shy in the lab" (your lousy terminology, not mine). Therefore they don't exist, according to you.

That seems to be your basic theory with the concept you associate with God. In your mind "God" doesn't have any effect on you. As I perceive things, I'm physically incapable of being detached from God, and I'm nurtured by a living God every day of my life. The sunshine on my face is tangible evidence of his effect on my life in fact. Perception can be *everything* in terms of selectively interpreting the universe and 'God'.

At least the things I believe in all show up on Earth, including awareness in a variety of physical forms. The stuff you put your faith in has no effect on humans, fails it's own "golden tests", and fails to actually "explain" anything. Where does dark energy even come from?

But wait.

Virtual particles are...hold on a minute...yes...they are hypothetical particles that have never been observed, a purely mathematical construct at this juncture, a hypothesis built to explain certain observations!.

The difference is they show up in the lab, in controlled experimentation. The EM field for instance is thought to be composed of "virtual" photons. Whether they are "virtual" or not it highly debatable, but their effect is repeatable, and controllable in the lab. You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone explain a way to "control" it in any experiment on Earth.

So your reliance upon them as mechanism of redshift is absurd, since it logically contradicts your insistence upon "if I can't see it in the lab, it doesn't exist". Absurd.

That might be true *if* the EM field didn't show up in the lab in controlled experimentation. Since they do, your argument is rather "absurd". You actually shot yourself in the foot with that one.

If you thrash about wildly without knowing what you're talking about, you make silly mistakes like this.

Me? Does the EM field show up in the lab, yes or no? What is the EM field made of? Can we "control" it in active experimentation on Earth?

For a guy that makes so many silly mistakes, and lives in glass house, you sure throw a lot of personal stones.

I'd not really answered it because frankly, it was such a ridiculous suggestion coming from your position. You are apparently fine with 'unobservable in the lab' particles, just provided they seem to support your position. Heh.

The amazing part is the fact you think that an EM field fails to show up in a lab experiment.

Secondly, if you insist upon suggesting VPs as a luminiferous aether so you can relate it to Holushko, it only shows that you did NOT understand the 2 VP papers. Because that is not what they say. At all. At any point. In the slightest.

Baloney! They all work off a type of inelastic scattering, akin to Brillioun scattering. They all suggest that photons have to traverse a non uniform medium that has an influence on the travel times of various photons. You're so intent on *not* putting two and two together, it's painful to watch at this point.

If you'd like to state otherwise, that is a truly extraordinary claim - please cite the portion of the paper that you think does propose them as an aether or aether-like solution. Please.

Why bother? Holushko's revised paper doesn't even contain the word "aether" as far as I know. It's more of a "bumpy road" verbiage, that works just fine with any non uniform medium, including a non uniform EM field.

Holushko's nonsense is not related to these papers in any way.

That's absolutely false. They are all related papers, and all related to the MAGIC paper as well. You just can't handle that thought.

Next you'll be telling me that the missing baryonic matter and non-baryonic matter is to be found in virtual particles....

I'd be *far* more intrigued by any theory that treated all photons (including the virtual variety) as a form of 'moving mass" that varies with wavelength and varies in terms of it's location. That might be an interesting read. That's about the worst you could accuse me of I'm afraid.

 

[Michael]

Beg pardon? I have no "business" with it? What kind of crazy statement is that?

It's absolutely amazing to me how many of my direct questions you have intentionally avoided. I asked you how large your mass/energy 'clump' was prior to expansion. I got no direct answer. I asked you why you started with GR rather than SR. I got no answer. I asked you where dark energy comes from. I get no actual answer. This has all the earmarks of a one way conversation. Why aren't you addressing my key points?

General Relativity is one of the most solid empirically tested mathematical theories ever.

Agreed. As soon as you can explain *why* you think you get to start with GR rather than SR in your little creation mythos, I'll let you ride the coattails of GR theory. I still won't let you stuff magic into it mind you, but I'll at least understand where you get off even claiming you can use GR to explain the expansion of your "clump".

 

[Michael]

All I need to show is that someone believed faires to be real. As for the comparison to gods, we are just arguing percentages.

You could make that same claim about almost any topic, including inflation theory, dark energy theory, various mythical matter theories, electrical theory, various gravity theories, etc.

If you understood the standard model, you would know that c is not a limiting factor.

That's only because they quite literally 'cheat' with magic, and undefined mythical forms of "space". I have no idea where they even get off using GR in the first place if everything started from a singular thingy. At best case they start with an SR scenario and pure "magic".

Got anything else?

I don't need anything else. No one can prove a negative. You must support your claims. You can't demonstrate that 'space' does any sort of magical expansion tricks. You can't make objects of mass travel faster than C. I reject your theory for lack of physical evidence, and the gross violation of the laws of physics.

To reiterate, if you have nothing, then just say you have nothing to support your claim.

It's not my claim, it is your claim and it is you have that 'nothing' to support your claim. What controlled physical experiment shows that 'space' does any sort of magical expansion tricks? What is "space" and how does it physically "expand"? "Space" isn't even physically defined in GR, just 'spacetime (composed of objects) and distance. What the heck is "space"?

Another swing at the standard model is irrelevant. A swing and another miss, at that.

I don't have to swing at anything. I simply have to point out that you have no support for your claims. Objects in motion can be shown to stay in motion in the lab. Space doesn't expand in the lab.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Don't move the goalposts to "other objects". Substantiate your statement, or concede that you do not have anything.

I just handed you direct evidence that EM fields blew out the telegraph systems in 1859. What more did you want? Every aurora we observe is direct evidence of the EM fields of the universe and their tangible effect on humans. Have you ever seen an aurora or an image of an aurora?

 

[Davian]

You could make that same claim about almost any topic, including inflation theory, dark energy theory, various mythical matter theories, electrical theory, various gravity theories, etc.

No, not if you are doing science. But you are not doing science, are you Michael? Can you even respond once without slinging mud at the standard model?

That's only because they quite literally 'cheat' with magic, and undefined mythical forms of "space". I have no idea where they even get off using GR in the first place if everything started from a singular thingy. At best case they start with an SR scenario and pure "magic".

I don't need anything else. No one can prove a negative. You must support your claims. You can't demonstrate that 'space' does any sort of magical expansion tricks. You can't make objects of mass travel faster than C. I reject your theory for lack of physical evidence, and the gross violation of the laws of physics.

It may seem like magic to you. And it isn't my theory, but I will say that standard model does not make objects of mass travel faster than c. You are strawmanning again.

And looking at what you have written about the standard model, you are, in effect, saying that you "reject the laws of physics for lack of physical evidence, and the gross violation of the laws of physics".

The standard model *is* the standard model. lol.

It's not my claim, it is your claim and it is you have that 'nothing' to support your claim. What controlled physical experiment shows that 'space' does any sort of magical expansion tricks? What is "space" and how does it physically "expand"? "Space" isn't even physically defined in GR, just 'spacetime (composed of objects) and distance. What the heck is "space"?

I asked, what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion. If all you have is that one experiment, which does not have much value, I take it you have nothing. You switched the topic without answering my question, which appeared to be a concession of my point.

I don't have to swing at anything. I simply have to point out that you have no support for your claims. Objects in motion can be shown to stay in motion in the lab. Space doesn't expand in the lab.

No, you don't have to swing at anything, but you keep doing it. And irrelevant swings at the standard model are not addressing my points.

I just handed you direct evidence that EM fields blew out the telegraph systems in 1859. What more did you want? Every aurora we observe is direct evidence of the EM fields of the universe and their tangible effect on humans. Have you ever seen an aurora or an image of an aurora?

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Substantiate this statement. What is this "tangible effect? That our telephone system might break?

 

[Michael]

No, not if you are doing science. But you are not doing science, are you Michael? Can you even respond once without slinging mud at the standard model?

Your answer was non responsive. Virtually all ideas/theories could ultimately come down to "popularity", including Lambda-CDM. Your point then about 'a few folks believe in faeries" is irrelevant. Most folks do not believe in faeries, whereas most folks do believe in God as evidenced by the various literature.

It may seem like magic to you.

The claim that "space" does any expanding certainly lacks any empirical support in the lab! What else is that grandiose claim other than a "statement of faith" in the unseen (in the lab)?

And it isn't my theory,

Ok...

but I will say that standard model does not make objects of mass travel faster than c. You are strawmanning again.

No, it claims that "space" (physically undefined) does some sort of mythical expansion trick where nobody is looking. Talk about wild claims that lack any empirical support at all! Wow. GR doesn't even define "space" in the first place, just "spacetime" and "distance". What is "space"? How does it physically expand?

And looking at what you have written about the standard model, you are, in effect, saying that you "reject the laws of physics for lack of physical evidence, and the gross violation of the laws of physics".

Er no. Einstein's version of GR theory had a zero constant. That law of physics is fine. The magical "blunder" theories are an entirely different topic. Secondly, GR theory *doesn't even apply* to creation mythos that claim that all matter/energy was condensed to something smaller than a breadbox. SR would apply, but not GR! Get over any hope of riding the coattails of empirical physics with magical blunder theories. I know the difference between the two, as well as the difference between SR and GR.

The standard model *is* the standard model. lol.

It's "popular" perhaps, but it's still devoid of empirical support. When did "dark energy" ever accelerate a single electron in a lab?

I asked, what are these "empirical effects on human beings" that we can test for, specific to your religion. If all you have is that one experiment, which does not have much value, I take it you have nothing. You switched the topic without answering my question, which appeared to be a concession of my point.

It's unclear to me what point you think you're even trying to make.

I can at least dream up a real science experiment to "test" my ideas here and now, on Earth. Where would I get some "dark energy" to play with in a real lab?

No, you don't have to swing at anything, but you keep doing it. And irrelevant swings at the standard model are not addressing my points.

Your point isn't clear I'm afraid. Can you demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on even one ion, or one electron? Got an inflation generator in your back pocket? You seem to put *way* more requirements on anything related to the topic of "God" than you require from astronomers.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Substantiate this statement. What is this "tangible effect? That our telephone system might break?

Well, technically, that could be the outcome of a large flare, so yes it might.

You seem to be sidestepping the issue here entirely from my perspective. Those "God helmet" experiments suggest that external EM fields can and do have a direct impact on human thoughts and internal human experiences. EM fields *do* all kinds of things in space. The only really unique aspect of my religion that you might "test" is the EM interactions between universe and human.

 

[Michael]

No, you don't have to swing at anything, but you keep doing it.

Considering the topic of this particular thread, exactly what do you expect me to do in this thread anyway?

 

[Davian]

Your answer was non responsive. Virtually all ideas/theories could ultimately come down to "popularity", including Lambda-CDM.

No, don't conflate 'popularity with 'scientific consensus.'

Your point then about 'a few folks believe in faeries" is irrelevant. Most folks do not believe in faeries, whereas most folks do believe in God as evidenced by the various literature.

Irrelevant. Even if everyone believed in gods, it wouldn't make them real.

The claim that "space" does any expanding certainly lacks any empirical support in the lab! What else is that grandiose claim other than a "statement of faith" in the unseen (in the lab)?

Ok...

No, it claims that "space" (physically undefined) does some sort of mythical expansion trick where nobody is looking. Talk about wild claims that lack any empirical support at all! Wow. GR doesn't even define "space" in the first place, just "spacetime" and "distance". What is "space"? How does it physically expand?

So you admit that c is not a limiting factor for inflation theory?

Er no. Einstein's version of GR theory had a zero constant. That law of physics is fine. The magical "blunder" theories are an entirely different topic. Secondly, GR theory *doesn't even apply* to creation mythos that claim that all matter/energy was condensed to something smaller than a breadbox. SR would apply, but not GR! Get over any hope of riding the coattails of empirical physics with magical blunder theories. I know the difference between the two, as well as the difference between SR and GR.

It's "popular" perhaps, but it's still devoid of empirical support. When did "dark energy" ever accelerate a single electron in a lab?

So the standard model is "devoid of empirical support"? Do you find it difficult to get others to take you seriously when you say things like that?

It's unclear to me what point you think you're even trying to make.

I can at least dream up a real science experiment to "test" my ideas here and now, on Earth. Where would I get some "dark energy" to play with in a real lab?

Your point isn't clear I'm afraid.

My point was, when you "dream up" some successful experiments, let me know.

Can you demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on even one ion, or one electron? Got an inflation generator in your back pocket? You seem to put *way* more requirements on anything related to the topic of "God" than you require from astronomers.

With the 'popularity' of 'God' that shouldn't be a problem, should it?

Well, technically, that could be the outcome of a large flare, so yes it might.

You seem to be sidestepping the issue here entirely from my perspective. Those "God helmet" experiments suggest that external EM fields can and do have a direct impact on human thoughts and internal human experiences. EM fields *do* all kinds of things in space. The only really unique aspect of my religion that you might "test" is the EM interactions between universe and human.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Substantiate this statement. What is this "tangible effect? Can I use the EM field of a toaster oven to influence your thoughts?

Considering the topic of this particular thread, exactly what do you expect me to do in this thread anyway?

Dunno. Be intellectually honest? Provide straight answers to questions? Try not to be so evasive?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

As I perceive things, I'm physically incapable of being detached from God, and I'm nurtured by a living God every day of my life.

The crucial phrase here is how you "perceive things", or, to make it a little clearer, how you interpret things. From what you have written your interpretation appears to depend entirely on you arbitrarily assigning the label 'God' to anything that suits you.

The sunshine on my face is tangible evidence of his effect on my life in fact.

No, it is tangible evidence that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation. The rest is your own interpretation.

Perception can be *everything* in terms of selectively interpreting the universe and 'God'.

A clearer way of putting of would be: perceiving God depends on a selective interpretation the universe.

 

[Michael]

The crucial phrase here is how you "perceive things", or, to make it a little clearer, how you interpret things. From what you have written your interpretation appears to depend entirely on you arbitrarily assigning the label 'God' to anything that suits you.

Actually no. I'm *non arbitrarily* assigning the label "God" to the universe itself. I didn't invent the concept of Panentheism.

On the other hand, astronomers assign the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" to anything they wish. They discovered that they underestimated the mass in a galaxy. They call their estimation errors "dark matter"! Talk about arbitrary nonsense.

No, it is tangible evidence that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation. The rest is your own interpretation.

Your reaction to my statement is also your own interpretation.

A clearer way of putting of would be: perceiving God depends on a selective interpretation the universe.

So what? That same complaint *absolutely* applies to 'dark matter' theory, and dark energy theory, and inflation theory too. The difference is that other people (besides myself) have very personal experiences of something they call God. Dark energy however has no direct effect on any human on Earth, and nobody claims to have a relationship with dark energy.

 

[Michael]

No, don't conflate 'popularity with 'scientific consensus.'

In terms of what actually shows up in the lab and in terms of empirical physics, there is no difference. Belief in exotic matter is still a 'statement of faith' on the part of the believer.

Irrelevant. Even if everyone believed in gods, it wouldn't make them real.

But somehow in your mind some "missing mass" automatically turns into "exotic matter" just because some small group of "scientists" tell you what to think?

So you admit that c is not a limiting factor for inflation theory?

Well of course C isn't a limiting factor *anytime* that you resort to pure magic, and supernatural metaphysical constructs. You statement is like me asking you:
"So you admit that c is not a limiting factor for God theory?" What does C have to do with inflation? Care to show me that inflation has the ability to "accelerate" even a single electron?

So the standard model is "devoid of empirical support"? Do you find it difficult to get others to take you seriously when you say things like that?

Exactly what 'empirical support' does inflation theory enjoy in your opinion? Astronomers simply *ignore* the data that blows that theory out the water. Ditto for exotic matter. SUSY theory *utterly failed* it's own "golden test' at LHC. Nobody cares.

My point was, when you "dream up" some successful experiments, let me know.

SUSY theory *FAILED* it's golden test in the "experiments' we created. Now what? Are you just going to ignore the lab results you don't like?

With the 'popularity' of 'God' that shouldn't be a problem, should it?

Yes, it's a problem. You're assigning your requirements in a completely arbitrary and willy-nilly manner. There's no justification for requiring *more* evidence for "God" than for exotic forms of matter. Why?

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans". Substantiate this statement. What is this "tangible effect?

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all our brains create EM fields as the current flows through it. It's part of the "consciousness" process. There are *tons* of studies of EM fields on human beings, everything from cell phones, to power transmission cables.

Unlike your "dark energy", EM fields exist in nature. They have a tangible and real effect on real things in real labs. You'll have to face that reality sooner or later.

Can I use the EM field of a toaster oven to influence your thoughts?

You might make me hungry.

Dunno. Be intellectually honest? Provide straight answers to questions? Try not to be so evasive?

It's not being that's being evasive in this thread. Where do I get some 'Dark energy" to work with in the lab? Where can I get a quantity of exotic matter to demonstrate it's not simply a figment of your imagination?

The *honest* and straight answer is that inelastic scattering is a *known and natural cause* of photons redshift, not "dark energy" or "inflation". The *honest* answer is that astronomers *grossly* underestimated the mass of galaxies. There is *plenty* of data in the past five years to demonstrate that their mass estimation techniques are flawed and they aren't worth the paper that they are printed on. SUSY theory failed it's "golden test" in the lab at LHC. Those are the "straight answers".