Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Speed-of-light fluctuations prompted by ephemeral vacuum particles | TG Daily

FYI, I'm still waiting for you to comment meaningfully on these papers david.

 

[AECellini]

Speed-of-light fluctuations prompted by ephemeral vacuum particles | TG Daily

FYI, I'm still waiting for you to comment meaningfully on these papers david.

why not post the actual papers rather than a sites reporting and potentially oversimplified version of the actual content? how can anyone possibly comment meaningfully on the papers if you do not provide them in their original format?

 

[davidbilby]

It only *implies* this to *you*, not to me. Which part of that statement do you not understand?

How did you "demonstrate" that exactly? You have a bad habit of tossing out a personal opinion as "demonstrated fact".

Let's review. I say that a non-zero photon mass of itself means that charge could not be said to be conserved.

Your rebuttal: "that's your opinion, not mine".

This is however not a matter of "opinion". It's only a matter of "opinion" to anybody who hasn't studied advanced physics in any shape or form, like Michael. This next bit will be word salad to most people, him included. That's fine.

The photon is the carrier particle of electromagnetism. It has two polarization states, as I mentioned before, because although it is a spin-1 particle, and therefore could have three polarization states, they only in reality ever come with transverse polarization, therefore two polarization states. This is only true because they travel at C and are therefore m = 0.

If we ignore that for a moment, and assume that they might be massive, for reason of argument, we can draw some conclusions about the knock-on effects.

Being a spin-1 particle, it would regain its third polarization state, and because of this, it ceases to be only a transversely polarized particle. This therefore means it should theoretically be able to be brought to rest, so rest mass is relevant. Quantum field theories are most conveniently dealt with in Lagrangian equations. If we look at the Lagrangian density equation the mass term will be 1/2 m2 Aμ A_μ / 2 - but this is obviously not invariant under the relevant invariance Aμ → Aμ+∂μλ. So gauge invariance for a massive photon is lost.

If gauge invariance is lost as regards the electromagnetic field, electrical charge is not conserved, because the two are directly linked, via Emmy Noether's theorem, proved in 1915. Any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law, and in this case, it's charge conservation.

Michael - if you think this is opinion, please point to the contentious statement. Otherwise - there's a proverb, when you are in a hole, stop digging. This is what I mean when I say - you don't know what you're talking about. You simply don't, and making grand statements without the math to back it up leads you into frequent errors like this. There are elements of physics that are a matter of opinion. This is a good example of one that's not. If you have no answer for this that contains any comments on the above physics, then I'll consider the point done and won't beat you up on it any more, but please don't bring it up again, it makes you look particularly silly (since an electric universe without charge conservation is a truly bizarre idea, no?)

 

[davidbilby]

why not post the actual papers rather than a sites reporting and potentially oversimplified version of the actual content? how can anyone possibly comment meaningfully on the papers if you do not provide them in their original format?

He never does that. Rehashed press releases are science to him.

Anyhow Michael, you say that I haven't commented enough on the VP papers, so sure, here's a comment. You claim that VP interactions could redshift photons. I said you haven't said how or why. You point me back to these papers (or the press release for them).

Here's the actual paper by Marcel Urban:

[1302.6165] The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

Oops! You didn't actually read it, did you? Otherwise you'd have noticed on page 4, they rule out your idea:

"We now have to define the expression of the cross section σi. We know that it should not depend on the photon energy, otherwise the vacuum would become a dispersive medium. Also the interaction of a real photon with a pair must not exchange energy or momentum with the vacuum (for instance, Compton scattering is not possible)."

Bolding mine.

That is all. You are wrong, conclusively. If you need further refutation of your idea, let me know. Otherwise it seems like you've pretty much imploded in this thread. Anything else?

 

[Davian]

You keep avoiding the key empirical point and the key empirical difference. Electromagnetic fields are known and demonstrated to have an empirical effect on matter and humans.

You keep saying that part about humans, without substantiating it. I will ask again at the bottom of this post.

Your computer is proof positive, that EM fields A) exist in nature, and B) have an empirical effect on nature. EM fields are used to generate x-rays, gamma-rays, accelerate plasma to high speeds in collider experiments. There is no doubt that an electric universe would have an empirical effect on humans, including everything from Lightning strikes, solar flares, messing with the human brain, etc.

Ditto.

On the other hand, you can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone show me a way to control it (like a battery and switch), let alone show me it has any effect on even one single electron. You simply expect me to 'have faith' in such nonsense without a shred of empirical support on Earth. Apparently the only argument for it's existence amounts to an affirming the consequent fallacy that goes something to the effect: "Look, stuff in the sky is moving. My invisible sky entity did it, and here's the math to prove it!"

Oy Vey!

I don't collect stamps.

What evidence?

*Without* pointing at the sky, demonstrate that dark energy even exists in nature, and demonstrate it has an effect on something in a controlled test of concept. If you can't do that, you have a "sky religion" going, not "evidence" as you seem to think.

That is a strange request. Are you not familiar with inflation theory?

An uncontrolled observation tells us nothing as to 'cause'. For instance, I observe that humans have written about something called "God" since the dawn of human civilization. Is there an *immediate* cause/effect link then between "God" and human in your opinion? If not, why not?

Observation and experimentation are not equal.

As a placeholder label for things that were, at any given time, a mystery, then you have your gods.

That does not raise them above other works of fiction.

What has been also observed is the human ability for self-deception.

It's a placeholder term for human ignorance, sure. It does however imply/claim the existence of a "new form" of energy without any evidence such a new form of energy actually exists in nature. That's the "bait and switch" and rather unethical part of their claim IMO. They aren't just claiming blind ignorance, they claim *knowledge* about the existence of a new form of energy. They have no evidence to support it. Their entire argument amounts to an affirming the consequent fallacy, while they blindly ignore inelastic scattering in plasma even after locating all that plasma in space!

But they do have evidence. Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory?

You seem to feel the need to defend it publicly. Why?

That your incorrect statements do not go uncorrected.

Not to my knowledge. FYI, I was actually baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran, became an atheist for about 9 years and eventually returned to belief that's pretty much that of a Universalist Christian. Apparently I turned them down, and kept Jesus.

They don't buy into your static universe, do they?

You have two different requirements for 'evidence'. As it relates to astronomy, "evidence" amounts to nothing more than 'observation'. In the case of "God" however, you want more. You want "experimentation", or controlled evidence of God's existence. It's not that evidence based on observation cannot be presented to you. You simply subjectively ignore it. You don't however subjectively dismiss *observation* as evidence of "dark matter" or "dark energy", or "inflation" nor probably anything related to quantum mechanics. It's only when we get to the topic of 'God' that you insist on demonstrating the cause/effect relationships via *experimentation* rather than pure 'observation'.

If you did have evidence for this deity of yours, I find it unlikely that you would complain so loudly.

Like I said, it would have to be the absolute worst conspiracy of all time.

The scientific method includes *experimentation*. That isn't applied to dark energy. That isn't applied to inflation. That is applied to "dark matter", but even when it failed it's own "golden test", nobody cares.

Religions are based on 'faith', not empirical experimentation.

Scientific methodology includes observation. It *is* applied to dark matter hypotheses. Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory?

Yet you expect to see the effects of God in a lab? Why? Certainly not every 'religion' expects such a thing. In fact, I think only a EU/PC panentheistic theory of God would in fact predict such a thing in the first place!

So, this "God" of your fails in the lab as well?

The part that tingles on your tongue is "current" (The E in EM).

Do you not know what galvanic means? It is not an EM field.

Actually, I was. I showed you a simple way for you to verify the existence of the EM field in nature in a controlled experiment that is extremely cheap and easy to replicate.

No, you provided a galvanic experiment to for an EM field claim.

Alas, even when SUSY theory failed it's golden test in *billion* dollar experiments, the absolute faith in WIMPS continue to flourish in astronomy lore.

You are applying two different standards, observation when it suits you, and active experimentation only as it applies to the topic of God.

Don't lie, Michael. I already said that I do not.

I already did! Humans get struck by lightning every single year. Solar flares knock out power stations when they get large enough. Aurora light up the sky all the time during solar storms.

What *exactly* do you want and expect? Why should I be required to do MORE than anyone else as it relates to the topic God/the universe?

More? On the specifics for what I am asking, you have provided nothing.

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

You said "Electromagnetic fields are known and demonstrated to have an empirical effect on matter and humans."

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

And, leave out any mention of the standard model of cosmology. Thanks.

 

[Michael]

You keep saying that part about humans, without substantiating it. I will ask again at the bottom of this post.

http://io9.com/5851828/10-things-an-electromagnetic-field-can-do-to-your-brain

That's ten things that EM fields can do to a brain. When, oh when are you going to deal with the information I've handed you on a silver platter? Did you ever even bother to answer that question about how many humans are electrocuted to death each year?

I don't collect stamps.

You do however seem to have invested yourself in this thread, defending mainstream theory, a theory with not one, not two, but *three* metaphysical fudge factors.

That is a strange request. Are you not familiar with inflation theory?

This is a bit akin to a theist telling an atheist that it's a strange request to see cause/effect evidence of God, only because they say so. I'm familiar with the theory. It's akin to a form of deism, where nobody actually expect it to show up in a real experiment, and it never will. I'm supposed to just bow down and 'have faith' and inflation because it's "popular' apparently.

Why do you expect empirical evidence of God when most humans don't expect that to occur in the first place?

As a placeholder label for things that were, at any given time, a mystery, then you have your gods.

That does not raise them above other works of fiction.

What has been also observed is the human ability for self-deception.

But they do have evidence. Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory?

Your answer was a bit non responsive IMO. I pointed out to you that observation and experimentation are not equal. You response can be equally applied to inflation theory, dark energy theory, exotic matter theory, and any combination thereof. That's the whole problem when you point at the sky and claim that 'God did it' or 'inflation did it', or "dark energy did it". If you can't establish a real cause/effect relationship in controlled experimentation, the possibility of self deception increases exponentially. What 'experiment' (with real control mechanisms), makes you think that inflation exists or ever existed in nature?

Perhaps if you answered that question I would be able to better provide you with 'evidence' of God.

That your incorrect statements do not go uncorrected.

Which statements were "incorrect"? So far I'll I've seen is you running from ownership of the belief, yet trying to defend it at the same time. That's noble of you and all, but it's a little bit of a slippery slope.

They don't buy into your static universe, do they?

Not many of them I presume.

If you did have evidence for this deity of yours, I find it unlikely that you would complain so loudly.

It's hard to even know what you personally might consider to be 'evidence' of say inflation, or exotic matter. If you used the same standards, it's not a problem. I'm confused by your standards of evidence. You seem to simply accept pure "observation" as evidence on every topic *except* the topic of God, and then suddenly you demand "experimental" evidence as it relates to God. It's not reasonable to apply two entirely different standards like that.

Scientific methodology includes observation. It *is* applied to dark matter hypotheses. Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory?

I'm familiar with the fact that inflation theory precludes the existence of that four billion light year long structure they just found in space. I know that it's impotent in the lab, and it will forever be impotent in the lab.

I know that SUSY theory failed is 'golden test' at LHC, and all the 'popular' brands of SUSY theory were already falsified via active experimentation. What more must I know to simply reject the theory for lack of evidence, and due to observations that falsify the claims?

So, this "God" of your fails in the lab as well?

I don't know yet. The primary difference between my beliefs and other 'religious' beliefs is that they might be verified or falsified in the lab. It will however require more sensitive and expensive equipment than I can whip up by myself in my garage.

Do you not know what galvanic means? It is not an EM field.

I think you're pretty much danced around every single effect that EM fields have on humans, including electrocution, and simple DC current. I'm curious how you'll respond to the 10 things EM fields can do to your brain.

No, you provided a galvanic experiment to for an EM field claim.

Apparently you're intent on ignoring the *physical current* that actually *causes* this 'response' you're describing.

Don't lie, Michael. I already said that I do not.

Saying it is one thing, *doing* it seems to be a completely different issue. If *observation* is all that matters, all those observations of humans writing about God having some influence on their lives would be sufficient. As it relates to *inflation* however, observation alone is sufficient apparently. You have two very different standards going. Observation and experimentation are not equal, and you cannot apply them haphazardly to different topics.

More? On the specifics for what I am asking, you have provided nothing.

It's highly unclear what you actually want. I've handed you *more* than enough scenarios where EM fields influence human beings, yet you immediately handwave them off and claim that I've provided you with 'nothing'.

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

You said "Electromagnetic fields are known and demonstrated to have an empirical effect on matter and humans."

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

Been there, done that. Did you even read that 'God helmet' set of experiments I cited in the original empirical theory of God thread?

And, leave out any mention of the standard model of cosmology. Thanks.

If you won't apply the *same* standards toward a panentheistic view of the universe that you apply toward any other cosmology theory, this conversation cannot continue. There cannot be two entirely different set of standards for one cosmology theory, than are applied to a different cosmology theory. If the requirements are the same, it's not a problem. If the goalposts get shifted at will, it's a problem.

 

[Michael]

He never does that. Rehashed press releases are science to him.

That's simply not true as this thread demonstrates. I've handed you plenty of Arxiv links, all of which you're pretty much ignored, or handwaved at a little bit.

I still haven't seen you address much of the problems in any of those Planck data sets.

Anyhow Michael, you say that I haven't commented enough on the VP papers, so sure, here's a comment. You claim that VP interactions could redshift photons. I said you haven't said how or why. You point me back to these papers (or the press release for them).

Here's the actual paper by Marcel Urban:

[1302.6165] The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

Oops! You didn't actually read it, did you? Otherwise you'd have noticed on page 4, they rule out your idea:

"We now have to define the expression of the cross section σi. We know that it should not depend on the photon energy, otherwise the vacuum would become a dispersive medium. Also the interaction of a real photon with a pair must not exchange energy or momentum with the vacuum (for instance, Compton scattering is not possible)."

Bolding mine.

That is all. You are wrong, conclusively. If you need further refutation of your idea, let me know. Otherwise it seems like you've pretty much imploded in this thread. Anything else?

Um. Ya. I'd like to see some real *experiments* done and *then* make a decision, much like the authors. Unlike you I don't simply *decide* beforehand how it's *supposed* to work. If the VP pairs can 'hold on' to photons and slow them down, then they can exchange momentum too.

Wow. You simply ignored the fact that the VP paper is pretty much identical to Holushko's paper, and pretty much in alignment with the MAGIC findings. You latch on to a single sentence, *before* the concepts is even thoroughly tested, ignore much of the findings of the paper itself, and you ignore every problem in Lambda-CDM on a whim.

I think your attitude makes if very clear why *experimentation* is more important than *expert opinion*. You don't actually even care what the data says, or how many 'golden tests' actually falsify your claims. All you care about is protecting your beliefs systems, mostly by bashing individuals.

 

[Michael]

Let's review. I say that a non-zero photon mass of itself means that charge could not be said to be conserved.

Let's review: Stop hijacking my thread!

Honestly, there's no point in trying discuss *another* topic with you while your hurl personal spears my way.

 

[Davian]

10 Things an Electromagnetic Field Can Do to Your Brain

That's ten things that EM fields can do to a brain. When, oh when are you going to deal with the information I've handed you on a silver platter?

I asked for EM fields in nature. As the article states, "Find out how scientists use magnetic fields... ".

Also, did you provide this link for comedic effect?

"Ghost hunters will sometimes say the reverse - that ghosts cause a high electromagnetic field, or sometimes that a high electromagnetic field will allow ghosts to appear. Nobody is sure, yet, what these fields do to ghost brain DNA."

Ghost brain DNA?

Do you ever read these articles you link to?

Did you ever even bother to answer that question about how many humans are electrocuted to death each year?

Electrocution is not 'death by EM field'.

You do however seem to have invested yourself in this thread, defending mainstream theory, a theory with not one, not two, but *three* metaphysical fudge factors.

This is a bit akin to a theist telling an atheist that it's a strange request to see cause/effect evidence of God, only because they say so. I'm familiar with the theory. It's akin to a form of deism, where nobody actually expect it to show up in a real experiment, and it never will. I'm supposed to just bow down and 'have faith' and inflation because it's "popular' apparently.

Why do you expect empirical evidence of God when most humans don't expect that to occur in the first place?

I expect that many do not expect empirical evidence for their particular god, as they do not have empirical evidence, and a vast, intricate rational gets developed to explain its absence.

Your answer was a bit non responsive IMO. I pointed out to you that observation and experimentation are not equal. You response can be equally applied to inflation theory, dark energy theory, exotic matter theory, and any combination thereof. That's the whole problem when you point at the sky and claim that 'God did it' or 'inflation did it', or "dark energy did it". If you can't establish a real cause/effect relationship in controlled experimentation, the possibility of self deception increases exponentially. What 'experiment' (with real control mechanisms), makes you think that inflation exists or ever existed in nature?

Perhaps if you answered that question I would be able to better provide you with 'evidence' of God.

No, that's *your* homework. Provide a falsifiable hypothesis for this "God" that you posit.

Which statements were "incorrect"? So far I'll I've seen is you running from ownership of the belief, yet trying to defend it at the same time. That's noble of you and all, but it's a little bit of a slippery slope.

I do not collect stamps.

Not many of them I presume.

It's hard to even know what you personally might consider to be 'evidence' of say inflation, or exotic matter. If you used the same standards, it's not a problem. I'm confused by your standards of evidence. You seem to simply accept pure "observation" as evidence on every topic *except* the topic of God, and then suddenly you demand "experimental" evidence as it relates to God. It's not reasonarble to apply two entirely different standards like that.

Well, the word "God" does appear to carry a lot more baggage for people than any terms involved with cosmology. Extraordinary claims, and all that.

Inflation theory makes no claim about what you should or should not being doing in your bedroom, and with whom, for example.

I'm familiar with the fact that inflation theory precludes the existence of that four billion light year long structure they just found in space. I know that it's impotent in the lab, and it will forever be impotent in the lab.

I know that SUSY theory failed is 'golden test' at LHC, and all the 'popular' brands of SUSY theory were already falsified via active experimentation. What more must I know to simply reject the theory for lack of evidence, and due to observations that falsify the claims?

I don't know yet. The primary difference between my beliefs and other 'religious' beliefs is that they might be verified or falsified in the lab. It will however require more sensitive and expensive equipment than I can whip up by myself in my garage.

How would one falsify your pantheistic god? Or your Christian God?

I think you're pretty much danced around every single effect that EM fields have on humans, including electrocution, and simple DC current. I'm curious how you'll respond to the 10 things EM fields can do to your brain.

Apparently you're intent on ignoring the *physical current* that actually *causes* this 'response' you're describing.

Are you now moving the goalposts from EM fields to electrical current?

Saying it is one thing, *doing* it seems to be a completely different issue. If *observation* is all that matters, all those observations of humans writing about God having some influence on their lives would be sufficient. As it relates to *inflation* however, observation alone is sufficient apparently. You have two very different standards going. Observation and experimentation are not equal, and you cannot apply them haphazardly to different topics.

It's highly unclear what you actually want. I've handed you *more* than enough scenarios where EM fields influence human beings, yet you immediately handwave them off and claim that I've provided you with 'nothing'.

Been there, done that. Did you even read that 'God helmet' set of experiments I cited in the original empirical theory of God thread?

The "God helmet" does not replicate EM fields as found in nature.

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

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

If you won't apply the *same* standards toward a panentheistic view of the universe that you apply toward any other cosmology theory, this conversation cannot continue. There cannot be two entirely different set of standards for one cosmology theory, than are applied to a different cosmology theory. If the requirements are the same, it's not a problem. If the goalposts get shifted at will, it's a problem.

The goalposts have not moved. It only looks that way from your ever-changing position.

 

[Davian]

There are some folks (like david in all likelihood) that will probably *never* change their mind, regardless of any sort of conflict with any inconvenient facts.
...

And what of you, yourself, Michael?

 

[davidbilby]

Let's review: Stop hijacking my thread!

Honestly, there's no point in trying discuss *another* topic with you while your hurl personal spears my way.

YOU posted the idea. YOU brought it up. I simply answered it.

I note you omitted the entire section of my post with the actual physics involved there. Personal spears? Hardly, unless being shown to hold conflicting views is something you can't handle...

I just gave you a detailed physical explanation of why your proposed idea was incompatible with your other stated positions. Photon non-zero mass = charge not conserved. That would be odd in an "electric universe theory" of cosmology where only Euclidean geometry and four dimensions are in play. I'm happy to let it go at any point, but it's hardly hijacking your thread when you yourself brought it up. I won't discuss it further unless you wish to.

 

[davidbilby]

Unlike you I don't simply *decide* beforehand how it's *supposed* to work. If the VP pairs can 'hold on' to photons and slow them down, then they can exchange momentum too.

Wow. You simply ignored the fact that the VP paper is pretty much identical to Holushko's paper and pretty much in alignment with the MAGIC findings.

Oh, ok. Let's see how close 'pretty much' is. Let's see how aligned they are. Do you agree with that proposal? I mean, it is your statement. Let's see if it's true.

Urban paper proposes a finite average photon velocity c(group), which must be equal to c(&#966 and c(rel). c(group) varies according to the vacuum properties.

Predicts stochastic fluctuations to photon travel time, where the tightest known constraint is that of a gamma ray burst (GRB 090510), at a redshift of z = 0.9, where the potential "delay" (broadening actually) is calculated to be on the order of femtoseconds.

This burst took place 7.3 billion light years away. Several femtoseconds delay, supposedly.

The MAGIC findings of Markarian 501 had a supposed 'delay" of 4 minutes. But Markarian 501 is at a redshift of....er....z = 0.0336.

This event took place about 456 million light years away - 16 times closer. Delay....from supposedly the same effect, according to you.....four minutes.

Er. Wow. Not even close.

The GRB was no less than 16 times further away than the blazar of Markarian 501....yet the 'delay' proposed due to photon propagation was...at most...on the order of several femtoseconds.

If MAGIC were correct, and the two effects were the same, and the papers were 'pretty close'..........the delay should have been on the order of an hour or more! They are 16 or 17 orders of magnitude different: femtoseconds, and hours.

"Pretty close"????? Hardly.

Not to mention that GRB 090510 was also the strongest evidence AGAINST the MAGIC proposals which is why nobody's really bothered about them...two separate readings from that burst showed energy levels more than a million times apart from each other, yet the time delay between them was less than nine tenths of a second apart. Combine this constraint with the realisation that Markarian 501 is a blazar, and thus source effects can't be ruled out (i.e. the delayed energy didn't leave at the same time)...and the idea that they're "pretty close" starts to look laughable.

You don't actually even care what the data says, or how many 'golden tests' actually falsify your claims. All you care about is protecting your beliefs systems, mostly by bashing individuals.

You keep bringing up MAGIC. I have rebutted that point comprehensively. Will you not respond to some physics, please??

OK. No personal attacks. Here is a 100% physics question for you about your idea:

If energy-momentum is somehow lost by the photon to the virtual particle pair, then how is energy-momentum conserved when that virtual particle pair annihilate thereafter, releasing the (now supposedly redshifted) photon?

That energy from the photon (or the energy-momentum) is then gone, is it not, meaning it is not conserved?

I cannot see that you have proposed anything other than energy non-conservation (which I'm actually okay with...but you're not, as you've stated prior).


(Further to my original quote from the paper, here is another; their model is VERY clear as to what happens in their proposal, and your citation of it as if it says anything else is somewhat dishonest. They explicitly state that they are modelling a system where energy and momentum are not transferred from the photon to the VP, because such a system would be dispersive.

"As soon as the pair disappears, it releases the photon to its initial energy and momentum state. The photon continues to propagate with an infinite bare velocity. Then the photon interacts again with another ephemeral pair and so on. The delay on the photon propagation produced by these successive interactions implies a renormalisation of this bare velocity to a finite value.")

 

[audiologic]

I do find it funny that many men of science view belief in God as "ridiculous and unfounded". They say that it's simply all a theory based on what people WANT to believe.

...then they come up with dark energy, which you can't hear/feel/see/touch, and they base a theory on that.

I'm not saying it's not there, but it is rather hypocritical.

 

[CabVet]

I do find it funny that many men of science view belief in God as "ridiculous and unfounded". They say that it's simply all a theory based on what people WANT to believe.

...then they come up with dark energy, which you can't hear/feel/see/touch, and they base a theory on that.

I'm not saying it's not there, but it is rather hypocritical.

I do find it funny that many men come to this forum and criticize a "theory" while having no idea what that word even means.

Dark energy is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis. Scientists accept or reject the dark energy hypothesis based on the data that is presented to them. It does not require belief or faith of any kind.

Contrarily to what you say, there will never be a scientist that will say that your religious belief is a "theory". Scientific theories are explanations for natural phenomena that are formulated based on the confirmation of several hypotheses using multiple independent lines of evidence. Much like hypotheses, scientific theories require no belief or faith.

 

[Davian]

I do find it funny that many men of science view belief in God as "ridiculous and unfounded". They say that it's simply all a theory based on what people WANT to believe.

I wouldn't use the word' theory' in that case, but it would appear that many god concepts are based on wishful thinking.

...then they come up with dark energy, which you can't hear/feel/see/touch, and they base a theory on that.

Or they base their hypothesis on scientific methodology and astronomical observations.

I'm not saying it's not there, but it is rather hypocritical.

Not at all, being that they are two very different types of claims. One is a falsifiable explanation for what is measured via astronomical observations, the other makes unfalsifiable claims about the origin of the universe and life after death, etc.

 

[audiologic]

I do find it funny that many men come to this forum and criticize a "theory" while having no idea what that word even means.

Dark energy is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis. Scientists accept or reject the dark energy hypothesis based on the data that is presented to them. It does not require belief or faith of any kind.

Contrarily to what you say, there will never be a scientist that will say that your religious belief is a "theory". Scientific theories are explanations for natural phenomena that are formulated based on the confirmation of several hypotheses using multiple independent lines of evidence. Much like hypotheses, scientific theories require no belief or faith.

This makes more sense. Perhaps I should have done more research.

All I knew about dark matter is it was something currently intangible that scientists assume is there. In that light, it's no different from believing in an untouchable being that rules the universe (or whatever one's spiritual beliefs are). However, if dark matter is being subjected to experiment or observation, it may be different on that end.

Keep in mind that I don't hold conventional Christian views anyways. I'm a theistic evolutionist, though I believe it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (finding out the physical cause of something doesn't invalidate God anymore than it validates God). I think it's ultimately impossible to show irrefutable evidence - in the scientific methodology, that is - that the world was put into place by a divine being. This is why I do not take spirituality as literally as many, but read between the lines. The image of a King and Supreme Judge is how we visualize and interact with what lies beyond, I think, not how it LITERALLY is. I am a man of science (and of God) and therefore I believe in applying the scientific method to spiritual beliefs...subjecting every claim to experiment to see whether a hypothesis is correct or not. After all, if the world "above" us acts like this one - spiritual warfare, hierarchies, a King, His enemies, etc - then why should it not act like the physical world in more ways than one?

I think ultimately what I was trying to say, though, is that astronomer's shouldn't be sued for false advertising unless we're going to sue theologians, seminaries, psychics, etc. Don't get me wrong, I feel pretty disgusted every time I walk past a big neon sign that says "PSYCHIC! Unveil your future for $40!" but I think it's up to the individual to have enough sense to not fall into false claim traps.

 

[audiologic]

Side note, I'm not saying dark matter is or isn't a false claim. I personally find it very interesting, and I would consider it another physical "bridge" to God, if you will. I just tend to doubt many things until I've either subjected them to experiment myself, or they are irrefutable.

 

[Michael]

This makes more sense. Perhaps I should have done more research.

All I knew about dark matter is it was something currently intangible that scientists assume is there.

The key assumption they make is that this "missing mass/dark matter" is necessarily found inside of a *new/unseen* form of matter, and it's not made of the same matter that we find here on Earth, nor is it found in the periodic table.

In that light, it's no different from believing in an untouchable being that rules the universe (or whatever one's spiritual beliefs are). However, if dark matter is being subjected to experiment or observation, it may be different on that end.

Actually your comparison of dark matter (and dark energy as well) to an "untouchable being that rules the universe" is a pretty valid comparison IMO. The problem is that most astronomers tend to be 'atheists', and yet they put faith in all sorts of "unseen" (in the lab) entities. The comparison is valid, but it typically makes them bristle.

Keep in mind that I don't hold conventional Christian views anyways. I'm a theistic evolutionist, though I believe it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (finding out the physical cause of something doesn't invalidate God anymore than it validates God). I think it's ultimately impossible to show irrefutable evidence - in the scientific methodology, that is - that the world was put into place by a divine being. This is why I do not take spirituality as literally as many, but read between the lines. The image of a King and Supreme Judge is how we visualize and interact with what lies beyond, I think, not how it LITERALLY is. I am a man of science (and of God) and therefore I believe in applying the scientific method to spiritual beliefs...subjecting every claim to experiment to see whether a hypothesis is correct or not. After all, if the world "above" us acts like this one - spiritual warfare, hierarchies, a King, His enemies, etc - then why should it not act like the physical world in more ways than one?

I think ultimately what I was trying to say, though, is that astronomer's shouldn't be sued for false advertising unless we're going to sue theologians, seminaries, psychics, etc. Don't get me wrong, I feel pretty disgusted every time I walk past a big neon sign that says "PSYCHIC! Unveil your future for $40!" but I think it's up to the individual to have enough sense to not fall into false claim traps.

There is however at least 'supposed' to be a difference between religion and so called "science". I too tend to have somewhat "non standard" "Christian" beliefs, but at least I accept that my belief in God is an "act of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

What I find disturbing about "dark matter/energy psychics' is that they are trying to stuff this metaphysical nonsense down my children's throats under the guise of a form of "science". Dark matter/energy theory is not actually even a form of "science". It's an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. In that sense it is a "religion" in the purest sense of the word. It is a religion based entirely upon *faith* in the "unseen" (in the lab).

While there is no doubt that astronomers botched the mass estimates of galaxies, it's equally obvious from the data over the past five years that all the missing mass found so far is found inside of ordinary matter. It's found in plasma specifically.

I don't mind the "act of faith" they have in some new, mythical form of matter. What I find objectionable in their *insistence* that mythical forms of matter exist in nature, and their *insistence* in calling such claims "science".

IMO we're *wasting taxpayer dollars* chasing nonsense, simply because astronomers will not embrace the concept of electricity in space. They refuse to consider *physical* and *empirical* alternatives to their "religion", and they consistently and repeatedly, and *intentionally* misrepresent their "religion" (their act of pure faith) as a form of "science".

 

[Michael]

FYI, sorry for my delay in responding. It's been rather hectic at work for the past few weeks. I'll try to catch up over the next couple of days.

 

[Michael]

I wouldn't use the word' theory' in that case, but it would appear that many god concepts are based on wishful thinking.

Considering how much "missing mass" has been found inside of "normal" matter in the past few years, any concept of exotic forms of matter amount to no more than "wishful thinking" on the part of the "believer". That's certainly true if we toss in the results thus from from LHC. Every "popular" SUSY and WIMP theory went up in smoke. What's left now are the "bottom of the barrel" ideas that haven't already been falsified by the data.

Or they base their hypothesis on scientific methodology and astronomical observations.

An observation of redshifted photons is all we really "observe". The mainstream "believes" that this phenomenon is related to expansion and acceleration. That's the first claim. The claim that "dark energy did it" is quite another claim entirely. One is an *interpretation of an observation*. The other is a *claim about cause*.

Even the first association of redshift with expansion/acceleration is a *claim about cause* (of redshift) that was never established by real "scientific methodology" that actually works in controlled experimentation. It's an "act of faith" on the part of the believer that redshift is actually even related expansion or acceleration. Objects can move and cause redshift in the lab, but "space" never does magical expansion tricks in the lab. Even if we *assume* that redshift is related to expansions/acceleration, the claim 'dark energy did it" is a dubious claim of cause at best case!

Not at all, being that they are two very different types of claims. One is a falsifiable explanation for what is measured via astronomical observations, the other makes unfalsifiable claims about the origin of the universe and life after death, etc.

Nope, they are exactly alike. I already showed you evidence that should "falsify" inflation theory in the form of a 4 billion light year long structure that should not exist in Lambda-CDM. Nothing changed as a result of that revelation. The *religion* of Lambda-CDM lives on *in spite of* the failures of exotic matter theories at LHC, and *in spite of* the actual observations!