• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
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.

Sure, it's all the public's fault that they talk about "big bang theory" in every science special on TV, in spite of the fact such a 'theory' is based upon pure faith in at least three *hypothetical* entities.

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.

False. All we *observe* is redshift. The 'belief' that "dark energy" has anything at all to do with photon redshift is in fact an "act of faith" on the part of the believer.

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.

What "multiple lines of evidence"? All three hypothetical entities are based *exclusively* upon astronomical observations, and none of them are based upon empirical experimentation. All those astronomical claims about hypothetical entities amount to an affirming the consequent fallacy!

Much like hypotheses, scientific theories require no belief or faith.

False. Somehow you have "faith" that Lambda-CDM wasn't already falsified by that 4 billion light year long structure in space that should not be there. Why? Somehow you have *faith* in exotic matter, *in spite of* the fact that every popular SUSY theory has already been falsified by the LHC data. That isn't just "faith", that's "pure faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

When did 'dark energy' ever have any empirical effect on a single photon in any *controlled* experiment on Earth?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
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 agree with you 100%! ;)
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure, it's all the public's fault that they talk about "big bang theory" in every science special on TV, in spite of the fact such a 'theory' is based upon pure faith in at least three *hypothetical* entities.

False. All we *observe* is redshift. The 'belief' that "dark energy" has anything at all to do with photon redshift is in fact an "act of faith" on the part of the believer.

The lack of evidence is what makes it a hypothesis. If we had multiple independent lines of evidence from the confirmation of different hypotheses, it would be a theory.

What "multiple lines of evidence"? All three hypothetical entities are based *exclusively* upon astronomical observations, and none of them are based upon empirical experimentation. All those astronomical claims about hypothetical entities amount to an affirming the consequent fallacy!

In case you didn't realize, I was answering to someone that made a general statement about scientific theories (when he implied that a "theory" of the existence of a god or gods is equivalent to a scientific theory). I am not an astrophysicist, I am a biologist, so I can give you as much evidence for evolution as you want, but I am not qualified to get into a discussion of dark matter.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
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(φ) 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.

I wasn't talking about time delay predictions of either of the models, I was talking about how both papers propose a *physical medium* that has a tangible and measurable effect upon the travel times of various photons.

I'll grant you they describe different time delays.

What you *refuse* to accept is that Holushko's model was *generic*, and *inclusive* of the QM effects described in other papers, Brillioun scattering, Compton scattering, etc. Holushko's model doesn't describe just *one* type of photon effect, but a *family* of effects that are related to photons traversing a *physical medium*, not just an "empty vacuum".

You keep bringing up MAGIC. I have rebutted that point comprehensively.
You did? How?

Will you not respond to some physics, please??
What *physics* (in terms of actual papers) did you cite in terms of those MAGIC observations?

OK. No personal attacks.
Oh give me a break! Half of your "speal" is pure personal attack. The other half is based upon pure denial of scientific facts, including the fact that all popular SUSY theories went up in spoke at LHC, an in spite of that 4 billion light year long structure that falsifies your theory!

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?
Basically any photon interaction with an EM field in space is going to result in the EM field being *changed* by the photon. The *change* in terms of the photon momentum would equal the change in the EM field that it interacts with. I'm not treating the EM fields in space as "virtual particles' that pop into and out of existence at will. I'm treating them as an existing *field* that is also affected by the photon.

We're drifting off topic again IMO.

That energy from the photon (or the energy-momentum) is then gone, is it not, meaning it is not conserved?
It's not "gone". The momentum has been passed on to the particle that generated the EM field in first place. In your lingo, while the VP's exist, they have a tangible effect on the particle that creates the EM field. The "effect" on the VP's is transferred to the particle or object that generates the EM field.

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).
You simply do not seem to understand what I'm actually proposing. No energy is lost. All momentum last by the photon is passed into the particles/medium it traverses. Any *change* in the photon results in a *change* in the medium.

(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.
There you go again attack me (dishonest) when you haven't even bothered to fully understand what I'm saying in terms of photons, or what I'm saying as it relates to that paper. If you dropped the "kill the messenger" mentality, it would really simplify our conversations, and make them a lot more enjoyable as well. Why do you do stuff like that?

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.
I'm not suggesting the moment is transferred to the VP's either, I'm suggesting it's transferred to the charged particles/objects that create what you're calling VP's in the first place. This however is *my* idea, not *their* idea.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
The lack of evidence is what makes it a hypothesis.

"God did it" (in reference to anything) is also a 'hypothesis'.

If we had multiple independent lines of evidence from the confirmation of different hypotheses, it would be a theory.

So apparently Lambda-CDM will never actually become a 'theory'. It will forever remain a "hypothesis" because it is based upon three different and unique hypothetical entities.

In case you didn't realize, I was answering to someone that made a general statement about scientific theories (when he implied that a "theory" of the existence of a god or gods is equivalent to a scientific theory). I am not an astrophysicist, I am a biologist, so I can give you as much evidence for evolution as you want, but I am not qualified to get into a discussion of dark matter.

IMO astronomers go out of their way to call Lambda-CDM a "theory" or a "model" when in fact its absolutely no 'better than' anyone that claims to believe in God. It's not really an unfair comparison IMO to compare a belief in God to a belief in dark energy.

Even if we both agreed that acceleration was occurring, there's no more evidence that "dark energy" causes that acceleration than "God energy" causes that same acceleration.

If astronomers can call Lambda-CDM a "model" or a "theory", even just on Discovery specials on TV, then it's certainly fair to call belief in God a "theory" or a "model" about our universe. Even ascribing "awareness" to the structures of spacetime isn't nearly as large of a "leap of faith' as claiming that dark energy is responsible for acceleration.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
The Big Bang - NASA Science

The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles.
Even NASA websites refer to Big bang "theory", they don't just call it a "hypothesis". You can't blame the general public when NASA is guilty of kludging the terms.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Big Bang - NASA Science

Even NASA websites refer to Big bang "theory", they don't just call it a "hypothesis". You can't blame the general public when NASA is guilty of kludging the terms.

And what is the relation between that and what I actually said?

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.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
And what is the relation between that and what I actually said?

You seem to be blaming the public for the sins of NASA. Furthermore you have no evidence that your hypothetical entities exist, or that they have any effect on photons. It is therefore irrational and incorrect for NASA to use the term "big bang theory". Lambda-CDM is *not* a "theory" at all. It's a *religion* that does in fact require several acts of faith in various unseen entities.

You claim that belief in dark energy requires no act of faith, but you cannot demonstrate that dark energy exists, or that it has any effect on anything.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
As I said, I am not qualified to debate the merits of dark energy as I am not an astrophysicist. I am sure you can find one up to the task.

Actually I simply disagreed with your claim that belief in dark energy does not require "faith'. It certainly does require faith to clam that "dark energy did it", just as it requires 'faith" to claim that God did it. Unless you can empirically differentiate between them in active experimentation, there is no fundamental difference in the 'faith' that is required to believe in "dark energy', or to believe in God. In fact, even ascribing awareness to the physical structures of spacetime is *less* of a "pure act of faith" than ascribing it with dark energy and exotic forms of matter. Even awareness shows up on Earth in a wide variety of forms.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
As I said, I am not qualified to debate the merits of dark energy as I am not an astrophysicist. I am sure you can find one up to the task.

FYI, not yet I haven't. They all just want me to "have faith" in their beliefs.

Not one of them can even tell me where "dark energy" might come from, let alone describe a way to control "dark energy' in a real experiment with real control mechanisms.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
FYI, not yet I haven't. They all just want me to "have faith" in their beliefs.

Not one of them can even tell me where "dark energy" might come from, let alone describe a way to control "dark energy' in a real experiment with real control mechanisms.

Then don't "believe" it. Problem solved. To me, if it requires belief, it is not science.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Then don't "believe" it.

They sure like to spend my tax dollars looking for something. If they don't believe it, then they should stop wasting my money on nonsense!

Problem solved. To me, if it requires belief, it is not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by "belief". Do you believe that EM fields exist in nature? Is that a belief? Is that science?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
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?

I'd say I'm pretty open to change and open to new ideas actually. I was raised as a Lutheran. I became an atheist for quite awhile at the age of 15 after a few inconvenient facts turned me off toward many types of 'religion'. I found myself embracing Jesus and the teachings of Jesus again later in life, albeit with a very different view of 'Christianity' than I had in my youth.

For quite some time I held all the same cosmology and solar physics beliefs that I was taught in school, and later taught in various papers and in the media. It was simply those inconvenient facts about electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere and those inconvenient facts about redshift that turned me off to the 'religion" of Lambda-CDM and the standard solar theories I was taught in school.

It wasn't until *after* I embraced PC/EU theory that I took a fresh look at panentheism and now I'm quite fond of that particular idea.

I'd say I've been willing and able to take a cold hard empirical look at facts and make the appropriate changes in my beliefs over time.

Others that I have met however seem to be stuck in a rut, and they insist on remaining in that same rut, regardless of the facts, like that 4 billion light year long structure in space, or those electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
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? :thumbsup:

Do you ever read these articles you link to?

Actually I didn't read that one. :) I supposed I deserved that. :)

Electrocution is not 'death by EM field'.

You have a strange sense of "cause/effect" relationships. Without the electrical current flowing through them, would they have died?

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.

FYI, that same "intricate rational" was developed to explain the absence of cosmological inflation on Earth, the effects of dark energy on Earth, the failures of SUSY theories/hypothesis at LHC, etc.

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

You could demonstrate that the universe that we live inside of is not "electric". That is essentially the "mainstream" position by the way.

I do not collect stamps.

You seem intent on burning all stamps with the word "God" on them, yet you ignore all the dark energy stamps, the inflation stamps, the exotic matter stamps, etc. What's up with that double standard?

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.

It's an extraordinary claim that dark energy even exists in nature, and an additional extraordinary claim that it has a tangible effect on photons too.

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

Inflation theory does make claims about where my tax dollars should be spent in terms of the "science" money that is dedicated toward cosmology theory however. That part is the part I find offensive and the part I take exception to.

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

You could start by demonstrating that the universe isn't electric in nature, and electrically active like a brain.

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

ELECTROmagnetic fields include current. In fact, magnetic fields are a direct result of the movement of charged particles, even in solid magnets.

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

How do you know that?

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.

You'll have to define "found in nature" for me because apparently what you think is found in nature and what I think is found in nature are two entirely different things.

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

No, you're definitely moving them. You seem only intent on focusing on a theory related to God, specifically one that involves an "electric God" that uses EM fields in terms of his physical manifestations.

You seem unwilling and/or unable to "compare" one cosmology concept to another in terms of "act of faith" required in each theory. Why? If we're going to be completely honest, we can't apply two different standards to two different cosmology "beliefs".

I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that isn't also found here on Earth in great abundance, including EM fields and awareness. Apparently you seem to think there is some sort of scientific disconnect between awareness and EM fields? I'm not seeing a valid objection here yet, just you dragging your feet over the physical effects of EM fields on the human brain. Is that your basic "beef" with a panetheistic/electric universe theory?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They sure like to spend my tax dollars looking for something. If they don't believe it, then they should stop wasting my money on nonsense!

Oh, that's what it is all about it, right? Let me guess, you'd rather spend your tax dollars looking for evidence of God, right?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Oh, that's what it is all about it, right? Let me guess, you'd rather spend your tax dollars looking for evidence of God, right?

Actually I'd be quite happy if they simply did some actual empirical experimentation in the lab with electric sun/universe theories. What I find objectionable is the fact that most of the research dollars in "science" today (in astronomy specifically) are being wasted on "dark nonsense". What's worse however is the gross misrepresentation of the facts, and the herding of unsuspecting students into a myopic and metaphysical view of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually I'd be quite happy if they simply did some actual empirical experimentation in the lab with electric sun/universe theories. What I find objectionable is the fact that most of the research dollars in "science" today (in astronomy specifically) are being wasted on "dark nonsense". What's worse however is the gross misrepresentation of the facts, and the herding of unsuspecting students into a myopic and metaphysical view of the universe.

Did you know that you pay nothing to submit manuscripts to scientific journals? If you wrote a scientific critique about it, you might actually have some influence (if you were right).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.