Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Mr Clean]

I scientifically observe that humans have been writing about something they call God since the dawn of human civilization.

Which means that you can prove that people have been writing about it. It doesn't prove that the topic is real. I can observe that people have been writing about dragons for a long time too. There is no proof of them either.

The dead sea scrolls exist do they not?

As do ancient scrolls in China about dragons. Again, that doesn't prove they exist.

Does only a single brain express their experience of God, or many? Do the writings we then see today transcend any one brain?

Nope. Many individual brains claim to experience a god or gods. That means nothing as far as proof goes. Many people claim to have seen bigfoot, or yeti, or whatever you want to call it. That does not constitute proof because it is not verifiable.

I can see the sun, and I can read all about Birkeland's experiments with a cathode sun. I can recreate his experiments if I want. From the standpoint of "science', dark energy is a bigger dud in the lab then EM fields.

Dark energy is not 100 years old like Birkeland currents are, and is still in the theorectical stage of possible discovery. Regardless, I guess I fail to see what this has to do with anything being discussed...

I can read all about Christ's experiences with God as well and according him we to could recreate them. Many other brains seem to believe him. From a spiritual perspective, Christ's ideas still transcend time and space.

By your standards (if I understand them correctly) I could never "prove" love exists or awareness exists. I might demonstrate that brains are electrically active, but how would I demonstrate that awareness actually exists in nature?

A spiritual perspective? So you mean outside of the realm of sceince and verifiable knowledge then.

Love is not a thing. It is a label used to describe actions or feelings. It is an abstraction. We can see the brain light up in certain areas when people say they are feeling "love", and know certain chemicals are released when that feeling occurs, but that is the physical reaction to it, rather than proof of it. Love is not tangible, it is merely a descriptive.

Awareness is in much the same boat. As the saying goes, any claim made that we are not self aware does, in fact, show that we are. Humans know they exist. You know you exist and I know I exist. The fact that we are taking about existence shows that.

How can you claim that human experiences, like those of Jesus, do not transcend a human brain when over half the planet reveres him as a great "spiritual" teacher?

You are confusing the two. I never said that there weren't a whole bunch of people in the world that have fallen for the snow job. What I said was that any one person's experience cannot be experienced by another person. It is impossible to prove that you've really had an "experience", because that experience is entirely within your brain, and you have no way to prove that you had it. Same for any person that claims a religious "experience". It is unverifiable.

 

[Michael]

I know I'm joining the conversation late, but what empirical evidence is there to support panentheism? (I remind you that part of the definition on empirical is "verifiable")...

You might want to peruse the Empirical Theory of God threads. Suffice to say I started with noting all the electrical currents in the universe, the structures they create and their similarity of the structures of spacetime to the human brain. I also showed links between external EM fields and human thoughts with the God Helmet experiments.

You're not looking very hard then. How about the inability of galaxies to exist in their present state without exotic matter?

While I might be willing to grant you that astronomers grossly underestimate the amount of *normal* matter in a galaxy, why does any of that 'missing mass' need to be exotic mass? From my perspective you're *leaping* to the conclusion that every UFO is *necessarily* from another planet. I'll grant you there is "unidentified" mass to find, but why does it have to be exotic in nature?

Inflation is absurdly simple to prove. Given that the speed of light is constant, we can deduce from redshift that everything is moving away from us. A Hubble diagram shows this quite clearly.

It's not as simple as you think since photons lose momentum in every inelastic scattering event, and objects of mass cannot expand faster than C.

There is plenty of information out there on these topics. I encourage you to read it at your liesure...

Been there, done that. They all lack empirical (in the lab) cause/effect justification. For instance, even if I granted you that the universe expands and accelerates, what evidence do you have that dark energy did it?

Plasma cosmology has been thoroughly debunked.

How does one "debunk" empirical physics exactly?

Nothing factual in here to discuss, so I have no comment on this portion of your post.

Well, you'll at least have to explain to me how you think anyone "debunked" EU/PC theory, a pure form of empirical physics. How is it even possible for instance to demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on a photon?

 

[Michael]

Which means that you can prove that people have been writing about it. It doesn't prove that the topic is real. I can observe that people have been writing about dragons for a long time too. There is no proof of them either.

So apparently you doubt the 'cause/effect' aspect of the phenomenon? You *assumed* the exact opposite of every author. Why?

As do ancient scrolls in China about dragons. Again, that doesn't prove they exist.

Your example related to dragons is a bit pointless since nobody today claims to have a relationship with a dragon, and even the concept of 'dragons' probably had to do with the fossils humans found in the ground that looked like "dragons". In short, something resembling "dragons" did probably walk the earth 70 million years ago.

Nope. Many individual brains claim to experience a god or gods. That means nothing as far as proof goes.

Nothing like subjectively dismissing any and all human testimony, and any and all human experience! Wow! I love how you get to decide what counts as 'proof'. Define 'proof'.

Many people claim to have seen bigfoot, or yeti, or whatever you want to call it. That does not constitute proof because it is not verifiable.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Most people believe in God, whereas most do not believe in Bigfoot, or Yeti. How might we 'verify" anything according to you?

How did you verify that dark energy isn't a collective figment of astronomers imaginations? Inflation?

Dark energy is not 100 years old like Birkeland currents are, and is still in the theorectical stage of possible discovery.

It's been at least 15 years and nobody has a clue where dark energy might even come from, let alone control it. So what if electrical activity is ancient? Does that mean my AC in my office won't work today?

Regardless, I guess I fail to see what this has to do with anything being discussed...

You'd probably need some background on the whole "electric God" concepts described in those threads to make the connections.

A spiritual perspective? So you mean outside of the realm of sceince and verifiable knowledge then.

No.

Love is not a thing. It is a label used to describe actions or feelings. It is an abstraction. We can see the brain light up in certain areas when people say they are feeling "love", and know certain chemicals are released when that feeling occurs, but that is the physical reaction to it, rather than proof of it. Love is not tangible, it is merely a descriptive.

Either way, "love" has a "real" effect on the world we live in. So does awareness, and I suppose you could call that an abstract too. Keep in mind that the only things I'm ascribing to the universe itself are EM fields and awareness, both of which *do* show up in Pet Scans.

Awareness is in much the same boat. As the saying goes, any claim made that we are not self aware does, in fact, show that we are. Humans know they exist. You know you exist and I know I exist. The fact that we are taking about existence shows that.

Abstraction or not, awareness does influence the universe we live in. An aware universe would have a real effect on things.

You are confusing the two. I never said that there weren't a whole bunch of people in the world that have fallen for the snow job.

How do you know you didn't fall for a snow job instead of the majority again?

What I said was that any one person's experience cannot be experienced by another person.

We can't both listen to the same music, see the same sunset, feel many of the same feelings?

It is impossible to prove that you've really had an "experience", because that experience is entirely within your brain, and you have no way to prove that you had it. Same for any person that claims a religious "experience". It is unverifiable.

If it happens over and over again to different individuals, what is that a "verification" again?

You seem to be balking at the difference between 'cause' and "effect". You seem willing to note the 'effect' of something people experience, but you seem to want additional "proof" as to cause. How might that be done if you won't accept other human experiences to count as evidence?

Likewise I also observe redshifted photons. I have no doubt as to the observation of photon redshift. I do however lack believe that either inflation or dark energy exist in nature, let alone that they have any tangible effect on a photon, let alone cause it to "redshift'. Care to demonstrate your claim in *verifiable* experiments that I can replicate without having *faith* in your invisible friend first?

 

[davidbilby]

Basically any photon interaction with an EM field in space is going to result in the EM field being *changed* by the photon.

This is not physics, this is just a weird statement. What do you mean by "changed"? This is vague, meaningless.

A photon is the mediator particle of the EM field, when you talk about photon/EM field interactions what are you talking about exactly in quantum mechanics terms?

VP particle pairs are not an EM field, so I don't know why you've brought a separate EM field up, especially since we're talking quantum mechanics here, not macroscopic fields. I asked you a question about quantum mechanics, perhaps you could do me the favor of answering in terms of quantum mechanics.

You were proposing that the photon interacts with the VP pair, instead of, say, Compton scattering where the photon interacts with an electron. Weren't you?

The *change* in terms of the photon momentum would equal the change in the EM field that it interacts with.

Which is a bizarre way of saying that the change in photon momentum must be passed to the particle it interacts with, that's fine...the problem is what happens then....if you assume linear propagation, that is.

You're stopping right at the moment where your idea can be tested, right at the point you do the mathematics part of quantum mechanics. You have all the numbers...if you assume linear (unchanged) propagation as regards a transverse velocity component is redshift - a frequency change - then possible?

No.

I'm not treating the EM fields in space as "virtual particles' that pop into and out of existence at will.

But you just cited a virtual particle pair as what the photon would be interacting with, supposedly delaying and redshifting it. You've now started waffling about EM fields to add into the system....we were talking about VP particle pairs and a photon interacting with them.

I'm treating them as an existing *field* that is also affected by the photon.

You think that VP pairs are an electromagnetic field? VPs are caused by fields (in a mathematical sense, which is all they really are)...they aren't a field themselves. What kind of bizarre assertion is that? You're treating VPs...as...a field? What?

We're drifting off topic again IMO.

beg pardon?

So says the person who's babbling about the Gospels and Pantheism in a post just a few back. The Gospels of course are entirely relevant to dark matter and dark energy, but photon interactions....nooooo. Clearly off topic.

It's not "gone".

Er. Yes, it is. You are saying momentum is passed from the photon to the VP pair, which then annihilate, releasing the photon, according to the paper. That's the interaction, in QM terms.

That momentum is clearly gone. What else is there? What other particle are you throwing into the mix, and why?

The momentum has been passed on to the particle that generated the EM field in first place.

Oh, ok. What particle is that? I'm talking about your assertion, a photon interacting with a VP pair. What other particle are you adding to the system for purposes of conservation equations in quantum mechanics? Why is it considered part of this QM interaction between a photon and a VP pair, and not a separate interaction?

In your lingo, while the VP's exist, they have a tangible effect on the particle that creates the EM field.

Again, what other particle are you talking about? This is a photon - VP pair interaction. VP pair annihilates. Momentum that was transferred (supposedly)...gone. Unless you're saying that the momentum is passed to another particle, in which case...what on earth are you doing talking about a VP pair that is then nothing to do with the interaction?

The "effect" on the VP's is transferred to the particle or object that generates the EM field.

Pardon? How does the energy-momentum you are proposing transferred to the VP pair from the photon...get to another particle that supposedly generated the EM field...again, what particle is this???

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.

And.......does that violate conservation of momentum or not if linear propagation is assumed (no v_2 transverse velocity component)??

You're not actually answering the question at all, you're stopping right at the moment you're supposed to calculate the conservation budget for both sides of the vector. I'm not understanding this 'other' particle you're bringing in, since it's not mentioned in a) the VP paper or b) anywhere else.

You're also handwaving an additional (and unexplained) particle in, unless you can explain which of...

a) the photon
b) the VP pair's particle and antiparticle

is "the particle that generates the EM field".

There you go again attack me (dishonest)

Because making a claim that someone else's paper says something that it does not is either ignorant or dishonest. You claimed that the VP paper proposes a medium for light propagation. It does not. Your claim is either ignorant or dishonest. I don't really care which.

I'm not suggesting the moment is transferred to the VP's either

Uh....what?

That's funny, earlier you said this, amongst many similar statements....

would simply result in the particle/VP's/medium picking up that exact amount of energy.

So quite clear you thought VPs could take on the energy-momentum lost by the photon. But...anyhow.

So now you're proposing...that the photon interacts with a VP pair...but...somehow the energy-momentum lost by the photon, redshifting it...goes....someplace else and not the VP pair...it goes to some other particle which is apparently creating some electromagnetic field that is...well...related...somehow?

Perhaps you could clarify your rather bizarre assertion.

I'm suggesting it's transferred to the charged particles/objects that create what you're calling VP's in the first place.

Er...wait. A moment ago it was the charged particle that created an EM field that was somehow related...now it's...what?

The charged particles or objects that created the VPs?

?????????

Michael, what do you think virtual particles are? I'm fascinated to know. Because that sentence is...truly bizarre. Truly weird. Truly wrong.

This however is *my* idea, not *their* idea.

You don't say...

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry if I was too cryptic. I respond between phone calls at work, and I almost never proofread.

It bothers/concerns me that from the standpoint of pure empirical physics, fewer pure 'acts of faith' are required to believe in God as the universe, than are required to believe in what passes for "science' today. Either 'science' is now so far off the mark as to be virtually useless at explaining the universe, or some of the very "earliest" forms of religion have simply been right all along, or both.

The bottom line is that there is more empirical evidence to support panentheism than there is for Lambda-CDM.

Hmmm. When you say "science is based on objective confirmation", I'm afraid that I actually wince. I see zero "objective" (as in tangible) confirmation for inflation, dark energy or exotic matter from any branch of science, just one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

IMO you're applying a more restrictive imposition on God theories than scientists impose upon their "hypothetical entities".

It apparently helps if you start by being a 'Christian' first and 'discover" electric universe/plasma cosmology theory later. I wasn't much into pantheism or panetheism until I learned about PC/EU theory, and then I couldn't help but take a fresh look at the idea. In comparison to Lambda-CDM, it makes a lot more sense to me, and it's easier to defend, particularly at the level of pure empirical physics.

I would define them by the red letter parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I personally think that the Gospel of Thomas was foundational material for the synoptic Gospels and I would include that text as well, though clearly that is a minority position within 'Christianity' as a whole. I think most Christians would agree that the red letter parts of the NT are the "heart and soul" of "Christianity'.

Jesus seems to the "minimum standard" in terms of what binds the various denominations to 'Christianity'. I'm a "Universalist Christian" whereas some might call themselves a "Southern Baptist Christian". There is "dogma" that comes with each unique Christian "religion" that separates them, but they all seem to share a love of Christ. That's enough for me.

In terms of scientific freedom, I *insist* that I have the right to as much scientific freedom as anyone, and my views remain open to scrutiny. They may change over time. That won't likely ever again change my love and appreciation of Christ's teachings however.

We only see a tiny sliver of the physical universe regardless of which cosmology theory you believe is true. We don't 'see' the whole universe, and the universe could be infinite for all I know. The part that we "see" isn't the whole thing, and it changes, just as our physical forms change. The physical structures however do not necessarily change the "consciousness" of God, anymore than gaining or losing few cells in your own body necessarily has a major effect on your consciousness. This physical universe that I see around me may in fact 'change over time', and it may cease to exist altogether in the future, but God's awareness and consciousness will never change IMO.

It's different in some ways to be sure. Then again, it depends on how you look at it IMO. I don't claim to be a 'traditional' Christian, certainly not as it relates to topics related to 'science'.

Yes. Basically the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is defined in terms of belief in God *caring* and *interacting* with humans. My experience of God have been very "personal" in nature. Those experiences are simply more in alignment with panentheism (caring/active God as the living universe) than with pantheism (disinterested living universe).

Michael,

What is your view of the bible (specifically matthew, mark, luke and John) when it comes to being a historically reliable book?

Also, I realize many Christians throw out the old testament (because it isn't very pleasant), but Jesus is quoted in the new testament as saying the old testament is the word of God and should be followed. Is this to be ignored by christians?

 

[Michael]

Ok, so you admit they're not actually 'almost exactly the same'. Because, you know, that implies that the same effect is happening.

If you intend to put *something/anything* (in this case VP's) into the vacuum, and you intend to make them interact with the photons, and slow down the photons in that process, it's the same basic process. Holushko's work is *inclusive* of any sort of medium interacting with the photons, even what you're calling VP's from an ordinary EM field.

Couple of small points that have passed you by

1) the VP papers do not predict a physical "medium" in the sense of the Holushko paper. In no sense of the word, never, not at all. You're not understanding them at all.

You just don't like the implication of the comparison of VP's to a medium because it's uncomfortable to you. They are particles that interact with, and slow down the travel time of the photon, just like in Holushko's *inclusive*, not exclusive model.

They are saying that photon C_group is limited to C_rel by the properties of the vacuum and its tendency to produce VP pairs that then annihilate. This is not a medium, and it never will be, it doesn't how much you keep pretending that this is what this means.

It is a medium who's density very much depends upon the density of the EM fields, etc, and that interacts with photons and changes the travel time from point to point. You can try to tap dance around that fact all you like, but it's a *variable medium* composed of EM field carrier particles. Cue Brillioun scattering and every other EM field effect known to humanity.

2) the Holushko garbage is still garbage and isn't ameliorated by saying "look here's a paper that's a little like it! But it's completely different but I don't understand the difference, so sure, it's almost exactly the same!" Almost exactly...your words. Actually...not exactly. In the slightest.

You're just "uptight' because you don't like the fact that Holushko's work is *inclusive* of all inelastic scattering effects, even interactions with the EM carrier particle.

How different are they, Michael? Are we talking..."almost exactly" the same as you said prior, or....completely different so much so as to be many orders of magnitude apart? Are we talking completely different scientific bases, one where GR is applicable and one where it is not?

Nowhere in his actual *paper* does Holushko claim that GR is inapplicable. That is again something you're 'reading into' his work all on your own. Keep your facts straight.

Because that would fit into most people's definitions of 'completely different'.

I'm sure in your strawman recreation of Holushko's work, they are completely different. Then again, you see only what you wish to see, and ignore the parts you don't wish to deal with.

There is no such thing as 'generic' math as you propose in this sense. There is only correct, or incorrect. Quite apart from the differences in statistical distribution characteristics predicted, there is the orders of magnitude difference in scales, the fact that C_rel and C_group holds absolute in the VP paper, and not in Holushko's garbage, and so on and so forth.

The "math" related to an electric universe (not your pitifully sterile nonsense) is ultimately going to be "postdicted" (as Holushko did it) in order to fit the observation. Don't complain about postdiction since you folks do it *constantly*. You're just miffed because Holushko's model actually works and it even makes a few unique predictions in terms of travel time variation of photons at higher energy states.

"Generic" is your placeholder term for "I have absolutely no idea whether his math is right or not and no way to test it".

The math isn't "generic", it's quite specific and you don't like it. The *model* is generic. It *includes* all kinds of inelastic scattering effects and in fact all types of "tired light" effects including VP interactions. You simply hear what you wish to hear, throw away perfectly good math on a whim and put the term 'garbage' on anything that annoys you.

Yes, Holushko is calling for an aether, despite Michelson-Morley and the massive empirical constraints on such an idea shown by GRB 090501.

Those VP's are acting like an aether in the sense that the interact with the photons.

His math is not generic unless you can show how his Gaussian distribution allows for a delay of just femtoseconds for a high energy (31GeV!) photon travelling from a redshift of z = 0.9. Care to?

Nope. I"m sticking with Holuhsko's mathematical *postidictions* as written. If you have a problem with it, that's your problem. The VP interactions you cite are no doubt based upon a whole host of assumptions about the nature and makeup of a *non electric* universe that is nothing like 'reality'.

Or perhaps you could just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sure it's comforting to you to believe that is the case, but it's not.

We've known about this phenomenon a long time, the best summary I know of how the constraints should work is, and MAGIC went bye bye years ago as regards a finding of Lorentz violations.

How so? When did that happen?

[0906.3731] Prospects for constraining quantum gravity dispersion with near term observations



Sigh. See above. If you understand it.

I haven't had time to read it yet, but from reading the abstract on a *theoretical* prospect, I admit that I don't understand how it helps your case. ????

I guess you didn't read prior. Here's just one of them again:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1832v1.pdf

Oh please! They saw exactly *one* high energy photon, it didn't perfectly align with any of the *7* (not one) pulses they observed and the *arbitrarily assumed* it came from the last one, even though the was a delay between it's arrival and the last peak! I've already been through the 'miracle of a single photon paper' with you.

..so, for the purposes of our discussion, that basically shows that MAGIC wasn't about new physics and was almost certainly related to source effects.

So there we have it. You had a preconceived idea, you matched *one* (and only one) to the *closest* thing you could make it fit, and then you still *fudged* the last little bit, and call it a "source effect". Right.

Note that it was *entirely random* in terms of assigning that high energy photon the last of the 7 spikes. It wasn't even the most powerful spike, and it still didn't fit with your preconceived ideas. In the end you finally had to *fake it* at the source!

This observation was at a considerably further distance and high energy photons were observed at the very, very start of the burst, conclusively ruling out source effects.

Funny how you rule out source effects in one breath when it suits you, right after claiming it was 'source effects' that did it when it suits you. Amazing!

The interpretation that MAGIC's apparent delay was caused by something along the journey of the photon was wrong. Just wrong. Flat...out...wrong. The high energy photons arrived four minutes later in the MAGIC example most probably because they left four minutes later. Not hard to understand even without the math.

Of course if we looked at your *ONE MAGIC PHOTON* paper, it's also easy to see how it may have come from any one of the other spikes they observed and ended up with a similar delay as the one seen in the MAGIC data. Not hard to understand either, and we don't have to assume it's a *source* problem in either instance!

Further experiments were run that ruled out your interpretation.

That A) isn't an 'experiment' with actual control mechanisms, it's an uncontrolled *observation*. That *single photon* could have come from *any* of the more powerful spikes. The only reason they *assumed* it came from the last one was because that "came closest' to fitting with their own *preconceived theory*!

If you handed me a paper that was based on showing 100 high energy photons and the 7 spikes in that data set that all lined up with the spikes in the lower energy band, you'd have a right to gloat. As it stands you're basing your entire argument on an *assumption* they made about a *single* high energy photon and when it was created. It doesn't match perfectly with anything. It's not a *bunch* of photons showing peaks. It's just one lone photon that doesn't fit with any of the spikes so you picked the one you liked and fudged the rest.

I have to stop here for now, but I'll pick up the rest a bit later.

 

[Michael]

Michael,

What is your view of the bible (specifically matthew, mark, luke and John) when it comes to being a historically reliable book?

In terms of it's historical content, I'd say it's a reasonably accurate account of the life of Jesus the man, but IMO only God is perfect and I hold no books on any "infallible' pedestals.

Also, I realize many Christians throw out the old testament (because it isn't very pleasant), but Jesus is quoted in the new testament as saying the old testament is the word of God and should be followed. Is this to be ignored by christians?

If you carefully listen to the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), you'll hear Jesus quote from the lips of Moses when he says "You have heard: An eye for an eye...". He then goes on to talk about 'loving your enemy', 'turning the other cheek' and "being perfect" as God is perfect. There is a significant difference between a sense of morality that is based upon revenge, and a sense of morality that is based upon love and forgiveness. No matter how you rationalize it, even in the OT it's written: "Do not kill" but the people of the OT killed anyway. Jesus never killed anyone to achieve Earthly goals, or any goals.

IMO Jesus was the "Messiah", the one that embodied the actual "laws" of God in human form.

 

[bhsmte]

In terms of it's historical content, I'd say it's a reasonably accurate account of the life of Jesus the man, but IMO only God is perfect and I hold no books on any "infallible' pedestals.

Yes, the bible is clearly not close to infallible and it should be critiqued as any other book from a historical standpoint, especially considering the importance many people place upon it.

I have done quite a bit of reading from biblical scholars and historians on this topic in the last year and it has been extremely enlightening. I would agree that Jesus was a real person and he existed, but where I depart, is with the miracles, rising from the dead, virgin birth etc.. Besides no evidence being present these things occurred, the new testament itself is on very shaky ground.

First of all, the majority of established historians, don't view the bible as a historical book, because it comes no where near being able to be verified through the established historical method. Historians job is to determine what likely happened in the past and they follow their method to establish the same. With the bible, very little of it pertaining to Jesus is established by historians as being historically legit. The Jesus seminar (collection of biblical scholars and historians that determined sayings and quotes of Jesus that are legit) determined 18% of sayings and quotes attributed to Jesus were historically legitimate. I will acknowledge, this group was critiqued heavily (mostly by fundamental christians) as using flawed methods etc and they caused quite a stir, because the majority of these scholars and historians were christians themselves.

When I learned the following, it really opened my eyes to just how flawed the bible and the new testament is:

-No original texts of the new testament gospels exist
-we only have copies of copies of copies, which are from approx. 300-400 years after Jesus died
-the earliest copies of the gospels, have significant differences in them when compared to subsequent copies that were developed as time went on.
-It has been established, the original gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john, were written at least 50-70 years after Jesus died with no eyewitness accounts.
-It has been established, that matthew, mark, luke and john, did not author the gospels in their name, but instead they were anonymous authors. Jesus' followers were illiterate and they spoke aramaic and the new testament gospels were written in Greek, not aramaic.
-These same four gospels, have significant contradictions in them, when it comes to description of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection.
-Some stories in the gospels have been shown to be added, centuries later for effect. The story of "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" is one example. That story does not appear in any of the oldest copies of the gospels until hundreds of years later, when it magically appears. Historians and scholars are in agreement, that the powers at be thought it would be a good story to put Jesus in a good light and it was simply added for that reason. Several other stories were deleted and or added for similar reason, by the group of people that actually decided what made it into the bible and what didn't.

This is just a small example, but it is interesting to dive into the bible and read from historians and scholars who have studied it their entire lives.

 

[Michael]

The worst part of this whole conversation is that you don't even debate honestly or fairly:

Oh give me a break! Half of your "sp(ie)l" is pure personal attack.

Only because when someone points you don't know any mathematics beyond high school.....

How did you decide that? Oh ya, you just made it up!

This is nothing but pure "kill the messenger" mentality. It is a false statement. It's an incredibly sleazy, and I mean *really sleazy*, debate tactic. You won't for a minute focus on the topic itself without interjecting a whole host of personal attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with reality or with civil debate. You don't care to have a civil debate, you don't want a civil debate, and you refuse to participate in a civil debate. It's all about attacking the individual in your case, and you just make stuff up as you go!

(or certainly haven't demonstrated as such)

You mean I didn't "perform on command" in the thread or something?

you think it's an insult, because you like to pretend that you do.

There you go again, pretending to be a clairvoyant instead of sticking to the topic! Do you even know how to debate fairly? If so, you haven't done so yet.

You don't demonstrate any knowledge of the math involved in these papers, so I have no idea how you are supposedly understanding ANY of the papers you've cited press releases for........or SUSY, GR, QG, and so on.

As long as you continue to *assume* the very worst about me, how could you possibly understand me, or my motives? Why am I obligated to "dance math on command" or face your constant onslaught of personal attacks? Who made you math god anyway?

This is kind of typical of the emotional baggage and complete nonsense that you toss into the conversation instead of sticking to the topic. I guess that you figure if you keep stabbing the messenger, and blaming the messenger, you never have to hear the message?

Honestly, outside of astronomy, I've never seen a field of science that is so closed minded, and so emotionally (and professionally) attached to a single idea. Anyone that even dares to think outside of the box around you must endure a constant onslaught of personal abuse from you.

 

[Michael]

Yes, the bible is clearly not close to infallible and it should be critiqued as any other book from a historical standpoint, especially considering the importance many people place upon it.

I have done quite a bit of reading from biblical scholars and historians on this topic in the last year and it has been extremely enlightening. I would agree that Jesus was a real person and he existed, but where I depart, is with the miracles, rising from the dead, virgin birth etc.. Besides no evidence being present these things occurred, the new testament itself is on very shaky ground.

First of all, the majority of established historians, don't view the bible as a historical book, because it comes no where near being able to be verified through the established historical method. Historians job is to determine what likely happened in the past and they follow their method to establish the same. With the bible, very little of it pertaining to Jesus is established by historians as being historically legit. The Jesus seminar (collection of biblical scholars and historians that determined sayings and quotes of Jesus that are legit) determined 18% of sayings and quotes attributed to Jesus were historically legitimate. I will acknowledge, this group was critiqued heavily (mostly by fundamental christians) as using flawed methods etc and they caused quite a stir, because the majority of these scholars and historians were christians themselves.

When I learned the following, it really opened my eyes to just how flawed the bible and the new testament is:

-No original texts of the new testament gospels exist
-we only have copies of copies of copies, which are from approx. 300-400 years after Jesus died
-the earliest copies of the gospels, have significant differences in them when compared to subsequent copies that were developed as time went on.
-It has been established, the original gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john, were written at least 50-70 years after Jesus died with no eyewitness accounts.
-It has been established, that matthew, mark, luke and john, did not author the gospels in their name, but instead they were anonymous authors. Jesus' followers were illiterate and they spoke aramaic and the new testament gospels were written in Greek, not aramaic.
-These same four gospels, have significant contradictions in them, when it comes to description of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection.
-Some stories in the gospels have been shown to be added, centuries later for effect. The story of "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" is one example. That story does not appear in any of the oldest copies of the gospels until hundreds of years later, when it magically appears. Historians and scholars are in agreement, that the powers at be thought it would be a good story to put Jesus in a good light and it was simply added for that reason. Several other stories were deleted and or added for similar reason, by the group of people that actually decided what made it into the bible and what didn't.

This is just a small example, but it is interesting to dive into the bible and read from historians and scholars who have studied it their entire lives.

FYI, somewhere in the various threads on Christianforums I have addressed all of the topics that you mentioned, including the Jesus Seminar, and their somewhat arbitrary methods. I've discussed the blatantly *false* assumption about low Jewish male literacy in the 1st century AD and I've discussed pretty much all the things on your list. Unfortunately we're drifting way off topic in this thread, and Christian Apologetics in the science forum is rather frowned upon.

Suffice to say that my 'trust' in Jesus comes from the application of the his teachings to my life, and the effect those teachings have had upon my life in the here and now. I value the teachings of Jesus as contained in the Bible, but I value the effect of his teachings in my actual life far more than I value any book.

 

[bhsmte]

FYI, somewhere in the various threads on Christianforums I have addressed all of the topics that you mentioned, including the Jesus Seminar, and their somewhat arbitrary methods. I've discussed the blatantly *false* assumption about low Jewish male literacy in the 1st century AD and I've discussed pretty much all the things on your list. Unfortunately we're drifting way off topic in this thread, and Christian Apologetics in the science forum is rather frowned upon.

Suffice to say that my 'trust' in Jesus comes from the application of the his teachings to my life, and the effect those teachings have had upon my life in the here and now. I value the teachings of Jesus as contained in the Bible, but I value the effect of his teachings in my actual life far more than I value any book.

The Jesus seminar, while very interesting, is a small piece of critiquing the bible. I don't know how you addressed these issues and won't ask for you to repeat, but the short list that I included, is accepted by the most respected biblical scholars and historians.

For how critical you have been of certain scientists work, certainly you wouldn't object to the same level of critique being placed on a holy book that many look to much more than any science? In fact, if we were talking about a science book, I'd imagine you would be very open to a high level of critical thinking and review. The bible should be no different.

With that said, I respect your belief in following Jesus and what he has been portrayed as.

 

[Michael]

The Jesus seminar, while very interesting, is a small piece of critiquing the bible. I don't know how you addressed these issues and won't ask for you to repeat, but the short list that I included, is accepted by the most respected biblical scholars and historians.

For how critical you have been of certain scientists work, certainly you wouldn't object to the same level of critique being placed on a holy book that many look to much more than any science? In fact, if we were talking about a science book, I'd imagine you would be very open to a high level of critical thinking and review. The bible should be no different.

With that said, I respect your belief in following Jesus and what he has been portrayed as.

I did read the book "Honest To Jesus". I very much enjoyed the book, although I was a bit skeptical about some of the methods that were used to determine authenticity of various sentences. I also questioned the low male literacy assumptions they made, particularly as it relates to Judaism. A "good Jew", even back then was expected to teach his son how to read and write and particularly how to read from the Torah.

I ultimately believe they did a fantastic job of distilling down 'Jesus the man' on many levels, but I felt they were a bit overly zealous in terms of trying to eliminate some types of material based upon their "distilled picture" of his beliefs. Even still, it was well worth reading.

I don't really have any problem with the scientific method being applied to the Bible. That's totally fine by me.

I will say this much:

If you look at the Gospel of John in particular, that Gospel contains huge, long narratives that are attributed to Jesus. There are many of these long such narratives to be found in that Gospel, many of which take place in circumstances in which *only* in the apostles themselves were present. An actual apostle of Jesus could expect to write an account like that, and have some hope of being taken seriously. Anyone else would have an extremely hard time attributing so much text to Jesus, particularly in such intimate settings, without some other overlap from other Gospels. IMO that particular Gospel probably came from the Apostle John and/or his immediate students. It's the most authentic book in the Bible IMO, along with the letter from James, the brother of Jesus. Don't get too caught up in trying to "write it all off". Historically speaking, there's a lot of content to work with, and much of it is very accurate IMO.

 

[bhsmte]

I did read the book "Honest To Jesus". I very much enjoyed the book, although I was a bit skeptical about some of the methods that were used to determine authenticity of various sentences. I also questioned the low male literacy assumptions they made, particularly as it relates to Judaism. A "good Jew", even back then was expected to teach his son how to read and write and particularly how to read from the Torah.

I ultimately believe they did a fantastic job of distilling down 'Jesus the man' on many levels, but I felt they were a bit overly zealous in terms of trying to eliminate some types of material based upon their "distilled picture" of his beliefs. Even still, it was well worth reading.

I don't really have any problem with the scientific method being applied to the Bible. That's totally fine by me.

I will say this much:

If you look at the Gospel of John in particular, it contains huge, long narratives that are attributed to Jesus. There are many of these long narratives listed in that Gospel, many of which take place in circumstances in which *only* in the apostles themselves were present. An actual apostle of Jesus could expect to write an account like that, and have some hope of being taken seriously. Anyone else would have an extremely hard time attributing so much text to Jesus, particularly in such intimate settings, without some other overlap from other Gospels. IMO that particular Gospel probably came from the Apostle John and/or his immediate students. It's the most authentic book in the Bible IMO, along with the letter from James, the brother of Jesus. Don't get too caught up in trying to "write it all off". Historically speaking, there's a lot of content to work with, and much of it is very accurate IMO.

I don't write it all off and would state there are "bits and pieces" that are likely historical accurate when it comes to Jesus' life and that is the general view of the most respected scholars who live and breath this stuff.

With that said, there are clearly indications, of deletions, changes and additions to later copies of the gospels, that were done for effect and not because they actually happened and this would give anyone pause and reduce credibility.

At the end of the day, what went into the bible was decided by man and with the loads of contradictions, errors etc., it was obviously written by man as well. Would a divine, all powerful God, want his word to be disseminated in a book that is open to so much critique or would he want a clear message that stood up to time?

IMO, the bible was written by man, in an attempt to take a stab at understanding all the unknowns of the world at that time. Man also had another motivation; to control people and that is why the entire bible has themes of intimidation and fear - if you don't follow me, you will be doomed forever. Quite powerful language in those times, because people didn't know any better and could be scared into following along. Man labeled other messiah's before Jesus and many of them also were born of a virgin, were crucified and rose from the dead, it was common place at that time.

 

[davidbilby]

Holushko's work is *inclusive* of any sort of medium interacting with the photons, even what you're calling VP's from an ordinary EM field.

Except that his Gaussian distribution for photon travel time would be completely wrong for the VP example. We are talking an immensely distant photon origin and seeing almost no deviation in travel time despite a significant redshift (z = 0.9).

You just don't like the implication of the comparison of VP's to a medium because it's uncomfortable to you. They are particles that interact with, and slow down the travel time of the photon, just like in Holushko's *inclusive*, not exclusive model.

It's uncomfortable because it's wrong, a reaction that you seemingly are incapable of having.

It is a medium who's density very much depends upon the density of the EM fields, etc, and that interacts with photons and changes the travel time from point to point.

And that is incompatible with GR, even Einstein understood that, as I shall show a bit later on in the post.

You can try to tap dance around that fact all you like, but it's a *variable medium* composed of EM field carrier particles. Cue Brillioun scattering and every other EM field effect known to humanity.

So why isn't redshift variable over time, fluctuating constantly? Why is redshift wavelength independent in cosmological observations, when all the components you have suggested do not exhibit that characteristic? Why is it Doppler-like?

You're just "uptight' because you don't like the fact that Holushko's work is *inclusive* of all inelastic scattering effects, even interactions with the EM carrier particle.

In your dreams. He doesn't demonstrate that and neither have you. Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate where a femtosecond magnitude of delay is applicable to his Gaussian distribution for photon travel time for a photon propagating from z = 0.9, for a single example?

Nowhere in his actual *paper* does Holushko claim that GR is inapplicable. That is again something you're 'reading into' his work all on your own. Keep your facts straight.

Let's put it another way he proposes an aether that would be capable of motion: this is incompatible with GR (and SR, for that matter). Einstein himself pointed out that you could consider the vacuum 'an aether' of sorts simply because if it did not exist there could be no concept of propagation (since this implies a change of coordinates within that concept). He also pointed that in Minkowskian terms, "not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads." I quote further:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Holushko's proposes that his aether would have temperature of 2.723 Kelvin, namely the temperature of the CMB. To have temperature implies motion within time which would imply "world-thread composition", that is a change over time, and he further says of his aether "its physical properties are not constant, they may fluctuate; therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant."

If you really cannot see why Holushko's ideas are not compatible with GR, and that when he says the speed of light is not a fundamental constant that is at odds with SR, then you know nothing about this subject and further discussion is a waste of time. Sorry. You're pointing at blue and saying "look, red!".

The "math" related to an electric universe (not your pitifully sterile nonsense) is ultimately going to be "postdicted" (as Holushko did it) in order to fit the observation.

That's good for starters, only an idiot makes up equations that don't fit current observations.

Don't complain about postdiction since you folks do it *constantly*.

AS I said, only an idiot makes up equations that don't fit present observations, so you won't hear such a "postdiction" complaint from me. Nor have you ever. The only person who's ever complained about postdictions that I can see on this board...is...er...you. Oops.

You're just miffed because Holushko's model actually works and it even makes a few unique predictions in terms of travel time variation of photons at higher energy states.

Such as? As far as I can see it they're unique because they're wrong.

The math isn't "generic", it's quite specific

You're the one who calls it "generic" math, not me.

and you don't like it.

Because it's wrong.

The *model* is generic.

The model...which is a mathematical model, built entirely with er...math...

It *includes* all kinds of inelastic scattering effects

Does it predict a wavelength and specially independent redshift as observed in the real universe? Oops. No.

and in fact all types of "tired light" effects including VP interactions.

Only in your mind are VP interactions proven to be "tired light" effect. Nice attempt to slip at best a fanciful idea into a web of words as if it were proven fact. Nobody has suggested this with a mathematical model, nor have they done so in a "lab", so why are you citing this idea as fact?

You simply hear what you wish to hear

No, that's you.

throw away perfectly good math on a whim

No, that's you, except it's not a whim, it's a lack of any mathematical understanding so far demonstrated...

and put the term 'garbage' on anything that annoys you.

Wrong math = garbage. It's less useful than garbage, because at least you can recycle garbage.

Those VP's are acting like an aether in the sense that the interact with the photons.

Prove it. A mathematical model, at least, that suggests VPs can redshift photons. Please.

Nope. I"m sticking with Holuhsko's mathematical *postidictions* as written.

Can you show me a single successful prediction of his math?

The VP interactions you cite are no doubt based upon a whole host of assumptions about the nature and makeup of a *non electric* universe that is nothing like 'reality'.

Word salad there. Nonsense.

I'm sure it's comforting to you to believe that is the case, but it's not.

It would hardly be comforting if the math didn't add up, which is what you are saying. That we're all wrong. Delusional, I guess.

How so? When did that happen?

When nobody was able to repeat the MAGIC findings and there were repeated measurements of gamma ray bursts at distant redshifts. It wasn't just that one photon...sorry. Similar readings of numerous other gamma ray bursts have been taken (it's just that that one was a particularly good example, being such high energy and so distant).

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5367v1.pdf

I havent' read it yet, but from reading the abstract on a *theoretical* prospect, I admit that I don't understand how it helps your case. ????

Yeah, I guess you wouldn't understand why limitations on photon travel time fluctuation observations as demonstrated and theorized would be important evidence for this subject...unsurprising. Do you really not understand why if, say, Holushko was right, or Ashmore, we should observe consistent delays in high energy photons, without exceptions?

Oh please! They saw exactly *one* high energy photon, it didn't perfectly align with any of the *7* (not one) pulses they observed and the *arbitrarily assumed* it came from the last one, even though the was a delay between it's arrival and the last peak! I've already been through the 'miracle of a single photon paper' with you.

So there we have it. You had a preconceived idea, you matched *one* (and only one) to the *closest* thing you could make it fit, and then *fudged* the last little bit, and call it a "source effect". Right.

Oh the irony. You forgot how a) you propose throwing out the cosmological principle because of precisely ONE paper on ONE potential structure that might be above the Yadav limitations b) you propose entirely new physics from just ONE paper (MAGIC) suggesting delayed high energy photons and yet now, you're suggesting caution based on a single reading, because hey, single readings do not science make?

And to the salient point - no, it's not just one reading, as I just pointed out, that was just a particularly good one (high redshift and high energy and yet no apparent delay, massively constraining any theory which proposes photon travel time fluctuations...including Holushko!).

Note that it was *entirely random* in terms of assigning that high energy photon the last of the 7 spikes, it wasn't the most powerful spike, and it still didn't fit with your preconceived ideas so you have to *fake it* at the source!

Er...note that it wasn't actually random at all, but you just don't understand the bit of the paper that points out that they considered that point VERY carefully. Read page 16 again, particular the reasoning for choice of T_start and see that they actually showed the results for the entire range of possible emission times.

Funny how you rule out source effects in one breath, right after claiming it was 'source effects' that did it when it suits you. Amazing!

Because that's what the paper successfully does, taking into account different possibilities for T_start and showing the constraints from each standpoint. Even with the most conservative estimate for T_start (putting it as part of a different spike) it still constrains the possibility for fluctuations in photon travel time to almost zero and well beyond any predictions made by Holushko (and many quantum gravity theories, by the way).

Of course if we looked at your *ONE MAGIC PHOTON* paper, it's also easy to see how it may have come from any one of the other 7 spikes the observed and ended up with a similar delay as the one seen in the MAGIC data.

Is that true? No. You're not doing well today.

The MAGIC data from Markarian 501 showed a delay of 4 minutes at a redshift of z = 0.03.

How long apart were the 7 spikes? That's right. See page 17. That would be...er...2 seconds. This was 16 times further away, at a redshift of z = 0.9.

The 31Gev photon arrived before even 1 second of the burst. So unless you're proposing a source effect that accelerated the photon ahead of the others...as well as redshifting it...I fail to see why you think "source" effects apply in the same way, there's only a 1 second window in which it could have been emitted.

The worst case in the list on p.16 is (a), the most conservative option. Anything more would mean that the photon got accelerated somehow and arrived early. Unlikely...

That A) isn't an 'experiment' with actual control mechanisms, it's an uncontrolled *observation*.

Which is why theory and computer simulations are perfectly valid controls for any astronomical observation. What exactly would you propose as a control for an astronomical observation?

Do you dispute every astronomical observation ever made for that reason? "Pluto doesn't exist, you don't have a control in the experiment that says it does!".

Ridiculous.

That *single photon* could have come from *any* of the more powerful spikes.

Mmmm, not quite...it could have come from t_start (a) through (d), which is why they consider all those scenarios with multiple t_start possibilities, which you failed to notice. Page 16. The other spikes are at different energy levels (page 17) and if you don't know why you quite naturally wouldn't associate a 31GeV photon with a reading at a completely different energy level then there's literally no hope for you.

The only reason they *assumed* it came from the last one was because that "came closest' to fitting with their own *preconceived theory*!

Actually, wrong again. They give four possible t_starts including all of the spikes that match the energy level and the entire time constraint possible (0.859 seconds). Anybody who reads page 16 would realise that, provided they understood what that page says, of course. I guess you didn't.

If you handed me a paper that was based on showing 100 high energy photons and the 7 spikes in that data set that all lined up with the spikes in the lower energy band, you'd have a right to gloat.

Here's some more corroborating GRB data:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5367v1.pdf

By the way, I'm assuming you have lots of other data backing up the MAGIC observations with similar time delays shown....no? Mmmm? Nothing, you say? Oh dear. Not a single thing? No. Poor you.

 

[Michael]

With that said, there are clearly indications, of deletions, changes and additions to later copies of the gospels, that were done for effect and not because they actually happened and this would give anyone pause and reduce credibility.

From my perspective this is a bit like suggesting that because of the fact that US History books underwent revisions over they years, it reduces credibility. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't really have any "extra" expectations on this or any account of human history.

At the end of the day, what went into the bible was decided by man and with the loads of contradictions, errors etc., it was obviously written by man as well. Would a divine, all powerful God, want his word to be disseminated in a book that is open to so much critique or would he want a clear message that stood up to time?

I'm quite sure that the words attributed to Jesus have stood the test of time and will continue stand the test of time.

IMO, the bible was written by man, in an attempt to take a stab at understanding all the unknowns of the world at that time.

That same statement could be made about almost any history or science book written at any time in human history.

Man also had another motivation; to control people and that is why the entire bible has themes of intimidation and fear - if you don't follow me, you will be doomed forever. Quite powerful language in those times, because people didn't know any better and could be scared into following along. Man labeled other messiah's before Jesus and many of them also were born of a virgin, were crucified and rose from the dead, it was common place at that time.

The problem with your logic is that Jesus actually taught a *different* message about God, not based on fear, but based upon love and forgiveness. He also taught that nobody needed to "intercede" between ourselves and God. It's not logical IMO to blame Jesus for the sins of later 'religions'. There isn't now, and there wasn't then, any concept of "eternal torment" for instance in Judaism. Whereas early Christian Theologians like Origen taught early "Christians" about universal salvation, later religions found many pagan ideas (like pagan hades) creeping into the religion that had little or nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

 

[davidbilby]

As long as you continue to *assume* the very worst about me, how could you possibly understand me, or my motives? Why am I obligated to "dance math on command" or face your constant onslaught of personal attacks? Who made you math god anyway?

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say you and I were in Saudi Arabia. I don't speak Arabic, so I don't understand what a person speaking Arabic is saying. Now, if you said "this Arabic sentence meant this in English" I would assume you spoke Arabic... because if you did not, you would not be able to be sure what it meant. If you only spoke a little, I would not have complete confidence in your opinion of the translation. In mathematical terms, you speak rudimentary Arabic. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that.

But if the subject at hand was Cartesian dualism in a Post-Modern age, I would highly doubt that you would be able, with rudimentary Arabic, to ascertain what the points being made were by a native speaker and whether they were valid. You would be forced to either pretend or go off someone else's conclusions as to what was valid.

Mathematics is a language that you seem to understand to a point. I call that point high school math. That's fine. It's really not an insult. It's a point that I'm trying to get across.

What I am asking you is how you can make sweeping claims about papers with vastly more complex math that you have no mechanism to be able to understand - such as SUSY theories?

You made no comment on the B(s)->mu+mu- channel question, as to why you think that is such a problem for some SUSY theories. No...to you, "SUSY bit the dust"....yet you seem to not know anything about the details, you're merely going off somebody else's press release because it jives with your preconceived notions. Never mind that many more educated people don't actually see a big problem with the B(s)->mu+mu- channel data. Do you even know what it is and why it possibly (and only possibly) places constraints on some forms of SUSY?

It's like you are claiming to be able to debate complex philosophical concepts in Arabic, without being able to speak it beyond "hi, my name is michael" and "I'd like to order a pizza". I'm not saying you're not capable of mathematical skill, I'm saying that you don't have the arsenal to handle this stuff...yet you making sweeping claims that only someone who does have the arsenal to handle it could. When I bring up mathematical reasons why you're not correct, you just start making silly comments about math deities or whatnot, as if folksy charm would get you through advanced astrophysics.

You don't understand large portions of these papers in the details...so how can you possibly ascertain their veracity, except by either a) taking someone else's opinion as gospel or b) just assuming it's right if it says something you think jives with your preconceived notions?

I can read this stuff and decide for myself whether it's right. You can't...yet you tell me I'm wrong and you're right. Do you not see the problem?

 

[bhsmte]

From my perspective this is a bit like suggesting that because of the fact that US History books underwent revisions over they years, it reduces credibility. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't really have any "extra" expectations on this or any account of human history.

I'm quite sure that the words attributed to Jesus have stood the test of time and will continue stand the test of time.

That same statement could be made about almost any history or science book written at any time in human history.

The problem with your logic is that Jesus actually taught a *different* message about God, not based on fear, but based upon love and forgiveness. He also taught that nobody needed to "intercede" between ourselves and God. It's not logical IMO to blame Jesus for the sins of later 'religions'. There isn't now, and there wasn't then, any concept of "eternal torment" for instance in Judaism. Whereas early Christian Theologians like Origen taught early "Christians" about universal salvation, later religions found many pagan ideas (like pagan hades) creeping into the religion that had little or nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

I'm not blaming Jesus (he clearly didn't write any of the new testament or old) I am simply stating the bible is rife with a constant message of believe in me and follow the rules or else and there is no way around that, as that theme is there for all to see.

One thing that amazes me about many christians, is they are motivated to critique science on a deep level (and that is fine), but when it comes to the book that is the cornerstone of the christian faith, they really don't like people poking around and identifying credibility issues with it, that may be unpleasant.

The revisions in history or science books are based on new evidence that is gleaned. The revisions, deletions and or additions that have turned up in the new testament over hundreds of years, was not based on evidence, it was based on sending a certain message.

The book has both moral lessons and immoral lessons, which is consistent with its other contradictions.

In regards to the words attributed to Jesus, yes, they have stood the test of time, because we are talking about the bible here, which has been held up for over a thousand years as the word of God and that is powerful to many. Now, the fact that they have stood the test of time, doesn't mean that much of what is attributed to him is in fact true.

 

[Mr Clean]

You might want to peruse the Empirical Theory of God threads. Suffice to say I started with noting all the electrical currents in the universe, the structures they create and their similarity of the structures of spacetime to the human brain. I also showed links between external EM fields and human thoughts with the God Helmet experiments.

I'll try to check those threads out. It would be prudent for me to reserve comment on what you say above until I read everything you have to say on the matter.

While I might be willing to grant you that astronomers grossly underestimate the amount of *normal* matter in a galaxy, why does any of that 'missing mass' need to be exotic mass? From my perspective you're *leaping* to the conclusion that every UFO is *necessarily* from another planet. I'll grant you there is "unidentified" mass to find, but why does it have to be exotic in nature?

I don't know that the name matters. All we know, and I think you and I already agree on, is that we can't account for all the mass that we can tell is out there. The "exotic" mass could just be regular mass that we are not accounting for. I believe galaxy mass is figured on a mathematical model that counts on a certain spread of types of stars (if this is wrong don't anyone jump me, I am going off memory here), but it is far from foolproof. I read an article on space.com last year that since things like brown dwarfs, black holes, white dwarfs, and other bodies are hard to see, there could be more of them than we realize in a standard galaxy and that could account for some of the missing mass. The "exotic" tag notwithstanding, there is obviously more mass for us to account for...

It's not as simple as you think since photons lose momentum in every inelastic scattering event, and objects of mass cannot expand faster than C.

Maybe not as simple, but I am not wrong either.

Been there, done that. They all lack empirical (in the lab) cause/effect justification. For instance, even if I granted you that the universe expands and accelerates, what evidence do you have that dark energy did it?

Something is doing it. As I mentioned in another post to someone else, dark energy is early in its investigation, and maybe there is no such thing. But regardless of what it is called, we know that it is happening. The question to be answered is the "what" that is causing it.

How does one "debunk" empirical physics exactly?

Well, you'll at least have to explain to me how you think anyone "debunked" EU/PC theory, a pure form of empirical physics. How is it even possible for instance to demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on a photon?

If memory serves, isn't there a lack of X-rays and gamma rays that should exist if PC is true? And I believe I read somwhere that the WMAP has solidified the Big Bank model with its highly accurate readings of early universe acoustical peaks. But I don't claim to be an expert on this by any means, so your feedback is appreciated.

 

[Mr Clean]

So apparently you doubt the 'cause/effect' aspect of the phenomenon? You *assumed* the exact opposite of every author. Why?

The human brain is hardwired to look for patterens. It's a survival tool that runs amok sometimes. Happening to think about a god and then having someone come up and ask you about god right after the fact (as one of the stories told) is not a miracle. It's a coincidence. That story did not even fit the classic defintion of a miracle for that matter. None of them that I read did. A miracle sure has gotten watered down from 2000 years ago.

Regardless of what those individuals believe happened, there is no way to verify the truthfulness of their claim. No personal experience that is entirely contained in your brain can be.

And, to go even a step further, even if we could verify what happened to any one of those people, how do we prove that is was a god? What verifiable proof is there that a deity made that guy think about a god just before someone asked him about god, or that god sent that someone to talk to him?

I don't know that I can explain it better than that Mike. You understand proof and logic as well as anyone on here, from what I can tell, and I think you can clearly see the impossibility of knowing if miracle claims are truthful and caused by a higher being.

Your example related to dragons is a bit pointless since nobody today claims to have a relationship with a dragon, and even the concept of 'dragons' probably had to do with the fossils humans found in the ground that looked like "dragons". In short, something resembling "dragons" did probably walk the earth 70 million years ago.

Insert "lecprechaun" then where it reads dragon then. The dragon was not the point. The point was that just because it was written about long ago doesn't make it any more valid or real than if someone wrote about it yesterday.

Nothing like subjectively dismissing any and all human testimony, and any and all human experience! Wow! I love how you get to decide what counts as 'proof'. Define 'proof'.

Verifiable. I dismissed any accounts that cannot be verified. This happened to be all of them. If you can provide one that can be verified that would be outstanding.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Most people believe in God, whereas most do not believe in Bigfoot, or Yeti. How might we 'verify" anything according to you?

That's actually a spot-on comparison. Both groups claim to have interacted, seen, and/or have proof that their being is real and exists. Both groups have yet to provide any evidence to support that claim.

How did you verify that dark energy isn't a collective figment of astronomers imaginations? Inflation?

Dark energy may be just that. Time will tell. As for inflation, I didn't think you had a problem with that. You didn't seem to in your other posts, so I'm not sure why you write it here. Inflation has evidence for its existence...and I think you know that.

It's been at least 15 years and nobody has a clue where dark energy might even come from, let alone control it. So what if electrical activity is ancient? Does that mean my AC in my office won't work today?

As I explained, its early in the theorectical process. Birkeland currents are pretty solid science, and have been for 100 years.

No.

So you think a spiritual perspective is inside the realm of science and verifiable knowledge then. That's good news for this discussion. I'd love to see your proof.

Either way, "love" has a "real" effect on the world we live in. So does awareness, and I suppose you could call that an abstract too. Keep in mind that the only things I'm ascribing to the universe itself are EM fields and awareness, both of which *do* show up in Pet Scans.

Then I'm confused as to why you brought love up in the first place. Maybe it was just to test me to see if I could prove "love"?

A lot of things show up in MRI and PET scans. Our bodies produce EM fields, particularly our muscles. I guess this has to do with your comment in another thread about a different part of the Forum that I should go read. Again, I will try to get over there...

Abstraction or not, awareness does influence the universe we live in. An aware universe would have a real effect on things.

This is more philosophy than science...

How do you know you didn't fall for a snow job instead of the majority again?

I've got verifiable proof. The majority doesn't have even one single shred of it.

We can't both listen to the same music, see the same sunset, feel many of the same feelings?

Of course we can. And we can recreate that music for each other, or record it and listen to it again. We can see the same sunset, and take pictures of it, and see other sunsets. And we can both feel abstract concepts like anger about something, or love towards our families, or happiness at the music or the sunset. BUT... can I feel your emotions, or you feel mine? No. Can we have you feel what I felt and how I felt it? No. Can it be recreated by someone else? Nope. Therein lies the problem. Unverifiable. It cannot be reproduced or copied, and therefore is purely a personal thing. And personal things don't pass the muster test for proof...

If it happens over and over again to different individuals, what is that a "verification" again?

You seem to be balking at the difference between 'cause' and "effect". You seem willing to note the 'effect' of something people experience, but you seem to want additional "proof" as to cause. How might that be done if you won't accept other human experiences to count as evidence?

How do you even know that they truly happened? More importantly, how do you know what caused them? You don't. They aren't verifiable. If you are a physicist (I think you said you were) then you of all people can understand the dilemma this causes when you want something to be considered true...

Likewise I also observe redshifted photons. I have no doubt as to the observation of photon redshift. I do however lack believe that either inflation or dark energy exist in nature, let alone that they have any tangible effect on a photon, let alone cause it to "redshift'. Care to demonstrate your claim in *verifiable* experiments that I can replicate without having *faith* in your invisible friend first?

So you've seen the proof that light is redshifted (and I assume a Hubble diagram as well), yet you don't believe in inflation? I guess you have an alternate theory then as to how the light became redshifted?

As I said earlier, dark energy may or may not be correct. But something is causing the universe to speed up it's inflation. If dark energy is proven false then we will need to find another explanation. Whatever it is, something is doing it.

 

[Elendur]

Michael, I think you missed post nr 807. (That, or I've completely missed your reply)