Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

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.

You're *still* doing it! You don't even debate fairly, in fact you *cheat*! Instead of *sticking to the issues*, you're right back to attacking the individual. Do you even know how to have an honest intellectual debate? If so, I've seen no evidence of it at all!

*If* I were running around claiming your math was wrong, you might have some justification for questioning my mathematical skills, and we might have some reason to debate the finer points of math. If however I point out that you have failed to show any empirical cause/effect justification for claiming that A) dark energy exists, or B) that it has any effect on photons, you ignore the basic point, and you take the low road and attack the messenger.

In case you missed it, MOND theory doesn't demonstrate that gravity exist in nature. No *mathematical* model demonstrates that gravity exist in nature and has an effect on nature. *Experiments* demonstrate this, not math! You keep ignoring your entire cause/effect justification problems, and rather than deal with them, you hurl more personal insults my way. It's childish behavior, and it's unethical in debate. If you can't "win" fairly, you simply get verbally abusive. You have *qualification* problems, not *quantification* problems. Do you even understand the difference?

 

[Michael]

But isn't that a derived result?

A derived result of what? Their dogma? The result certainly cannot be derived from painstaking analysis of dark energy and it's effect on anything in the lab. It's completely "made up" to fill the gaps of their otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon.

We can't test our core assumptions. That's why they're assumptions. That or you've chosen some really crappy assumptions.

I think you missed my point. The "crappy assumptions" are the ones the mainstream makes with respect to "cause/effect" claims. There is no empirical justification for claiming that A) dark energy exist in nature, or B) that it has any "acceleration" potential with respect to anything! The entire claim is a *pure act of blind faith* on the part of the believer. There no logical way to even empirical verify part A) or B) in any lab. Ditto for inflation. Even the most popular SUSY theories being decimated at LHC did absolutely nothing to dent their faith in their invisible sky beliefs. The entire dogma is 'faith based' and devoid of any empirical verification/falsification possibility. If it was actually possible to demonstrate the core claims of mainstream theory, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

No you don't have to assume the observer exist, though you'd have to assume something that'd lead up to some equivalent point.

The observer is *the* most important tool of science.

Sure, extending what I've learned. I don't know of anything that'd limit the photons emitted during electronic discharges to energy levels lower than the gamma level (and since it's quite obvious we have those of lower energy, we wouldn't have to check the lower bound).

The point I'm making however is that electrical discharges are the single most "natural'" way for us to explain excess gamma rays, excess positrons, and excess high energy charged particles in general. Nature creates these things inside of our own solar system every single day. It's not a mystery where high energy positrons and electrons come from. We don't need exotic matter to explain these things, and we have no evidence that A) exotic matter exists, or B) that it emits positrons of *any* energy state!

In any Ockham's razor argument, electrical discharges win that debate *hands down*.

Heck no. Nor do I need to.

If the mainstream intends to blame positron emissions in space on exotic matter, I expect them to provide evidence that A) exotic matter actually exists, and B) it emits positrons. You personally may not have to provide such evidence because they aren't your personal claims, but they are mainstream claims and the mainstream has provided zero supporting evidence to support such assertions.

The stars?
Of course, if you're going to limit my answers to two choices where they're on two completely different levels when it comes to difficulty and education I'll have to, if I'm honest and careful with my answer, say that the one I have the best grasp of is the one I perceive to be most likely.

But, don't know if I've said (written) this before, it doesn't matter what I think.

Well, it does matter to me that we have a perfectly good, perfectly logical way to explain high energy positrons *without* inventing invisible, positron belching, forms of new and exotic matter. There's not even a single shred of evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, let alone that they are long lived enough to be of any consequence, let alone that they emit positrons of *any* energy state.

That's a completely logical statement and I see no problem with it. Which is why (among other reasons) I've repeatedly stated that I don't think no scattering occurs in space. (See earlier post)

The quantity on the other hand is something that I'm rather certain isn't significant, as I've indicated in my calculations about the angles.

Those "calculations" aren't all that meaningful without actual *experimental tests* to check them out. Specifically we need to test *every* type of inelastic scattering process to see if there is much deflection. Short of such an exhaustive experimental process, there is no way to "rule out' all tired light options IMO.

Nope, nor have I given any reason to ask for that.

If the basic argument that you're proposing requires that photons from distant galaxies never experience inelastic scattering events along the way you do. If the photons haven't been inelastically scattered along the way, then why is *any* image of *any* galaxy 'blurry' at all?

I have to stop here for now, but I'll try to finish up later.

 

[Michael]

Are you sure? I highly doubt that.

For example, if I were to provide you with the tools to integrate along lines in the complex plane (i.e. a few theorems) you'd soon stumble upon examples that would be vastly different from what you'd expect.

For example, if you were to integrate along the circle with radius 1 around z=100 for the function f(z)=1/z you'd have 0.
If you were to integrate around any line that starts and ends at the same point and that doesn't have the point z=0 inside it you'd get the integral 0.
If you take any integral that has z=0 inside you'd get the integral 2*Pi*i*k, where k is the number of laps around z=0.

Education is the tool you need to evaluate things for yourself.

Hmmm. What's the point of educating myself to the effects of electrical discharges on Earth and in the solar atmosphere if I'm not going to put that knowledge to work when we observe positrons in space? Education works both ways. If I believed that astronomers we educated on EU theory, or educated on even plasma physics in general, I'd be happy. As it's stands I seem to have read several more textbooks on the topic of plasma physics than most of the astronomers I've met (not all of course, but most).

I agree with you that education is the right tool, but it depends on what you are claiming to be "knowledge". How "educated" can the entire community of astronomers be on the topic of 'dark energy" if not a single individual within that community can even tell me where it comes from or explain a way to control it? Do they have actual empirical knowledge of the existence of 'dark energy', or do they just have some half baked metaphysical kludge of a hypothesis that doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny? What is the value of 'educating' yourself to dark energy if nobody can even tell me for certain that it actually exist, and nobody can tell me where it comes from? Is that 'education' or dogma?

I think you'd be surprised how little of your money is being wasted.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/globalmilitarism04_01.jpg

Guess what I'd suggest you spend less on?
(Fun info, it took me a few minutes to find the budget any science part)

Interesting. I certainly agree NASA's share of the budget is miniscule all things considered. Considering NASA's paltry share of resources, they don't have a much money to waste IMO. Even a little bit hurts. Why waste funds when they have so little to waste?

Support? Nope.

Defend against perceived misrepresentations? Yep.

Accept without having taken the time to make an honest informed decision? Nope.

So when is it "ok" to make an "informed enough" decision? I can't really fault your logic of course, but the implication of your statement seems to be that only the "experts" are informed enough to make an informed decision. They aren't "informed" however. In fact they don't even know where DE comes from. How is that 'informed" exactly?

 

[Michael]

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.

I suppose it can be unpleasant, but ultimately that is a personal choice. I suppose it depends on one's beliefs going into the process.

From my vantage point at least, your desire to scrutinize that book (like any book) is perfectly logical and it seems perfectly acceptable. Admittedly you and I might not agree on each detail of debate about any historical book, but the concept of scrutinizing any and every book is absolutely fine by me. It is a useful historical document like any historical document, but I have no problem with you putting it under a scientific microscope if that floats your boat.

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.

Well, sure. Then again there wouldn't even be a need for a canonization process were it not for the fact that the 'religion' had already become popular, and "texts" were already in circulation. Mostly what happened in that process is that texts were either accepted or rejected. Do you have any actual evidence that texts were *changed* during the canonization process?

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

I suppose that depends on how you "interpret" the book. I'd certainly agree that there are 'immoral acts' described in the Bible. I wouldn't necessarily agree that there are "immoral lessons" in the Bible however.

What part of Christ's teachings (red letters only) would you suggest are 'immoral lessons'?

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.

It's a "sacred" book to many, no doubt. The words are well preserved because of that respect for the content.

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.

Having read "Honest To Jesus", I can tell you that even the Biblical scholars believed that a real man walked the Earth and much of that text probably did come from him. Their 'methods" for 'disassociating' various text from him were rather subjective, and require that Jesus was 100 percent consistent in *each and every* scenario. Even that assumption was suspect.

Suffice to say it's the *effect* that those words have had on my life that I value and respect. Even if a few of those red letter words didn't actually come from Jesus, it probably wouldn't likely change the overall message. I don't for instance see any red letter parts of the Bible that I can say for sure are not morally consistent with other red letter paragraphs. The words attributed to Jesus the man all convey a very consistent message, even if some of the text is questionable. I see no *direct* evidence that any of the text attributed to Jesus in the Bible is inaccurate. I cannot say that for every type of 'apocrypha" I've read. The canonization process was really more about "weeding out" bad text and bad quotes, and not about "modifying text". The Gospels were already in circulation long before the canonization process took place.

 

[Michael]

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.

Fair enough.

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.

*IF* NASA (and astronomers in general) were making the claim that you make, I wouldn't complain. They do however make the explicit claim that "dark matter" is *not* composed of ordinary matter. In fact however all the "missing mass' found in the past few years was found in ordinary dust and plasma, or 'ordinary' matter. Your claim is fine. The astronomers however make a very different and a quite extraordinary claim.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

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...

Your basic understanding is fine and pretty much correct. The problem is that we just found more missing mass if the form of plasma in 2012 than astronomers have ever found in the whole of hum history, and they also grossly underestimated the number of large and small stars in a given galaxy. What we have here is direct evidence that there galaxy mass estimation techniques were not worth the paper they are printed on, not evidence of ''exotic" forms of mass.

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

"Dark" only means we can't find it yet, it doesn't mean it's found in exotic matter as the mainstream claims today. Note that the term 'dark matter' has morphed over the years. It *used* to be defined in much the way you define it, whereas today it's almost always associated with SUSY particles or some 'unseen' form of mass.

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.

I should note here that the only thing that we can be 100 percent certain is 'happening' is photon redshift. We do not know the 'cause' of that photon redshift, nor can we be sure it's in any way associated with 'dark energy'. Since "dark energy" has never been shown to have any tangible effect on any photon in any lab, the claim 'dark energy did it' with respect to photon redshift remains a dubious and unsupported claim.

In order for photon redshift to be related to expansion and acceleration, the universe would need to have experienced superluminal expansion, and objects of mass cannot move faster than the speed of light. The way they try to 'work around' that problem is to claim that objects do not move, "space" (physically undefined no less) somehow does magic expansion tricks. The first thing you have to accept about mainstream redshift interpretation is a metaphysical claim about 'space' doing magical expansion tricks. That's the first claim they make that cannot be demonstrated in any lab.

Inelastic scattering however can and does cause photon redshift in plasma. It's a known and documented phenomenon.

If memory serves, isn't there a lack of X-rays and gamma rays that should exist if PC is true?

Nope. There is exactly the right amount.

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.

Both WMAP and now Planck have shown all sorts of "anomalies" that should not exist in BB theory, including differences in different hemispheres. The data is 'spun' by astronomers to suggest it offers evidence of BB theory, but the reality is actually quite different. The truth is that Eddington actually 'predicted' the average temperature of plasma in space based on scattering long before that number was predicted by BB theory. Eddington was far closer too.

There are acoustical peaks and such that seem to support BB theory, but the anomalies shouldn't be there either. In fact, astronomers cannot even empirically like "dark energy', 'inflation', or exotic forms of matter to acoustical changes in the the lab. One simply has to 'assume' they have some influence. In short the whole train of evidence is based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy.

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose it can be unpleasant, but ultimately that is a personal choice. I suppose it depends on one's beliefs going into the process.

From my vantage point at least, your desire to scrutinize that book (like any book) is perfectly logical and it seems perfectly acceptable. Admittedly you and I might not agree on each detail of debate about any historical book, but the concept of scrutinizing any and every book is absolutely fine by me. It is a useful historical document like any historical document, but I have no problem with you putting it under a scientific microscope if that floats your boat.



Well, sure. Then again there wouldn't even be a need for a canonization process were it not for the fact that the 'religion' had already become popular, and "texts" were already in circulation. Mostly what happened in that process is that texts were either accepted or rejected. Do you have any actual evidence that texts were *changed* during the canonization process?



I suppose that depends on how you "interpret" the book. I'd certainly agree that there are 'immoral acts' described in the Bible. I wouldn't necessarily agree that there are "immoral lessons" in the Bible however.

What part of Christ's teachings (red letters only) would you suggest are 'immoral lessons'?



It's a "sacred" book to many, no doubt. The words are well preserved because of that respect for the content.



Having read "Honest To Jesus", I can tell you that even the Biblical scholars believed that a real man walked the Earth and much of that text probably did come from him. Their 'methods" for 'disassociating' various text from him were rather subjective, and require that Jesus was 100 percent consistent in *each and every* scenario. Even that assumption was suspect.

Suffice to say it's the *effect* that those words have had on my life that I value and respect. Even if a few of those red letter words didn't actually come from Jesus, it probably wouldn't likely change the overall message. I don't for instance see any red letter parts of the Bible that I can say for sure are not morally consistent with other red letter paragraphs. The words attributed to Jesus the man all convey a very consistent message, even if some of the text is questionable. I see no *direct* evidence that any of the text attributed to Jesus in the Bible is inaccurate. I cannot say that for every type of 'apocrypha" I've read. The canonization process was really more about "weeding out" bad text and bad quotes, and not about "modifying text". The Gospels were already in circulation long before the canonization process took place.

There is ample evidence text were changed, deleted and or added. Look up top biblical scholars; Craig Evans, Bart Erhman and there are other sources. Erhman is loathed by christians, because he went from a born again christian minister to being agnostic after years of studying the bible and other issues he had with the christian story. He attended moody bible institute, wheaton college and got his phd from princeton theology and studied under the leading biblical scholar of the last 40 years. Evans is a christian and he agrees with Erhman, that the new testament has stories that were changed, deleted or added hundreds of years later.

IMO, the Christian philosophy has immoral qualities for the following reason; you are commanded to love someone and yet on the other hand, you are told you better fear him as well. You are told if you don't believe, you will not be allowed to live an eternal life and will be doomed in a pretty bad place, despite the fact, that you just may be someone who can't come to terms with believing the story, but happen to be a terrific person who lives a good life. If God loved everyone, why would he have not made sure christianity was exposed to all cultures equally, rather than having some just getting a bad break because they were born to the wrong parents or in wrong culture. I just can't reconcile a loving all powerful God creating that disadvantage for billions of people and or allowing the massive suffering from occurring. Also, a christian is allowed to dump all their sins on Jesus and say, ok, I'm good now and believe me, a lot of christians abuse this principle and are not held accountable. That to me, is immoral, because basic christianity teaches you only get to heaven, if you believe in jesus and follow him (and a few other things as well).

Now, I recognize that christianity has been watered down immensely in the last 30-40 years, mostly in an effort to get in touch with reality (people were growing bored and started to question the traditional christian dogma and hence development of mega churches that entertain as much as they try and teach anything). To me, that doesn't say much about the christian religion (and yes, it is a religion), if there are hundreds of different opinions/variations of what a christian is. There has to be a minimum standard to be called a christian and I would imagine, it would come from the flawed new testament, that christianity built its core from. But since that standard can not be agreed upon, it tells you how much of a scramble mode christianity is in, to try and prevent people from moving away from their religion.

I have no evidence of this, but the data shows about 65% of Americans claim to be christian, but I am going to induce, that about a third of those folks, would fall woefully short of meeting a reasonably defined minimum standard of true beliefs and in reality, are not christian at all.

 

[Michael]

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.

Hmmm. Well.... As far as I can tell, you're essentially holding up your own opinion as 'gospel', and pretty much ignoring the experiences of millions of others. I can't stop you from doing that of course, but it's still a bit like assuming that if you've never personally seen a kangaroo, nobody must actually have ever seen one because the human mind plays "tricks" sometimes. It's not a real convincing argument from where I sit.

Depending on how you interpret that God Helmet data, the experiences very well could be "internal" experiences, that have an 'external' cause. How did you rule that out?

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?

We're going to have to talk about the physical structures and definition of God sooner or later because my 'religion' describes them. The only way to 'prove' it was 'God' in my definition of God would be to literally trace the EM field connections during the experience, both inside the brain, and outside the brain, looking at the EM field connections. It's a bit out of my personal budget mind you, but the potential for empirical lab experimentation is unlimited.

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.

If the "higher being" in question isn't physically defined, and you're attached to "miracles' having no empirical explanation, sure. If however "God" is physically defined, the basic mechanism is defined (EM fields), and the 'miracle' can have a "scientific" explanation, that's not necessarily the case. I suppose it depends on what one means by "higher being" and/or 'miracle'.

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.

That doesn't actually work either however because Leprechauns were considered fictional literature from the start. Sorry to nitpick.

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.

I'm having a hard time understanding your concept of 'verifiable'. In what sense is 'dark energy' actually "verifiable" as the actual "cause" of redshift? How is inflation 'verifiable' in your opinion? Define exactly what you mean by 'verify' in terms of verifying the existence of metaphysical (hypothetical) entities like we find in 'science".

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.

Actually it's not a spot on comparison since one is considered fictional by the majority and one is not. Furthermore I even seen people claim to have 'evidence' of Bigfoot in the form of video, recorded sounds, etc. Even the term "evidence" becomes highly subjective at some point.

I still need to get a better handle on what you mean by 'verifiable'. Some experiences are 'repeatable", but that doesn't always equate to 'verification' as in the case of say the claim that 'dark matter=exotic matter".

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.

Actually no. I pretty much toss out the entire BB theory because I reject the mainstream interpretation the redshift phenomenon, and I 'lack belief' that "space" does magical expansion tricks as required in mainstream theory. Furthermore I can even name the individual that 'made up' inflation theory in his head, and like all good metaphysical 'religions' there are now several metaphysical brands of inflation to choose from.

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

IMO his entire body of work is 'solid science' since it was done in the lab, but the mainstream doesn't realize that yet. They ignored his work on aurora for 60 years, and they may ignore the rest of his work for another 60 years at the rate they are going.

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.

I'm gathering that what you're calling "spiritual' is what I would probably associate with external (to the brain) EM field influences on the human brain.

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"?

I'm trying to understand your concept of verifiable ultimately. If something can be repeated, and other experience it too, is it 'verifiable'. In other words would you consider love to be 'verifiable' in any way (pet scans?)?

If something like 'awareness" or 'love' has the potential to be verified, then everything in my 'religion" (save perhaps any concept of soul) should be 'verifiable' in every empirical sense. If however you won't accept evidence of something like 'love' that will get more challenging.

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

What do you have verifiable proof of exactly? You can't possibly have verifiable proof of a negative, so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Admittedly I'm struggling to understand what you mean in terms of "verification" and "proof'.

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.

Is that even necessary? For instance, supposed I took pet scans of you in all sorts of various moods. Might I then be able to compare various pet scans to say a current pet scan and gain some insight from those patterns into the feelings that you might be feeling? Would I *need* to feel those same feelings to accept the fact that you feel love, or you feel anger?

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...

I'll need to hear your answer to my question about have pet scans of you in various moods to see what you have to say about the EM pattern recognition possibilities. Admittedly I might not 'feel' what you feel, but I might be able to tell you what you're feeling based upon what I see.

How do you even know that they truly happened?

I might be able to observe that certain areas of your brain are active. In fact such studies have been done with Buddhist monks to watch the results of their meditations. Wouldn't we at least be able to gather 'evidence' that they're have an "altered state" in a pet scan?

More importantly, how do you know what caused them?

That's where the concept of measuring the *external* magnetic fields comes from.

You don't.

Well, not without trying the experiments at least.

They aren't verifiable.

Wait. What if I do find that there are external EM fields that come into and influence the human brain during these observations?

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...

The dilemma isn't as great in my model as I think you believe, mainly because it identifies a *known force of nature* as a potential 'cause'. Since EM fields are measurable, potentially both internally and externally to the human brain, it's not as 'unverifiable' as I think you imagine it to be. I'd be the first to admit that it's not verified yet, but I do not accept that it's not 'verifiable' via any means possible. I think it *could be* that way if I were not suggesting that external EM fields interact with *internal* EM fields, but I am. If I didn't identify the "cause" of the change of thoughts, then it might not be verifiable. If however I am identifying a potential cause, I should be able to 'test' for it.

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?

Yes. It's called "inelastic scattering". The effects on photons have been documented in controlled experimentation. How can I "verify" that inflation or dark energy has some effect on photons in controlled experiments, or do I have to "accept on faith' that dark energy has some effect on a photon?

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.

Even the very fact that you're pretty 'sure" that space is expanding and accelerating is an "unverifiable' claim by your own standards. In order to demonstrate that claim, you'd need some quantity of dark energy, a way to control it, and a real experiment that shows it has some effect on a photon. You can't do any of those things!

On the other hand I can do *all of those things* with inelastic scattering.

 

[Michael]

There is ample evidence text were changed, deleted and or added.

IMO, "ample evidence" would be finding older and newer copies of the same document with various significant changes from one text to the other. AFAIK that kind of 'ample evidence' simply doesn't exist unless you're talking about the redaction done by Martin Luther. I'll have to look up your authors as I get time to comment further, but I suspect their 'interpretations" of evidence are subjective like everyone else.

IMO, the Christian philosophy has immoral qualities for the following reason; you are commanded to love someone

Everyone actually.

and yet on the other hand, you are told you better fear him as well.

I don't have a fear oriented relationship with God. In fact quite the opposite.

You are told if you don't believe, you will not be allowed to live an eternal life

If one identifies with one's physical form, and 'beliefs' alone, it's a pretty safe bet that everything that one thinks that they are will die with them. If however they identify themselves with soul and love, maybe not so much.

and will be doomed in a pretty bad place, despite the fact, that you just may be someone who can't come to terms with believing the story, but happen to be a terrific person who lives a good life.

FYI, I believe in universal salvation as Origen taught early Christians. I don't believe in a pagan hades type of perpetual torment. Nothing even remotely like that concept exist in Judaism today, nor did it ever exist in Judaism.

If God loved everyone, why would he have not made sure christianity was exposed to all cultures equally, rather than having some just getting a bad break because they were born to the wrong parents or in wrong culture. I just can't reconcile a loving all powerful God creating that disadvantage for billions of people and or allowing the massive suffering from occurring.

Again, if you don't believe in perpetual torment for finite sin, it's not quite the same moral dilemma.

Also, a christian is allowed to dump all their sins on Jesus and say, ok, I'm good now and believe me, a lot of christians abuse this principle and are not held accountable. That to me, is immoral, because basic christianity teaches you only get to heaven, if you believe in jesus and follow him (and a few other things as well).

I think you're missing the point. Jesus taught a gospel of *forgiveness of sin*. I don't claim to be "perfect" just "forgiven". I think that's probably true of all Christians.

Now, I recognize that christianity has been watered down immensely in the last 30-40 years,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "Christianity" has been tinkered with since the time of Jesus himself. I think you're term "watered down" is a bit like calling quantum theory today as a "watered down" shell of what it once was 40 years ago. Knowledge evolves and so do religions and branches of science. That's just a "normal" process IMO.

Most of what you're complaining about relates to the concept of perpetual torment in the afterlife. That ideas came straight out of the pagan religion of the Romans (Hades) as "Christianity" was romanized for public consumption (more like romans 'reinterpreted' the term from their own cultural mindset). You can actually thank Augustine for that particular kludge to the religion. If you look of Origen, you'll find that early Christian theologians taught about universal salvation, not perpetual torment. Augustine kludged that up. It happened *long* ago, not 40 years ago however.

mostly in an effort to get in touch with reality (people were growing bored and started to question the traditional christian dogma and hence development of mega churches that entertain as much as they try and teach anything). To me, that doesn't say much about the christian religion (and yes, it is a religion), if there are hundreds of different opinions/variations of what a christian is. There has to be a minimum standard to be called a christian and I would imagine, it would come from the flawed new testament, that christianity built its core from. But since that standard can not be agreed upon, it tells you how much of a scramble mode christianity is in, to try and prevent people from moving away from their religion.

Why would you expect humans to agree on something as complex as a whole religion when we can't even all agree to eat the same breakfast cereal? Do humans agree on *anything* 100 percent of the time?

 

[Davian]

Actually, if you intend to participate in*this particular* thread, yes, you probably will be asked and expected to provide evidence to substantiate mainstream theory. You may want to respond to my own beliefs in the Empirical Theory Of God (2) thread. In that thread you can simply play the role of "skeptic" if you prefer.

My participation in this thread is specifically responding to the claims that you are making. If you would like to move those claims to another thread, you are free to do so.

You are also free to ask me to substantiate mainstream theory, which I find to be a bizarre proposition in that it would appear that you are not aware of how mainstream theory becomes mainstream theory.

I liken it to you asking me, as pedestrian on the street, to justify General Motors' use of steel and aluminum as the primary materials used in the construction of their vehicles, and why not more 'greener', easily sourced materials, such as bamboo. You then accuse me of having 'faith' in the 'religion of metals' with zero evidence to support my claims.

Kind of surreal, from my perspective.

 

[Davian]

Ya know....

Watching you try to tap dance around like this is much like watching a YEC tap dance around nuclear decay data, or ice core sample data. It's always based on a healthy dose of pure denial.

Psst:

Zeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even in *ancient* literature and *pagan* (from my JudeoChristian Perspective), God(s) has(ve) been associated with electrical discharges that can strike humans dead in an instant (and do so every single year).

To suggest that this isn't caused by an "external EM field" that has a direct effect on humans is a bit like trying to deny the dating methods of ice core samples. Give it a rest! The whole concept of God striking people dead is probably as old as the oldest "religion' on the planet!

The associations between *ELECTROmagnetism* and God are as ancient as religion itself.

Really? In what year was electromagnetism formally discovered?

Regardless, it is not the EM field of the lightning strike that kills. If you stood in place for a moment, you might get that point.

No, actually I don't. I have plenty of *positive* evidence in the form of Birkeland's work with cathode terellas in the lab from over 100 years ago to demonstrate that electrical activity takes place in space.

If you happened to 'doubt' me however, you could (if you so chose to do so) create actual experiments and take actual measurements in space to demonstrate that no current flows between the sun and the heliosphere.

Because I've limited myself to pure empirical physics, it is possible to demonstrate a negative in this case.

Now, let's look at what answers "science" offers us, shall we?

Where does "dark energy" come from? How do we "control" to see if has real effects on real photons in real experiments?

Ditto for inflation.

Where does exotic matter come from? Why have we seen no evidence of such things at LHC? Why should I put "faith' in exotic matter when more matter in the form of plasma was found just last year than had been know to exist in the whole of human history?

Can "science" explain that 4 billion light year long structure that shouldn't exist according to Lambda-CDM theory? Can it explain all those "anomalies" in the PLANCK (and WMAP) data sets?

I cannot take you seriously if you continue to ask "Where does "dark energy" come from?"

I can (and have) met your standard (empirical I might add). You simply refuse to accept it! I've shown that ELECTRICAL and MAGNETIC fields can and do have a direct effect on the human form an on human thought.

In the first case you seem to wish to separate the movement of charged particles from "magnetism" evidently. In the second instance (magnetic fields) you want even *additional* evidence that nature can also do what the "God Helmet" can do in terms of generating EM fields.

In terms of the pure *strength* of EM fields, the strength of the magnetic fields near lightning strikes, or solar flare events is *many orders of magnitude greater than* anything produced by the "God Helmet". What more do you want?

For you to provide specific evidence for your claim that I have quoted in my post.

That would be Zues if you need to individualize "God" for some reason, but most monotheists simply refer to him as "God" these days, at least in English.

You mean "Zeus"? As in Zeus=God=Jesus etc? Are you serious?

Oh, baloney I haven't! EM fields in space have more 'explanatory power' than current "scientific theories' in fact. To this day the mainstream can't "explain" a solar flare event and the convection speeds that are necessary to make their previous theories work went up in smoke in the SDO heliosiesmology data!

Birkeland's cathode sun work in the lab has more "explanatory power" in terms of what happens in spacetime than all the dark and invisible entities of mainstream theory put together!

But you have yet to address the issues with scattering. But that is not the claim I am asking about, and is irrelevant to the point at hand, but feel free to rant if you like. I will snip it from my response.

I've explained that to you several times now very clearly in fact. What you do in your bedroom with consenting adults is of no interest to me whatsoever. What more do you want? Must I personally *approve* of everything that you do? Do you need my personal permission for some reason?

I was not asking for your personal opinion, I was asking about your religion. Whatever.

Yes it does. Apparently you don't understand it, but if you were into solar physics (like me) you'd understand it.

I've stuck with pure empirical physics. It is therefore possible to construct experiments to demonstrate a positive (and a potentially a negative), in real experimentation inside this solar system. It might be 'expensive' mind you, but the potential exists to verify and/or falsify the theory here and now.

That is not even *possible* with 'dark energy'. Since you have never demonstrated a A) it exists, B) it's source, C) it's influence on photons, there is no way to verify or to falsify any claim related to "dark energy".

Ditto for inflation.

Exotic matter was the only hypothetical entity that can/could be tested in the lab, and all the "popular" SUSY theories already went up in smoke. Apparently astronomers are praying for a miracle in 2015 when we start exploring higher energy states, and testing the "bottom of the barrel' theories related to exotic matter.

No, the sentence was not formed properly.

We ultimately have to compare your concept of 'evidence' with what passes for 'evidence" in 'science'. Science actually accepts "evidence' that lacks cause/effect justification in the lab, whereas you will not.

Furthermore you seem to reject any and all related EM effects on human beings, regardless of the fact that they can be fully demonstrated and have been fully demonstrated on Earth in a variety of ways.

Apparently you wish to 'see the universe in action' as is generates EM fields and directs them inside the human brain? Even that type of evidence is theoretically possible, though admittedly far outside of my personal budget.

Yes, I wish to see experiments that replicate 'the universe in action' as is generates EM fields and directs them inside the human brain, in a controlled and repeatable manner.

If you cannot do so, you should not say "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Well, I've covered everything from electrical shocks flowing through the human form, to magnetic field influences on the human brain. So long as the universe is capable of generating EM fields, those fields are capable of influencing human beings. It's really very simple, and very simple to demonstrate. It seems much harder to "accept" if one happens to be an atheist/agnostic, if your behaviors are any indication.

The somewhat humorous (and rather exasperating) part of this conversation is that I have "put up" several instances in which EM fields have been shown to have a direct empirical effect on human beings while on Earth.

Only when you conflated electrical current with electromagnetic fields. They are not the same thing.

Try charging a battery directly by exposing it to an EM field.

<snip rant>
Lightning has been shown to have significant and long lasting effects on the human body. Nature produces them. They strike people dead all the time. Magnetic fields have been linked to changes in thoughts that occur *inside* the human brain.

The God Helmet experiments would not necessarily produce any "long lasting" effects because the "source" of these influences is different, and the scenario internally is different (not in prayer, etc), and the circumstances are entirely different!

You're not just asking me for the moon, you're asking for Mars.

Then stop making Mars-type claims.

I'm sorry, but this conversation has all the earmarks of pure denial on your part. Humans have associated God with electrical discharges since the dawn of the first "religions". The fact you remain in staunch denial of the fact that humans have always assumed that God could "strike people dead at will", and/or in denial of the fact that humans are stuck dead by lightening every single year.

"Struck dead by lightning" is not "an EM influence on humans".

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

Are you now saying that you do not have an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, so cannot demonstrate - the influence - they have on the human brain?

 

[Elendur]

Hm.... I think there's another post that you missed: post 802.

 

[davidbilby]

You're *still* doing it! You don't even debate fairly, in fact you *cheat*! Instead of *sticking to the issues*, you're right back to attacking the individual. Do you even know how to have an honest intellectual debate? If so, I've seen no evidence of it at all!

Debate? You haven't engaged in a debate with anybody in this thread. Ever. You make truth claims that are false and then when somebody points them out - with swathes of evidence - you claim they're being unfair, change the subject, or "get busy".

For example:

1) You repeatedly cite MAGIC as evidence for your position. You (and Ashmore) claim that MAGIC is evidence of a time delay, caused by the tiring of photons due to some unknown inelastic scattering effect, that is more pronounced the higher the energy of the photon. That's a perfectly valid claim to try and make, but it is a testable claim...

2) I point out that more recent and more accurate experiments have shown that interpretation to be conclusively wrong and impossible. I cite a paper (one amongst quite a number of similar results, although this it the most pronounced to date) that shows a 31 GeV photon arriving 0.859 seconds into a gamma ray burst, from a vastly more distant object (16 times more distant, no less). I also point out that source effects in MAGIC are undeniably a possibility - because Markarian 501 is a blazar, not a GRB or supernova.

3) Your response? As to "That's just one photon" and "They didn't rule out source effects in the GRB". I quote:

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

Note that it was *entirely random* in terms of assigning that high energy photon the last of the 7 spikes.

But this assertion is simply untrue. It's either a lie or it's just ignorance, but it's untrue either way. If you look on page 16 of the paper in question:

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

you see that far from "assigning it to a pulse at random" they actually don't do that at all. They show the constraints from multiple possible t_starts (a) through (d) which cover the entire range of time in the burst that the photon could have been emitted, including right at the very beginning - (a).

There was no 'random' assignation made - no assignation at all, in fact. Ever. Your rebuttal to my point was - a complete untruth, a falsehood. And you're complaining that my debating tactics are unfair?

Now - for you to make the truth claim that you did (that they didn't rule out source effects and just assigned this photon to a peak at random), you either a) didn't understand page 16 of that paper at all or b) lied.

Which is it, Michael?

There is no debate here because you simply don't debate at all. Many people have tried to debate with you, but when someone poses a good point, you just decide to make stuff up in rebuttal - literally, make stuff up.

Here's another example - there are so many - you bring up as evidence against inflation "that 4 billion long structure" that you say violates homogeneity thus invalidating the cosmological principle (and therefore every other theory the mainstream has, bizarrely).

I cite a very recent rebuttal to Clowes' paper, clearly showing that the HLQG is not necessarily a single structure, using his own algorithm:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1700v1.pdf

Comments, if you understand it? Or will you just keep repeating your "structure" assertion? Again, your failure to debate is the problem here.

 

[davidbilby]

If however I point out that you have failed to show any empirical cause/effect justification for claiming that A) dark energy exists, or B) that it has any effect on photons, you ignore the basic point, and you take the low road and attack the messenger.

You have *qualification* problems, not *quantification* problems. Do you even understand the difference?

Again, and again. Let's try and explain it really simply.

1) We observe the time-dilation of the light curves of a certain kind of supernovae, as well as other completely independent lines of evidence from baryon acoustic oscillation measurements.

2) This could either be caused by some unknown process affecting the photons in such a way that the light curves are broadened, for example, in the case of the supernovae...or it could be caused by an acceleration of expansion, if the universe is expanding.

3) If we explore the possibility that the universe is indeed expanding, and that expansion is thus accelerating, as would then be the logical conclusion from the supernovae light curve broadening, something should logically be causing that expansion to accelerate.

4) That cause could not be massive, and it is presently unseen, and would obviously have to have energetic characteristics. Thus it would be a "dark energy". We don't know what it would be, but if the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating, an unseen form of energy is the logical cause and we can extrapolate what its properties would be.

There is no cause/effect justification problem. "Dark energy" is a name - a placeholder term for what is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe if that is what is taking place. The cause would be a "dark energy". It's clearly not a "seen energy" as if it were there would be no discussion! It's clearly not massive. So it would be a dark energy. What that would be exactly? Nobody knows. But claiming that "dark energy" is not the cause for the hypothesis of accelerated expansion is truly silly, because it's a concept.

It's like this. Imagine a murder has taken place. There's a guy sprawled on the street with no less than five large kitchen knives in his back. Detectives say...well, it's unlikely he rammed five kitchen knives in his own back, so this is clearly a murder. It's not impossible that something else happened, but the evidence points to murder.

They theorize that someone - "the murder suspect" - must have caused these knives to be in his back. It can't have been an animal, so if it was indeed a murder, it must have been a person.

They do not know who did it, so they call the suspect "the unknown person". "The dark person" if you like! They can reasonably say that IF it was a murder

a) a person did it

b) that person is presently unknown, thus they are 'dark'

Your objection is essentially "they have no cause/effect justification that this unknown person murdered the victim".

The point is, they've not cited a "specific" person. Just that IF it was indeed a murder, and the evidence points strongly to that, then the only thing we know that could cause that would be a person, and that person is obviously unknown.


Now, you would be welcome to propose alternative "non-murder" theories for the observation of the knives in the guy's back. That's fine. Say perhaps - the observation of the knifes actually comes from a local kitchen that exploded sending them flying through the window and into his back. Ok. Plausible. But testable...have any kitchens exploded nearby? Say the answer to that is no - no evidence of that.

Could the guy have reached around and stabbed himself five times? That's also a testable theory - the coroner could see if he could physically have reached around to place them at the angles observed, or if more than one of the wounds would have been instantly fatal. Say that he does so and it's impossible that he could have plunged them in himself....do you see the point I'm trying to make?

If the universe is expanding, and if that expansion is accelerating - then what is causing it is a 'dark energy'. We don't know what it is, if indeed this is the case. But there is no "qualification" issue that dark energy causes expansion because we are not claiming that "dark energy" is a specific thing yet.

We know next to nothing about it (which is why it's dark) if it does exist, which isn't sure, but the evidence is pointing strongly that it does. It could be that an alternative theory might be found that explains it better without accelerated expansion - i.e. that a murder didn't actually take place, it just looked like one - but the problem is, no alternative theory has been put forward that is convincing.

 

[bhsmte]

[QUOTE=Michael;63247257]IMO, "ample evidence" would be finding older and newer copies of the same document with various significant changes from one text to the other. AFAIK that kind of 'ample evidence' simply doesn't exist unless you're talking about the redaction done by Martin Luther. I'll have to look up your authors as I get time to comment further, but I suspect their 'interpretations" of evidence are subjective like everyone else.

This is something that does indeed have "ample evidence" and is not refuted by serious scholars. They have found older copies that have indeed been not only changed, but unfinished stories were finished, stories added and some deleted. Again, for how serious you are about splitting every hair in regards to science debate, why wouldn't you do the same with one of the core foundations of your beliefs, to determine its credibility? This practice is common place with many christians, as they "cherry pick" what they want to focus on, while ignoring other areas that may point the other direction. They do the same with the bible; this part is important, this part isn't, etc. etc.. Just as the whole christian story cherry picks; you can go to heaven, you can't, you are forgiven, you aren't, your good, your bad. Lastly, the ultimate cherry picking is God sending his son to save everyone on earth from themselves, yet he sends him to one of the most illiterate parts of the world to accomplish this and expects this word to spread everywhere to give everyone equal chance to be "saved" through what christians claim is the only way?

The entire christian story is simply unbelievable and certainly not the work of an; all powerful, all loving, all forgiving God. In the end, it is no more valid than any of the other man made religions on earth, which christians are all atheist towards.

 

[Michael]

[QUOTE=Michael;63247257]IMO, "ample evidence" would be finding older and newer copies of the same document with various significant changes from one text to the other. AFAIK that kind of 'ample evidence' simply doesn't exist unless you're talking about the redaction done by Martin Luther. I'll have to look up your authors as I get time to comment further, but I suspect their 'interpretations" of evidence are subjective like everyone else.

This is something that does indeed have "ample evidence" and is not refuted by serious scholars. They have found older copies that have indeed been not only changed, but unfinished stories were finished, stories added and some deleted.

FYI, I have not had time to seriously research Craig Evans or Bart Erhman. As best as I could tell from the internet in a few minutes, it looks like Evan's primary work relates to apocrypha, specifically the Gospel of Judas. This type of work isn't likely to impress me much since that work was never canonized. Erhman seems to make a lot of claims about his book, but it's not clear what actual "evidence' he might actually have other than the fact that apocrypha exists in addition to canonized literature.

I'd need to see these copies, and have a better background on what you're alleging exactly. I don't know who these 'serious scholars' might be. A couple of skeptics doesn't really support your claim that these ideas not not refuted by serious scholars. I'll just need more specifics to really comment much on your allegations.

Again, for how serious you are about splitting every hair in regards to science debate, why wouldn't you do the same with one of the core foundations of your beliefs, to determine its credibility?

Typically the "devil is in the details" as it relates to almost every debate, and sometimes those details can be very tiny. David and I are apparently arguing over a single high energy photon for instance. Splitting hairs is typically part of almost any debate I'm afraid.

In terms of applying the same standard to all beliefs, I would say that I do that more than most in fact. I tend to use a highly *empirical* (in the lab) standard in fact. As far as I know, I apply the same standard pretty equally everywhere, to every topic I can think of. Feel free to point out any inconsistencies you see, but like I said, I at least 'believe' that I'm being consistent in the application of a single standard to all topics.

This practice is common place with many christians, as they "cherry pick" what they want to focus on, while ignoring other areas that may point the other direction.

FYI, that's pretty much true of almost any topic of debate in my experience. Astronomers for instance don't like to address any/all of the "anomalies" in the WMAP/Planck data sets. They instead "cherry pick" some evidence from that data set, and ignore anything and everything that doesn't actually fit with their preconceived ideas.

They do the same with the bible; this part is important, this part isn't, etc. etc.. Just as the whole christian story cherry picks; you can go to heaven, you can't, you are forgiven, you aren't, your good, your bad.

If Christians were alone in "cherry picking", you might have a useful argument. Muslims share most if not all of the same views related to being 'good' or 'bad'.

Lastly, the ultimate cherry picking is God sending his son to save everyone on earth from themselves,

Well, I can certainly tell you that Christ's teachings have indeed "saved me from myself" in terms of dealing with several ego related issues in my life. I've definitely benefited from his teachings.

yet he sends him to one of the most illiterate parts of the world to accomplish this

I personally think that whole argument about Jewish literacy is *way* out of whack, particularly as it relates to the disciples of Jesus. James and Peter have letters recorded in the bible. They were both literate. As far as the literacy rate, I fail to see how it's really of any importance at all considering the outcome of events.

and expects this word to spread everywhere to give everyone equal chance to be "saved" through what christians claim is the only way?

Well, how exactly would you "speed up" such a process of dissemination, keep the same message, and still have it be related to a 'Jewish' Messiah?

I suppose if I personally believed that anyone that never heard of Jesus or his teachings are 'damned for all time', your objection might be meaningful. Since I don't believe that is true, it's not much of an argument from my perspective.

The entire christian story is simply unbelievable

That's not true for everyone however, and in fact you're kind of in a minority viewpoint on that score. If we include Islam, over 50 percent of the planet reveres and honors the teachings of Christ. It may not be believable to you personally, but that isn't true for the majority of humans. You'll have to at least start to own your own conclusions and be careful about making blanket statements like that. Sure, maybe it's not believable to you personally, but is that true for everyone?

and certainly not the work of an; all powerful, all loving, all forgiving God.

Again, this seems to be more opinion than fact. What act done by Jesus himself, as recorded in *canonized* literature was not loving or not forgiving in your opinion?

In the end, it is no more valid than any of the other man made religions on earth, which christians are all atheist towards.

I'm not sure how we'd fairly judge various religions, and I personally more attached to the teachings of Jesus the man than I am attached to any particular 'religion' that claims to represent his teachings.

If we are going to be "fair" to Jesus the man however, it should be noted that between Islam and Christianity, more than 50 percent of planet Earth honors him and his teachings. For you to then suggest that his words are 'unbelievable' is pretty much a subjective conclusion that actually puts you in a *minority*, not the majority.

 

[Michael]

If they're changing the parameters they've falsified older versions (or else, why change it?). Your 'argument' is moot.

My argument still stands actually. There has never been empirical laboratory evidence to support SUSY theory. It's never been anything other than a 'non-standard', and less popular particle physics theory in the first place. It's more popular with astronomers perhaps, but in terms of particle physics, SUSY theory was *always* a non-standard physics theory. It's never enjoyed any empirical support either.

In this case they keep "changing the parameters" because all the "popular" SUSY theories were falsified. The whole argument has now become an "exotic matter of the gaps" argument, and the gaps keep getting smaller. They keep moving the numbers to fit in those ever shrinking gaps, only because their *primary* claims have already been falsified by the data!

The astronomers and SUSY proponents didn't actually take that falsification to heart, and let their theories die a "natural" scientific death. Instead they elected to "surf the gaps" for as long as they can get away with it!

If they stumble upon a mathematical contradiction, do you know what happens?

If history is any indication, they just make up a new ad hoc entity to make the math work right again.

Of course definitive evidence is highly subjective, it's a superfluous term. Evidence is enough.

By that logic, Bigfoot must exist because I've seen images of what is supposed to be Bigfoot and recordings that allegedly come from Bigfoot. Not all "evidence" is equal.

In *reality* however, positrons and gamma rays are empirically and physically related to electrical discharges. Only in *creation mythos* does exotic matter supposedly "do" anything, or emit positrons. Exotic matter concepts are complete dud in the lab to date, and not a single positron has ever been empirically linked to any form of exotic matter.

The evidence for positron emissions from electrical discharges is nothing at all like the so called "evidence" of positron emissions from exotic matter theory. One type of "evidence' is entirely empirical in nature, and the other is entirely *mathematical speculation*! Not all evidence is equal in terms of empirical physics, and I put emphasis on empirical physics.

The only reason to inject unnecessary adjectives is to try to either impress the audience (in some cases only the receiver of the message), to deceive them or to confuse them. (Not excluding a mix of them)

Swaying an audience is a time honored tradition in debate. I'd say that I grandstand a lot less about mainstream claims in terms of the statements that I make vs the claims that the mainstream makes about EU/PC theory.

And yet they're trying to explore that gap, aren't they?
Also please straighten up your usage of the terms theories and hypotheses. Those were clearly hypotheses.

It's extremely hard to "straighten up" the usage of terms when the mainstream is constantly referring to Lambda-CDM as a 'theory' and a 'model' yet their so called "theory" requires 95 percent "hypothetical entities' to make it work! Don't blame me for the confusion, it's not my fault.

I don't know.
Perhaps the lack of observations of consequences that would be the result of application?
As with your scatterings.

Or perhaps they are so *emotionally* and *professionally* invested in their beliefs, that it makes more sense to "make up" ad hoc gap filler than to simply let their theory die a natural empirical death. Either way, their creation of ad hoc gap filler wasn't real impressive to start with. The fact they can't site a single source of the stuff some 15 years later is also less than impressive.

Earlier you've stated that there is no way to falsify it.
Now you state that this is a possible falsification. Unless they " 'fudge around it' ".
I'm interpreting this as you trying to inject, as often as possible and with little to no qualms of contradicting yourself, protests, valid or not, against what you perceive to be the "mainstream theory".

Well, you could interpret it that way I suppose. Then again, there is a *subjective* element involved that doesn't relate to the actual data, and not everyone reacts to data sets the same way. It *might* be possible to falsify inflation theory *if* there were only one of them, *and* inflation actually existed and actually had some effect on "things". Since none of that is true however, the falsification process becomes *personally subjective*, and requires the "believer" to make "choices' that are not related to empirical physical data. It might be possible to falsify the theory for some people. David however is a perfect example of someone that cannot be swayed by the data, regardless of the data. Even when I first asked him about that 4 billion light year long structure in space, he didn't ever once question his beliefs, nor did he leave open any room at all for that particular observation to be useful as a falsification mechanism. He immediately *assumed* he could "break it into smaller pieces" to achieve his goals. I haven't had time to read his rebuttal paper yet, but even before he could present me with one, he had already made up his mind!

Then you're obviously way past my education and I have no way to confirm or deny it.

They don't either. That's the whole point. Gravitational curvature can accelerate objects of mass as well.

They however need something to accelerate "space", not mass. They can't even demonstrate that "space" (physically undefined) an even "expand", let alone "accelerate". Both concepts (expansion and acceleration of space) are pure "acts of faith" of the part of the believer.

Energy is energy, no matter the source. (Pun intended)

So it's fine by you if I just call it "God energy" then too, right?

Neutrality isn't always 'standing by the side and watch someone drawing strawmen all over the place'.

So you'll sit by and watch the mainstream drawing strawmen about EU/PC theories, strawmen related to invisible ad hoc entities and not bat an eye, but should you see something from my lips that looks like a strawman, that's worth commenting on?

Of course that is highly dependent on my perception of things and that's why I've engaged (among other reasons) in this discussion, I want/wanted to know whether I've been under the wrong impression.
Those points I have raised that have been of importance have been obfuscated several times but since they have a tendency to bubble to the surface each and every post I continue until I've seen either a change in your attitude on how you deal with them or how to perceive them.

I know how I can differentiate between the "wrong' and "right" impressions in science. I simply use a completely empirical standard. I have no idea how you determine "right" or 'wrong' impressions however as it relates to physics. Care to explain? Surely it's not related to how you "feel" about my personal presentation style?

You're correct on one thing. I'm biased towards science, but honestly I think that's a bias that is rather hard to get rid of and (more importantly) justified.

Oddly enough we actually share that fondness for science in common. I too am biased toward "empirical science". That is why EU/PC theory is so attractive to me personally.

The difference is that I also tend to reject *metaphysical entities* regardless of the source. The label "science" doesn't impress me when it's associated with invisible hypothetical entities anymore than the label 'religion' impresses me when it's describing invisible hypothetical entities. I apply the *same* standard, whereas you apparently do not.

However when asked for honest, well thought through, answers I'll suppress that bias as much as possible.

You do a pretty good job actually. The only dead 'give away' is that you don't ask david any questions.

Something that just struck me... You're not proposing that claims that have no evidence that have inspired the creating of said claim are on par with science, are you?

What is "dark energy" if not a claim that has no evidence? Even *if* we assume the universe is accelerating over time, what actual evidence can you present that 'dark energy did it' or that "God energy" didn't do it?

No. You don't have to.
Though I'll admit that it's a reasonable high-level assumption to make when one will work within the area.

Well, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think is save to assume a law is likely to be true. That's hardly an illogical premise.

You're equivocating knowledge about something with knowledge of said things origin? I do hope that you're joking.

I hope you can see the difference between claiming that an EM field is responsible for accelerating something vs claiming that "God accelerates the universe'. I can name a *source* of EM fields. I can *control* them in real experiments. I can show in a lab that they can and do have a direct effect on charged particles. This is actual "knowledge'.

Some vague claim about 'dark energy did it" means absolutely nothing in terms of 'knowledge". That isn't actually 'knowledge" at all, it's a "statement of faith". Knowledge isn't the same as *blind speculation*.

Bear with me. I've got a lot of conversations going now, and limited time during the day. If I miss anything, just keep doing what you've been doing and cite the link for me. I'll eventually get to it.

 

[davidbilby]

My argument still stands actually. There has never been empirical laboratory evidence to support SUSY theory.

What you should know, Elendur, is that Michael doesn't actually know what SUSY theory is, and is going purely off blind faith that some other people have said SUSY theory is dead....which...it's not.

Because if he did know anything other than some wikipedia basics, he'd know that:

1) It's not a single theory at all, but several hundred theories with branching variants that are related to varying degrees, all essentially extensions of the Standard Model which we know for certain is incomplete...

2) He is, as usual, entirely wrong about there being "no" empirical evidence - easily demonstrated:

There IS entirely empirical evidence, laboratory based, for various super-symmetrical frameworks - and there has been for a while (Iachello's work in the early 1980's observing L=0 and L=2 bosons and j=3/2 fermions, for starters, as well as non-accelerator work on 196-AU nuclei in bombarded microfilms).

3) He also has no knowledge of any of the details himself to actually be able to form his own opinion - such as why the Bs -> mu+ mu- data is not necessarily a problem, especially as regards non-decoupling SUSY variants. It is true that the simplest variants have major issues, particularly CMSSM, because the symmetry breaking framework for most minimally super-symmetric models should have yielded a SUSY particle at around the 100 GeV mark.

We didn't find that...in fact, we found the Higgs (or some flavor of it) at around 126 GeV, which would imply that the lower limits for the scalar-top mass to be well into the TeV range if minimal supersymmetry had been correct and the standard model otherwise unaffected. He doesn't know that (or apparently care). Nor does he know that the next batch of tests will be upped to energy levels on the order of 14 TeV, which should constrain a large number of extended SUSY theories as regards gluino and neutralino masses. Nor does he know that there are several variants that can happily reconcile the Bs -> mu+ mu- data by simply extending the model with an additional pair of SU(5) decouplets, thus allowing for a lighter gluino mass, which would be entirely in range of the next pass and really not be vastly more complicated than MSSM or GMSB (gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking).

He's passed no specific comment about anything to do with SUSY in any way other than "it bit the dust" (whatever that means)....yet curiously he thinks himself qualified to declare SUSY "bit the dust". From some press releases.

You make up your own mind!

3) The Large Hadron Collider isn't of sufficient energy levels to test many SUSY theories...at all. Part of the reason some SUSY variants were popular was because they made energy level predictions that were in reach - and hey, that's real tempting, knowing that you can potentially get an answer, and soon - but a portion of SUSY theories are still out of range in their entirety.

4) Even if SUSY theories - in their entirety - were falsified, and this has certainly not happened to date despite Michael's statements to the contrary - this would not invalidate the entirety of mainstream cosmology. Not dark matter/energy theories, not the big bang, not any of it. It'd constrain certain parameters, for sure, particularly dark matter candidates - but that's exactly what we want.

It certainly would not aid "plasma cosmology" or "the electric universe" or "tired light", just in the same way that invalidating evolution would not in any way aid creationism. But don't expect that to stop him from pretending that it does.

 

[Elendur]

What you should know, Elendur, is that Michael doesn't actually know what SUSY theory is, and is going purely off blind faith that some other people have said SUSY theory is dead....which...it's not.

Because if he did know anything other than some wikipedia basics, he'd know that:

1) It's not a single theory at all, but several hundred theories with branching variants that are related to varying degrees, all essentially extensions of the Standard Model which we know for certain is incomplete...

2) He is, as usual, entirely wrong about there being "no" empirical evidence - easily demonstrated:

There IS entirely empirical evidence, laboratory based, for various super-symmetrical frameworks - and there has been for a while (Iachello's work in the early 1980's observing L=0 and L=2 bosons and j=3/2 fermions, for starters, as well as non-accelerator work on 196-AU nuclei in bombarded microfilms).

3) He also has no knowledge of any of the details himself to actually be able to form his own opinion - such as why the Bs -> mu+ mu- data is not necessarily a problem, especially as regards non-decoupling SUSY variants. It is true that the simplest variants have major issues, particularly CMSSM, because the symmetry breaking framework for most minimally super-symmetric models should have yielded a SUSY particle at around the 100 GeV mark.

We didn't find that...in fact, we found the Higgs (or some flavor of it) at around 126 GeV, which would imply that the lower limits for the scalar-top mass to be well into the TeV range if minimal supersymmetry had been correct and the standard model otherwise unaffected. He doesn't know that (or apparently care). Nor does he know that the next batch of tests will be upped to energy levels on the order of 14 TeV, which should constrain a large number of extended SUSY theories as regards gluino and neutralino masses. Nor does he know that there are several variants that can happily reconcile the Bs -> mu+ mu- data by simply extending the model with an additional pair of SU(5) decouplets, thus allowing for a lighter gluino mass, which would be entirely in range of the next pass and really not be vastly more complicated than MSSM or GMSB (gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking).

He's passed no specific comment about anything to do with SUSY in any way other than "it bit the dust" (whatever that means)....yet curiously he thinks himself qualified to declare SUSY "bit the dust". From some press releases.

You make up your own mind!

3) The Large Hadron Collider isn't of sufficient energy levels to test many SUSY theories...at all. Part of the reason some SUSY variants were popular was because they made energy level predictions that were in reach - and hey, that's real tempting, knowing that you can potentially get an answer, and soon - but a portion of SUSY theories are still out of range in their entirety.

4) Even if SUSY theories - in their entirety - were falsified, and this has certainly not happened to date despite Michael's statements to the contrary - this would not invalidate the entirety of mainstream cosmology. Not dark matter/energy theories, not the big bang, not any of it. It'd constrain certain parameters, for sure, particularly dark matter candidates - but that's exactly what we want.

It certainly would not aid "plasma cosmology" or "the electric universe" or "tired light", just in the same way that invalidating evolution would not in any way aid creationism. But don't expect that to stop him from pretending that it does.

Some of the less technical things are pretty much what I've been over a few times.

It's not as if I have any profound knowledge of the matter but when I start seeing people mentioning possible models being falsified and some nearly, but not quite, it's kind of easy to draw the conclusion of a rather unsteady field with many branching tries.

Also, that last statement is what I've been stating quite a few times (not necessarily in this thread though).

Though I would like you to use the term hypotheses instead of theories in this case, as I've reminded Michael several times

 

[bhsmte]

FYI, I have not had time to seriously research Craig Evans or Bart Erhman. As best as I could tell from the internet in a few minutes, it looks like Evan's primary work relates to apocrypha, specifically the Gospel of Judas. This type of work isn't likely to impress me much since that work was never canonized. Erhman seems to make a lot of claims about his book, but it's not clear what actual "evidence' he might actually have other than the fact that apocrypha exists in addition to canonized literature.

I'd need to see these copies, and have a better background on what you're alleging exactly. I don't know who these 'serious scholars' might be. A couple of skeptics doesn't really support your claim that these ideas not not refuted by serious scholars. I'll just need more specifics to really comment much on your allegations.


Typically the "devil is in the details" as it relates to almost every debate, and sometimes those details can be very tiny. David and I are apparently arguing over a single high energy photon for instance. Splitting hairs is typically part of almost any debate I'm afraid.

In terms of applying the same standard to all beliefs, I would say that I do that more than most in fact. I tend to use a highly *empirical* (in the lab) standard in fact. As far as I know, I apply the same standard pretty equally everywhere, to every topic I can think of. Feel free to point out any inconsistencies you see, but like I said, I at least 'believe' that I'm being consistent in the application of a single standard to all topics.



FYI, that's pretty much true of almost any topic of debate in my experience. Astronomers for instance don't like to address any/all of the "anomalies" in the WMAP/Planck data sets. They instead "cherry pick" some evidence from that data set, and ignore anything and everything that doesn't actually fit with their preconceived ideas.



If Christians were alone in "cherry picking", you might have a useful argument. Muslims share most if not all of the same views related to being 'good' or 'bad'.



Well, I can certainly tell you that Christ's teachings have indeed "saved me from myself" in terms of dealing with several ego related issues in my life. I've definitely benefited from his teachings.



I personally think that whole argument about Jewish literacy is *way* out of whack, particularly as it relates to the disciples of Jesus. James and Peter have letters recorded in the bible. They were both literate. As far as the literacy rate, I fail to see how it's really of any importance at all considering the outcome of events.



Well, how exactly would you "speed up" such a process of dissemination, keep the same message, and still have it be related to a 'Jewish' Messiah?

I suppose if I personally believed that anyone that never heard of Jesus or his teachings are 'damned for all time', your objection might be meaningful. Since I don't believe that is true, it's not much of an argument from my perspective.



That's not true for everyone however, and in fact you're kind of in a minority viewpoint on that score. If we include Islam, over 50 percent of the planet reveres and honors the teachings of Christ. It may not be believable to you personally, but that isn't true for the majority of humans. You'll have to at least start to own your own conclusions and be careful about making blanket statements like that. Sure, maybe it's not believable to you personally, but is that true for everyone?



Again, this seems to be more opinion than fact. What act done by Jesus himself, as recorded in *canonized* literature was not loving or not forgiving in your opinion?



I'm not sure how we'd fairly judge various religions, and I personally more attached to the teachings of Jesus the man than I am attached to any particular 'religion' that claims to represent his teachings.

If we are going to be "fair" to Jesus the man however, it should be noted that between Islam and Christianity, more than 50 percent of planet Earth honors him and his teachings. For you to then suggest that his words are 'unbelievable' is pretty much a subjective conclusion that actually puts you in a *minority*, not the majority.

I believe this particular discussion is pretty much exhausted, as we interpret the available information differently and or we have not been exposed or sought the same information.

Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Michael]

Debate? You haven't engaged in a debate with anybody in this thread. Ever.

FYI, It's really hard to take you seriously when you say ridiculous things like that.

You make truth claims that are false

Pot, meet kettle. You're *constantly* trying to pass off your personal beliefs as "gospel" as I will demonstrate in this post.

and then when somebody points them out - with swathes of evidence - you claim they're being unfair, change the subject, or "get busy".

For example:

1) You repeatedly cite MAGIC as evidence for your position. You (and Ashmore) claim that MAGIC is evidence of a time delay, caused by the tiring of photons due to some unknown inelastic scattering effect, that is more pronounced the higher the energy of the photon. That's a perfectly valid claim to try and make, but it is a testable claim...

2) I point out that more recent and more accurate experiments have shown that interpretation to be conclusively wrong and impossible.

Emphasis mine. Ok, let's talk about "false claims" and your claims about knowledge. You have a proven track record of insisting that your *personal opinions* are fact, including this little false gem about *conclusive* evidence. You have *nothing of the sort*! You've got exactly one high energy photon, at a *significantly lower* energy state than the photons studied in the MAGIC data. Essentially you've got a wing and a prayer, and nothing else. Even *if* this this paper is correct in every single detail, it doesn't even support your claim because the photon in question is in fact delayed with respect to the start of the event, and it's 31*Gev* photon, not a 1.2*Tev* photon like those studied in the MAGIC paper. Even at a much lower energy state you still had to *fudge the numbers* and blame the source for the time lag they observe. You have no 'perfect match' to any of the 7 peaks, nor do you have anything remotely like "conclusive" evidence of anything, let alone conclusive evidence that 1.2 Tev photons studied in the MAGIC paper travel at the same speed as 31Gev photons observed by Fermi! And you actually have the *gall* to accuse me of misrepresenting facts? Wow!

I cite a paper (one amongst quite a number of similar results, although this it the most pronounced to date) that shows a 31 GeV photon

"A" (as in one) 31Gev photon? *One* 31Gev photon, not even a 1.2 Tev photon? So apparently your supposed *conclusive evidence" comes from exactly one *single* photon at a *significantly lower* energy state than the study by MAGIC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markarian_501

During flares and outbursts the peaks increase in power and frequency.[5] Flares lasting 20 minutes long with rise times of 1 minute have been measured by MAGIC. In these flares the higher energy gamma rays (of 1.2 Tev) were delayed 4 minutes over the 0.25 TeV gamma rays.[8]

Emphasis mine. You mean to honestly tell me that you don't see any problem comparing one photon in a 31Gev range to photons in the 1.2Tev energy state? Really?

arriving 0.859 seconds into a gamma ray burst,

So apparently the one photon in question, that is in a completely lower energy state than the MAGIC observations, doesn't actually exactly line up with the start of the event in question. You actually call that one photon, in the wrong energy range no less, "conclusive evidence"? You actually have the absolute gall to blame me about making sweeping knowledge statements?

3) Your response? As to "That's just one photon" and "They didn't rule out source effects in the GRB". I quote:

But this assertion is simply untrue. It's either a lie or it's just ignorance, but it's untrue either way. If you look on page 16 of the paper in question:

Now I'd be the first to admit that it's certainly possible that I missed something, or misread something, or that I overlooked something important in a 20 page paper. Since I am typically responding to these posts at work between tech calls, I have also been known to phrase things improperly, or in a way that doesn't always convey the idea I'm trying to convey correctly. I don't even proofread my stuff most of the time, so sometimes my sentences are missing key words and the sometimes contain atrocious spelling mistakes. I'm definitely guilty of all these human flaws at times, and I'd be the very first to admit it.

Notice however that you took the emotional low road and you accused me of lying? You can't even debate honestly or fairly without hurling personal insults and mud in every single post!

You're a one trick personal attack pony. Even in a worst case scenario, an *honest mistake* is simply an honest mistake. It would be entirely *pointless* for me to intentionally "lie" about the content of any paper, particularly during a debate, and about a paper that *someone else* suggested.

Your emotional and personal need to "smear the messenger" in every single post is just another example of the fact you cannot debate honestly or fairly. You cheat, and you cheat in every single post. If you aren't accusing me of mathematical incompetence, you must accuse me of a "lie" instead because your entire goal is to discredit and smear the *person*, not discuss the issue at hand.

Talk about emotional nonsense and pure unadulterated sleaze! You're like a religious zealot, that when "questioned", becomes angry, aggressive and goes *personal* rather than sticking to the topic. You are completely and entirely unethical in the way that you debate.

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

you see that far from "assigning it to a pulse at random" they actually don't do that at all.

Ah but they did associate it with that last pulse of the 7 they observed:

TheGBM light curve (Fig. 1b,c; 8 keV&#8211;40MeV) consists of 7 main pulses. The main LAT emission above 100 MeV starts at T0 +0.65 s and lasts ~200 s; a single 31 GeV photon -the highest energy photon detected from any GRB, coincides with the last GBM pulse at T0+0.829 s (Fig. 1

-b,c,f; see Supplementary Information 1).

They show the constraints from multiple possible t_starts (a) through (d) which cover the entire range of time in the burst that the photon could have been emitted, including right at the very beginning - (a).

Now - for you to make the truth claim that you did (that they didn't rule out source effects..

How exactly did they rule out source effects when it doesn't align to the start of anything and it arrives .8 seconds after the start of the event?

and just assigned this photon to a peak at random), you either a) didn't understand page 16 of that paper at all or b) lied.

Which is it, Michael?

I suppose I'll pick a) assuming that we *assume* my statement was a sloppy statement. They actually did correlate the 31Gev photon to the last of the 7 pulses however as I quoted for you.

There is no debate here because you simply don't debate at all. Many people have tried to debate with you, but when someone poses a good point, you just decide to make stuff up in rebuttal - literally, make stuff up.

You mean like you "made up" the idea that you can compare 31Gev photons to 1.2 Tev photons?

Here's another example - there are so many - you bring up as evidence against inflation "that 4 billion long structure" that you say violates homogeneity thus invalidating the cosmological principle (and therefore every other theory the mainstream has, bizarrely).

I cite a very recent rebuttal to Clowes' paper, clearly showing that the HLQG is not necessarily a single structure, using his own algorithm:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1700v1.pdf

Comments, if you understand it? Or will you just keep repeating your "structure" assertion? Again, your failure to debate is the problem here.

I'll need time to read it before I comment. I just love how you expect me to comment on 10 an 20 page papers in a day. Sorry but I can't always accommodate you as quickly as you might like. I do actually read the papers, and I need time to do that in this case.

What I found most "enlightening" about your attitude was your response to the original observation. Even *before* you had a rebuttal paper to offer me, you *insisted* that the structure could/would be taken apart, and never once did you ever suggest that such a large structure could even be used to falsify your beliefs. You had already made up your mind even without a shred of paper support.