We can start with my favorites....curvaton decay models.
No explanation for the asymmetry involving foregrounds or systematics has been forthcoming, and only a few models for a primordial origin have been proposed [37, 38, 39]. In Ref. [39], Erickcek, Kamionkowski, and Carroll analyzed how a superhorizon fluctuation in an inflationary field could generate such a power asymmetry. We found that the power asymmetry cannot be reconciled with single-field slow-roll inflation; the superhorizon fluctuation in the inflaton field that is required to generate the observed asymmetry would also induce unacceptable anisotropy in the CMB temperature on large angular scales.
In light of your equivocations, no denial has taken place on my part. I accept the wiki definition of electromagnetism.No, I simply know from experience that when someone is in pure denial of basic science as you are, and they make factually untrue statements as it relates to science, that pretty much all hope of resolving anything goes flying out the window. Denial isn't something I can fix for you, you can only fix it yourself. Electrical discharges are *absolutely and positively* an example of electromagnetism. If you can't accept that *fact* there is nothing more to discuss.
The "god helmet" is not representative of what humans would encounter in nature, so it does not directly support your claim.I have even demonstrated to you via God Helmet experiments that *magnetic fields* alone are enough to have an influence on human thought, and an average lightening strike produces a larger field that those used in that device. Again, I've handed you an example of cause/effect connections between electromagnetism and humans, and again you won't accept reality.
See, there is a double standard. Your equivocation was an example of your need to "nitpick and play lawyer games" with others' posts in your own thread.No, but apparently you need to nitpick and play lawyer games and ignore every mathematical formula that relates to electromagnetism to support your position.
No, you have not. You have merely stated a possibility, when you claimed definitely.I've already demonstrated that claim is true.
I already did that for you in the appropriate thread had you bothered to actually read it.
No, not you personally. Anyone. And, replicated by others. You know, science.Apparently you expect me to personally conduct a series of million dollar experiments *before* you'll even accept the fact that EM fields have an effect on human beings!
In light of your equivocations, no denial has taken place on my part. I accept the wiki definition of electromagnetism.
Not "representative" in what way? In terms of the magnetic field strengths involved, nature creates both much *larger* and smaller fields. Again, this is a *lot* like watching a YEC tap dancing around ice core data or nuclear decay data. Same denial dance, different tune.The "god helmet" is not representative of what humans would encounter in nature, so it does not directly support your claim.
You did that when you tried to disconnect the magnetic field from it's *source*, specifically the charged particle, and/or charged particle movement.As for ignoring "every mathematical formula", you will need to provide examples of where I dd this.
Humans have *definitely* been struck dead by lightning. Humans have *definitely* been shown to be affected by EM fields. That is not actually a "possibility*, that is a fact.No, you have not. You have merely stated a possibility, when you claimed definitely.
I would never have doubted your statement in the first place. I'm still completely perplexed by why you doubted mine.Is this your claim, if the subject were hammers? "I claim that hammers can influence human thought. Come here, and let me give you a good whack on the head with it."
In terms of other humans "replicating" a connection to God, just go into any bookstore in your neighborhood and you'll find plenty personal accounts of many folks having a relationship with something they call "God".No, not you personally. Anyone. And, replicated by others. You know, science.
I stand by that statement by the way. There is no doubt that electrical current and magnetic fields "definitely" would (and do) have an effect on human beings. I'm still right no matter how much nitpicking you wish to do.You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".
You're apparently wanting me to demonstrate that the universe *does*, not *might* have *exactly the same effect* as the God helmet type of experiments. That's not what I said, and you're asking for more than I claimed!This has definitely *not* been demonstrated as your 'electric universe in action' might generate EM fields and direct them inside the human brain, in a controlled and repeatable manner.
Curvaton decay models? O-M-G! You mean to tell me that you need a *forth* invisible friend/fudge factor to get your stupid hypothesis to work right?
Oh, and this is apparently the assessment of the basic inflation hypothesis according to all of the authors of that first paper:
So there we have it. Apparently the authors all conclude that inflation alone can't be used to resolve the problems
I mean all that's essentially required in my cosmology theory is to "have faith" that the universe is electromagnetic in nature, much like a human brain, and it's "aware" much like a human brain. I'm not even the first guy to propose the idea, and the laws of physics do not preclude such things from occurring.
Considering the fact that you couldn't even ever *hope* to see your invisible stuff show up in the lab on Earth
and I at least do have such hope
are you sure you don't want to trade in your four impotent and invisible sky friends
for just one very potent, and *completely visible* one?
This is funny because .....
"No explanation for the asymmetry involving foregrounds or systematics has been forthcoming, and only a few models for a primordial origin have been proposed [37, 38, 39]. In Ref. [39], Erickcek, Kamionkowski, and Carroll analyzed how a superhorizon fluctuation in an inflationary field could generate such a power asymmetry. We found that the power asymmetry cannot be reconciled with single-field slow-roll inflation; the superhorizon fluctuation in the inflaton field that is required to generate the observed asymmetry would also induce unacceptable anisotropy in the CMB temperature on large angular scales."
FYI, there you go again demonstrating conclusively that you really stink at mind reading. I've read so many metaphysical variations on the same theme, I've given up counting them at this point. These days there are almost as many metaphysical variations of inflation as there are sects of "Christianity". The last one I read about was "hairy inflation" if I remember correctly.Except that's not what they say at all. AT ALL. Is it, Michael? Because single-field slow roll inflation is one idea in inflation (one that you'd never actually heard of before, right?
If you add enough fudge factors you can make your math fit *anything* and *everything* apparently. When I started picking on Lambda-CDM 7 years ago, the "big prediction" of inflation was the relatively homogenous layout of matter. Now it turn out that this "prediction" was utterly wrong, you won't abide by the results, and you insist on making up new invisible impotent on Earth friends to "fill the gaps" of your otherwise falsified claims! Even the authors "gave up" on trying to find a solution to the problem, and simply "cheated" by adding a new hypothetical entity into the mix. Lambda-CDM doesn't just require *one* act of pure faith on the part of believer, but apparently we have to "have faith" in *four* of them just to keep one otherwise dead cosmology theory from dying a natural scientific death.Just like curvaton models, another strong inflationary theory - one which happens to fit every single current observation.
Ya, and apparently the way they intend to "fix" the failure of the basic inflation concept is to "make up" yet another new hypothetical supernatural entity to plug the gaps of what is otherwise a falsified theory. Like I said, there's no possible way to falsify your theory when you keep moving the goal posts and even adding new goal posts in the middle of the game.They're not actually saying that inflationary theory doesn't fit the asymmetry - just that single-field slow roll models don't.
The reason is quite obvious. If you don't add a new invisible hypothetical entity into the mix, you can't make the math work right, and you'd have to accept that inflation theory is falsified. Since you have a strong emotional and professional need to "be right" rather than to "be wrong", you simply invent a new ad hoc entity and ignore the fact that your theory has been almost but not quite entirely *useless* at actually "predicting" anything.Do you remember why I called curvaton models my favorite?
Of course it is! You've got more fudge factors and excuses going now. You could make that menagerie of metaphysical fudge factors do just about anything and everything. Talk about "supernatural" claims. You've got four supernatural entities going, and not a single shred of evidence to support *any* of them individually, yet you expect me to believe in *all* of them at the very same time, otherwise your entire house of metaphysical cards comes crashing to the ground. You've got a four layer affirming the consequent fallacy going, and the stupid thing requires *four* hypothetical entities exist to even get it to work right! Compared to even an "average" religion, your "religion" requires more acts of pure faith than most!That's because they're completely consistent with observation.
Your claim about "testable predictions" is a complete and utter farce. If you actually would abide by the "tests", your claim wouldn't sound so ridiculous. Instead of admitting that inflation failed a "key testable prediction", you simply added a new ad hoc invisible entity and claim it's "all ok" again! Baloney! You *refuse* to accept the outcome of your "testable predictions" and you keep "making up" metaphysical gap filler on the fly anytime it suits you. Now I have to believe in dark energy, inflation, exotic matter *and* "curvatons" and you can't even tell me where *any* of them come from! Talk about pure faith.If you wonder what's happening in that field right now, the main focus of research is trying to work out currently (or in near future) testable predictions of curvaton inflationary scenarios. Watch this space.
And so the excuses begin. Your blatant *failures* in the lab are meaningless to you and your dogma because your dogma has always been a matter of "pure faith", not actual physics.1) That theory is many branching theories, some entirely independent and some very closely connected, vastly more complex than a single word could ever muster,
The deeply misleading part is you failing to mention that you're now scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of "popularity" of various models prior to LHC, and the fact you failed to acknowledge that not a shred of laboratory evidence actually supports any of your nonsense. You're clinging to "theory", not physics. Again, it's a pure act of faith on your part and the failures in the lab are irrelevant to you. Again, there is no possibility of falsification because you can continue to surf the gaps all the way up the energy spectrum, way beyond anything we could even hope to test at LHC. The whole thing is an "exotic matter of the gaps" claim at this point, and you know it. You can't even tell me which SUSY theory left standing that you'll even agree to *commit* to in terms of changing your mind if it's falsified in later tests!and pretending that the entire field is dead when there are many branches that are not just entirely viable, they are entirely consistent with current observation (such as MSSM_AKM) is deeply misleading.
False. You spend an inordinate amount of time giving *false testimony* against others. If you were a "Christian" that might matter to you. Apparently however, you're an atheist without ethics, and you're rather an embarrassment to whole atheist community I might add.2) You have absolutely no idea about any of the details of any of these theories.
*You* really need to stop talking about *me* and discuss the topic. All your below the belt shots at the individual just demonstrate the emotional and vindictive nature of your attachment to your beliefs.SUSY - you learned the word "sparticle",
We did test for all kinds of them, and not a single one showed up. You still expect me to "cling to hope" apparently while you blithely ignore all that plasma and all those stars we just found.Add to this that you keep complaining about us theorizing particles that have not yet been seen and that we do not have the ability to yet test,
The Standard Model is incomplete
No, they don't! Again, you just "made that up" because you refuse to accept any other answer! Standard theory has found all it's particles, and documented each and every single one of them. It works just fine, and it's passed all it's test with flying colors.- such particles HAVE to exist (SUSY or otherwise).
I'm certainly open to the idea that there *might* be forms of energy and matter that we are not yet aware of, but I'm certainly not emotionally or professionally invested in such a claim. If it turns out that such things *do show up in the lab*, I'll be interested. Waving at the sky claiming that your foursome of invisible (and impotent on Earth) sky entities did it, won't cut it.Can you deny that there are subatomic particles that must exist in the universe that we have not seen and cannot yet empirically test for?
You don't abide by the outcome of the *tests*, that's why! If you actually let your theories die a natural scientific death based upon those "tests", I'd be fine. Since you just make stuff up as you go, those "tests" are meaningless. You don't care about the outcome of those tests, even when they *falsify* your claim. You simply add a new invisible friends, the last time "dark energy", and "curvatons" this time apparently, and away you go making "new predictions" that aren't "predictions" at all. They are *postdictions* with four types of metaphysical magic. You fudge and fudge and fudge the numbers some more, and then *insist* that empirical physics fit the same exact data set, or you cling to your invisible set of friends.What is your problem with including these in mathematical hypotheses, such that we can build models and test them,
It *isn't* right. That's why you keep having to add ad hoc entities to your claims every decade or two. The more time that goes by, the more invisible friends you need to make the math work. It's not *right*. It's never been *right*, and it's not *right* when you add make-believe "curvatons" to your math formulas.Why do you think it better to demand a form of inelastic scattering that requires the Standard Model - all the bits that we know to be right
What a bunch of hooey. First you try to ride the coattails of GR while stuffing it full of a menagerie of make-believe supernatural energy and matter. Now you're apparently trying to ride the coattails of QM without any demonstrated connection between any of your hypothetical particles and QM. Your entire spiel is pure nonsense.- to behave entirely differently than from observation, and from the models that we have tested rigorously building up the empirically proven field of quantum mechanics?
First of all I'm not the only one that has noticed that you have problems with qualification. I'm also not alone in noticing that you keep "making up" new ad hoc entities whenever it suits you. I'm not the only one that is out there "persuading" others to abandon metaphysics. It's happening all over cyberspace, and it's happening right here too.And why do you think, as a layman, that you have any persuasive power at all with your "qualification problems"
In terms of pure acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab), it's the "most appropriate" comparison I can make. Your "scientific hypothesis" requires "blind faith" in four invisible entities, three of which *cannot* even be tested in the lab. The other one already failed a bunch of lab tests, including it's "golden test". Talk about acts of faith!and religious metaphor
So what? Appeal to authority much?and cliche over people with physics degrees,
I did? When did I say that, or are you just lying to yourself (and everyone else) again? I've rarely met anyone so intent on "bearing false witness" against someone they don't really even know.particularly as you admit you really know very little if anything about particle physics?
I think you missed this Michael, or deliberately ignored it - whatever. Here it is again...since you're all up on PLANCK right now....
One of things that PLANCK allows us to do beautifully is be considerably more accurate about how much of the mass/energy in the universe is baryonic matter,
Why do you so belittle the strong and weak interactions and gravitation, none of which are electromagnetic?
Well it all shows up, in the PLANCK data:
to an error margin of less than 0.05% we know that only 4.82% of the mass/energy in the universe is baryonic matter. What was your rebuttal to the PLANCK spectrum data again?
Dark matter might - it's not impossible, but our detectors under most theories need to be more planet-sized, which is tough right now...
Dark energy - highly unlikely since Earth is not a vacuum and the effects of gravity would make it impossible. That's a shame,.....
Curvatons - actually, rather like the Higgs, being spin-0 particles (essentially mathematical scalar fields), these might be possible to view indirectly in terms of decay signatures. Work is somewhat in progress....
If they exist, as the PLANCK data clearly indicates that they do (I notice you missed that entire portion, so I'll repost it again in a moment for your benefit and so you can't claim you missed it)....they are far from impotent but are arguably the most important portion of the universe you live in.
And by the way, if you're now including single scalar fields in mathematical theories, such as the curvaton, as "invisible sky friends" thanks to your rejection of anything that you cannot personally understand as false,....
The "human brain" is not the missing piece(s) of the Standard Model, so, no.
We've seen about 70% of this, so even if you find that galaxies shine twice as bright...AGAIN....you're still not even close to seeing all the baryonic matter in the universe, let alone denting what must be non-baryonic!
What a crock! Planck put tons of nails in the inflation coffin. You then rip open the coffin, stuff the coffin full of curvatons, and then you continue to rant on about your claim that inflation is still alive with the help of his new invisible supernatural sidekick.Your theory that dark matter and dark energy (whatever they are) don't exist is seriously dead, and PLANCK put the nails in the coffin.
You are *definitely* the one that is 'cherry picking' and you're definitely moving the goal posts again. You won't limit yourself to just your three metaphysical friends, nor will you abide by the outcome of the "predictions" of inflation. If inflation won't do the trick, you just add some other mythical ad hoc particle into the mix that is custom designed to 'fix' the problem.Who's cherry picking now?
So, apparently the data on the isocurvature anomaly that was verified by Planck was the *original motive* for 'fudging' the data in the first place! That failure to predict the correct layout was the original motive for creating this new hypothetical entity from the very start. This is direct physical evidence that even a *main observational objection* against the theory *cannot* ever be used and *was not* actually used to falsify Lambda-CDM theory. This whole attempt to "dance around' the falsification process demonstrates without a shadow of doubt that your *religion* is *unfalsifiable* by any logical means.However, the new measurements by the Boomerang balloon flight [4] definitely show that the CMB anisotropies are not of purely isocurvature nature [5]. This presents a very difficult hurdle for the PBB scenario and is the main observational objection against it. However, as was first noticed in [6] in a different context, a decaying axion field could change the situation dramatically.
On the other hand, the demand that inflation should produce the curvature perturbation in this particular way is very restrictive, ruling out or disfavouring several otherwise attractive models of inflation. In this note we point out that the primordial curvature perturbation may have a completely different origin, namely the quantum fluctuation during inflation of a light scalar field which is not the slowly-rolling inflaton, and need have nothing to do with the fields driving of inflation. We call this field the curvaton.
I didn't. You made that up too.
Yep, the same motive appears in the second paper too:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0110002v2.pdf
Evidently it's far "too restrictive" to expect inflation hypotheses to rise and fall on their own "predictions"
What experiment, exactly, what you propose with a budget of $450,000 that could test your inelastic scattering ideas. Do tell. I'm sure you'd have an idea of where to start. I'd love to hear it. It's YOUR idea.
Sure. In that context, your "EM influence on humans" could be comparable to Neptune's gravitational effect on humans. Who cares? Is pantheism no more significant than astrology?If you accept that definition, then the following statement is *necessarily* true:
MM>>"An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".
Apparently however you remain in denial of basic scientific fact.
As per the god helmet wiki page, strength, proximity, and complexity. And even then, it does not directly support your claim. Did you fully read that page?Not "representative" in what way? In terms of the magnetic field strengths involved, nature creates both much *larger* and smaller fields. Again, this is a *lot* like watching a YEC tap dancing around ice core data or nuclear decay data. Same denial dance, different tune.
In light of your equivocations, you can retract that.You did that when you tried to disconnect the magnetic field from it's *source*, specifically the charged particle, and/or charged particle movement.
Dismissed. That is a local phenomenon. The subject at hand is your "electric universe".Humans have *definitely* been struck dead by lightning.
This is not disputed.Humans have *definitely* been shown to be affected by EM fields. That is not actually a "possibility*, that is a fact.
I have not seen evidence of this being a possibility, other than your "I see patterns" statements.The only thing that is a *possibility* is the possibility that the universe is "aware". That's about the only thing you could actually "doubt".
That is your opinion, not fact. Of course there is doubt.The rest is demonstrated scientific fact. My original statement, the one that apparently set you off, is in fact a statement of demonstrated scientific fact.
Complain all you like about the need to demonstrate that the universe is aware, but there's no doubt that a living *electric* universe *could definitely have* a direct effect on human beings.
Go read what I wrote again. The statement was not made on my behalf.I would never have doubted your statement in the first place. I'm still completely perplexed by why you doubted mine.
Yes, I have been to that section of the bookstore:In terms of other humans "replicating" a connection to God, just go into any bookstore in your neighborhood and you'll find plenty personal accounts of many folks having a relationship with something they call "God".
The subject at hand is magnetic fields and your "electric universe", not current. Put those goalposts down.I stand by that statement by the way. There is no doubt that electrical current and magnetic fields "definitely" would (and do) have an effect on human beings. I'm still right no matter how much nitpicking you wish to do.
So you have gone from 'definitely have' to 'might have' in your claim?You're apparently wanting me to demonstrate that the universe *does*, not *might* have *exactly the same effect* as the God helmet type of experiments. That's not what I said, and you're asking for more than I claimed!
So much for your reliance on lab results.The kind of evidence it would take to satisfy your personal request (not my claim) could only come about by extensive empirical laboratory testing, experimentation that is out of my personal budget I'm afraid.
<snip rant>
...you're an atheist
...*praying* for a miracle!
...Your "pure act of faith"
...your invisible friends
...metaphysical label
...invisible magic
...another *metaphysical* claim
...magic expansion tricks
..."leaps of faith"
...pure metaphysical garbage!
...invisible sky entities
...*three* extra-ordinary claims
...magic expansion tricks
...*three* extraordinary claims...
...mythical enigma...
...
...
These two were so short that I almost missed them, but I'll take them into consideration....
...
..."on faith"
...metaphysical frankstein
...one giant metaphysical assumption
...Your metaphysical "space expansion"...
This one made it!...
...
...you don't have the first clue about honest scientific debate
...Your pointless personal attack nonsense can wait...
...you have no ethics in debate
...belittle anyone that disagrees with your beliefs
...mythical forms
...invisible entity
...I hope you're proud of your personal attack behaviors
...your metaphysical house of cards...
...Your entire method of debate is sleazy
...three invisible friends into the sky...
...lie to yourself (and everyone else)
...It's all one big 'statement of faith'
..."religion"
..."meme'...
...*forth* invisible friend/fudge factor
...stupid hypothesis
...ad hoc entities
...metaphysical fudge factors
...ad hoc entity
...new invisible friend
...It's become a *religion*
...*acts of pure faith* on the part of the believer
...invisible friends
...new invisible friend...
(This one was so close, were it not for that last paragraph)...*four* invisible sky entities
...ad hoc invisible sky deities...
...Are you sure that you don't want to switch religions yet?
...*four* invisible friends
...your invisible friends
...your invisible stuff
...your four impotent and invisible sky friends...
...invisible ad hoc entity!
...mythical, make-believe "particle"
...supernatural
...invisible friends
...*fudging the math* with four supernatural
...you really stink at mind reading.
...metaphysical
...metaphysical
...fudge factors
...new invisible impotent on Earth friends
..."cheated"
...entity
...act of pure faith on the part of believer
..."have faith" in *four* of them
...supernatural entity
...new invisible hypothetical entity
...Since you have a strong emotional and professional need to "be right" rather than to "be wrong"
...new ad hoc entity
...fudge factors
...menagerie of metaphysical fudge factors
..."supernatural" claims
...supernatural entities
...entire house of metaphysical cards
...entities
..."average" religion, your "religion" requires more acts of pure faith than most!
...ad hoc invisible entity
..."making up" metaphysical gap filler
...Talk about pure faith.
...your dogma
...your dogma
..."pure faith"
...pure act of faith
...atheist without ethics
...blithely ignore
...statement of faith
..."made that up"
...Waving at the sky...
...foursome of invisible (and impotent on Earth) sky entities
...new invisible friends
...metaphysical magic
...You fudge and fudge and fudge
...invisible set of friends.
...ad hoc entities
...invisible friends
...make-believe
...make-believe supernatural
...ride the coattails
...new ad hoc entities
...abandon metaphysics
...pure acts of faith
...requires "blind faith" in four invisible entities
...Talk about acts of faith!
..."bearing false witness"
...Your debate ethics are horrific
...you keep lying about the individual in virtually every single post...
...entity as "ad hoc gap filler",
...mythical matter stories in front of your naive and trusting students...
...entities
...real lab experiment?
...invisible deities are the single most impotent foursome of particles/energies I've ever *not seen*
...Explain to me why you're an atheist again?
...your "religion" just keeps getting weirder by the year
...I can't even think of any religion that requires so many pure acts of faith...
...new invisible supernatural sidekick
...adding new 'fudge factors' galore
...metaphysical kludges to the *religion* you've created, a *religion* that requires 4 separates acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab)
...Your goofy concepts
...require more blind leaps of faith in unseen entities than most religions
...entities
...metaphysical friends
...mythical ad hoc particle
...pure act of faith on the part of the believer
...four metaphysical band-aids...
... new mythical particle
...pitiful by the way
...'fudging' the data
...entity
..."dance around' the falsification process
...your *religion* is *unfalsifiable*...
...they *cheated* again, and simply 'made up"
...The falsification process is broken in astronomy
...mythical particles/energies
...ad hoc entities...
I went to the WIKI page on curvatons (pitiful by the way)
and followed the references to the first paper they cited. The contents were quite revealing and they demonstrate the basic nature of the cherry picking/goal post moving that goes on in astronomy today:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0109214v3.pdf
So, apparently the data on the isocurvature anomaly that was verified by Planck was the *original motive* for 'fudging' the data in the first place!
That failure to predict the correct layout was the original motive for creating this new hypothetical entity from the very start.
This is direct physical evidence that even a *main observational objection* against the theory *cannot* ever be used and *was not* actually used to falsify Lambda-CDM theory.
This whole attempt to "dance around' the falsification process demonstrates without a shadow of doubt that your *religion* is *unfalsifiable* by any logical means.