Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

Your avoidance mechanisms are kicking in.

Nowhere in the scientific method does it require all observations to be made within the walls of a building.

I'm not talking about *observations*, I'm talking about your lack of empirical *verification* of your claim in real *experimentation*.

I can *observe* redshift. I can *experiment* with inelastic scattering and demonstrate it happens in plasma. You can't do that with inflation or dark energy.

That is what you are running away from time and again. You simply can not engage in an adult conversation.

What you keep running from time and time again is that you *put your faith* in the claim that inflation and dark energy have some effect on a photon, you can't demonstrate your claim in controlled experiments. You have to *have faith* in a trio of invisible sky deities in your belief system, whereas even *God* is entirely *visible* in my universe.

 

[Michael]

And yet nothing on plasma redshift or the refutation of the Big Bang model.

Who cares?

 

[Michael]

Your avoidance mechanisms are kicking in.

FYI, coming from a guy that *never* produced a single external reference to back up their claims about neurons and current, that's quite a riot!

 

[Loudmouth]

Who cares?

Just another example of internet crackpottery.

 

[Michael]

Just another example of internet crackpottery.

Just another example of internet hater behaviors. Why am I obligated to write about every single topic in astronomy? Who else even does that?

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, coming from a guy that *never* produced a single external reference to back up their claims about neurons and current, that's quite a riot!

Your avoidance mechanisms are kicking in. You continually deflect when your false claims are shown to you. You did it again here. Again . . .

Nowhere in the scientific method does it require all observations to be made within the walls of a building. That is what you are running away from time and again.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just another example of internet hater behaviors. Why am I obligated to write about every single topic in astronomy? Who else even does that?

When you claim to be making waves on a certain topic, and then claimed to have published, the understanding is that you published on the topic you are supposedly making waves in.

As it turns out, you are an internet crackpot.

 

[Michael]

In proper journals?

FYI, all the papers I've been involved in are available for free on Arxiv.

arXiv.org Search

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Who cares?

Quite clearly, you do. Given the amount of writing you do on this forum about your favourite topic, it would be surprising if you haven't tried to write something about it for one of these journals. After all, how else is the mainstream gong to notice you? It's just a guess on my part, but I assume if your ideas were publishable, they would have been published. So I'm guessing they were rejected

 

[Michael]

Your avoidance mechanisms are kicking in. You continually deflect when your false claims are shown to you. You did it again here. Again . . .

You mean like you and that request for external support of your neuron claims?

Nowhere in the scientific method does it require all observations to be made within the walls of a building. That is what you are running away from time and again.

The only one running from reality is you. I'm not requiring that observations (like redshift) be done any particular way. If however you expect to point at that observation of redshift and claim that your invisible friends did it, I'll want some evidence that you didn't just "make up" your invisible friends, and they that have a demonstrated effect on a photon in a controlled test of concept.

I have no problem demonstrating that moving objects and inelastic scattering have a real effect on real photons in a real experiment with real control mechanism.

You just have *faith* in your claims, and not a *shred* of empirical experimental support for any of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not talking about *observations*, I'm talking about your lack of empirical *verification* of your claim in real *experimentation*.

You have been shown these experiments time and again. Here is one example:

The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: measuring the cosmic expansion history using the Alcock–Paczynski test and distant supernovae - Blake - 2011 - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society - Wiley Online Library

I can *observe* redshift. I can *experiment* with inelastic scattering and demonstrate it happens in plasma.

No, you observe scattering of light. Whether the source of light comes from within the lab or is observed through a telescope has no bearing the legitimacy of the experiment. It is a very simple concept.

You can't do that with inflation or dark energy.

Yes you can, and it has been done.

What you keep running from time and time again is that you *put your faith* in the claim that inflation and dark energy have some effect on a photon,

I have the evidence. No faith is needed.

 

[Michael]

Quite clearly, you do. Given the amount of writing you do on this forum about your favourite topic, it would be surprising if you haven't tried to write something about it for one of these journals. After all, how else is the mainstream gong to notice you? It's just a guess on my part, but I assume if your ideas were publishable, they would have been published. So I'm guessing they were rejected

Unfortunately you guessed the way you wanted to, and you guessed wrong. I've never even submitted a paper on that topic to any publication. I naively assumed they'd be interested in solar physics and heavy objects in space.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean like you and that request for external support of your neuron claims?

Everything I claimed was supported by external sources. The flow of ions is at a right angle to the nerve impulse. Therefore, the nerve impulse is not a current of ions. You have been shown this over and over. Like anything else, you ignore it.

The only one running from reality is you.

Right, because I am the one who denies the overwhelming consensus within science.

I'm not requiring that observations (like redshift) be done any particular way. If however you expect to point at that observation of redshift and claim that your invisible friends did it, I'll want some evidence that you didn't just "make up" your invisible friends, and they that have a demonstrated effect on a photon in a controlled test of concept.

That is exactly what those experiments are. They are controlled experiments. You obviously don't understand how controls work in experiments.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Unfortunately you guessed the way you wanted to, and you guessed wrong. I've never even submitted a paper on that topic to any publication. I naively assumed they'd be interested in solar physics and heavy objects in space.

So, although you are "the mainstream's biggest critic", the mainstream is completely unaware of this fact, and has no idea that you are, in fact, sitting on radical ideas that blow their mainstream physics to pieces. Instead you decide to leak your ideas under the radar on a Christian website where they go completely unnoticed, or are dismissed by any physicists that bother to read them as nonsense. Do you think this is your most constructive route to toppling the mainstream?

 

[Michael]

You have been shown these experiments time and again. Here is one example:

You repeatedly demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between a pure observation and an experiment with real control mechanisms. That isn't an *experiment*, that's an *observation* that *assumes* the *cause*. It doesn't *demonstrate* that A) dark energy exists, or B) it has a real effect on a photon.

No, you observe scattering of light. Whether the source of light comes from within the lab or is observed through a telescope has no bearing the legitimacy of the experiment. It is a very simple concept.

It's a very simple concept to differentiate between an experiment and an observation too, but apparently it's beyond your abilities.

I have the evidence. No faith is needed.

You only have evidence of redshift. You apparently have *faith* that your invisible friends did it, even though your invisible friends don't show up in the lab, and they don't have any effect on a photon in any real experiments. Your faith is also misplaced as that hemispheric blowout in the PLANCK data demonstrates.

 

[Michael]

So, although you are "the mainstream's biggest critic", the mainstream is completely unaware of this fact,

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? FYI, I've been virtually lynched for my heresy on more than one astronomy forum.

and has no idea that you are, in fact, sitting on radical ideas that blow their mainstream physics to pieces.

They don't have any idea? Really? Again, where did you get that claim from exactly, your back pocket?

Instead you decide to leak your ideas under the radar on a Christian website

FYI, I've "leaked' my ideas all over the internet actually.

where they go completely unnoticed,

They do?

or are dismissed by any physicists that bother to read them as nonsense.

They do?

Do you think this is your most constructive route to toppling the mainstream?

I could care less if the mainstream takes their supernatural belief systems to the grave with them. Birkeland was dead for over 50 years before the mainstream finally realized that he was correct about aurora. At the rate they are going it may be another 50 years before they figure out he was right about the electrical nature of the sun. They don't really want to change, and they have no desire to change.

I just insist they show a little honesty in the way they present data, and I complain when the don't show that honesty (like calling a million degree plasma a gas instead of a plasma).

I'm here enjoying my conversations on a Christian forum the same way that I have done for more than a decade. Over the years I've discussed about every topic under the sun here, from solar physics to YEC.

 

[Tomk80]

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? FYI, I've been virtually lynched for my heresy on more than one astronomy forum.

I'll translate that to "ridiculed for crackpottery". Possibly banned for being a troll, if you're behavior there remotely resembled your behavior here.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? FYI, I've been virtually lynched for my heresy on more than one astronomy forum.

Getting in a row on an internet forum doesn't mean anything.

They don't have any idea? Really? Again, where did you get that claim from exactly, your back pocket?

The ideas you wish to promote haven't been published.

FYI, I've "leaked' my ideas all over the internet actually.

Um, yeah, the internet is chock full of loony ideas. You are significantly overestimating the notice taken of scribbling in cyberspace.

They do?

Yes, they do.

They do?

Yes, they do.

I could care less if the mainstream takes their supernatural belief systems to the grave with them. Birkeland was dead for over 50 years before the mainstream finally realized that he was correct about aurora. At the rate they are going it may be another 50 years before they figure out he was right about the electrical nature of the sun. They don't really want to change, and they have no desire to change.

There is also a rather more likely reason why your ideas haven't caught on. Not everyone is a maverick genius with brilliant, revolutionary ideas, you know.

I just insist they show a little honesty in the way they present data, and I complain when the don't show that honesty (like calling a million degree plasma a gas instead of a plasma).

They've never even heard of you. I think you are under a misapprehension that you are creating some sort of big noise on the internet. You aren't.

I'm here enjoying my conversations on a Christian forum the same way that I have done for more than a decade. Over the years I've discussed about every topic under the sun here, from solar physics to YEC.

Well that's fair enough.

 

[Michael]

I'll translate that to "ridiculed for crackpottery". Possibly banned for being a troll, if you're behavior there remotely resembled your behavior here.

So apparently if one doesn't accept the existence of dark energy, inflation, exotic matter, and requires empirical evidence, one is a troll?

How about going over to Cosmoquest and tell me what my great "sin" was for me? I never did figure that out. The excuse I got was absurd, but maybe you can pick out a couple of 'trollish' posts for me.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So apparently if one doesn't accept the existence of dark energy, inflation, exotic matter, and requires empirical evidence, one is a troll?

How about going over to Cosmoquest and tell me what my great "sin" was for me? I never did figure that out. The excuse I got was absurd, but maybe you can pick out a couple of 'trollish' posts for me.

They banned you, did they?