SHEEPEOPLE

[joshua 1 9]

What is coming?

A new world is coming. A time of peace and prosperity. The age we are in is soon coming to an end.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Feel free to explain.

Sure. Do the right thing.

 

[Michael]

Intellectually honest discussion is good. If you want to have it great. However that does not seem to be your goal.

It's not fair to attempt to characterized my 'goals'. I don't think it's even intellectually honest to claim that inflation, dark energy or dark matter are "natural" to begin with. If there was actually a natural solution for those observations, they wouldn't have needed to invent those things in the first place. None of them occur 'naturally' outside of human imagination as far as you can demonstrate empirically. Even the claim that they are "natural' is not intellectually honest from my perspective. Even that claim is an ad hoc property that is simply ascribed to the supernatural construct.

Alternatives to inflation are absolutely taught in physics. They are actively looking for alternatives.

I'm talking about alternatives to the photon redshift phenomenon in general. There are *many* known causes of photon redshift that do not require inflation, space expansion or dark energy.

Relativity itself started out as nothing but a mathematical model. It has since held up quite well to observation.

And it's disingenuous for astronomer to try to ride the coattails of GR theory while they stuff it with metaphysical and hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. GR theory does *not* require the existence of space expansion, dark energy, inflation or exotic forms of matter.

To get angry about what academics name things hardly makes for a good case.

I'm not angry about what they called their supernatural constructs, I simply "lack faith' in their claims.

So stop with the childishness, you might convince people rather than make them think you are only out to flame.

You probably have a valid point about my current 'attitude'. I did in fact start off a lot more friendly toward the mainstream, but I must say that I've been jaded by the mainstream's reaction to empirical physical alternatives to their supernatural dogma.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure. Do the right thing.

Four way test:

1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

 

[OliviaMay]

It's not fair to attempt to characterized my 'goals'. I don't think it's even intellectually honest to claim that inflation, dark energy or dark matter are "natural" to begin with. If there was actually a natural solution for those observations, they wouldn't have needed to invent those things in the first place. None of them occur 'naturally' outside of human imagination as far as you can demonstrate empirically. Even the claim that they are "natural' is not intellectually honest from my perspective. Even that claim is an ad hoc property that is simply ascribed to the supernatural construct.



I'm talking about alternatives to the photon redshift phenomenon in general. There are *many* known causes of photon redshift that do not require inflation, space expansion or dark energy.



And it's disingenuous for astronomer to try to ride the coattails of GR theory while they stuff it with metaphysical and hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. GR theory does *not* require the existence of space expansion, dark energy, inflation or exotic forms of matter.



I'm not angry about what they called their supernatural constructs, I simply "lack faith' in their claims.



You probably have a valid point about my current 'attitude'. I did in fact start off a lot more friendly toward the mainstream, but I must say that I've been jaded by the mainstream's reaction to empirical physical alternatives to their supernatural dogma.

You prop up mathematical models to levels that science does not, and then rail against science. You are angry at a straw man. There are plenty of models that are not inflation. You simply ignore them. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Four way test:

1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

I like number 1; the others may need further explanation.

 

[Michael]

You prop up mathematical models to levels that science does not,

Science as a whole certainly doesn't prop up mathematical models to a "godlike" degree, but astronomers sure do. To them, mathematical models are all that matter. Of course they ignore those mathematical models when they fail with respect to their dark matter claims. They also ignore the fact that 'standard candles' have since shown to be less than 'standard' as they first claimed. Math suits them sometimes, and other times they simply sweep their bad math right under the rug.

and then rail against science.

Er, no. You don't hear me railing against science as a whole. I value and appreciate my computer, my cell phone, my car, modern medicine and all the tangible benefits that empirical physics and science has to offer. You'll only hear me rail against one specific scientific model (Lambda-CDM). That is because I simply prefer a different scientific theory. It's not that I rail against science, I rail against Lambda-CDM. Two entirely different issues.

You are angry at a straw man. There are plenty of models that are not inflation. You simply ignore them. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

Which models do *not* involve inflation claims, space expansion claims, dark energy claims, and exotic matter claims *besides* the model I prefer (EU/PC theory)? Maybe I'll consider it so long as it's devoid of metaphysical constructs that lack empirical cause/effect justification. I'm really not that emotionally or professionally attached to EU/PC theory for that matter, it's just better than all the metaphysical alternatives which tend to deviate from pure empirical physics.

 

[OliviaMay]

Science as a whole certainly doesn't prop up mathematical models to a "godlike" degree, but astronomers sure do. To them, mathematical models are all that matter. Of course they ignore those mathematical models when they fail with respect to their dark matter claims. They also ignore the fact that 'standard candles' have since shown to be less than 'standard' as they first claimed. Math suits them sometimes, and other times they simply sweep their bad math right under the rug.



Er, no. You don't hear me railing against science as a whole. I value and appreciate my computer, my cell phone, my car, modern medicine and all the tangible benefits that empirical physics and science has to offer. You'll only hear me rail against one specific scientific model (Lambda-CDM). That is because I simply prefer a different scientific theory. It's not that I rail against science, I rail against Lambda-CDM. Two entirely different issues.



Which models do *not* involve inflation claims, space expansion claims, dark energy claims, and exotic matter claims *besides* the model I prefer (EU/PC theory)? Maybe I'll consider it so long as it's devoid of metaphysical constructs that lack empirical cause/effect justification. I'm really not that emotionally or professionally attached to EU/PC theory for that matter, it's just better than all the metaphysical alternatives which tend to deviate from pure empirical physics.

Here is just one. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0205259.pdf

 

[Michael]

Here is just one. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0205259.pdf

So your alternative involves additional spacetime dimensions? You don't see a problem with that "assumption"?

What's wrong with the idea by the way?

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

A static universe doesn't require additional spacetime dimensions nor any other metaphysical forms of matter or energy. It also happens to be congruent with Hubble's own interpretation of photon redshift.

 

[OliviaMay]

So your alternative involves additional spacetime dimensions? You don't see a problem with that "assumption"?

What's wrong with the idea by the way?

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

A static universe doesn't require additional spacetime dimensions nor any other metaphysical forms of matter or energy. It also happens to be congruent with Hubble's own interpretation of photon redshift.

See there are indeed alternatives to inflation.

 

[Michael]

See there are indeed alternatives to inflation.

I never doubted that actually, in fact I chose an alternative. I can't however say that I'm thrilled with your alternative since it's equally reliant upon metaphysics rather than empirical physics. There are actually *empirical* options to inflation and space expansion, and I simply prefer EU/PC theory as a result.

 

[Davian]

The irony of course is that mainstream "science" has now invented a total of four unique and separate "invisible agents" to explain our universe, whereas even the 'God' that I believe to exist is very visible and entirely empirical in every conceivable way.

The universe already has a name - the universe. Its existence is not in dispute.

There's nothing "invisible' about the agent I believe in, whereas there are *four* such leaps of faith required in Lambda-CDM. Irony overload.

Let me know when astronomers enter politics and lobby to have observations from modern cosmology carved into multi-ton granite monuments and placed in state judicial buildings.

 

[Michael]

The question is which alternatives are they teaching to new students, and why those options? Are any of them devoid of metaphysical constructs?

 

[Davian]

We already gone through that conversation. You simply ignore the common use of pattern recognition in science. Yawn.

No, I do not accept "hmmm... that looks like that" as scientific methodology.

 

[OliviaMay]

I never doubted that actually, in fact I chose an alternative. I can't however say that I'm thrilled with your alternative since it's equally reliant upon metaphysics rather than empirical physics. There are actually *empirical* options to inflation and space expansion, and I simply prefer EU/PC theory as a result.

That was just the first one that popped up on a google search. I was only pointing out they exist. Not only that they exist at prestigious ivy league institutions. Inflation is not gospel at all.

 

[Michael]

The universe already has a name - the universe. Its existence is not in dispute.

So the only attribute I'm ascribing to it is "awareness", and even that shows up on Earth in a variety of forms. Compare and contrast that to a 'scientific' theory that relies upon four supernatural agents which make up over 90 percent of their theory.

Let me know when astronomers enter politics and lobby to have observations from modern cosmology carved into multi-ton granite monuments and placed in state judicial buildings.

Instead they actually teach metaphysical nonsense to unsuspecting students inside the classroom. I think that's worse than putting up a monument, although the mainstream routinely builds public monuments to it's supernatural agents:

http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/DECam/camera.shtml

Never mind the fact that "standard candles" turn out to not be standard afterall...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-04/uoa-aun041015.php

DEcam looks like a monument to a now falsified supernatural agent.

 

[Michael]

No, I do not accept "hmmm... that looks like that" as scientific methodology.

It happens *constantly* in "science", in fact I showed you where it's used in "science" and in robotics.

 

[Davian]

You misrepresent those theories. I assume by not actually knowing much about the subject.

That is what I assume also. Then there is the false dichotomy he presents, that if mainstream cosmology is [allegedly] wrong, by default his ideas are right.

 

[Michael]

That was just the first one that popped up on a google search. I was only pointing out they exist. Not only that they exist at prestigious ivy league institutions. Inflation is not gospel at all.

Big bang theory is 'gospel' however.

 

[Michael]

That is what I assume also.

You make that assumption only because it suits you to do so. In reality however, they seem to misrepresent their own theory more often than not, starting with their use of Doppler shift as a justification for their 'space expansion' claims. It's false advertising from day one.

Then there is the false dichotomy he presents, that if mainstream cosmology is [allegedly] wrong, by default his
ideas are right.

Alfven published over a hundred papers on EU/PC theory, and I've yet to see anyone pick out an actual mathematical flaw in any of them. Lerner and Peratt have also published papers on the topic, and even I have published a few papers on the topic. Nobody believes that EU/PC theory is right by default, it's just a better scientific alternative which also requires justification.