An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[mzungu]

FYI, I'm really not emotionally or scientifically attached to an outcome of the search for the Higgs Boson. I am however quite happy that SUSY theory has finally been "tested" in a true physics "experiment", and it is found to be lacking. The obvious reason for my glee over the failure of SUSY theory is due to the fact that this empirical cosmology theory is in competition with mainstream metaphysical cosmology theory. It's always therefore extremely enjoyable to watch mainstream cosmology fail another key "prediction" and bite the dust.

Just wait till they find the Higgs Boson and relegate your metaphysical world to where it belongs alongside leprechauns and unicorns

 

[Nabobalis]

LOL; That will make Michael very happy!!

Also make a few people I been taught by, very happy

 

[mzungu]

Empirical theory of God? Where's the Empirical evidence

 

[Michael]

Just wait till they find the Higgs Boson and relegate your metaphysical world to where it belongs alongside leprechauns and unicorns

I'm afraid you either don't understand the empirical theory of God very well, or you don't understand the implication of finding the "God particle" very well, or both. Finding the Higgs Boson would be absolutely no skin off my nose. Nothing about an empirical theory of God requires the atom to be particularly 'special' in any way. I personally happen to believe that atoms are composed of sophisticated arrangements of electrons and positrons, but in no way does finding the Higgs falsify or verify any particular theory other than mainstream particle physics theory.

The only particle physics theory that is relevant to any particular cosmology theory is SUSY theory. The only reason SUSY theory is related to any particular cosmology theory is due to the fact that mainstream cosmology theory is built upon it.

According to *their theory* (not mine), only 4% of the mass/energy of the universe is contained in 'normal' matter like we might find on a periodic table. The rest of the mass/energy component remains a complete MYSTERY to them, but most of their writings about the missing mass are built upon mythical-mathical SUSY particles. If these bad boys don't exist (and there's no reason to believe that they do), their "non baryonic dark matter" claims, along with their claims about "dark matter annihilation" go up in flames. Guess what? They seem to have already gone up in flames. There's presumably a whole hypothetical set of such extra 'sparticles' that should have already popped out of the woodwork at the energy levels they have already looked at. Nothing even remotely like that has occurred.

While there are many presumed energy ranges for the Higgs to exist at, the same is NOT true of hypothetical SUSY related 'sparticles'. They have very specific energy ranges that must apply. The Higgs on the other hand has about 100 or so variations on the same theme so there's still a possibility we simply haven't found the right energy range. SUSY theory however already looks to be a giant dud in the lab, just like 96 percent of mainstream cosmology theory.

 

[Nabobalis]

I personally happen to believe that atoms are composed of sophisticated arrangements of electrons and positrons...

So protons and neutrons don't exist or play no role in atoms?

 

[Michael]

So protons and neutrons don't exist or play no role in atoms?

Quite the opposite. They are just "composite particles". One contains an extra positron in it's matrix (called a proton), and one does not (neutron). A free neutron typically decays into a proton in approximately 10 minutes, releasing an electron and a neutrino in the process.

 

[mzungu]

I ask for evidence and you post a lot of text totally devoid of any empirical evidences. Either you are unaware of the meaning of "empirical evidence" or you are just warping reality to suit your creationist beliefs.

Your OP title says "An Empirical theory of God". You have not provided any empirical evidences. Your so called empirical theory does not hold water simply because it is purely based on speculation.

Empirical evidence please!

 

[Nabobalis]

Quite the opposite. They are just "composite particles". One contains an extra positron in it's matrix (called a proton), and one does not (neutron). A free neutron typically decays into a proton in approximately 10 minutes, releasing an electron and a neutrino in the process.

Interesting, so what made you come to that conclusion?

 

[mzungu]

Interesting, so what made you come to that conclusion?

Now, now,; You should know better than to ask a creationist for empirical evidence!

 

[Michael]

I ask for evidence and you post a lot of text totally devoid of any empirical evidences. Either you are unaware of the meaning of "empirical evidence" or you are just warping reality to suit your creationist beliefs.

Perhaps you might start by showing me any 'empirical' evidence for any sort of exotic matter? Perhaps we should discuss the meaning of the term "empirical"?

I have provided empirical evidence that spacetime is composed of uncounted trillions of "circuits", circuits that are consistent with "lifeforms" and "intelligently designed" devices. You've yet to provide any legitimate other arrangement of circuits that occur naturally here on Earth that isn't one or the other. What exactly were you expecting?

Your OP title says "An Empirical theory of God". You have not provided any empirical evidences.

Sure I have. I've provided empirical evidence that the universe is electrical in nature, much like our human forms. I've provided empirical evidence that external EM fields can and do influence human thought and have a tangible effect on human experiences in controlled experiments. These are "tangible" influences that can be measured, right here, right now on Earth.

You can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, and SUSY theory seems to be going up in smoke. Compared to any other theory of the physical universe, this is THE SINGLE MOST EMPIRICALLY oriented theory I've seen. Inflation for instance is dead and gone according to their theory, so standard theory is beyond any and all hope of empirical testing in controlled conditions. Where would we even get some "dark energy" to play with in the lab to make sure it 'accelerates' anything?

At least I've provided EMPIRICAL (lab supported) evidence to support my claims, and none of the claims made are beyond the empirical testing process, right here, right now.

Your so called empirical theory does not hold water simply because it is purely based on speculation.

Not at all. It's based on evidence provided by nature. Nature provides ample evidence of sophisticated circuitry in living organisms, right here, right now, on Earth today. Show me any example of a naturally occurring bunch of circuitry on Earth that *ISN'T* either a form of life, or an example of an 'intelligently designed" (human created) device?

Empirical evidence please!

Lets' start by you and I discussing the term "empirical". Is there any empirical evidence to support dark energy, dark matter (exotic matter) or inflation? If so, why and what? If not, what then is "empirical physics" in your opinion?

 

[Michael]

Interesting, so what made you come to that conclusion?

Large Electron–Positron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth Thunderstorms Hurl Antimatter Into Space | Antimatter | Lightning | Space.com

Well, for starters, we have already observed the formation of Z and W bosons in high energy positron, electron collisions. We can see that they can group together to form various subatomic particles that are found inside the proton and neutron. Furthermore, the decay of a neutron leads to the formation/release of a proton and an electron (and a neutrino). During plasma pinch processes in electrical discharges here on Earth, positrons are sometimes released in great numbers. It certainly looks like a duck in it's ability to form subatomic particles, and it certainly quacks like a duck when it comes to emitting subatomic particles. Assuming they don't eventually find the Higgs, do you personally have a better idea?

 

[Michael]

From the Big Bang Thread:

You can start by giving us EMPIRICAL evidence. Since you seem not to understand the word Empirical then let me make it clear for you: Give us evidence that is measurable, testable, and peer reviewed! I am willing to accept a mathematical model based on tested theories.

Did you read any of those peer reviewed papers on MHD theory that I provided about circuit theory and how it relates to events in space? Did you happen to read that article about the "God helmet" from the first thread?

Every single thing I have proposed in this empirical theory of God is empirically testable in *REAL* experiments with actual "control mechanisms". Anyone can slap some math to a concept (say SUSY theory), yet until there is physical confirmation that it actually physically exists, there's no real way to test anything by pointing at the sky and claiming "(my invisible friend of choice)" did it. Anything and everything I have proposed can be tested here on Earth, with known forces of nature. EM fields are measurable in the lab. If there are EM changes inside and/or outside of the human brain as a result of prayer or meditation, we should be able to measure it.

A purely mathematical construct cannot ever be empirically falsified in a lab. That is why inflation and dark energy will forever remain an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". I'm only asking you to have enough faith to setup a few real empirical experiments and see what happens.

 

[Nabobalis]

Large Electron–Positron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth Thunderstorms Hurl Antimatter Into Space | Antimatter | Lightning | Space.com

Well, for starters, we have already observed the formation of Z and W bosons in high energy positron, electron collisions. We can see that they can group together to form various subatomic particles that are found inside the proton and neutron. Furthermore, the decay of a neutron leads to the formation/release of a proton and an electron (and a neutrino). During plasma pinch processes in electrical discharges here on Earth, positrons are sometimes released in great numbers. It certainly looks like a duck in it's ability to form subatomic particles, and it certainly quacks like a duck when it comes to emitting subatomic particles. Assuming they don't eventually find the Higgs, do you personally have a better idea?

No, I don't have an alternative to the Higgs boson since It is not my field. However what about quarks?

 

[Michael]

No, I don't have an alternative to the Higgs boson since It is not my field. However what about quarks?

You don't expect me to figure out a new particle physics theory all by myself do you? Particle physics isn't really my personal field of expertise either. I'm actually more into amateur astronomy than I am into amateur particle physics theory.

 

[mzungu]

You don't expect me to figure out a new particle physics theory all by myself do you? Particle physics isn't really my personal field of expertise either. I'm actually more into amateur astronomy than I am into amateur particle physics theory.

And yet you take it upon yourself to dismiss BB and the work of thousands who have the expertise

 

[Nabobalis]

You don't expect me to figure out a new particle physics theory all by myself do you? Particle physics isn't really my personal field of expertise either. I'm actually more into amateur astronomy than I am into amateur particle physics theory.

I understand that. However for you to believe that electrons and positrons make up other particles (such as the proton) requires some sort of evidence (and maybe some theory from someone). Since Beta decay, the formation of the Z and W boson is explained very well from Electroweak theory.

 

[mzungu]

I understand that. However for you to believe that electrons and positrons make up other particles (such as the proton) requires some sort of evidence (and maybe some theory from someone). Since Beta decay, the formation of the Z and W boson is explained very well from Electroweak theory.

 

[Michael]

And yet you take it upon yourself to dismiss BB and the work of thousands who have the expertise

IMO there is something a little ironic and funny about the fact that you suggested that psychology oriented movie, yet you don't seem to see how it all applies to you and the BB question. FYI, not one of those so called 'experts' on "dark energy" can tell us where dark energy comes from, let alone how to "control" it in experiments on Earth.

The psychological need for social order and social leadership/authority figures isn't just for "religions", "scientists" and "atheists" do it all the time. Lambda-CDM theory requires "faith in the unseen (in the lab)", just like any 'religion'. When might I hope to measure "inflation" or control inflation in a lab? How do you know Alan Guth didn't just "make it up"? When have you ever seen his mythical inflation genie have any tangible effect on any form of matter or energy, BEFORE you go pointing at the sky and claiming the inflation genie did it?

Authority? What authority? If not a single one of them can tell you where "dark energy" even comes from, don't you think there's an empirical problem with the concept?

 

[Michael]

I understand that. However for you to believe that electrons and positrons make up other particles (such as the proton) requires some sort of evidence (and maybe some theory from someone). Since Beta decay, the formation of the Z and W boson is explained very well from Electroweak theory.

FYI, I'm more than happy to stick with mainstream particle physics theory *IF* they find the Higgs Boson. It's always been a "testable" physical hypothesis, and LHC seems to be it's moment of truth. My suggestion was more of a "hypothetical" scenario when all the possible energy ranges of a Higgs have been exhausted, and assumes that we start looking for "new" particle physics models.

I think you'd at least agree that many of the various subatomic particles have been observed in a lab. They must be composed of something with mass. Electrons and positrons have mass. They can collide and form larger units of mass that we associate with subatomic particles. The breakdown of subatomic particles (like a neutron) release electrons. Electrical discharges through atoms release positrons. If there is a "next logical" option related to particle physics theory (beyond Higgs theory), IMO it's likely to be related to the arrangement of electrons/positrons, inside the subatomic lattice.

Just saying....

 

[mzungu]

IMO there is something a little ironic and funny about the fact that you suggested that psychology oriented movie, yet you don't seem to see how it all applies to you and the BB question. FYI, not one of those so called 'experts' on "dark energy" can tell us where dark energy comes from, let alone how to "control" it in experiments on Earth.

FYI, not one of you creationists can tell us where God comes from, let alone how to "measure"him in experiments on Earth.

The psychological need for social order and social leadership/authority figures isn't just for "religions", "scientists" do it all the time. Lambda-CDM theory requires "faith in the unseen (in the lab)", just like any 'religion'. When might I hope to measure "inflation" or control inflation in a lab? How do you know Alan Guth didn't just "make it up"? When have you ever seen his mythical inflation genie have any tangible effect on any form of matter or energy, BEFORE you go pointing at the sky and claiming the inflation genie did it?

Authority? What authority? If not a single one of them can tell you where "dark energy" even comes from, don't you think there's an empirical problem with the concept?

You really have absolutely no idea how science works do you! Anyone with any training in any science field would not even ask silly questions! If dark energy is proven to exist or it is proven not to exist; it is a plus for science either way.