An Empirical Theory Of God

Michael · Apr 20, 2010

Nabobalis said:
I agree that our cosmology theory is reasonably broken, inflation, dark energy, dark matter. All this implies that our current knowledge is lacking and we are missing something.

Ya, it's called "electricity". That's the "forbidden" topic of astronomy, kinda like their "satan" figure. All things EU oriented are "evil" (they use the term "crackpot" since they can't do the good/evil thing).

But just stating that the EM force is strong doesn't make it an argument. Can I get a break down of the mechanism?

What other known force of nature is 39OOM more powerful than gravity at the macroscopic level?

The reason we think that something new is required is simply the fact that our current understanding doesn't allow us to explain it.

So let their falsified and dead theory die a natural death already. Why "make up" something to plug the gaps and keep in on life support?

I agree we have been bolting things on to the Big Band Theory but the reason is that it is currently still the best model we have for the universe.

Define "best" in terms of empirical physics, and explain why God isn't the "best" explanation to explain the human condition for me.

Also it is a simple model and with any simple model, it never works 100% of the time so things get bolted on when we come across something new.

But they "bolted on" three different invisible friends! Holy cow! At worst case I'm only asking you to believe in *ONE* invisible buddy and I can tell you how he interacts with you and demonstrate that EM fields do have an effect on the human thinking processes. I'm not even asking you to believe in *ANYTHING NEW* that doesn't already show up in a lab (consciousness and electricity), I'm simply suggesting the same processes "scale to size".

I do have reservation with that paper and the journal but that isn't important right now. But on the issue of explaining dark matter/energy like this, is nothing new. There are many theories that explain it away with the universe and these are studied and get published but science is a slow process and cosmology is not only an expensive research avenue but probably one of the slowest too.

I do find it fascinating that you'll give them the benefit of the doubt in three different invisible friends, but you seem to reject all concepts of God, including this strictly empirical definition. How does that work?

Nabobalis · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
Ya, it's called "electricity". That's the "forbidden" topic of astronomy, kinda like their "satan" figure. All things EU oriented are "evil" (they use the term "crackpot" since they can't do the good/evil thing).

No one has called the EU evil or anything and all that is just hyperbole and I think you know it.

Michael said:
What other known force of nature is 39OOM more powerful than gravity at the macroscopic level?

That isn't a mechanism, nor an argument. You seem so sure about EU but I see no evdience nor a mechanism. Stating that the EM force is stronger doesn't mean anything.

Michael said:
So let their falsified and dead theory die a natural death already. Why "make up" something to plug the gaps and keep in on life support?

Before dark matter and dark energy came along, the Big bang theory explained the universe in a simple way. When new observations came to light, they added missing details to the theory. I think most cosmologists accept that the Big Bang theory will be replaced but will most likely still keep the same name.

Michael said:
Define "best" in terms of empirical physics, and explain why God isn't the "best" explanation to explain the human condition for me.

God by definition is an all powerful creator of life. He is said to be outside of the universe and thus is untestable using the scientific method. There really isn't a best in terms of empirical physics, since no measurement will be 100% accurate. Also I don't know what you mean by the "human condition".

Michael said:
But they "bolted on" three different invisible friends! Holy cow! At worst case I'm only asking you to believe in *ONE* invisible buddy and I can tell you how he interacts with you and demonstrate that EM fields do have an effect on the human thinking processes. I'm not even asking you to believe in *ANYTHING NEW* that doesn't already show up in a lab (consciousness and electricity), I'm simply suggesting the same processes "scale to size".

I do find it fascinating that you'll give them the benefit of the doubt in three different invisible friends, but you seem to reject all concepts of God, including this strictly empirical definition. How does that work?

Any theory has things "bolted" on and generally when enough is bolted on, the theory gets replaced since our knowledge has increased far enough to do away with the old theory but that hasn't happened with cosmology yet.

Your definition of god, to me makes god a natural force which is mostly explained by Maxwells equations. But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt but you have yet to give a mechanism to how this all works.

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

Nabobalis said:
No one has called the EU evil or anything and all that is just hyperbole and I think you know it.

Against the Mainstream

Actually, it's not hyperbole at all, it's pretty much the way things work at the moment. EU/PC theory is considered "heresy" by the "mainstream". If you intend to discuss that topic at many boards, you'll discover it's treated entirely differently than "mainstream" beliefs.

That isn't a mechanism, nor an argument. You seem so sure about EU but I see no evdience nor a mechanism. Stating that the EM force is stronger doesn't mean anything.

The mechanism is very simple. Plasma is a state of matter where ions and electrons are not stuck together but "drift around' in a "fluid-like" state. That makes plasma an "excellent' (near perfect) conductor, and highly sensitive to changes in the magnetic field. Almost all the matter in the universe is in the plasma state. There are ample empirical "tests" of concept here, it's not something you have to "take on faith". *THE* single most like "cause" of plasma acceleration is the EM field, followed by gravity. If we know it's not gravity, where does that point us? An all pervasive, expanding EM field would or at least could lead to an acceleration process.

Before dark matter and dark energy came along, the Big bang theory explained the universe in a simple way. When new observations came to light, they added missing details to the theory. I think most cosmologists accept that the Big Bang theory will be replaced but will most likely still keep the same name.

IMO the biggest "Kludge" to BB theory happened with inflation. That metaphysical bad boy was just stuffed in there all willy-nilly and set the "standards" (non-empirical ones) on what things could be stuffed into an otherwise perfectly good empirical theory. Prior to say the 80's, the term "dark matter" did not refer to "non baryonic" forms of exotic types of matter, but ordinary matter we simply could not see with our limited technologies. It's "morphed" too over the years, but the term "dark matter" has a number of meanings, some of which are purely empirical (MACHO).

God by definition is an all powerful creator of life. He is said to be outside of the universe and thus is untestable using the scientific method.

Actually, in this thread he is said to be the universe and is thus testable using the standard scientific methods. How do you propose I "test" inflation exactly?

There really isn't a best in terms of empirical physics, since no measurement will be 100% accurate. Also I don't know what you mean by the "human condition".

I mean that most humans are "theists". Lots of them report meeting God during NDE's (including atheists) and many of them report having a "relationship" with God. How do you know God does not exist and inflation does? Who claims to have a relationship with "inflation"?

Any theory has things "bolted" on and generally when enough is bolted on, the theory gets replaced since our knowledge has increased far enough to do away with the old theory but that hasn't happened with cosmology yet.

When one starts to "bolt on" purely ad hoc creations however, it's a whole different ball game. Inflation for instance is a truly "supernatural" creation. It's unlike any other vector or scalar field in nature in it's presumed ability to exponentially increase in volume, with no change in density. Nice trick. Dark energy is simply "gap filler"' as far as I can tell, simply to save *ONE* specific cosmology theory. Why? What's the point of "inventing" forces of nature to save an otherwise falsified theory? How does one "Falsify" a theory like this if we can stuff it full of anything we want on a whim?

Your definition of god, to me makes god a natural force which is mostly explained by Maxwells equations. But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt but you have yet to give a mechanism to how this all works.

You're right actually. Maxwell equations and MHD theory would be the most applicable branches of physics, and the most likely way we might "test" any specific concept related to an EU oriented theory, and this theory as well.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
I mean that most humans are "theists". Lots of them report meeting God during NDE's (including atheists) and many of them report having a "relationship" with God. How do you know God does not exist and inflation does? Who claims to have a relationship with "inflation"?

I think this is your only real motivation here for this entire argument. You want to believe there's a god, and you feel the EU hypothesis fits your idea of this god best. This is why you keep using words unrelated to this topic and are out of context such as 'heresy,' which is a religious term, or 'evil,' which is a philosophical term. This is also the same reason you keep trying to conflate science and religion and why you keep insisting that "dark energy" is just like believing in a god.

Once I realized this about you, I realized that this is a claim you'll defend to your deathbed regardless of evidence to the contrary much like a Bible literalist will defend the Bible despite evidence against it; This is your religion.

This is not an scientific argument of evidence versus evidence. This is an argument of nonsense versus evidence, where, in your mind, 'heresy,' 'evil,' 'human condition', somehow come into play. This is exactly like when creationists argue that belief in evolution is the cause for the Holocaust, causes the decay of society, is evil, etc.

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

sandwiches said:
I think this is your only real motivation here for this entire argument. You want to believe there's a god, and you feel the EU hypothesis fits your idea of this god best.

Well, let's keep the order straight here. I've been posting to this website for so long, you can actually see the evolution here on this website. I have believed in God for a very long time now. The EU ideas are relatively new to me personally, perhaps the last 7 years or so. I would believe in God regardless of the validity of EU theory. It just so happened that once I got into EU theory, it started to make sense to me at the level of physics. That is all that's really going on here.

This is why you keep using words unrelated to this topic and are out of context such as 'heresy,' which is a religious term, or 'evil,' which is a philosophical term.

I have simply noticed a very similar pattern when talking to astronomers to the patterns that tend to play out most often in a religious discussion, not a scientific organization. Heretics in astronomy are "cranks", "crackpots" and "stupid". The religious flipside of that name calling in religion is calling the heretic "evil". It's a villianization process more than anything else. It somehow justifies them ignoring a wonderful empirical form of physics, Alfven's life's work, and everything 'electrical' in space. They dumb down the process to "magnetic yada yada yada" instead of "electromagnetic yada yada yada." It's done intentionally too, and there is nothing "innocent" about it.

This is also the same reason you keep trying to conflate science and religion and why you keep insisting that "dark energy" is just like believing in a god.

Purely in terms of empirical physics, yes, believing in 'dark energy' is no more empirically valid than believing in "God energy" or believing that "God did it". If you don't know the "real" empirical cause, how do you actually know that "God energy" isn't responsible? You know the same way you know that "dark energy' didn't do it.

Once I realized this about you, I realized that this is a claim you'll defend to your deathbed regardless of evidence to the contrary much like a Bible literalist will defend the Bible despite evidence against it; This is your religion.

Actually, at this point my "religion" is purely "empirical". In other words I do not believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated via the standard empirical method and the standard and known forces of nature.

This is not an scientific argument of evidence versus evidence. This is an argument of nonsense versus evidence, where, in your mind, 'heresy,' 'evil,' 'human condition', somehow come into play. This is exactly like when creationists argue that evolution is the cause for the Holocaust, causes the decay of society, is evil, etc.

I think you missed the point entirely. It is about "empirical evidence vs. empirical evidence." If you don't know the actual physical cause there is no point in calling it "God energy" or "dark energy" or anything. It's simply "acceleration". You have no empirical evidence that "God energy' is responsible for that observation of acceleration and no evidence any new force of nature is even required in the first place. The only thing you know is *something* causes that acceleration. If you reject the statement "God energy did it" for lack of empirical support, you should likewise reject "dark energy did it" for exactly the same reason. IMO you're being inconsistent in the application of empirical standards. There is no "cause/effect" relationship between "dark energy' and acceleration. It is therefore without empirical support in any qualified test of concept. "EM fields did it" may not save their otherwise dead theory, but any other claim related to acceleration of plasma on those scales is without empirical merit.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
Well, let's keep the order straight here. I've been posting to this website for so long, you can actually see the evolution here on this website. I have believed in God for a very long time now. The EU ideas are relatively new to me personally, perhaps the last 7 years or so. I would believe in God regardless of the validity of EU theory. It just so happened that once I got into EU theory, it started to make sense to me at the level of physics. That is all that's really going on here.

Perhaps that's how it started but it's obvious that you fundamentally want to believe this idea and that it's now ingrained in you religiously.

Michael said:
I have simply noticed a very similar pattern when talking to astronomers to the patterns that tend to play out most often in a religious discussion, not a scientific organization. Heretics in astronomy are "cranks", "crackpots" and "stupid". The religious flipside of that name calling in religion is calling the heretic "evil". It's a villianization process more than anything else. It somehow justifies them ignoring a wonderful empirical form of physics, Alfven's life's work, and everything 'electrical' in space. They dumb down the process to "magnetic yada yada yada" instead of "electromagnetic yada yada yada." It's done intentionally too, and there is nothing "innocent" about it.

I agree that vilifying people unreasonably is not a good argument nor a polite thing to do, in general. The issue you seem to have missed is that the only one in this thread calling anything 'evil,' 'heretical,' etc, is YOU. It's as though I were the defendant in a trial and every time a lawyer brings up an argument I'd make the comment: "You're just saying that because I'm Mexican." In other words, I know you want to seem like the victim and like you're oppressed but the truth is that no one is using that language here but you and it's obvious that it's merely to gain emotional leverage. Stop using that language and stay in context.

Michael said:
Purely in terms of empirical physics, yes, believing in 'dark energy' no more valid than believing in "God energy" or believing that "God did it". If you don't know the "real" empirical cause, how do you actually know that "God energy" isn't responsible?

For the millionth, trillionth time, it's a name for an unknown energy. It could be an energy we know of already which may act differently at those scales; HOWEVER, until we do find out what it is, call it 'coffee energy' for that matters.

Michael said:
Actually, at this point my "religion" is purely "empirical". In other words I do not believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated via the standard empirical method and the standard and known forces of nature.

God remains objectively unobservable.

Michael said:
I think you missed the point entirely. It is about "empirical evidence vs. empirical evidence." If you don't know the actual physical cause there is no point in calling it "God energy" or "dark energy" or anything. It's simply "acceleration". You have no empirical evidence that "God energy' is responsible for that observation of acceleration and no evidence any new force of nature is even required in the first place. The only thing you know is *something* causes that acceleration. If you reject the statement "God energy did it" for lack of empirical support, you should likewise reject "dark energy did it" for exactly the same reason. IMO you're being inconsistent in the application of empirical standards. There is no "cause/effect" relationship between "dark energy' and acceleration. It is therefore without empirical support in any qualified test of concept. "EM fields did it" may not save their otherwise dead theory, but any other claim related to acceleration of plasma on those scales is without empirical merit.

Coffee energy.

ArnautDaniel · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
Really? 70+ percent of the universe is supposedly 'dark energy' and has no effect on Earth or anything inside the solar system? Man, you guys seem to buy any unfalsifiable concept as long as it doesn't have term "God" attached to it.

If I were to construct a physical model of the chemical bond, I wouldn't include gravity.

I would do this because the effect of gravity is so negligible at that scale, and is so swamped by the other three forces as to be not worth considering.

However on cosmological scales it appears to be the main force that matters.

So, for the purposes of physical chemistry, gravity need not exist.

Similarly I think effects may crop up at the scale of a solar system that are negligible at the scale of intergalactic distances.

You have yet to provide an argument otherwise beyond insulting ad hominem remarks.

So if I applied that logic to the topic of God, you'd buy it?

I have no idea what you are talking about since you can't seem to construct an argument that isn't an ad hominem entirely lacking in physical science.

Actually, no. Nothing ever seen in the lab requires the presence of "dark energy". In fact no scientific theory other than Lambda-CDM theory even mentions it.

Well, presently the Higgs Boson is "dark energy", and it is necessary to the standard model.

And, since everything in the lab reduces to the standard model...

...it is necessary to everything in the lab.

We're also looking to find the last "particle" of matter necessary to complete the "standard particle physics theory". The Higgs is the only particle that hasn't yet been "found". We don't know that any existing models will fail (like standard physics) in favor of speculation (like SUSY theory), so the whole notion that anything will "fail" is speculative at best. You guys seem to have "faith" in many "unseen" things.

Another ad hominem.

Do you even know how to talk like a scientist?

Even in play?

The Higgs boson presently qualifies as "dark energy", and is in fact a candidate for the "dark energy" causing the unexplained acceleration. In the present model the Higgs is needed to explain the existence of non-zero rest mass in fundamental particles.

If there is no Higgs then the standard model is in a peculiar state as it is constructed by creating a model in which all the particles have zero rest mass (thus making all the observed symmetries exact) and then the Higgs is used to introduce mass and break the symmetries.

So as you can see it has a strong relationship with gravity as it is intimately related to mass.

Personally I doubt super-symmetry is going to pan out as it is reasonable to expect we'd have seen a super-partner by now.

It is very odd that all the super-symmetric pairs would split into low mass and very very high mass particles. However, LHC hopes to find the partners.

Anyway, merely finding the Higgs doesn't finish up the standard model. The model itself has a very large number of (currently) arbitrary parameters...all the coupling constants and all the masses (which would in fact be coupling constants to the Higgs). Those would need to be explained as well.

And of course there is the problem that the standard model and general relativity do not play well together, so gravity isn't incorporated into the standard model. Right now people have no good way to merge the two models and are basically trying to find any physical data that points to a problem with either model that might hint at how to start going about it.

Given that the two models don't play well together, and thus we have every reason to believe something is wrong somewhere, I don't understand why you are so insistant that the existing models are sufficient to explain the accelerations of the galaxies.

...

The fact is, in science, you dont win by heaping scorn on the opponent. You win by carefully building your own case.

You haven't even tried to build a case here, so I see no reason to suppose you have any idea what you are talking abou.

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

sandwiches said:
Perhaps that's how it started but it's obvious that you fundamentally want to believe this idea and that it's now ingrained in you religiously.

My "faith" (pure faith) in God is not now, nor has it ever been dependent upon the validity of EU theory or this theory about God for that matter. It's simply the one that makes the most empirical sense to me at the moment. That could change over time, but right now it's the most "logical" option IMO.

I agree that vilifying people unreasonably is not a good argument nor a polite thing to do, in general. The issue you seem to have missed is that the only one in this thread calling anything 'evil,' 'heretical,' etc, is YOU. It's as though I were the defendant in a trial and every time a lawyer brings up an argument I'd make the comment: "You're just saying that because I'm Mexican." In other words, I know you want to seem like the victim and like you're oppressed but the truth is that no one is using that language here but you and it's obvious that it's merely to gain emotional leverage. Stop using that language and stay in context.

Well, you're right, I've used the most loaded language in this thread. I'll try to tone it down and focus on the physics. Happy now?

FYI, that's not the case in most astronomy oriented websites. Most of them have "special rules" for EU heretics like me and the villianization process is constant and typically pretty rude.

For the millionth, trillionth time, it's a name for an unknown energy. It could be an energy we know of already which may act differently at those scales; HOWEVER, until we do find out what it is, call it 'coffee energy' for that matters.

Well, first of all, your definition is not the same as the mainstream definition that presumes that we've never seen "dark energy" in the lab before. The term "excess energy" would not be objectionable to me, whereas the terms coffee energy and dark energy are in fact both objectionable to me because the energy is not necessarily related to 'coffee' nor to anything 'dark'. It's a bit like calling it "Mexican energy" or "Russian energy". We don't know anything about the energy other than it's there, and even that much *PRESUMES* that all of our "subjective human interpretations" are correct.

God remains objectively unobservable.

This is interesting statement to me because "dark energy' is equally "unobservable" in terms of it's ability to "accelerate' even a single atom. The real empirical "cause" of "acceleration" could in fact be "God energy" for all you know. No?

Coffee energy.

Just like the term "dark", the term "coffee" has nothing at all to do with the "acceleration" we observe. It's arbitrary to call it anything other than "acceleration" or "excess energy". Why is the energy "dark"? It's not dark as far as we know, so even calling it "dark energy" is a statement of faith in a "property" of the energy that we really can't empirically verify.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
My "faith" (pure faith) in God is not now, nor has it ever been dependent upon the validity of EU theory or this theory about God for that matter. It's simply the one that makes the most empirical sense to me at the moment. That could change over time, but right now it's the most "logical" option IMO.

Fair enough.

Michael said:
Well, you're right, I've used the most loaded language in this thread. I'll try to tone it down and focus on the physics. Happy now?

Cool.

Michael said:
Well, first of all, your definition is not the same as the mainstream definition that presumes that we've never seen "dark energy" in the lab before. The term "excess energy" would not be objectionable to me, whereas the terms coffee energy and dark energy are in fact both objectionable to me because the energy is not necessarily related to 'coffee' nor to anything 'dark'. It's a bit like calling it "Mexican energy" or "Russian energy". We don't know anything about the energy other than it's there, and even that much *PRESUMES* that all of our "subjective human interpretations" are correct.

I know I've asked you this about 12 times before but shouldn't we have some name for it, though? I mean, after all, X-Rays have nothing to do with the letter X or the alphabet, for that matter. It was named despite not knowing what it was and in fact it was done in a similar fashion to dark energy as many associate the letter 'X' with what's unknown.

Michael said:
This is interesting to me because "dark energy' is equally "unobservable" in terms of it's ability to "accelerate' even a single atom and for all you personally know the real empirical "cause" of "acceleration" could in fact be "God energy" for all you know. No?

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe can be observed OBJECTIVELY. That something is 'coffee energy.' Now, show me something that objectively shows that god exists.

Edit: To expand, you're equating scientists and laymen, such as myself, believing there is a cause behind the objectively verifiable acceleration of the universe to your belief in something that cannot be tested, seen, observed objectively? I also believe people live in India but I've never been there. I guess that's also a religious belief of PeopleliveinIndiaism.

Michael said:
Just like the term "dark", the term "coffee" has nothing at all to do with the "acceleration" we observe. It's arbitrary to call it anything other than "acceleration" or "excess energy". Why is the energy "dark"? It's not dark as far as we know, so even calling it "dark energy" is a statement of faith in a "property" of the energy that we really can't empirically verify.

It's a name. Get over it. Coffee energy.

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

sandwiches said:
I know I've asked you this about 12 times before but shouldn't we have some name for it, though?

The term "acceleration" works for me. Why do you feel the need to have any other term for acceleration. Isn't that term sufficient? If not, why not?

I mean, after all, X-Rays have nothing to do with the letter X or the alphabet, for that matter. It was named despite not knowing what it was and in fact it was done in a similar fashion to dark energy as many associate the letter 'X' with what's unknown.

x-rays are a "tangible thing" that shows up in a lab. If you can get 'dark energy' to show up in a lab, not only will you win a Nobel Prize, I'll let you call it anything you want. Until you do, it's just a label and an unnecessary one as far as I can tell.

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe can be observed OBJECTIVELY. That something is 'coffee energy.' Now, show me something that objectively shows that god exists.

That's God energy doing the acceleration!

It's a name. Get over it. Coffee energy.

God energy is also just a name. That acceleration is no more "evidence" that "dark energy did it" than "God energy did it". There's no empirical difference between those two claims.

sandwiches · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
The term "acceleration" works for me. Why do you feel the need to have any other term for acceleration. Isn't that term sufficient? If not, why not?

Are you really having issues understanding what I'm saying? I mean, English isn't my first language but I thought I was coming across clearly the first half dozen times when I said that the term dark energy isn't referring to the acceleration. Is this concept so hard to grasp for you?

Michael said:
x-rays are a "tangible thing" that shows up in a lab. If you can get 'dark energy' to show up in a lab, not only will you win a Nobel Prize, I'll let you call it anything you want. Until you do, it's just a label and an unnecessary one as far as I can tell.

So, things we can observe directly shouldn't have names according to Michael. Gotcha. Anyway...

Michael said:
That's God energy doing the acceleration!

How do you know?

Michael said:
God energy is also just a name. That acceleration is no more "evidence" that "dark energy did it" than "God energy did it". There's no empirical difference between those two claims.

Are you claiming there's nothing behind the acceleration of expansion of the universe?

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

ArnautDaniel said:
If I were to construct a physical model of the chemical bond, I wouldn't include gravity.

I would do this because the effect of gravity is so negligible at that scale, and is so swamped by the other three forces as to be not worth considering.

However on cosmological scales it appears to be the main force that matters.

So, for the purposes of physical chemistry, gravity need not exist.

Similarly I think effects may crop up at the scale of a solar system that are negligible at the scale of intergalactic distances.

You have yet to provide an argument otherwise beyond insulting ad hominem remarks.

Hmm. I'm not sure where you feel I've insulted you, but if you feel that way I'm sorry. That certainly was not my intent. I was being playful.

Gravity cannot be the single most important force of nature otherwise astronomers would not require "dark energy' in the first place. In fact that term was applied to cosmology only after it was discovered that gravity wasn't slowing things down as "predicted".

Solar wind and coronal loop activities are the two most obvious things I can think of that show the influence of the EM field inside our solar system. How many links would you like?
[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits

Well, presently the Higgs Boson is "dark energy", and it is necessary to the standard model.

Hmm. I would think that the Higgs would be more akin to "dark matter" than to dark energy, but I'll grant you that it's a valid example of a name that's been given to something "unseen" in the lab to date. There are however true "experiments" designed to find it. In that sense it is unlike "inflation".

Another ad hominem.

Do you even know how to talk like a scientist?

Even in play?

Pots, kettles, etc.

The Higgs boson presently qualifies as "dark energy", and is in fact a candidate for the "dark energy" causing the unexplained acceleration.

Do you happen to have a reference for that?

In the present model the Higgs is needed to explain the existence of non-zero rest mass in fundamental particles.

If there is no Higgs then the standard model is in a peculiar state as it is constructed by creating a model in which all the particles have zero rest mass (thus making all the observed symmetries exact) and then the Higgs is used to introduce mass and break the symmetries.

So as you can see it has a strong relationship with gravity as it is intimately related to mass.

Sure, but none of that explain acceleration and certainly not "faster than light expansion".

Personally I doubt super-symmetry is going to pan out as it is reasonable to expect we'd have seen a super-partner by now.

Me too, but IMO "dark matter" has the ability to be empirically verified or falsified in a standard manner so it's the least of the mainstream worries IMO.

I'll skip the stuff we seem to agree on.

The fact is, in science, you dont win by heaping scorn on the opponent. You win by carefully building your own case.

Well, how exactly would you suggest that I, as a skeptic of mainstream beliefs, go about building a case that EM fields accelerate plasma based on an EU orientation if not the way I have? I'm certainly not going to start with all the mainstream assumptions and go from there because I have no faith at all in their "interpretations" in the first place. I have no need for their cosmology theories, nor any need to save them from doom if they can't "figure it out" with standard physics.

You haven't even tried to build a case here, so I see no reason to suppose you have any idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you haven't read the materials I suggested in this thread by Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven? You can also checkout the work of Dr. Charles Bruce. All of them have demonstrated the validity of EU theory. In Birkeland's case, he actually empirically "predicted" high speed solar wind and discharge activity in the solar atmosphere and simulated these things in the lab.

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

sandwiches said:
Are you really having issues understanding what I'm saying? I mean, English isn't my first language but I thought I was coming across clearly the first half dozen times when I said that the term dark energy isn't referring to the acceleration. Is this concept so hard to grasp for you?

I'm replying to these emails between tech calls at work and it's entirely possible I missed something relevant. What exactly are you trying to give a name to then?

How do you know?

I know the same way NASA knows that dark energy has never been seen in the lab or that it exists at all. In other words, I don't and they don't dark energy did it either or that "dark energy" has never been seen in a lab.

Are you claiming there's nothing behind the acceleration of expansion of the universe?

No, assuming that the universe is actually accelerating, I'm sure there is a valid empirical cause for that acceleration. I know however that "dark energy" isn't the empirical cause of that observation just like you know that "God energy" has nothing to do with that particular observation. Without qualified empirical support that dark energy exists and has some effect on plasma, there simply is no empirical evidence that dark energy did it.

ArnautDaniel · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
Solar wind and coronal loop activities are the two most obvious things I can think of that show the influence of the EM field inside our solar system. How many links would you like?
[0908.0813] Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits

And as soon as you can explain to me why this might be relevant to intergalactic scales, I might care.

Hmm. I would think that the Higgs would be more akin to "dark matter" than to dark energy, but I'll grant you that it's a valid example of a name that's been given to something "unseen" in the lab to date. There are however true "experiments" designed to find it. In that sense it is unlike "inflation".

Do you happen to have a reference for that?

Why can't people on forums do a simple google search?

[0908.0212] Stable Higgs Bosons as Cold Dark Matter

Admittedly this addresses it as a source for "dark matter" so I might have misspoken.

Sure, but none of that explain acceleration and certainly not "faster than light expansion".

"Faster than light expansion" has to do with the problem of homogeneity (the fact that portions of the universe we can see, but haven't seen each other appear statistically about the same).

"Dark energy" has to do with the observed acceleration of galaxies.

Well, how exactly would you suggest that I, as a skeptic of mainstream beliefs, go about building a case that EM fields accelerate plasma based on an EU orientation if not the way I have? I'm certainly not going to start with all the mainstream assumptions and go from there because I have no faith at all in their "interpretations" in the first place. I have no need for their cosmology theories, nor any need to save them from doom if they can't "figure it out" with standard physics.

Then you are not talking about "EM fields" and I have no idea what you could possibly be taking about. "EM fields" are nothing more than structures that exist in mathematical models. If you are saying that the existing mathematical models are wrong, then I have no idea what your "EM fields" could be.

In fact, if you are saying that the existing models are wrong, then you are saying there is a different set of mathematical models that is more correct.

And, if this is all you are saying, then "dark energy" is simply the difference between your "better" models and the present ones. So, you too are invoking "dark energy".

Maybe you haven't read the materials I suggested in this thread by Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven? You can also checkout the work of Dr. Charles Bruce. All of them have demonstrated the validity of EU theory. In Birkeland's case, he actually empirically "predicted" high speed solar wind and discharge activity in the solar atmosphere and simulated these things in the lab.

Like I said, until you give me a reason to think these phenomenon have any relation to phenomenon at intergalactic scales, I don't care.

I'm talking about "dark energy" and not the solar system.

Anyway, answer the simple question:

Do you think the present mathematical models of "EM fields" are correct or do they need to be modified?

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

ArnautDaniel said:
And as soon as you can explain to me why this might be relevant to intergalactic scales, I might care.

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Plasma physics scales quite nicely.

Why can't people on forums do a simple google search?

Click to expand...

The answer is that they do, but.....

[0908.0212] Stable Higgs Bosons as Cold Dark Matter

Admittedly this addresses it as a source for "dark matter" so I might have misspoken.

Click to expand...

You did mispeak. Oh well. Like I said, I don't really have a major beef with "dark matter" theory since it can be "lab tested" at LHC. I wouldn't even be able to tell you how we might go about testing for "dark energy" or "inflation" in a controlled test here on Earth.

"Faster than light expansion" has to do with the problem of homogeneity (the fact that portions of the universe we can see, but haven't seen each other appear statistically about the same).

Click to expand...

Huh? Faster than light expansion is technically impossible for items with mass for starters, and only two theories in the whole universe require it, Young Earth Creationism and Lambda-CMD theory. Coincidence?

"Dark energy" has to do with the observed acceleration of galaxies.

Click to expand...

But you can't demonstrate "dark energy" accelerates even a single atom, let alone a whole galaxy! The only force of nature that I am aware of that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity is the EM field. There really aren't many options to choose from to "explain" such a thing.

Then you are not talking about "EM fields" and I have no idea what you could possibly be taking about. "EM fields" are nothing more than structures that exist in mathematical models. If you are saying that the existing mathematical models are wrong, then I have no idea what your "EM fields" could be.

In fact, if you are saying that the existing models are wrong, then you are saying there is a different set of mathematical models that is more correct.

And, if this is all you are saying, then "dark energy" is simply the difference between your "better" models and the present ones. So, you too are invoking "dark energy".

Click to expand...

I believe that you missed my point entirely. I don't have any need to save their theory. I can show you that EM field accelerate plasma any number of ways, but I can't replace "dark energy" with an EM field in their Lambda-CMD theories, nor do I have any need to do so. I can however demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between acceleration and an EM field and demonstrate that EM fields are more powerful than gravity with an ordinary refrigerator magnet and a paperclip.

Like I said, until you give me a reason to think these phenomenon have any relation to phenomenon at intergalactic scales, I don't care.

Click to expand...

Query Results
Author Query Results

The first link I provided to Peratt's specific paper is your best starting point, but this idea has been written about extensively.

I'm talking about "dark energy" and not the solar system.

Click to expand...

How did you decide "dark energy" couldn't be found inside the solar system?

Anyway, answer the simple question:

Do you think the present mathematical models of "EM fields" are correct or do they need to be modified?

Click to expand...

No. I think the Lambda-CMD mathematical models are "trumped up" and nothing in heaven or earth can save them so they invented stuff and filled the gaps with it.

ArnautDaniel · Apr 21, 2010

Michael said:
ArnautDaniel said:

And as soon as you can explain to me why this might be relevant to intergalactic scales, I might care.

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Plasma physics scales quite nicely.

Click to expand...

Springer won't let me look at that article, so I can't speak to it.

The answer is that they do, but.....

You did mispeak. Oh well. Like I said, I don't really have a major beef with "dark matter" theory since it can be "lab tested" at LHC. I wouldn't even be able to tell you how we might go about testing for "dark energy" or "inflation" in a controlled test here on Earth.

Click to expand...

Well "dark energy" can be lab tested at LHS as well, as it would ultimately boil down to a fundamental force we haven't seen at the energies we are looking at.

I mean, that is really what we mean right? A new fundamental force.

If it is there, then it should be visible at high enough energies in a sufficiently large collider of some sort.

So really it is no different from "dark energy" in that respect.

Huh? Faster than light expansion is technically impossible for items with mass for starters, and only two theories in the whole universe require it, Young Earth Creationism and Lambda-CMD theory. Coincidence?

Click to expand...

No. It is impossible for objects with mass moving within space-time. If you are talking about the fabric of space itself expanding, it isn't restricted by relativity. And that is what we are talking about in inflation, the expansion of the very geometry of nature.

But you can't demonstrate "dark energy" accelerates even a single atom, let alone a whole galaxy! The only force of nature that I am aware of that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity is the EM field. There really aren't many options to choose from to "explain" such a thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but EM, coming in opposite charges tends to result in next to no effect on very large scales. You need a very large energy of some sort locally to move the charged particles around so that EM effects can be seen.

So you need some kind of high energy churning.

I haven't seen you provide a source for that for every galaxy.

I say that because what I got out of the abstract of the article Springer wont let me look at is that it is discussing special rare galaxies which have a churning of that sort. I don't expect your normal everyday galaxy to have that churning.

And, for the record, the article appeared to be discussing a specific rare cosmological phenomenon.

I believe that you missed my point entirely. I don't have any need to save their theory. I can show you that EM field accelerate plasma any number of ways, but I can't replace "dark energy" with an EM field in their Lambda-CMD theories, nor do I have any need to do so. I can however demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between acceleration and an EM field and demonstrate that EM fields are more powerful than gravity with an ordinary refrigerator magnet and a paperclip.

Click to expand...

Then you aren't talking about "EM" because EM is precisely a mathematical structure in their theories. You are simply creating a new model, a new physics, and calling it "EM". I mean I can create a new physics and call things "coffee" and then say "coffee drives motion in the universe", but that is simply an abuse of language.

The fact is you are invoking a new model of "EM" that differs from the old model. So, you are invoking "dark energy" no differently from them. The only difference is that you happen to be calling it "EM".

You've just given it a different name.

The first link I provided to Peratt's specific paper is your best starting point, but this idea has been written about extensively.

How did you decide "dark energy" couldn't be found inside the solar system?

Click to expand...

I didn't say it couldn't. I didn't say it could. I said it might not be particularly relevant at that scale (much as gravity isn't relevant in describing hydrogen bonds). All forces exist at all scales, but their effects at a particular scale might be so small as to be next to impossible to measure.

No. I think the Lambda-CMD mathematical models are "trumped up" and nothing in heaven or earth can save them so they invented stuff and filled the gaps with it.

Click to expand...

Once again, you are conflating entirely different things.

Is this about "dark energy", is it about "inflation"? Is it about making up new physics and calling it "EM" and pretending it is something else?

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

ArnautDaniel said:
I mean, that is really what we mean right? A new fundamental force.

Is it? You and sandwiches have a very different definition of "dark energy" evidently since he's not convince it is necessarily a new fundamental force, and you seem to be saying just the opposite. That's one of the big problems here. Just like the subject of "God" there seem to be a million and one different 'definitions' of the term "dark energy", and zero empirical support for any of them in terms of plasma acceleration in a lab.

I'll pick at the rest of your post as I get time.

Michael · Apr 21, 2010

ArnautDaniel said:
No. It is impossible for objects with mass moving within space-time. If you are talking about the fabric of space itself expanding, it isn't restricted by relativity.

I don't suppose you can empirically demonstrate that in a lab?

And that is what we are talking about in inflation, the expansion of the very geometry of nature.

But of course there's no empirical support for 'inflation', "expansion of space" or any of these claims. If you believe in all these things on "pure faith" evidently, then what's your beef with the topic of God again?

I really don't "get it". None of your claims can be substantiated in a lab. Objects with mass cannot travel faster than light and 'space' never expands by itself in a lab, so what makes you think it happens or happened somewhere "out there, once upon a time"?

ArnautDaniel · Apr 22, 2010

Michael said:
Is it? You and sandwiches have a very different definition of "dark energy" evidently since he's not convince it is necessarily a new fundamental force, and you seem to be saying just the opposite. That's one of the big problems here. Just like the subject of "God" there seem to be a million and one different 'definitions' of the term "dark energy", and zero empirical support for any of them in terms of plasma acceleration in a lab.

I'll pick at the rest of your post as I get time.

I'd wager most physicists are hoping it relates to a new fundamental force...something that would clue us in on how to construct a simpler model for things than the standard model.

Barring a wholly new force, some kind of alteration to the existing forces that simplifies the standard model would be nice as well.

ArnautDaniel · Apr 22, 2010

Michael said:
I don't suppose you can empirically demonstrate that in a lab?

There was a time when electromagnetism was "dark energy".

So what?

But of course there's no empirical support for 'inflation', "expansion of space" or any of these claims. If you believe in all these things on "pure faith" evidently, then what's your beef with the topic of God again?

Where did I talk about god?

Anyway, general relativity describes the motion of space-time including expansion and is a well supported theory.

I really don't "get it". None of your claims can be substantiated in a lab. Objects with mass cannot travel faster than light and 'space' never expands by itself in a lab, so what makes you think it happens or happened somewhere "out there, once upon a time"?

General relativity allows for it.

We are working on detecting gravitational waves and that requires excruciatingly accurate instrumentation.

You have to let technology develop.

Again, there was a time when "EM fields" were black magic, but now you want to make them do all the work.

All that has changed is technology.

An Empirical Theory Of God

Contributor

Nabobalis

Guest

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Veteran

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency