An Empirical Theory Of God

[lucaspa]

Not if god insists on not leaving any evidence of his existence lying around.

This needs to go into the new "Atheism is not a belief thread". Suffice it to say here that 1) the evidence is lying around, but science is incapable of detecting it and 2) a lot of the evidence lying around is simply rejected because it is evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm going to let Lucaspa mop the floor with your beliefs, as I tired of your silly dogmatic antics days ago.

I need to clarify something. I don't care about Michael's beliefs. He can believe pantheism if he wants. What I care about are (so far) 5 specific claims made by Michael:

1. The existence of spacetime is dependent upon the existence of matter/energy. I care about this one because it is a misrepresentation of a specific scientific theory.
2. Inflation is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief. I care about this one because it misrepresents what science is and how science is done.
3. Pantheism is a valid scientific theory. I care about this one because of the claim that it is scientific and supported by enough data that we should consider it accurate. All I see is data contradicting it.
4. Pantheism is part of Christianity. I care about this one because it is not an accurate statement of Christianity.
5. A "living" or "aware" universe would destroy atheism. I care about this one because it is not an accurate statement about atheism.

But if Michael wants to believe that God is the universe and the universe God, fine. It's his belief.

 

[selfinflikted]

I agree with Lucaspa that this is heading in the direction of a pretty big derail, and this better belongs in another thread. I would very much like to address these points and continue this line of thought!

In the sense that I believe that God *is* the physical universe, it is a "universal experience" from my perspective even if our individual life experiences are unique to us as individuals.



Is it even desirable to all experience God exactly the same way? Would it even matter in terms of our opinions? We all see and experience the current President in pretty much same way (TV) yet we all have various and differing opinions about him.

The statement "even at all" seems to be an emotional/internal intellectual process, not a "physical reality" from my vantage point. In other words, we all live inside God IMO. Some just communicate with him and some do not. At the level of physics, the experiences are similar. At the level of *internal contact* they are unique experiences. That seems "typical" to me actually since we are all unique individuals with different wants and needs.



From my perspective, that's the issue. Some folks want to 'see' God in "small form" do some sort of parlor trick that defies the laws physics. That's simply not how it works and we don't get to dictate God's behaviors.

 

[lucaspa]

I've never seen anyone try to claim that spacetime exists in the absence of all matter and energy. In fact I've heard many astronomers try to claim that "spacetime" did not exist prior to the bang.

Spacetime didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. At the Big Bang spacetime and matter/energy came into existence.

Now, "I've never seen anyone try to claim that spacetime exists in the absence of all matter and energy".

That's because they are not talking about your claim. Co-existence is not the same as "dependent upon." Cosmologists talk about this universe. In this universe matter/energy and spacetime exist. That's how it is. Could spacetime exist without matter/energy? Yes. Spacetime is not dependent on matter/energy. Do you get it now?

If you say so.

Nice admission you have no arguments against it.

FYI, I personally fail to see what "spacetime" would even relate to or "do" in a universe filled with "nothing". There can be no movement, no curvature, no distance, no nothing.

"Nothing" refers to an absence of spacetime, too. Spacetime is a "something". What you apparently are thinking is that prior to the Big Bang there was empty space. But there wasn't. There was no space. Or time. It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, I admit, but it must be done. So, what you imagine as "nothing" is actually spacetime: a space underdoing time in which there is no matter/energy. An "empty" spacetime.

Let's play this out step by step and you tell me when the first Higg's formed relative to the inflation phase.

That has nothing to do with this particular conversation. We are talking about GR, not about early cosmology.

However, if you are interested, do your own research. Your web links indicate you know how to search the internet, so do it and find the answer. I'm not your librarian.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm always amused when an atheist lectures me about whether or not I am a "Christian" or what it means to be a "Christian".

Sorry, but ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. The idea of Christianity has been stated a long time ago. Thus, an atheist can study what the idea is and accurately state it.

What you want to do is redefine the idea of "Christianity". But you can't do that anymore than Sandwiches or I can.

One can in fact be a "Christian", profess Christ as their lord and savior, and still embrace God as the universe. You'll have to just trust me on this.

No, we don't have to trust you. I'm sure you are professing Christ as your lord and savior, but you can't embrace God as the universe and be a Christian. I suggest you check out Genesis 1:1 or the first line of the Nicene Creed.

Whatever you are -- perhaps a "Christ believing pantheist" -- you are not a Christian.

I can't lecture you about what it means to be an "atheist", nor can you lecture me about what it means to be a "Christian" and whether that fits or does not fit with pantheism.

Atheism is separate from what Sandwiches thinks it is. So yes, you can state what atheism is and compare that to the statements Sandwiches makes to determine whether Sandwiches should use the label "atheist" to describe himself. Ideas don't belong only to those who advocate them.

Yes, as is pantheism by definition.

It was only then that I willingly embraced pantheism. In no way does it conflict with "Christianity" to my knowledge.

Either your knowledge is extremely limited, or you are deliberately not seeing the knowledge that contradicts your belief.

Well, "Christians" do not all think alike. There are probably more "sects" of "Christians" than there are variations of inflation theory.

There are over 20,000 denominations of Christianity. Many (most?) are there due to differences in church governence, not major differences in theology. The rest differ over details, such as baptism by sprinkling or total immersion; baptism of infants or only of adults, etc. However, all of them adhere to the Nicene Creed. That is the necessary and sufficient beliefs to be Christian.

For instance Catholics embrace evolutionary theory. Baptists not so much.

But that isn't in the Nicene Creed. All the Creed says is that God created. It doesn't mention how God created. So you can have the difference there. But both Catholics and Baptists are Trinitarians and neither is pantheistic. No Christian denomination can be pantheistic. Sorry, but you can't wear the label "Christian". Wear a different label that fits your beliefs.

 

[rjc34]

This needs to go into the new "Atheism is not a belief thread". Suffice it to say here that 1) the evidence is lying around, but science is incapable of detecting it and 2) a lot of the evidence lying around is simply rejected because it is evidence.

Er, well I'm not letting you off that easy if this is going to be the last word...

1) If there's evidence lying around, and it is part of the natural world, science can detect it.
2) I wholeheartedly disagree. If there was any evidence lying around I most definitely wouldn't be an atheist.

 

[Michael]

Sorry, but ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. The idea of Christianity has been stated a long time ago. Thus, an atheist can study what the idea is and accurately state it.

I'm waiting to see how your conversation with rjc34 goes to see whether or not you're actually as much of an expert on "atheism" as you seem to believe. FYI, that might be a good thread of it's own.

What you want to do is redefine the idea of "Christianity". But you can't do that anymore than Sandwiches or I can.

Well, I would agree that Jesus is the final arbitrator of what is "Christian" and what is not, but you don't get to define it any more than I do, or the Pope does or sandwiches does. We all "interpret" as we individually see fit on *MANY* topics. I don't mind answering to Christ, but I don't answer to atheists or other "Christians" for that matter.

No, we don't have to trust you. I'm sure you are professing Christ as your lord and savior, but you can't embrace God as the universe and be a Christian. I suggest you check out Genesis 1:1 or the first line of the Nicene Creed.

It's all a matter of how you chose to interpret those passages.

Whatever you are -- perhaps a "Christ believing pantheist" -- you are not a Christian.

You do recall that statement about "Judge not, lest thou be judged", don't you? In terms of my scientific and personal beliefs, as I mentioned earlier, I answer only to Christ, not to you and not to sandwiches, not even to the Pope. It's nothing personal mind you, it's just that I have my own very personal relationship with Christ. Who made you the Pope's right hand man anyway as it relates to topics of "science"? Surely the Pope is your theological "superior" on all things related to "Christianity", right?

Atheism is separate from what Sandwiches thinks it is. So yes, you can state what atheism is and compare that to the statements Sandwiches makes to determine whether Sandwiches should use the label "atheist" to describe himself. Ideas don't belong only to those who advocate them.

I'm thinking that what you will learn in your conversation about atheism is that everyone "practices" atheism "individually" as individuals, with very "unique" ways of defining their "atheism". If one refuses to accept another's definition, one could end a victim of one's own bigotry.

Either your knowledge is extremely limited, or you are deliberately not seeing the knowledge that contradicts your belief.

IMO that works both ways. What did Jesus mean when he said the kingdom of heaven is found within? What did he mean that we are one *in* God and what makes your "interpretation" of his statements any "better" than another?

There are over 20,000 denominations of Christianity. Many (most?) are there due to differences in church governence, not major differences in theology.

Er, you mean except those pesky Universalist Christians (like myself) that don't believe in endless torment? I hate to break it to you but there have *always* been very significant differences of opinions about "Christian theology". It's being going on since Augustine labeled Origin's teachings an "anathema" many years after his death. Augusting then promptly replaced the Jewish/early Christian afterlife beliefs that Jesus talked about with pagan afterlife concepts of hades that came straight out of pagan Roman religion.

Catholics have more books in their Bible, not to mention "purgatory". Some Christians accept the tenets of evolutionary theory, others do not. You act like these are "minor" theological differences.

The rest differ over details, such as baptism by sprinkling or total immersion; baptism of infants or only of adults, etc. However, all of them adhere to the Nicene Creed. That is the necessary and sufficient beliefs to be Christian.

Well, like I said, I accept Jesus as my lord and savior and frankly nobody but Jesus is a fit judge of me or my beliefs. You're welcome to your opinions and all, but sooner or later you'll have to start treating *everyone* as an individual, theist and atheist alike. Good luck on the conversation about atheism by the way. You'll need it IMO.

But that isn't in the Nicene Creed. All the Creed says is that God created. It doesn't mention how God created. So you can have the difference there.

So why are you complaining about him creating a place for humans to live inside himself?

But both Catholics and Baptists are Trinitarians and neither is pantheistic. No Christian denomination can be pantheistic. Sorry, but you can't wear the label "Christian". Wear a different label that fits your beliefs.

I'm sorry but you don't get to exclude me from being a "Christian" over "scientific" differences of opinion. It's one thing to attempt to exclude me because I do not accept the teachings of Christ. It's quite another to complain about my scientific preferences of cosmology theories and attempt to exclude me on that basis. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Nobody made you the Pope and even if they did, I still wouldn't care what you think about my scientific preferences. That would be like trying to exclude "some" Christians simply because they disagree with you about the theory of evolution.

 

[rjc34]

I'm waiting to see how your conversation with rjc34 goes to see whether or not you're actually as much of an expert on "atheism" as you seem to believe. FYI, that might be a good thread of it's own.

We're experts on atheism like you're an expert on a-leprechaunism.

 

[Michael]

Er, well I'm not letting you off that easy if this is going to be the last word...

1) If there's evidence lying around, and it is part of the natural world, science can detect it.

Ya, and I explained how you might do that.

2) I wholeheartedly disagree. If there was any evidence lying around I most definitely wouldn't be an atheist.

I don't really think it's quite that simple. I'm actually looking forward to your "what is atheism" thread since I have some sympathy for both sides. In my experience a "lack of belief" is often related to a "subjective interpretation of evidence" as much as it's related to the evidence itself. For instance, you consider Guth's inflation theory to have "scientific support" and yet I completely disagree. Why? We both "interpret" the universe very differently and therefore we "interpret" the empirical data in very subjective ways. You see redshift and a homogenous layout of matter and somehow you see evidence of inflation in that data. I look at that same data and see *NOTHING* even remotely like an empirical link between a mythical inflation entity and your claims. It's all a matter of how one selectively and subjectively "interprets" the data.

 

[Michael]

We're experts on atheism like you're an expert on a-leprechaunism.

I'm an expert at lacking belief in a lot of things, especially supernatural stuff, but I wouldn't necessarily call my lack of belief in leprechauns a "belief system".

 

[Michael]

Spacetime didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. At the Big Bang spacetime and matter/energy came into existence.

And I suppose you have empirical evidence to support *BOTH* claims. I'm fascinated to hear you explain why the term "spacetime" is specifically and directly related to a "gravity theory", specifically GR theory, yet you also believe that it exists independently from gravity and even energy. Fascinating stuff IMO.

So which came first, the spacetime chicken or the matter egg? How was each of them "created" and what are they independently made of?

Now, "I've never seen anyone try to claim that spacetime exists in the absence of all matter and energy".

That's because they are not talking about your claim. Co-existence is not the same as "dependent upon." Cosmologists talk about this universe. In this universe matter/energy and spacetime exist. That's how it is. Could spacetime exist without matter/energy? Yes. Spacetime is not dependent on matter/energy. Do you get it now?

Nope, sorry, but I really don't "get it". If you remove the mass and energy from the system then GR theory is pretty much meaningless, as is the term "spacetime" since it specially relates to GR theory, a theory that is specifically related to "gravity".

Nice admission you have no arguments against it.

How does one argue against your claim when you literally have "nothing" to work with at the level of actual physics, but you insist on calling it "spacetime" anyway. Nothing is nothing. AFAIK, "spacetime" only exists in the presence of gravity and therefore matter. The term "spacetime" really has no specific physical meaning as you have defined it. It's a metaphysical label as far as I can tell that has no empirical connection to anything including the term "spacetime", matter or energy.

"Nothing" refers to an absence of spacetime, too. Spacetime is a "something".

What *PHYSICAL* thing differentiates the two (nothing vs. spacetime)?

What you apparently are thinking is that prior to the Big Bang there was empty space. But there wasn't. There was no space. Or time. It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, I admit, but it must be done.

It actually only "must be done" in your particular creation oriented "bang" theory. Alfven's bang theory wasn't a creation event, so no "faith" in such claims is required. How do you KNOW any of this by the way?

So, what you imagine as "nothing" is actually spacetime: a space underdoing time in which there is no matter/energy. An "empty" spacetime.

Nothing cannot expand. You have "spacetime" doing expansion tricks for breakfast and it breaks the speed of light laws for lunch. How *EXACTLY* does that work? What physically "expands"?

That has nothing to do with this particular conversation. We are talking about GR, not about early cosmology.

When Einstein developed GR theory, he *assumed* the universe was static. In fact that was his whole reasoning behind what he ultimately called his "greatest blunder". Once the redshift data became available he set his constant back to zero and left it there till the day he died.

However, if you are interested, do your own research. Your web links indicate you know how to search the internet, so do it and find the answer. I'm not your librarian.

Actually I've been reading Einstein's work and Big Bang theories since I was 17 and taking calculus. I'm not asking you to be my librarian. I've learned that when we get into the "nitty gritty" of the creation event, all cosmologists seem to have slightly different views and different ways of "explaining" the process. I'm simply asking you for *YOUR* opinions on these topics so I don't just stuff words into your mouth, but rather it's a two way dialog.

 

[Michael]

I need to clarify something. I don't care about Michael's beliefs. He can believe pantheism if he wants. What I care about are (so far) 5 specific claims made by Michael:

1. The existence of spacetime is dependent upon the existence of matter/energy. I care about this one because it is a misrepresentation of a specific scientific theory.

Can you show me in Einstein's writings where he referred to "spacetime" in the absence of matter and energy?

2. Inflation is not a scientific theory, but a religious belief. I care about this one because it misrepresents what science is and how science is done.

To believe in inflation one first has to "have faith" Guth didn't just "make it all up". One must "have faith" that inflation does the things he claimed AS AN ACT OF PURE FAITH. That is about as close to a "religion" or "faith in the unseen and never to be seen" as it gets. What's the empirical difference between a "religion" and "science"?

3. Pantheism is a valid scientific theory. I care about this one because of the claim that it is scientific and supported by enough data that we should consider it accurate. All I see is data contradicting it.

We'll have to look at "which" data you're looking at and why you seem to think that somehow invalidates PC/EU theory and/or the theory of pantheism.

4. Pantheism is part of Christianity. I care about this one because it is not an accurate statement of Christianity.

So start by explaining what Jesus meant by the kingdom of heaven is within us?

5. A "living" or "aware" universe would destroy atheism. I care about this one because it is not an accurate statement about atheism.

Wow. Lots of ground to cover, including a theist defending atheism. Sounds like fun.

But if Michael wants to believe that God is the universe and the universe God, fine. It's his belief.

Well as long as you allow me the freedom to believe what I want to believe, I guess I can't complain. We'll have to work through your list and see how it goes.

 

[rjc34]

I'm an expert at lacking belief in a lot of things, especially supernatural stuff, but I wouldn't necessarily call my lack of belief in leprechauns a "belief system".

Bingo. And you've just answered why 'atheism' isn't a belief system. Thanks you for playing.

 

[Michael]

Scalar fields don't do this. Sorry. As long as the field is on the "plateau" part of the line, then yes, there can be multiple exponential increases in volume with very little loss of density.

Which scalar fields specifically? Where is your theoretical scalar field physically located, what is it's volume, and how "dense" is it to start with? What plateau does inflation have to work with? How did you arbitrarily decide any of this because you certainly didn't get it from experimental lab results?

First, the article did NOT compare inflation to the EM field. Nice strawman but it fails.

Well, it starts off by mentioning EM fields specifically which certainly do NOT act that way.

It compared the scalar field to the potential energy of a ball rolling along a nearly flat plateau. During that roll, the ball covers a lot of distance but doesn't lose energy.

But prior to inflation you don't have any of that stuff. You don't A) have a ball B) have a hill, or C) have a single atom to your name yet. Other than that it's a great analogy. Where is this scalar field and what are it's physical dimensions and it's starting density? Will the volume of spacetime and density of inflation prior to inflation questions ever actually be addressed?

Second, the article specifically says scalar fields have such equations. You can assert all you want, but the science contradicts you.

Not really, at least not in this case. You don't have a hill. You don't have a ball. You don't have ANYTHING as far as I know at the beginning. All you've got evidently got is some amount of a mythical thing you're calling inflation. How about filling in a few detail related to starting volume and starting density? If and when you want to describe the QUANTITY of inflation in a specific volume PRIOR to the event, during the event and after the demise of the inflation entity, please be my guest. At the moment you appear to be sort of tap dancing around all the actual important details IMO.

Empirical denotes information gained from observation. In the case of inflation, initial observation was the apparent uniformity of the distribution of matter on large scales. BUT, when Guth proposed inflation, we had only seen a small part of the visible universe due to limitations in telescopes. Inflation predicted that the distribution of matter in the universe would remain uniform thruout the universe. That got confirmed when we had better telescopes.

That's really not all that impressive of a "prediction" once you read the paper. It's clear he's going with an *assumption* that what he already knows to be true is a NECESSARY THING TO MATCH, and then he proceeds to match it. It's not exactly a "big prediction" that what we already see is likely to continue over a greater distance. I'm still waiting for you to address that HOLE in the universe or that "dark flow" observation and explain to me why those observations do not falsify inflation theory. If they can't falsify his homogenous claims, what can?

Again, an empirical prediction of inflation was the small anisotropies in the temperature of the CMBR. That wasn't known in 1979. It wasn't until 2006 that the data was observed.

"Small"? How "small"? How about that "hole" they found? How about that "dark flow"? Are those "small" anisotropies or "larger" anisotropies than inflation accounts for?

No, I mean predicted. Didn't you read the article? I realize that the Land of Denial is comfortable for you, but it's not reality.

Speaking of denial....

Have you actually read Guth's original inflation paper for yourself? Which line from his actual paper constitutes an actual "prediction" in your opinion?

Inflation is inevitable.

Since inflation has never happened in human history, this is essentially a "statement of faith" in mainstream dogma.

Because there are hundreds of potential scalar fields that can act to produce inflation.

Yet miraculously, with hundreds of scalar fields that can produce it, it's *NEVER* happened except *ONCE* in over 13 billion years? How is that 'inevitable'? It's "miraculous" perhaps, but not "inevitable" or we would have seen it occur *LOTS* of times by now.

Now, this is like the lottery. It may be unlikely that you will hold the winning lottery ticket, but if enough tickets are sold it is inevitable that someone will have the winning ticket. With hundreds of scalar fields, it is inevitable that one of them will meet the conditions for inflation. No faith, but simply math.

Come on. The whole claim is a "statement of faith" since you never once demonstrated inflation exist, let alone that decays into anything or does anything that you claim it does. You handwaved in a weak analogy that simply cannot apply to the situation in question and act like I'm just supposed to "accept" your claim at your word without a single lick of empirical support that isn't ultimately a self serving circular feedback loop.

The scalar fields owe nothing to Guth. Their existence is independent of inflation.

Yet independently they've done absolutely nothing to create another inflation event for 13.7 billion years?

I think I'll grab a cup of coffee before I finish responding to the rest of your post. I thought this would be a nice "quiet" little board, but but due to popular demand, this single thread is taking up *huge* amounts of my time today.

 

[Michael]

Bingo. And you've just answered why 'atheism' isn't a belief system. Thanks you for playing.

Small problem....

I wasn't the one that called it a "belief system" in the first place, but thanks for playing.

 

[Michael]

The very rough CMBR was known in 1979. It was known that we had the CMBR from every direction, which was evidence of the Big Bang. NOT evidence of inflation.

The CMBR was "predicted" based upon dust and scattering long before any "bang" theory became vogue.

I'll skip the redundant parts of our argument since it's getting late my time.

The paper accets that redshift means the universe is expanding.
"Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities"

Instead, the paper is arguing against the idea that the expansion is ever superluminal, faster than lightspeed. Yes, the universe is expanding, but that expansion is never faster than light -- superluminal.
"Other commonly believed consequences of this phenomenon are superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies ... apparently superluminal velocities and `acausal' distance to the horizon are in fact a direct consequence of special-relativistic phenomenon of time dilation ... Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities, these special-relativistic effects must be at least partly responsible for the cosmological redshift and the aforementioned `superluminalities', commonly attributed to the expansion of space."

You need to read the material more carefully and not look at it thru your preconceptions. See what the authors are really saying. Sometimes it is subtle.

Yes, I know all that and I explained all that to someone earlier in the thread in fact. My point was missed IMO. You're missing the fact that there are MULTIPLE ways to "interpret" the same redshift data *EVEN* if you assume it's all related to movement. You're making assumptions about "expanding space" that isn't necessarily true, doesn't necessarily represent the *ONLY* explanation for redshift and is empirically impossible to verify in a lab. What then makes your personal 'interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon any "better" than anyone else's interpretation of that same empirical observation?

 

[lucaspa]

FYI, the moment your inflation particle supposedly "decays' into something else, there are less of them after the decay takes place and the density should DECREASE not stay consistent. How do you account for that small problem?

Easily. Remember, E = mc^2. There is so much E in the universe after the Big Bang that particles are continually being "created" from energy. It's only after the universe expands and cools that the energy density drops enough for that to stop.

This also happens later when other particles begin to appear out of the quark soup. Particle -antiparticle pairs appear and the universe is so dense that they immediately find each other and annihilate one another, releasing energy again.

From what I have seen in my internet search, the Higgs field is no longer thought to be the scalar field that caused inflation. So your arguments are out of date in addition to being invalid.

 

[lucaspa]

The CMBR was "predicted" based upon dust and scattering long before any "bang" theory became vogue.

That history is so bogus I can't imagine how you got it. Everyone knows the story. Big Bang can be credited to Edwin Hubble in 1929. In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" —what was later called the Big Bang (by Fred Hoyle in an attempt to ridicule it).

The opposing theory -- Steady State -- never predicted a constant background radiation that was the same from all parts of the sky. In fact, such a thing was not conceived of until 2 Bell scientists were trying to figure out the source of static in microwave communications in 1965. They discovered the CMBR. It was realized that the Big Bang would result in such a uniform background radiation at that wavelength (temperature).

Scattering from dust and gas will not. In fact, one of the links you posted about dust and gas blocking light verifies that. The scattering does not produce a uniform microwave background radiation.

Michael, arguments like this simply destroy your credibility. The history is well known and can easily be checked. If you get such simple things so wrong, there is no reason to think that you don't get everything else wrong as well. At this point all you are doing is arguing your metaphysical beliefs and, unfortunately, you've made PC one of those religious beliefs. No wonder you think inflation is a religion; you are projecting your own thinking onto others. My metaphysical beliefs are separate from Big Bang or inflation. I believe God created. So far, it looks like God did so via the Big Bang and that inflation happened shortly after the Big Bang. But if new data is found in God's Creation, then it simply means God created another way.

You're missing the fact that there are MULTIPLE ways to "interpret" the same redshift data *EVEN* if you assume it's all related to movement. You're making assumptions about "expanding space" that isn't necessarily true, doesn't necessarily represent the *ONLY* explanation for redshift and is empirically impossible to verify in a lab.

Look, once again you are placing undue emphasis on what can be "verified" in a lab. That isn't a consideration when evaluating scientific theories. What's more, you haven't considered the sauce for the goose. Notice that the PC circuits between stars has not been tested or confirmed in the lab, either. In fact, there have been no plasma circuits done in the lab.

Other hypotheses to explain redshift have been tried over the years. All have been falsified. The point was that you posted a link to a paper that you thought challenged that redshift was due to expansion of spacetime. It doesn't. All it challenges is that such expansion will eventually lead to objects receding from us faster than light.

What then makes your personal 'interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon any "better" than anyone else's interpretation of that same empirical observation?

It's not my personal interpretation. It's the consensus position of the community of scientists who are experts in the area. And yes, there are a few dissenters. There always are. There were phlogiston chemists who never admitted that combustion involved oxygen and that phlogiston did not exist.

Let me put it this way: what makes you think your personal "interpretation" is "better" than that derived from the data by the people who do this for a living?

 

[selfinflikted]

I'm an expert at lacking belief in a lot of things, especially supernatural stuff, but I wouldn't necessarily call my lack of belief in leprechauns a "belief system".

Bingo. And you've just answered why 'atheism' isn't a belief system. Thanks you for playing.

 

[lucaspa]

Which scalar fields specifically? Where is your theoretical scalar field physically located, what is it's volume, and how "dense" is it to start with? What plateau does inflation have to work with? How did you arbitrarily decide any of this because you certainly didn't get it from experimental lab results?

There are several scalar fields that behave this way, so there is no need to specify which one. The location is the early universe 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds or so after the Big Bang. The volume is the volume of the universe at that time -- which is smaller than an atom. If you read what the article stated, the plateau corresponds to potential energy.

Well, it starts off by mentioning EM fields specifically which certainly do NOT act that way.

The article never mentions EM fields. What it said was: "The leading example is a hypothesized relative of the magnetic field known as a scalar field, "

You have to learn to read more carefully so you can avoid these strawmen. It's not the EM field itself, but a relative of the magnetic field. But this relative has different properties.

"The inflationary energy must be hugely dense, and its density must remain nearly constant during the inflationary epoch. Its most unusual property of all is that its gravity must repel rather than attract. The repulsion is what causes space to swell so rapidly.What gave Guth’s idea its appeal was that theorists had already identified many possible sources of such energy."

Do you see that? "many possible sources"

　
　

But prior to inflation you don't have any of that stuff. You don't A) have a ball B) have a hill, or C) have a single atom to your name yet. Other than that it's a great analogy. Where is this scalar field and what are it's physical dimensions and it's starting density? Will the volume of spacetime and density of inflation prior to inflation questions ever actually be addressed?

You have a scalar field that is like the curve of a ball rolling along a plateau and into a valley. The x-axis is strength of the field, the y-axis is density of the field. At the start of inflation the universe was 1/quadrillionth the volume of an atom and at the end the universe had the size of a dime. That's in the article.

At the moment you appear to be sort of tap dancing around all the actual important details IMO.

So far we haven't gotten to those details. We've been talking in generalities because neither of us is a physicist, so we have been using lay descriptions of inflation. You are mistakenly thinking that if I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, then the numbers are not known. You should be able to see the fallacy in that. If you want those specific details, we can both do some research to find them. We may end up having to go back to the original articles in the physics journals. Now, you imply that you have read Guth's original paper, so why don't you tell us the details? Why are you holding out?

Here is a SciAm paper by Guth and Steinhardt in 1984 describing inflation to the lay public as it was then:
The Inflationary Universe
12: The Early Universe

That's really not all that impressive of a "prediction" once you read the paper.

So you've read the paper? Then what did Guth state as the density of the early universe?

It's clear he's going with an *assumption* that what he already knows to be true is a NECESSARY THING TO MATCH, and then he proceeds to match it.

Since we have several examples of your failure to read carefully, let's check your claim. Please quote the entire paragraph where you think this is. Thank you.

I'm still waiting for you to address that HOLE in the universe

I did address that. Didn't you read it?

If they can't falsify his homogenous claims, what can?

You have a strawman of "homogenous". It is not equal matter in every cubic centimeter. It is overall matter. The "hole" is less than 4% of the diameter of the universe. What you would need would be a gap of, say, 20% of the volume of the universe. The flow is happening after the initial distribution from inflation. So it has nothing to do with the results of inflation, but something that is skewing matter after inflation had finished.

"Small"? How "small"?

The variotions in the CMBR are on the order of 1 part per 1,000 or less.

Have you actually read Guth's original inflation paper for yourself? Which line from his actual paper constitutes an actual "prediction" in your opinion?

Have you? If so, then it was a bit dishonest to demand the volumes and densities, wasn't it? Papers don't contain all the predictions of a theory.

Since inflation has never happened in human history, this is essentially a "statement of faith" in mainstream dogma.

Oh my goodness. Talk about borrowing from creationist fallacies! An extinction level meteor impact has never happened in human history, either, but do you doubt that one happened at the KT boundary? In fact, a meteor impact of a scale of Meteor Crator in Arizona has never happened in human history. Do we call such implacts "statement of faith"?

Nor has a plasma circuit ever happened in human history. Yet you say that is "empirical". A bit hypocritical, aren't you?

No, the criteria that something must have happened within human history or it is a "statement of faith" is simply a nonsensical criteria.

Yet miraculously, with hundreds of scalar fields that can produce it, it's *NEVER* happened except *ONCE* in over 13 billion years?

Dude, the universe is below the critical density. The universe is already below the energy density in which this could happen. So of course it hasn't happened since. Are you getting that desperate that you have to resort to this nonsense? Or didn't you read about inflation to understand what it is? Or don't you care about honesty and will use any argument, no matter how dishonest, to support PC?

Come on. The whole claim is a "statement of faith" since you never once demonstrated inflation exist, let alone that decays into anything or does anything that you claim it does.

I never claimed it "decayed into" anything. When the observational consequences of a theory are present, then we evaluate the theory as correct. What's more, inflation is in the past, just like the KT meteor impact is in the past. What we have are the consequences of inflation that exist to the present time.

Yet independently they've done absolutely nothing to create another inflation event for 13.7 billion years?

And just how are we supposed to create a new universe? C'mon, Michael, you are embarrassing yourself. Inflation happened when the universe was a quadrillionth the size of an atom, with all the matter/energy in the universe within that volume. Just how do you think you can "create" that in the lab?