• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Our conversation is getting rather lengthy my friend. I will have to pick and choose what to respond to as I get time, probably one idea at a time. If I miss something that you feel is important, let me know.
Finally the time (and energy) to answer. It's been a long time so I'll prune away the parts I don't feel is important.

How exactly could we ever hope to falsify Lambda-CDM theory?
I don't know. Since I've studied basic mechanics only in physics.

I'll try to break this down the best I can.
Claims:
  • There is no 'laboratory data' to work with related to inflation, dark energy or dark matter.
  • There is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics.
  • The mainstream for instance asserts that *all* inelastic scattering events must produce a significant photon deflection based apparently on a few laboratory tests related to *Compton* (and only Compton) scattering, and one published astronomy paper written in 1929.
  • In the case of the mainstream, they use that small laboratory data set, and apparently only one published astronomy paper, to argue against "inelastic scattering" as the real 'cause' of photon redshift.
  • I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.
  • The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.
**************************
  • There is no 'laboratory data' to work with related to inflation, dark energy or dark matter.
Define 'laboratory data' since it seems to be different from observational data.

  • There is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics.
No way yet or no way ever?

  • The mainstream for instance asserts that *all* inelastic scattering events must produce a significant photon deflection based apparently on a few laboratory tests related to *Compton* (and only Compton) scattering, and one published astronomy paper written in 1929.
I highly doubt that since the other scatterings you've brought up are either highly irrelevant or suffering from the same problem as Compton scattering.

  • In the case of the mainstream, they use that small laboratory data set, and apparently only one published astronomy paper, to argue against "inelastic scattering" as the real 'cause' of photon redshift.
I've argued against it without any data, and I've yet seen a satisfactory answer to the problems I've observed.

  • I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.
Please refrain from the use of derogatory terms.

  • The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.
Thus rendering it unfalsifiable. I highly doubt that since they're actually making predictions.

How then can we ever hope to falsify or even argue against such a theory? The whole thing is a religious 'creation mythology' that comes with ever changing math.
If the math is ever changing, aren't they actually falsifying possible models?

How can such a theory ever be falsified. You tell me.
By changing their models they've thrown out older theories/possibilities, so apparently you only have to look at those examples.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
As stated in previous post:
It's been a long time so I'll prune away the parts I don't feel is important.
Also please refrain from the use of derogatory terms.

If they're changing the parameters they've falsified older versions (or else, why change it?). Your 'argument' is moot.

If they stumble upon a mathematical contradiction, do you know what happens?

Of course definitive evidence is highly subjective, it's a superfluous term. Evidence is enough.
The only reason to inject unnecessary adjectives is to try to either impress the audience (in some cases only the receiver of the message), to deceive them or to confuse them. (Not excluding a mix of them)

On the other hand, the mainstream is trying to claim "dark matter did it" in *spite of* the LHC data. All their "simple" SUSY theories bit the dust, and their entire argument has become a 'SUSY particle of the gaps" argument.
And yet they're trying to explore that gap, aren't they?
Also please straighten up your usage of the terms theories and hypotheses. Those were clearly hypotheses.

I don't know.
Perhaps the lack of observations of consequences that would be the result of application?
As with your scatterings.

Assuming it "holds up", it's a deal breaker for mainstream theory. If they simple 'fudge around it', they effectively leave no logical way to falsify the theory.
Earlier you've stated that there is no way to falsify it.
Now you state that this is a possible falsification. Unless they " 'fudge around it' ".
I'm interpreting this as you trying to inject, as often as possible and with little to no qualms of contradicting yourself, protests, valid or not, against what you perceive to be the "mainstream theory".

But even *if* acceleration is occurring, it need not involve *energy* at all! That's the whole point!
Then you're obviously way past my education and I have no way to confirm or deny it.

Sure, *EM* energy! Gravitational field energy too.
Energy is energy, no matter the source. (Pun intended)

Neutrality isn't always 'standing by the side and watch someone drawing strawmen all over the place'.
Of course that is highly dependent on my perception of things and that's why I've engaged (among other reasons) in this discussion, I want/wanted to know whether I've been under the wrong impression.
Those points I have raised that have been of importance have been obfuscated several times but since they have a tendency to bubble to the surface each and every post I continue until I've seen either a change in your attitude on how you deal with them or how to perceive them.

You're correct on one thing. I'm biased towards science, but honestly I think that's a bias that is rather hard to get rid of and (more importantly) justified.
However when asked for honest, well thought through, answers I'll suppress that bias as much as possible.

Something that just struck me... You're not proposing that claims that have no evidence that have inspired the creating of said claim are on par with science, are you?

It's a "law" of physics. I have to 'assume' the "laws" of physics are accurate until someone demonstrates it's false.
No. You don't have to.
Though I'll admit that it's a reasonable high-level assumption to make when one will work within the area.

You don't know anything less about "dark energy", 'dark matter' or inflation than any other scientist on the planet. Not one of them can tell you where any of it comes from either. :")
You're equivocating knowledge about something with knowledge of said things origin? I do hope that you're joking.


I've got four posts to go but I'll post these two earlier due to chance of error with posting etc.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
As stated in previous posts:
It's been a long time so I'll prune away the parts I don't feel is important.
Also please refrain from the use of derogatory terms.

It's obvious to me that it would be the better thing to do. Why make someone make a decision about something they have no understanding of?

Personal info:
I apply that to everything. Which is also why I don't vote, since I haven't taken the time to inform myself about the available parties.

Again, "distance" is physically defined. "Spacetime" is physically defined in GR. "Space" is not defined in GR and it's not defined in any meaningful way. It's a "metaphysical" term. What exactly 'expands' when 'space' expands?
I'd suggest mathematics, calculus, multi variable analysis and linear algebra and vector geometry.
The first is mainly to improve upon the understanding about certain definitions and the second is about the very thing you're talking about. Vector geometry.

It was a long time ago but I should be able to produce a matrix with magnifying properties for you.

I'll stick with the point about terminology.

Yes. Convincing evidence is subjective, what is convincing for one isn't necessarily so for another.
However a safe bet is objective evidence. If it's not convincing on its own, add more until the provided body of evidence actually is convincing for the individual in question.

The key here being objective evidence, of course.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
As stated in previous posts:
It's been a long time so I'll prune away the parts I don't feel is important.
Also please refrain from the use of derogatory terms.

I hope you don't take internet users as representatives of experts.

Perhaps you're jumping the gun then. Produce some convincing evidence along with convincing reasoning. If you're correct you'll be set for life.

More than the 'average joe', sure I'll agree to that. But if you're going to make any scientific change you'll not make any headway by appealing to those who are uneducated in the area.

In fact it may even be damaging to your credibility were you ever to publish content that would support your claims.

Wait... They're not mentioning that the simple SUSY theories (actually hypotheses, or even the singular use of that term) have been falsified? How the heck did I find out then?

Oh, right. It was from an interview in an article. He was excited.

You've demonstrated that it's the most common source?
And that it's in a related area? (For example it would be kind of useless to provide with a study that is highly restricted and trying to apply it universally without some very strong reasoning)

Of course they want things to show up. Why wouldn't they?

That the place where your claim about 'neutrality' falls apart IMO. In fact we do have laboratory confirmation that inelastic scattering A) occurs in plasma, and B) causes photon redshift, and C) comes in various flavors.
Don't forget D) has unobserved additional effects. That's the contradiction that I justify my complaints about your hypothesis.

Again, I don't care to count how many times I've said this now, I've never claimed that Compton scattering, or any other kind of inelastic scattering for that matter, never happens in space.

I've claimed the exact opposite!

Repeatedly!

How on earth is it that you continue with this silly straw man portrayal of my stance?

In fact, we do have laboratory confirmation that EM fields accelerate plasma, and inelastic scattering in plasma produces redshift. You reject all that evidence.
No, I don't.

Buy it hook and sinker? No. Again. No. Again. No.

No.

I've even explicitly explained my stance, my motivation why it's neutral and how it doesn't contradict my personal philosophy.

I defend their set of theories/hypotheses from what I perceive to be a straw man version of them.

I've been very clear in my competences and knowledge.
I've been clear on when you steer the conversation away from the areas mapped by them.
I've been actively trying to steer the conversation back onto the areas that I'm able to discuss.
I've been very clear on what points that I've been protesting against, most often claims made by you that has nothing to do with the mainstream theory.

Repeatedly!


Edit: I'm taking a break for a few hours, two posts to go.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Finally the time (and energy) to answer. It's been a long time so I'll prune away the parts I don't feel is important.

I completely sympathize with you. It's been busy for me at work as well. Some things have the luxury of waiting, particularly these types of online conversations between friends.

I don't know. Since I've studied basic mechanics only in physics.
That would be plenty in terms of understanding the basics of EU theory. It probably wouldn't get you all that far in terms of dark energy, inflation or exotic matter theory, but you can certainly follow along in terms of the basic arguments as I noted below.

I think I'll stop here in terms of your list to respond to the last question first. Laboratory data is data that we can gather here on Earth (or somewhere reachable by human equipment) that offers us some measure of control over the conditions of real experiments so that we can verify actual cause/effect relationships. One example would be inelastic scattering events in plasma, and/or powerful EM fields in controlled experimentation. There types of experiments, that also offer control mechanisms, gives us the ability to determine the actual cause/effect relationships, and compare them to mathematical models in the real world.

Since there is no known source of dark energy, let alone a way to control it, experimenting with in on Earth is not physically possible. It's sole use seems to be to salvage one (and only one) otherwise falsified cosmology theory. I'd just assume let that one cosmology theory die a natural scientific death rather than simply invent new imaginary invisible entities. Surely you can appreciate that 'cautiousness' toward diving into a metaphysical solution rather than just embracing an honest 'I don't know'?

There is no way to falsify the concept at the level of empirical physics.No way yet or no way ever?
AFAIK, "inflation" was a once in a universe event, even by mainstream standards. It may not even exist in nature anymore (some versions suggest it might). With that sort of "wiggle room", it's impossible to verify inflation theory in the lab, and may remain so forever, even in mainstream theory.

"Dark energy' is apparently shy around the lab. Although it presumably accelerates a mostly plasma universe, it's incapable of accelerating a single charged particle in a lab. Nobody can name a source of dark energy. Nobody can explain how to 'control' it in actual experiments on Earth. It has no falsification potential at all in the lab. Unlike those inelastic scattering experiments, I simply have to *have faith* that "dark energy" has some magical effect on photons.

But even those VP experiments suggest that light is "held" by an EM field. How exactly does an EM field "hold" a photon for even a split second without picking up some momentum from it, if only momentarily?

It seems to me that your only real "argument" is pretty much the same as Ned Wright's argument. It's a criticism that is ultimately based upon a handwavy argument about a few types of scattering from a 1929 paper written by a guy that was peddling his own 'tired light' theory! Give me a break!

It's not like the mainstream has spent a lot of time and money building real experiments here on Earth to test every single type of imaginable inelastic scattering process to see how it might explain some if not all events in space. In fact it looks like they've done *zero* work in the lab. More disconcerting, I'd have to believe that *zero* inelastic scattering occurs in *any* of the photons that reach Earth. How likely is that considering the fact that we just found a bunch more million degree plasma around our galaxy?

  • I don't even have that luxury because all three of their invisible sky friends are giant duds in the lab apparently, at least according to their 'religion'.
Please refrain from the use of derogatory terms.
I hear you. Even still, you have to hear my point don't you? Whereas you can cite a few actual lab experiments on photon redshift in plasma where deflection occurred, I don't even have *that* luxury! You can then (IMO at least) abuse that experimentation till the cows come home, and I can do very little about it other than to pour my *own resources* into trying to test ever single inelastic scattering mechanism known to man. Meanwhile the mainstream simply ignores that whole possibility and pours unlimited *public* resources into hunting for and misrepresenting their ad hoc entities! "Dark energy camera" my eye! That kind of statement would *never* hold up in court.

  • The various "invisible sky deities" can be modified to fit any data set at that point.
Thus rendering it unfalsifiable. I highly doubt that since they're actually making predictions.
The problem is that they don't "stick to" the outcome of their "predictions". When their interpretation of photon redshift was challenged by supernova data sets, they simply *added ad hoc entities* to ''fix" their otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift! It's not like they let BB theory die a natural empirical death, they simply *fudged the number* with new ad hoc constructs, and continued to fail to *test* inelastic scattering processes in the lab.

Likewise the outright falsification of every 'popular' SUSY theory made no dent in mainstream claims about the existence of exotic forms of matter, nor did the fact they found more mass inside of ordinary plasma in 2012 than had been found in the whole of human history until 2012.

Even worse however, observational failures like that 4 billion light year long structure in space are swept under the carpet, along with every 'anomaly' in PLANCK/WMAP data sets.

If the math is ever changing, aren't they actually falsifying possible models?
No. They didn't falsify their assumption about the cause of redshift with that supernova data. They added supernatural entities to their theory and endowed these supernatural entities with supernatural 'space accelerating" powers.

By changing their models they've thrown out older theories/possibilities, so apparently you only have to look at those examples.
They didn't question their *assumptions* about photon redshift, not for a single instant! They didn't sit down and carefully test each and every type of inelastic scattering, they *assumed* they all have to do *exactly* the same thing!

I'm sorry , but I don't see how adding a *new* ad hoc invisible entity to a "hypothesis' is really 'changing the model' in a way that is consistent with empirical physics. It's more consistent with 'make believe' that is inspired by a strong emotional desire to never admit that they might have been wrong about the basic cause of photon redshift.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
It's obvious to me that it would be the better thing to do. Why make someone make a decision about something they have no understanding of?

I'm not even technically asking anyone to make a final decision so much as form an opinion. The opinion I'm hoping to leave the reader with is the that it's time to start trying new options as it relates to explaining events in spacetime. I don't even technically mind the fact that the mainstream wants to try out their own ideas, it's the fact they don't try out the empirical solutions that I object to.

Why haven't Bikeland's cathode sun experiments been duplicated in over 100 years for instance? All the mainstream explanations about corona activity are linked to convection speeds, and they turned out to be two orders of magnitude smaller than predicted/needed in mainstream theory in the SDO data sets.

Likewise we keep finding all kinds of mass in the form of plasma and dust, SUSY theories keep being falsified, but the mainstream refused to significantly modify it's claims about exotic matter.

Personal info:
I apply that to everything. Which is also why I don't vote, since I haven't taken the time to inform myself about the available parties.
I tend to take the time to get to know something about the bonds and people that I vote for, and something about the topics I engage myself in. It's just my nature I guess. I'm sure my understanding of the people or the issue has been wrong at times, but that's the risk you take in a democracy. Likewise I'm willing to risk being publicly wrong about a scientific topic (say evolutionary theory) so long as I know enough about it to explain the basics. I'm not a evolutionary biologist of course, but I can explain a few things about evolutionary theory to anyone that is curious. That's true of many topics, including topics related to cosmology theory.

IMO you're not hearing (or addressing) the real complaint, you're attempting to deflect the problem by blaming the messenger. The messenger's math skills have nothing to do with the weaknesses of mainstream theory. Those math skills have nothing to with the fact that dark energy fails too show up in the lab, or have an effect on a single photon in the lab. It has nothing to do with the fact that inflation fails to show up in the lab, or that that the most popular SUSY theories have been been falsified in the lab. As long as you blame the messenger's math skills rather than blame the creator of the mythology in question, it becomes a bit like a mud slinging contest. The messenger's math skills are irrelevant to the issues and problems in question because the messenger isn't suggesting that the *math* is incorrect!

If the term "objective" is associated exclusively with 'empirical', it's easy enough to tell the difference between an 'objective' force of nature like EM fields or gravity and a "subjective" hypothetical entity like dark energy or inflation.

If we start making the term "objective" a popularity contest related to majority/minority viewpoints, it's just a popularity contest.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
But isn't that a derived result?

Notice however that we can test all of our core assumptions in the lab and none of it involves "unseen" (in the lab) forces of nature? There's an empirical connection between cause->effect and observation.
We can't test our core assumptions. That's why they're assumptions. That or you've chosen some really crappy assumptions.

To 'observe' (a fundamental necessity in science) requires that we assume that the observer exists. We can't have anything like human "science" without an observer to collect the data.
No you don't have to assume the observer exist, though you'd have to assume something that'd lead up to some equivalent point.

We could start with what we *do* know. For instance we know that electrical discharges emit gamma rays and release positrons. Lots of observations and published papers confirm that.
Sure, extending what I've learned. I don't know of anything that'd limit the photons emitted during electronic discharges to energy levels lower than the gamma level (and since it's quite obvious we have those of lower energy, we wouldn't have to check the lower bound).

Do you have any evidence that exotic forms of matter exist or emit positrons?
Heck no. Nor do I need to.

From the standpoint of science, and Occum's razor, the "most likely" explanation for gamma ray emissions from space is what?
The stars?
Of course, if you're going to limit my answers to two choices where they're on two completely different levels when it comes to difficulty and education I'll have to, if I'm honest and careful with my answer, say that the one I have the best grasp of is the one I perceive to be most likely.

But, don't know if I've said (written) this before, it doesn't matter what I think.

Great.

Which part of that statement don't you accept since the net result would be 'redshift'?
That's a completely logical statement and I see no problem with it. Which is why (among other reasons) I've repeatedly stated that I don't think no scattering occurs in space. (See earlier post)

The quantity on the other hand is something that I'm rather certain isn't significant, as I've indicated in my calculations about the angles.

Can you show me any galaxy at the highest redshifts that are completely devoid of any and all amount of scattering?
Nope, nor have I given any reason to ask for that.

I think you do. You can peruse the data on positron emissions and electrical discharges on Earth as well as anyone. You can also look up the results of SUSY studies done to date at LHC on Google as well as the next scientist.
Are you sure? I highly doubt that.

For example, if I were to provide you with the tools to integrate along lines in the complex plane (i.e. a few theorems) you'd soon stumble upon examples that would be vastly different from what you'd expect.

For example, if you were to integrate along the circle with radius 1 around z=100 for the function f(z)=1/z you'd have 0.
If you were to integrate around any line that starts and ends at the same point and that doesn't have the point z=0 inside it you'd get the integral 0.
If you take any integral that has z=0 inside you'd get the integral 2*Pi*i*k, where k is the number of laps around z=0.

Education is the tool you need to evaluate things for yourself.

I think you'd be surprised how little of your money is being wasted.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/globalmilitarism04_01.jpg

Guess what I'd suggest you spend less on?
(Fun info, it took me a few minutes to find the budget any science part)

Do most atheists do that before evangelically crusading against all forms of "religion"?
I don't know, I can only speak for myself.

Atheists are also a very diverse group of people.
It isn't a guarantee that you're smart or honest or anything just because you're an atheist.

Support? Nope.

Defend against perceived misrepresentations? Yep.

Accept without having taken the time to make an honest informed decision? Nope.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
Ok.

Would you say that it's something good or bad with the doubt/insecurity?

There may also be "absolute truths" as they relate to the laws of physics as it relates to photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons, etc, as well. Such physical laws as I understand them may be temporal in nature however. I simply don't know.
Ok.

In terms of the laws of physics, I"d say that we are at least scratching the surface at this point. I'm certainly benefiting in a tangible way from an incomplete understanding of natures "laws". My computer is one such example.
Ok.

I would say that humans also have an incomplete understanding of "God" as well, but again, I'd be the first to admit that it's an incomplete understanding of God, certainly in my case.
Ok.



Thanks for answering this. The reason I asked was that, when I wrote it, I got the impression that you thought that we (as in humanity) had successfully defined one of those definitives and that you were upset when
'the mainstream' were exploring the areas without it.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I hope you don't take internet users as representatives of experts.

Over the past 7 or so years, I have perused the "internet circuit" in terms of visiting various astronomy hangouts in cyberspace. In my experience, most of the vocal EU haters are not professional astronomers, but there are a few mudslinging astronomers in cyberspace as well.

In terms of "expertize", it seems as though astronomers specialize in a very particular field of study. They aren't necessarily as knowledgeable about plasma physics as I would have expected. I've been disappointed on that score actually.

Perhaps you're jumping the gun then. Produce some convincing evidence along with convincing reasoning. If you're correct you'll be set for life.
If that were actually the case, Birkeland would have been recognized for his genius as it relates to solar system physics many decades ago. IMO lab work is probably the most convincing evidence there is. We seem to have very different ideas about the nature of 'convincing evidence'.

More than the 'average joe', sure I'll agree to that. But if you're going to make any scientific change you'll not make any headway by appealing to those who are uneducated in the area.
Not everyone in cyberspace I've discussed these ideas with is "uneducated in the area" and it's not like I haven't already published papers that the professionals can read through and comment on at their leisure. I am somewhat motivated to write a new paper on coronal loops and their effect on the surface of the photosphere, based on SDO data, but alas I doubt it would be the straw the broke the camels back as it relates to the acceptance of Birkeland's cathode sun theories.

In fact it may even be damaging to your credibility were you ever to publish content that would support your claims.
It would be damaging to discuss the ideas publicly? Hmmm. If acceptance isn't related to actual "physics" but to "personality" or method, is that really 'science'?

Wait... They're not mentioning that the simple SUSY theories (actually hypotheses, or even the singular use of that term) have been falsified? How the heck did I find out then?
The mainstream astronomy community probably didn't tell you. Particle physicists may have told you, or I may have told you, but in all likelihood, you didn't hear it from an astronomer.

Oh, right. It was from an interview in an article. He was excited.
Was he a particle physicist or an astronomer?

You've demonstrated that it's the most common source?
The electrical discharges that release gamma rays occur in the atmosphere of every planet with an atmosphere in our own solar system, as well as the solar atmosphere. Name one other naturally occurring source of gamma rays that we observe inside our own atmosphere, or the atmosphere of any body in the solar system.

And that it's in a related area? (For example it would be kind of useless to provide with a study that is highly restricted and trying to apply it universally without some very strong reasoning)
In this particular case, I see no evidence its not a "related area".

Of course they want things to show up. Why wouldn't they?
Whether any particles show up or not it's a "win" either way. They didn't abandon their theory when all the 'popular' SUSY theories went up smoke. They won't likely abandon exotic matter theory just because they can't find any exotic matter. They haven't found any so far, and that hasn't put a single dent in their beliefs.

Even if some particle or particles do happen to show up in future experiments, there is no guarantee whatsoever that such particles will have the various 'properties' (like longevity) to save their theory. At this point, the 'belief' in exotic matter is an "act of faith" on the part of the one who chooses to believe. Pure acts of faith cannot ultimately be falsified in the lab.

Likewise, that 4 billion light year long "structure" in space that should not exist in Lambda-CDM has no influence upon their dogma. It's just another 'anomaly' they sweep under the carpet like all those anomalies found in the Planck and WMAP data sets. Whatever data doesn't fit is simply ignored.

Don't forget D) has unobserved additional effects. That's the contradiction that I justify my complaints about your hypothesis.
But that's the whole point. You didn't demonstrate that D) applies to all forms of inelastic scattering, you *assume* it.

Again, I don't care to count how many times I've said this now, I've never claimed that Compton scattering, or any other kind of inelastic scattering for that matter, never happens in space.
But you are suggesting/assuming that every photon reaching us from distance galaxies has never even once experienced an inelastic scattering event over than entire distance, even/most particularly those photons that travel the furthest.

Buy it hook and sinker? No. Again. No. Again. No.
I think I'll refrain from trying to characterize your beliefs. It wasn't a good idea to start with. My apologies.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Michael,

Quick question. I believe you have established in another thread that you believe in a personal God based on your experiences with prayer and meditation.

If that is the case, how can you be so critical of main stream science on one hand (and you are certainly entitled to and may have good reason to), but on the other hand, you simply accept an "experience" you have through prayer and meditation as meaning there is a personal God?

Being as you appear to be highly educated, I am sure you are aware that those "experiences" can be explained away by numerous phenomenon that involves the brain that don't include a personal God.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Michael,

Quick question. I believe you have established in another thread that you believe in a personal God based on your experiences with prayer and meditation.

That's true. If it were only *me* however that reported such experiences, I might feel quite differently.

If that is the case, how can you be so critical of main stream science on one hand (and you are certainly entitled to and may have good reason to),

My 'religion' is an "act of faith" and I accept it as such. Should there be no difference between "science' and 'religion'?


As I stated earlier, if I was the only individual in the whole of human history that had such experiences, or even in a minority, I might be inclined to agree with you.

Sight, sound, taste, etc are ultimately just "phenomenon that involve the brain". In fact awareness is a phenomenon that involves the brain too. I'm afraid the fact that the experience involves the human brain does not invalidate the experience IMO anymore than the fact that seeing light involves the brain, and that fact invalidates the act of viewing a sunset.

Observation is key to "science" itself, at it would not even be possible to 'observe' or be 'aware' of such observations without trusting the human brain.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Thanks for responding.

And would add, of course you are not the only one to have such "experiences" or to claim what those experiences mean, but that does not eliminate an alternative explanation for those experiences.

I do agree that religion is an "act of faith" and in that sense, is separate from science and that is where individual factors come into play. In the end, if faith beliefs make someone a better person and help them in life, it should be held onto.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Thanks for responding.

And would add, of course you are not the only one to have such "experiences" or to claim what those experiences mean, but that does not eliminate an alternative explanation for those experiences.

True. Similarly, even though so called "atheists" report meeting God during near death experiences doesn't mean that there isn't some other possible 'cause' of that phenomenon.

As I said, I accept my act of faith in God as an act of faith on my part. It's simply the "best" (IMO at least) way that I can explain all of my experiences in life.

I do agree that religion is an "act of faith" and in that sense, is separate from science and that is where individual factors come into play. In the end, if faith beliefs make someone a better person and help them in life, it should be held onto.

I would have to say that the influence of Jesus on my life has made me a better person, though I'm still far from perfect.

I suppose what I am most uncomfortable with in terms of current "scientific" theory, is that it is now indistinguishable from 'religion' in terms of pure empirical physics.

Even "God' is not invisible or undetectable on Earth in my "religion", and the only thing I'm ascribing to the universe are EM fields and awareness, both of which exist on Earth.

In terms of 'pure acts of faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab) panentheism actually blows mainstream "scientific" theory out of the water. How can it be that there are actually less pure "acts of faith' in unseen (in the lab) entities required to support a "God" theory than it takes to support a "scientific" theory? Doesn't that bother you?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

I'm not sure I get the jist of your last paragraph. Are you saying why is God accepted without objective confirmation and scientific theory requires much objective confirmation?

If what I write above is correct, I would say the answer is simple, science is based on objective confirmation and the existence of a personal God can not be confirmed with the same criteria, so it comes down to individual experiences.

I'm no expert on panentheism, but am curious how one can be both a christian and follow panentheism? I realize that mainstream christianity has had to adopt a much more liberal view point over time (mostly based on scientific discoveries) and there are literally hundreds of variances that people continue to manufacture to help make the story work, but how do you define the core principles of christianity anymore? I would think, there would have do be a minimum standard of beliefs, to call oneself a christian, and those minimum standards certainly appear to be a moving target.

Lastly, panentheism is a belief (correct me if I am wrong) that God is in the universe and the universe is part of God, but a part of God is still separate from the universe? This is different from traditional christianity which distinctly separates the two and is quite a change in course. Does panentheism believe then that God watches everything we do, judges us, answers prayers, is all good, etc. etc.?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I'm not sure I get the jist of your last paragraph. Are you saying why is God accepted without objective confirmation and scientific theory requires much objective confirmation?

Sorry if I was too cryptic. I respond between phone calls at work, and I almost never proofread.

It bothers/concerns me that from the standpoint of pure empirical physics, fewer pure 'acts of faith' are required to believe in God as the universe, than are required to believe in what passes for "science' today. Either 'science' is now so far off the mark as to be virtually useless at explaining the universe, or some of the very "earliest" forms of religion have simply been right all along, or both.

The bottom line is that there is more empirical evidence to support panentheism than there is for Lambda-CDM.

If what I write above is correct, I would say the answer is simple, science is based on objective confirmation and the existence of a personal God can not be confirmed with the same criteria, so it comes down to individual experiences.
Hmmm. When you say "science is based on objective confirmation", I'm afraid that I actually wince. I see zero "objective" (as in tangible) confirmation for inflation, dark energy or exotic matter from any branch of science, just one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

IMO you're applying a more restrictive imposition on God theories than scientists impose upon their "hypothetical entities".

I'm no expert on panentheism, but am curious how one can be both a christian and follow panentheism?
It apparently helps if you start by being a 'Christian' first and 'discover" electric universe/plasma cosmology theory later. I wasn't much into pantheism or panetheism until I learned about PC/EU theory, and then I couldn't help but take a fresh look at the idea. In comparison to Lambda-CDM, it makes a lot more sense to me, and it's easier to defend, particularly at the level of pure empirical physics.

I would define them by the red letter parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I personally think that the Gospel of Thomas was foundational material for the synoptic Gospels and I would include that text as well, though clearly that is a minority position within 'Christianity' as a whole. I think most Christians would agree that the red letter parts of the NT are the "heart and soul" of "Christianity'.

I would think, there would have do be a minimum standard of beliefs, to call oneself a christian, and those minimum standards certainly appear to be a moving target.
Jesus seems to the "minimum standard" in terms of what binds the various denominations to 'Christianity'. I'm a "Universalist Christian" whereas some might call themselves a "Southern Baptist Christian". There is "dogma" that comes with each unique Christian "religion" that separates them, but they all seem to share a love of Christ. That's enough for me.

In terms of scientific freedom, I *insist* that I have the right to as much scientific freedom as anyone, and my views remain open to scrutiny. They may change over time. That won't likely ever again change my love and appreciation of Christ's teachings however.

Lastly, panentheism is a belief (correct me if I am wrong) that God is in the universe and the universe is part of God, but a part of God is still separate from the universe?
We only see a tiny sliver of the physical universe regardless of which cosmology theory you believe is true. We don't 'see' the whole universe, and the universe could be infinite for all I know. The part that we "see" isn't the whole thing, and it changes, just as our physical forms change. The physical structures however do not necessarily change the "consciousness" of God, anymore than gaining or losing few cells in your own body necessarily has a major effect on your consciousness. This physical universe that I see around me may in fact 'change over time', and it may cease to exist altogether in the future, but God's awareness and consciousness will never change IMO.

This is different from traditional christianity which distinctly separates the two and is quite a change in course.
It's different in some ways to be sure. Then again, it depends on how you look at it IMO. I don't claim to be a 'traditional' Christian, certainly not as it relates to topics related to 'science'.

Does panentheism believe then that God watches everything we do, judges us, answers prayers, is all good, etc. etc.?
Yes. Basically the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is defined in terms of belief in God *caring* and *interacting* with humans. My experience of God have been very "personal" in nature. Those experiences are simply more in alignment with panentheism (caring/active God as the living universe) than with pantheism (disinterested living universe).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mr Clean

The Universe owes us nothing
Jun 2, 2013
213
2
55
St Louis, MO, USA
✟22,857.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Except for one very critical difference. Sceintific observations can be seen by any brain. The are VERIFIABLE. They can transcend any one brain. I can see what Darwin saw, or what Bernoulli saw. I can recreate their experiments and validate their conclusions. Can your "experiences" do that? Can anyone's? No, of course not. You have no verifiable way to show that is true, and therefore no proof.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Except for one very critical difference. Sceintific observations can be seen by any brain.

I scientifically observe that humans have been writing about something they call God since the dawn of human civilization.

The are VERIFIABLE.
The dead sea scrolls exist do they not?

They can transcend any one brain.
Does only a single brain express their experience of God, or many? Do the writings we then see today transcend any one brain?

I can see what Darwin saw, or what Bernoulli saw. I can recreate their experiments and validate their conclusions.
I can see the sun, and I can read all about Birkeland's experiments with a cathode sun. I can recreate his experiments if I want. From the standpoint of "science', dark energy is a bigger dud in the lab then EM fields.

I can read all about Christ's experiences with God as well and according him we to could recreate them. Many other brains seem to believe him. From a spiritual perspective, Christ's ideas still transcend time and space.

Can your "experiences" do that? Can anyone's? No, of course not. You have no verifiable way to show that is true, and therefore no proof.
By your standards (if I understand them correctly) I could never "prove" love exists or awareness exists. I might demonstrate that brains are electrically active, but how would I demonstrate that awareness actually exists in nature?

How can you claim that human experiences, like those of Jesus, do not transcend a human brain when over half the planet reveres him as a great "spiritual" teacher?
 
Upvote 0

Mr Clean

The Universe owes us nothing
Jun 2, 2013
213
2
55
St Louis, MO, USA
✟22,857.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I know I'm joining the conversation late, but what empirical evidence is there to support panentheism? (I remind you that part of the definition on empirical is "verifiable")...


You're not looking very hard then. How about the inability of galaxies to exist in their present state without exotic matter?

Inflation is absurdly simple to prove. Given that the speed of light is constant, we can deduce from redshift that everything is moving away from us. A Hubble diagram shows this quite clearly.

There is plenty of information out there on these topics. I encourage you to read it at your liesure...

Plasma cosmology has been thoroughly debunked.


Nothing factual in here to discuss, so I have no comment on this portion of your post.
 
Upvote 0

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟23,412.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't talking about time delay predictions of either of the models, I was talking about how both papers propose a *physical medium* that has a tangible and measurable effect upon the travel times of various photons.

Ok, so you admit they're not actually 'almost exactly the same'. Because, you know, that implies that the same effect is happening.

Couple of small points that have passed you by

1) the VP papers do not predict a physical "medium" in the sense of the Holushko paper. In no sense of the word, never, not at all. You're not understanding them at all. They are saying that photon C_group is limited to C_rel by the properties of the vacuum and its tendency to produce VP pairs that then annihilate. This is not a medium, and it never will be, it doesn't how much you keep pretending that this is what this means.

2) the Holushko garbage is still garbage and isn't ameliorated by saying "look here's a paper that's a little like it! But it's completely different but I don't understand the difference, so sure, it's almost exactly the same!" Almost exactly...your words. Actually...not exactly. In the slightest.


I'll grant you they describe different time delays.

How different are they, Michael? Are we talking..."almost exactly" the same as you said prior, or....completely different so much so as to be many orders of magnitude apart? Are we talking completely different scientific bases, one where GR is applicable and one where it is not? Because that would fit into most people's definitions of 'completely different'.

What you *refuse* to accept is that Holushko's model was *generic*, and *inclusive* of the QM effects described in other papers

There is no such thing as 'generic' math as you propose in this sense. There is only correct, or incorrect. Quite apart from the differences in statistical distribution characteristics predicted, there is the orders of magnitude difference in scales, the fact that C_rel and C_group holds absolute in the VP paper, and not in Holushko's garbage, and so on and so forth.

"Generic" is your placeholder term for "I have absolutely no idea whether his math is right or not and no way to test it".


Brillioun scattering, Compton scattering, etc. Holushko's model doesn't describe just *one* type of photon effect, but a *family* of effects that are related to photons traversing a *physical medium*, not just an "empty vacuum".

Yes, Holushko is calling for an aether, despite Michelson-Morley and the massive empirical constraints on such an idea shown by GRB 090501. His math is not generic unless you can show how his Gaussian distribution allows for a delay of just femtoseconds for a high energy (31GeV!) photon travelling from a redshift of z = 0.9. Care to?

Or perhaps you could just admit you don't know what you're talking about. We've known about this phenomenon a long time, the best summary I know of how the constraints should work is, and MAGIC went bye bye years ago as regards a finding of Lorentz violations.

[0906.3731] Prospects for constraining quantum gravity dispersion with near term observations

You did? How?

Sigh. See above. If you understand it.

What *physics* (in terms of actual papers) did you cite in terms of those MAGIC observations?

I guess you didn't read prior. Here's just one of them again:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1832v1.pdf

and since you tend to prefer press releases:

Quantum gravity theories wiped out by a gamma ray burst | Ars Technica

This work constrains both QG with implicit Lorentz violations and the MAGIC findings out of the picture down to 1.2 planck lengths....so, for the purposes of our discussion, that basically shows that MAGIC wasn't about new physics and was almost certainly related to source effects. (incidentally, the number one interpretation of MAGIC involving new physics WAS QG lorentz violations.....that was kind of the point)

This observation was at a considerably further distance and high energy photons were observed at the very, very start of the burst, conclusively ruling out source effects. The interpretation that MAGIC's apparent delay was caused by something along the journey of the photon was wrong. Just wrong. Flat...out...wrong. The high energy photons arrived four minutes later in the MAGIC example most probably because they left four minutes later. Not hard to understand even without the math.

Further experiments were run that ruled out your interpretation. Your interpretation (and Ashmore's) is done. Wrong. Incorrect. Sorry. Empirical physics strikes again.

Oh give me a break! Half of your "speal"

You mean spiel...but whatever.

is pure personal attack.

Only because when someone points you don't know any mathematics beyond high school (or certainly haven't demonstrated as such) you think it's an insult, because you like to pretend that you do. You don't demonstrate any knowledge of the math involved in these papers, so I have no idea how you are supposedly understanding ANY of the papers you've cited press releases for........or SUSY, GR, QG, and so on.


The other half is based upon pure denial of scientific facts, including the fact that all popular SUSY theories went up in spoke at LHC

Oh for goodness sake. The result on the B(s)->mu+mu- channel was entirely expected in many well-supported SUSY models. Then there's the point that popularity isn't an issue (something you're probably glad of with your theories).

Lastly, you know nothing about the subject in any depth so far as I can see. "SUSY" is just a word of which you show no deeper knowledge. You know the simple top bit of wikipedia, I guess, since you don't ever elaborate (which popular SUSY variants are you including? Which ones were constrained? Do you even know??)

Or in fact is your judgement that 'they went up in smoke' based purely on the popular press articles, as I would think it is....or perhaps you can make an intelligent comment - just one - about your views on the constraints shown on the B(s)->mu+mu- channel as regards any particular SUSY variant (pick any one you like), and prove me wrong in my assertion?


an in spite of that 4 billion light year long structure that falsifies your theory!

Sigh.

Here's an excellent rebuttal paper to that ridiculously over-confident assertion published yesterday, I only flicked through it quickly since I only saw it this morning, but the methodology seems pretty sound.

He actually takes the same fractal clustering algorithm that Clowes et al. used to determine that the HLQG was a supposedly a single "structure" and shows that it finds 'structure' where there is none, in essence, seeing a pattern where there quite obviously is none, and that the statistical confidence that this is a structure is implicitly reduced well below 2 sigma.

(This is in addition to the previously made point you ignored that the last "structure" to be supposedly incompatible with homogeneity (The SGW) was shown to be three structures, not one. And then he points out a piece of work I wasn't aware of, that the clustering algorithms used as regards the SGW suffered the same problem as Clowes').

I quote:

"We should regard this as a reminder not to trust inferences based on rare structures found using such algorithms in the absence of a proper quantification of their action on simulated distributions."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1700v1.pdf

But no matter, I'm sure in a few pages, you'll just say "this 4 billion light year structure falsifies LCDM!!!" without ever bothering to answer or rebut, because that is your way. I don't expect any better from you.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.