Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Curvaton decay models? O-M-G! You mean to tell me that you need a *forth* invisible friend/fudge factor to get your stupid hypothesis to work right?
Talk about moving the goal posts, creating ad hoc entities to suit yourself, and *making up* whatever you feel like! Holy cow! The fun with metaphysical fudge factors never ends!
Oh, and this is apparently the assessment of the basic inflation hypothesis according to all of the authors of that first paper:
So there we have it. Apparently the authors all conclude that inflation alone can't be used to resolve the problems, so instead of letting inflation claims die a natural scientific death, you guys/gals just make up another ad hoc entity on the fly and away you go stuffing your new invisible friend into math formulas to plug the holes of your otherwise dead hypothesis.
Like I said, there is absolutely no possible way to falsify Lambda-CDM. It's become a *religion* at this point that requires numerous and outrageous *acts of pure faith* on the part of the believer. It's composed of more invisible friends than your average religion (apparently 4 now), all of which are apparently more impotent on Earth than your average religious icon.
Wow!You mean to tell me that you think it's logical to *make up* yet *another* new invisible friend rather than to let your otherwise falsified hypothesis die a natural death? Why?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
In light of your equivocations, no denial has taken place on my part. I accept the wiki definition of electromagnetism.
The "god helmet" is not representative of what humans would encounter in nature, so it does not directly support your claim.
See, there is a double standard. Your equivocation was an example of your need to "nitpick and play lawyer games" with others' posts in your own thread.
As for ignoring "every mathematical formula", you will need to provide examples of where I dd this.
No, you have not. You have merely stated a possibility, when you claimed definitely.I've already demonstrated that claim is true.
I already did that for you in the appropriate thread had you bothered to actually read it.
Is this your claim, if the subject were hammers? "I claim that hammers can influence human thought. Come here, and let me give you a good whack on the head with it."
No, not you personally. Anyone. And, replicated by others. You know, science.
You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".
This has definitely *not* been demonstrated as your 'electric universe in action' might generate EM fields and direct them inside the human brain, in a controlled and repeatable manner.
Upvote
0
If you accept that definition, then the following statement is *necessarily* true:
MM>>"An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".
Apparently however you remain in denial of basic scientific fact.
Not "representative" in what way? In terms of the magnetic field strengths involved, nature creates both much *larger* and smaller fields. Again, this is a *lot* like watching a YEC tap dancing around ice core data or nuclear decay data. Same denial dance, different tune.
You did that when you tried to disconnect the magnetic field from it's *source*, specifically the charged particle, and/or charged particle movement.
Humans have *definitely* been struck dead by lightning. Humans have *definitely* been shown to be affected by EM fields. That is not actually a "possibility*, that is a fact.
The only thing that is a *possibility* is the possibility that the universe is "aware". That's about the only thing you could actually "doubt". The rest is demonstrated scientific fact. My original statement, the one that apparently set you off, is in fact a statement of demonstrated scientific fact.
Complain all you like about the need to demonstrate that the universe is aware, but there's no doubt that a living *electric* universe *could definitely have* a direct effect on human beings.
I would never have doubted your statement in the first place.
I'm still completely perplexed by why you doubted mine. In terms of other humans "replicating" a connection to God, just go into any bookstore in your neighborhood and you'll find plenty personal accounts of many folks having a relationship with something they call "God".
I stand by that statement by the way. There is no doubt that electrical current and magnetic fields "definitely" would (and do) have an effect on human beings. I'm still right no matter how much nitpicking you wish to do.
You're apparently wanting me to demonstrate that the universe *does*, not *might* have *exactly the same effect* as the God helmet type of experiments. That's not what I said, and you're asking for more than I claimed!
The kind of evidence it would take to satisfy your personal request (not my claim) could only come about by extensive empirical laboratory testing, experimentation that is out of my personal budget I'm afraid.
If we weren't so wasteful, throwing away our research money looking for *four* invisible sky entities, it might actually be possible do what you're asking for. Alas we keep blowing all our cosmology budget on ad hoc invisible sky deities, all of which apparently defy laboratory testing on Earth.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hey David....
Are you sure that you don't want to switch religions yet? I mean, if you need *four* invisible friends just to supposedly 'explain' the universe, why not just trade up/in all of your invisible friends for just *one* highly visible friend?
String theory may limit space brain threat - physics-math - 22 May 2013 - New Scientist
I mean all that's essentially required in my cosmology theory is to "have faith" that the universe is electromagnetic in nature, much like a human brain, and it's "aware" much like a human brain. I'm not even the first guy to propose the idea, and the laws of physics do not preclude such things from occurring.
Considering the fact that you couldn't even ever *hope* to see your invisible stuff show up in the lab on Earth, and I at least do have such hope, are you sure you don't want to trade in your four impotent and invisible sky friends for just one very potent, and *completely visible* one?
Are you sure that you don't want to switch religions yet? I mean, if you need *four* invisible friends just to supposedly 'explain' the universe, why not just trade up/in all of your invisible friends for just *one* highly visible friend?
String theory may limit space brain threat - physics-math - 22 May 2013 - New Scientist
I mean all that's essentially required in my cosmology theory is to "have faith" that the universe is electromagnetic in nature, much like a human brain, and it's "aware" much like a human brain. I'm not even the first guy to propose the idea, and the laws of physics do not preclude such things from occurring.
Considering the fact that you couldn't even ever *hope* to see your invisible stuff show up in the lab on Earth, and I at least do have such hope, are you sure you don't want to trade in your four impotent and invisible sky friends for just one very potent, and *completely visible* one?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is funny because the next thing you cite is from the first paper:
No explanation for the asymmetry involving foregrounds or systematics has been forthcoming, and only a few models for a primordial origin have been proposed [37, 38, 39]. In Ref. [39], Erickcek, Kamionkowski, and Carroll analyzed how a superhorizon fluctuation in an inflationary field could generate such a power asymmetry. We found that the power asymmetry cannot be reconciled with single-field slow-roll inflation; the superhorizon fluctuation in the inflaton field that is required to generate the observed asymmetry would also induce unacceptable anisotropy in the CMB temperature on large angular scales.
Except that's not what they say at all. AT ALL. Is it, Michael? Because single-field slow roll inflation is one idea in inflation (one that you'd never actually heard of before, right? Just like curvaton models, another strong inflationary theory - one which happens to fit every single current observation.
They're not actually saying that inflationary theory doesn't fit the asymmetry - just that single-field slow roll models don't.
And sure enough, if you read on:
The VERY NEXT SENTENCE of the paper says this, as anybody can plainly see:
"We then considered an alternative inflationary theory, the curvaton model [40, 41, 42, 43], which had been suggested as a possible source of a power asymmetry [37, 44]. In the curvaton model, the inflaton field dominates the Universes energy density during inflation and drives the inflationary expansion, but the primordial fluctuations arise from quantum fluctuations in a subdominant scalar field called the curvaton. In Ref. [39], we showed that a superhorizon fluctuation in the curvaton field can generate the observed asymmetry while respecting both the homogeneity constraints imposed by the CMB [45] and the constraints imposed by upper limits to non-Gaussianity [12, 46, 47, 48, 49]."
Do you remember why I called curvaton models my favorite? That's because they're completely consistent with observation. If you wonder what's happening in that field right now, the main focus of research is trying to work out currently (or in near future) testable predictions of curvaton inflationary scenarios. Watch this space.
This is another great example of how you're ignorant to how science works - just like the SUSY example where you say "such and such a theory is dead" or "such and such a theory says this" when actually
1) That theory is many branching theories, some entirely independent and some very closely connected, vastly more complex than a single word could ever muster, and pretending that the entire field is dead when there are many branches that are not just entirely viable, they are entirely consistent with current observation (such as MSSM_AKM) is deeply misleading.
2) You have absolutely no idea about any of the details of any of these theories. SUSY - you learned the word "sparticle", yet you cannot seem to name any theorized sparticles, you don't know their proposed properties, like their spin or what mass they have (or why they might have varying masses depending on mixing variations etc.)
Add to this that you keep complaining about us theorizing particles that have not yet been seen and that we do not have the ability to yet test, as if that's a problem and not the very central tenet of modern particle physics. What do you think Peter Higgs was doing? Indulging in a multi-GeV ego trip?
The Standard Model is incomplete - such particles HAVE to exist (SUSY or otherwise). Can you deny that there are subatomic particles that must exist in the universe that we have not seen and cannot yet empirically test for?
What is your problem with including these in mathematical hypotheses, such that we can build models and test them, which is exactly what is going on in modern physics, something that you are not part of?
Why do you think it better to demand a form of inelastic scattering that requires the Standard Model - all the bits that we know to be right - to behave entirely differently than from observation, and from the models that we have tested rigorously building up the empirically proven field of quantum mechanics?
Why is it better for you to assume that all quantum mechanics is wrong - as it must be if your inelastic scattering idea is right, as has been clearly demonstrated since the 1950's?
Why can you not name any experiment, any prediction, anything at all that we can start with even if we assumed that all of QM was wrong against all the evidence of the last 75 years, that your mythical inelastic scattering process that redshifts photons without altering their direction was possible? You know, a proposal, like real scientists write.
Why can you not answer why the spectra of Markarian 501 and 421 dip in the multi-TeV range due to gamma rays having enough energy to interact with intergalactic photons and cause pair productions, something that would be impossible if there was any fluctuations in photon travel time (assuming you think special relativity is correct)?
Why can you not answer why the spectra of GRBs also dip in the multi-TeV range instead of rising, clear evidence of such annihilation events (events that should be MORE common according to some of your prior statements about the density of intergalactic plasma)?
And why do you think, as a layman, that you have any persuasive power at all with your "qualification problems" and religious metaphor and cliche over people with physics degrees, particularly as you admit you really know very little if anything about particle physics? It's like saying "yeah, I can't actually play tennis, and I have no racket, but I could beat Roger Federer and any of the rest of the world's top 200 players ANY day. Everything they know about tennis is wrong.". And then expressing surprise that you aren't allowed to play at Wimbledon.
Upvote
0
Why do you so belittle the strong and weak interactions and gravitation, none of which are electromagnetic?
Well it all shows up, in the PLANCK data: to an error margin of less than 0.05% we know that only 4.82% of the mass/energy in the universe is baryonic matter. What was your rebuttal to the PLANCK spectrum data again?
Dark matter might - it's not impossible, but our detectors under most theories need to be more planet-sized, which is tough right now...Dark energy - highly unlikely since Earth is not a vacuum and the effects of gravity would make it impossible. That's a shame, but nobody actually ever said dark energy would do anything in a lab on Earth, just like the Andromeda Galaxy has never done anything in a lab on earth, nor has anything ever gone supernova in a lab on Earth. Curvatons - actually, rather like the Higgs, being spin-0 particles (essentially mathematical scalar fields), these might be possible to view indirectly in terms of decay signatures. Work is somewhat in progress....
How is squaring the circle coming along?
If they exist, as the PLANCK data clearly indicates that they do (I notice you missed that entire portion, so I'll repost it again in a moment for your benefit and so you can't claim you missed it)....they are far from impotent but are arguably the most important portion of the universe you live in.
And by the way, if you're now including single scalar fields in mathematical theories, such as the curvaton, as "invisible sky friends" thanks to your rejection of anything that you cannot personally understand as false, we have many, many more than just four. But of course, you can name some, knowing this subject backwards as you do! Can you?
The "human brain" is not the missing piece(s) of the Standard Model, so, no.
Upvote
0
I think you missed this Michael, or deliberately ignored it - whatever. Here it is again...since you're all up on PLANCK right now....
One of things that PLANCK allows us to do beautifully is be considerably more accurate about how much of the mass/energy in the universe is baryonic matter, since the resolution is so much higher and PLANCK measures almost the entire power spectrum (WMAP did not and required additional data from other sources).
The baryonic matter density in the universe is now constrained to being 4.82% of the matter in the universe. The margin of error is 0.05%. We've seen about 70% of this, so even if you find that galaxies shine twice as bright...AGAIN....you're still not even close to seeing all the baryonic matter in the universe, let alone denting what must be non-baryonic!
This is without even talking about galaxy rotation curves.
Your theory that dark matter and dark energy (whatever they are) don't exist is seriously dead, and PLANCK put the nails in the coffin. Who's cherry picking now? You wanted to talk about the PLANCK data. Let's do just that. What's your interpretation of the PLANCK temperature angular power spectrum that doesn't require dark matter and dark energy at all? Do tell.
Relevant graph on page 33, fig. 37.
http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013re...results_15.pdf
One of things that PLANCK allows us to do beautifully is be considerably more accurate about how much of the mass/energy in the universe is baryonic matter, since the resolution is so much higher and PLANCK measures almost the entire power spectrum (WMAP did not and required additional data from other sources).
The baryonic matter density in the universe is now constrained to being 4.82% of the matter in the universe. The margin of error is 0.05%. We've seen about 70% of this, so even if you find that galaxies shine twice as bright...AGAIN....you're still not even close to seeing all the baryonic matter in the universe, let alone denting what must be non-baryonic!
This is without even talking about galaxy rotation curves.
Your theory that dark matter and dark energy (whatever they are) don't exist is seriously dead, and PLANCK put the nails in the coffin. Who's cherry picking now? You wanted to talk about the PLANCK data. Let's do just that. What's your interpretation of the PLANCK temperature angular power spectrum that doesn't require dark matter and dark energy at all? Do tell.
Relevant graph on page 33, fig. 37.
http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013re...results_15.pdf
Upvote
0
The funny part is that you never denied that you need a fourth invisible ad hoc entity! You'd rather add a *whole new* mythical, make-believe "particle" to the mix, in *addition* to the three supernatural forms of matter/energy that you've already committed yourself to, only to avoid dealing with the fact that your theory *failed*! Inflation theory doesn't predict anything like what we're seeing in the PLANK data. You're just cherry picking the data that you like, adding new invisible friends whenever it suits you, and *fudging the math* with four supernatural forms of metaphysics!
FYI, there you go again demonstrating conclusively that you really stink at mind reading. I've read so many metaphysical variations on the same theme, I've given up counting them at this point. These days there are almost as many metaphysical variations of inflation as there are sects of "Christianity". The last one I read about was "hairy inflation" if I remember correctly.
If you add enough fudge factors you can make your math fit *anything* and *everything* apparently. When I started picking on Lambda-CDM 7 years ago, the "big prediction" of inflation was the relatively homogenous layout of matter. Now it turn out that this "prediction" was utterly wrong, you won't abide by the results, and you insist on making up new invisible impotent on Earth friends to "fill the gaps" of your otherwise falsified claims! Even the authors "gave up" on trying to find a solution to the problem, and simply "cheated" by adding a new hypothetical entity into the mix. Lambda-CDM doesn't just require *one* act of pure faith on the part of believer, but apparently we have to "have faith" in *four* of them just to keep one otherwise dead cosmology theory from dying a natural scientific death.
Ya, and apparently the way they intend to "fix" the failure of the basic inflation concept is to "make up" yet another new hypothetical supernatural entity to plug the gaps of what is otherwise a falsified theory. Like I said, there's no possible way to falsify your theory when you keep moving the goal posts and even adding new goal posts in the middle of the game.
The reason is quite obvious. If you don't add a new invisible hypothetical entity into the mix, you can't make the math work right, and you'd have to accept that inflation theory is falsified. Since you have a strong emotional and professional need to "be right" rather than to "be wrong", you simply invent a new ad hoc entity and ignore the fact that your theory has been almost but not quite entirely *useless* at actually "predicting" anything.
Of course it is! You've got more fudge factors and excuses going now. You could make that menagerie of metaphysical fudge factors do just about anything and everything. Talk about "supernatural" claims. You've got four supernatural entities going, and not a single shred of evidence to support *any* of them individually, yet you expect me to believe in *all* of them at the very same time, otherwise your entire house of metaphysical cards comes crashing to the ground. You've got a four layer affirming the consequent fallacy going, and the stupid thing requires *four* hypothetical entities exist to even get it to work right! Compared to even an "average" religion, your "religion" requires more acts of pure faith than most!
Your claim about "testable predictions" is a complete and utter farce. If you actually would abide by the "tests", your claim wouldn't sound so ridiculous. Instead of admitting that inflation failed a "key testable prediction", you simply added a new ad hoc invisible entity and claim it's "all ok" again! Baloney! You *refuse* to accept the outcome of your "testable predictions" and you keep "making up" metaphysical gap filler on the fly anytime it suits you. Now I have to believe in dark energy, inflation, exotic matter *and* "curvatons" and you can't even tell me where *any* of them come from! Talk about pure faith.
And so the excuses begin. Your blatant *failures* in the lab are meaningless to you and your dogma because your dogma has always been a matter of "pure faith", not actual physics.
The deeply misleading part is you failing to mention that you're now scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of "popularity" of various models prior to LHC, and the fact you failed to acknowledge that not a shred of laboratory evidence actually supports any of your nonsense. You're clinging to "theory", not physics. Again, it's a pure act of faith on your part and the failures in the lab are irrelevant to you. Again, there is no possibility of falsification because you can continue to surf the gaps all the way up the energy spectrum, way beyond anything we could even hope to test at LHC. The whole thing is an "exotic matter of the gaps" claim at this point, and you know it. You can't even tell me which SUSY theory left standing that you'll even agree to *commit* to in terms of changing your mind if it's falsified in later tests!
False. You spend an inordinate amount of time giving *false testimony* against others. If you were a "Christian" that might matter to you. Apparently however, you're an atheist without ethics, and you're rather an embarrassment to whole atheist community I might add.
*You* really need to stop talking about *me* and discuss the topic. All your below the belt shots at the individual just demonstrate the emotional and vindictive nature of your attachment to your beliefs.
We did test for all kinds of them, and not a single one showed up. You still expect me to "cling to hope" apparently while you blithely ignore all that plasma and all those stars we just found.
Prove it. This is nothing more than a statement of faith. No other particles exist in the standard model.
No, they don't! Again, you just "made that up" because you refuse to accept any other answer! Standard theory has found all it's particles, and documented each and every single one of them. It works just fine, and it's passed all it's test with flying colors.
I'm certainly open to the idea that there *might* be forms of energy and matter that we are not yet aware of, but I'm certainly not emotionally or professionally invested in such a claim. If it turns out that such things *do show up in the lab*, I'll be interested. Waving at the sky claiming that your foursome of invisible (and impotent on Earth) sky entities did it, won't cut it.
You don't abide by the outcome of the *tests*, that's why! If you actually let your theories die a natural scientific death based upon those "tests", I'd be fine. Since you just make stuff up as you go, those "tests" are meaningless. You don't care about the outcome of those tests, even when they *falsify* your claim. You simply add a new invisible friends, the last time "dark energy", and "curvatons" this time apparently, and away you go making "new predictions" that aren't "predictions" at all. They are *postdictions* with four types of metaphysical magic. You fudge and fudge and fudge the numbers some more, and then *insist* that empirical physics fit the same exact data set, or you cling to your invisible set of friends.
It *isn't* right. That's why you keep having to add ad hoc entities to your claims every decade or two. The more time that goes by, the more invisible friends you need to make the math work. It's not *right*. It's never been *right*, and it's not *right* when you add make-believe "curvatons" to your math formulas.
What a bunch of hooey. First you try to ride the coattails of GR while stuffing it full of a menagerie of make-believe supernatural energy and matter. Now you're apparently trying to ride the coattails of QM without any demonstrated connection between any of your hypothetical particles and QM. Your entire spiel is pure nonsense.
You haven't even bothered to do the extensive testing that would be necessary to actually claim all this stuff about QM and inelastic scattering. You never actually did your homework in the lab. You simply *assumed* what you like.
First of all I'm not the only one that has noticed that you have problems with qualification. I'm also not alone in noticing that you keep "making up" new ad hoc entities whenever it suits you. I'm not the only one that is out there "persuading" others to abandon metaphysics. It's happening all over cyberspace, and it's happening right here too.
In terms of pure acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab), it's the "most appropriate" comparison I can make. Your "scientific hypothesis" requires "blind faith" in four invisible entities, three of which *cannot* even be tested in the lab. The other one already failed a bunch of lab tests, including it's "golden test". Talk about acts of faith!
Even compared to my "religion", it's not even contest in terms of which one is actually *empirically* justifiable in the lab. Inelastic scattering has a tangible effect on photons in the lab. EM fields are all over spacetime, and the *source* of those EM fields are charged particles, AKA *plasma*. Plasma physics is walking all over mainstream theory in terms of it's ability to make useful predictions. Every single *shred* of matter we've discovered over the past year is found in plasma and plasma makes up most of the universe.
So what? Appeal to authority much?
I did? When did I say that, or are you just lying to yourself (and everyone else) again? I've rarely met anyone so intent on "bearing false witness" against someone they don't really even know.
When it comes to debate, you don't actually "play tennis". What you do is whip out your shotgun and start blasting away at the individual across from you, while claiming/pretending that you're the "best tennis player in the world".
I really can't even remember a reasonably long post in which you didn't bear false witness or you didn't take cheap shots at the *individual*. Your debate ethics are horrific, and in fact *absent* from this discussion. You don't even debate in an ethical way, you keep lying about the individual in virtually every single post.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What a crock! No, you do *not* have any ability to determine the amount of "normal" matter from exotic matter *without* assuming a *host* of things about the universe that you simply cannot demonstrate! You can't even demonstrate that suns do not mass separate, particularly after convection turned out to be only one percent of predicted value. Even your *assumption* about the chemical makeup of suns and the universe is suspect. You simply *assume* what you want from the data, and cherry pick from the data whatever happens to suit you. When the data *doesn't* support your claims, you *make up* a new hypothetical entity as "ad hoc gap filler", or you ignore the fact that solar convection predictions were two orders of magnitude *off*.
You can make up those kinds of mythical matter stories in front of your naive and trusting students and they might actually buy that nonsense, but I know better.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I didn't. You made that up too.
The hilarious part of your claim that that not a single one of your four hypothetical entities enjoys a shred of empirical support on it's own. The only way that you can even make that ridiculous claim about what "shows up" in Planck data is by trying to rely upon an affirming a consequent fallacy *four different times in the very same theory*, and *only as a group* can you even provide any supposed "evidence" for any of them! Talk about basket cases of a theory. None of them show up in the Planck data. You're seeing what you wish to see, not what's actually there.
You mean besides the fact that you have no compelling evidence that suns do not mass separate, or that they are mostly made of hydrogen and helium?
So, "no", you don't actually expect to see it in your lifetime.
Strike two!
At what energy state can I expect to see them? How long before we see them in a real lab experiment? Will you commit to anything in terms of falsifying their existence?
LOL! They don't show up in the lab, they have no tangible effect on me today in any way that I can hope to actually measure, but you claim they are the "most important portion of the universe"? Wow. God is the most important thing in my life. You're mileage may vary of course, but your invisible deities are the single most impotent foursome of particles/energies I've ever *not seen*.
Explain to me why you're an atheist again? I'm really having a hard time understanding why you *assume* that four things exist, none of which you can demonstrate, yet you reject the one things that *does* actually seem to have a tangible effect on humans on Earth. Why is that?
I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that doesn't exist on Earth in great abundance and in a wide variety of forms. You however have relegated real "physics" (stuff that actually works in the lab) to a mere 5 percent of the your theory and *dropping* the by day. How much curvaton energy exists in nature now?
Honestly david, your "religion" just keeps getting weirder by the year. It's become so unbelievable at this point that it makes even most religions look 'reasonable' by comparison, and I'm not even a big fan of most "religions".
I can't even think of any religion that requires so many pure acts of faith in hypothetical entities. Most religions are limited to one, two, maybe even three. You've got four already and who knows what you'll add to the mix over the next 10 years?
Upvote
0
I missed something important about this statement earlier. You're actually *over* budget in terms of baryonic matter. We not only found more mass inside of plasma around our galaxy in 2012 than all the mass we knew about prior to 2012, that revelation is *in addition* to the fact that we *miscalculated* the number of small stars in a galaxy, the universe is twice as bright as we imagined, *and* black holes in the center of galaxies are heavier than we imagined. You're actually probably at something like 150% of budget if we doubled the mass of galaxies *and* we add in all that plasma that we found in 2012. You're definitely 100+ percent of baryonic budget at this point.
What a crock! Planck put tons of nails in the inflation coffin. You then rip open the coffin, stuff the coffin full of curvatons, and then you continue to rant on about your claim that inflation is still alive with the help of his new invisible supernatural sidekick.
You won't even abide by those "observational tests" that you set up. YOu won't allow your theory to actually rise or fall on value of it's predictions and the outcome of the data. Instead you keep moving the goal posts, ignoring every failed "prediction', adding new 'fudge factors' galore, and claiming to have some kind of 'knowledge' about the nature of the universe.
You're just making this up as you go, and nothing matters in terms of the data. Whatever *failures* you encounters are simply circumvented with more metaphysical kludges to the *religion* you've created, a *religion* that requires 4 separates acts of faith in the unseen (in the lab).
Even my concept of *God* requires no faith in anything that fails to show up in labs on Earth, and *God* is entirely *visible* IMO. Your goofy concepts about the universe actually require more blind leaps of faith in unseen entities than most religions, and most of your hypothetical entities aren't even *expected* to show up in the lab.
You are *definitely* the one that is 'cherry picking' and you're definitely moving the goal posts again. You won't limit yourself to just your three metaphysical friends, nor will you abide by the outcome of the "predictions" of inflation. If inflation won't do the trick, you just add some other mythical ad hoc particle into the mix that is custom designed to 'fix' the problem.
Like I said, Lambda-CDM isn't a form of "empirical physics", it's a pure act of faith on the part of the believer. It's utterly impossible to falsify, and it is patched together with no less than four metaphysical band-aids.
Upvote
0
I was curious as to the motivation behind the creation of this new mythical particle, so I went to the WIKI page on curvatons (pitiful by the way), and followed the references to the first paper they cited. The contents were quite revealing and they demonstrate the basic nature of the cherry picking/goal post moving that goes on in astronomy today:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0109214v3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0109214v3.pdf
So, apparently the data on the isocurvature anomaly that was verified by Planck was the *original motive* for 'fudging' the data in the first place! That failure to predict the correct layout was the original motive for creating this new hypothetical entity from the very start. This is direct physical evidence that even a *main observational objection* against the theory *cannot* ever be used and *was not* actually used to falsify Lambda-CDM theory. This whole attempt to "dance around' the falsification process demonstrates without a shadow of doubt that your *religion* is *unfalsifiable* by any logical means.
Upvote
0
Yep, the same motive appears in the second paper too:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0110002v2.pdf
Evidently it's far "too restrictive" to expect inflation hypotheses to rise and fall on their own "predictions", apparently because they actually already knew that they had a serious problem. Instead of letting inflation theory rise and fall on it's own merits and predictions, they *cheated* again, and simply 'made up" a new hypothetical force o f nature to work around the falsifying data. The falsification process is broken in astronomy. There is no experimental data to support any of your four mythical particles/energies by themselves, nor is there any way to falsify any claim because the claims are changed to fit the data, and more ad hoc entities keep getting stuffed into the theory to fit any observation necessary.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0110002v2.pdf
Evidently it's far "too restrictive" to expect inflation hypotheses to rise and fall on their own "predictions", apparently because they actually already knew that they had a serious problem. Instead of letting inflation theory rise and fall on it's own merits and predictions, they *cheated* again, and simply 'made up" a new hypothetical force o f nature to work around the falsifying data. The falsification process is broken in astronomy. There is no experimental data to support any of your four mythical particles/energies by themselves, nor is there any way to falsify any claim because the claims are changed to fit the data, and more ad hoc entities keep getting stuffed into the theory to fit any observation necessary.
Upvote
0
So in Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology the strong and weak forces and gravitation are electromagnetic - or is there a non-electromagnetic foundation for the fundamental forces of nature, only one of which happens to be electromagnetism?
I think you bizarrely proposed an "electromagnetic lambda", whatever that means, not so long ago. When you say "electric universe" it does rather imply that electromagnetism is the foundation of the universe - when mainstream theory actually says that it is just one of four main foundations.
It's proving difficult to actually work out what "electric universe" theory is, because there is so little that anything you say has to do with fundamental physics. How do you approach scalar fields in EU "theory"?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That IS an inflation hypothesis. It rises on its own consistency with observation, which, at present, is complete consistency. Why should it currently fall? Why, if slow roll inflation is inconsistent with hemispherical asymmetry, should a model that IS consistent with that asymmetry be discarded?
What part of discarding a theory entirely consistent with current observation is rational?
What data can you present against it, what observation is currently inconsistent with its model? Citations please and statistical methods shown.
Upvote
0
I think Chen's work is a good start. We'd need to be able to *control* the power (AC/DC), control the voltages and amperage, control the various densities and temperatures of the plasma and dust in the chamber, control the light sources, and we'd need to play with a wide variety of wavelengths and materials (like we find in space).
At least I can *dream up* a way to create real experiments with real control mechanisms, real wavelengths, and real detectors. You're not even capable of linking *any* of your invisible friends to *any* wavelength in *any* experiment.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
Sure. In that context, your "EM influence on humans" could be comparable to Neptune's gravitational effect on humans. Who cares? Is pantheism no more significant than astrology?
On second thought, you don't believe in astrology, do you?
As per the god helmet wiki page, strength, proximity, and complexity. And even then, it does not directly support your claim. Did you fully read that page?
In light of your equivocations, you can retract that.
Dismissed. That is a local phenomenon. The subject at hand is your "electric universe".
This is not disputed.
I have not seen evidence of this being a possibility, other than your "I see patterns" statements.
That is your opinion, not fact. Of course there is doubt.
Without the experiments to replicate this, it will remain so.
Go read what I wrote again. The statement was not made on my behalf.I would never have doubted your statement in the first place.
Yes, I have been to that section of the bookstore:
Is that the section you were wishing to be associated with?
The subject at hand is magnetic fields and your "electric universe", not current. Put those goalposts down.
So you have gone from 'definitely have' to 'might have' in your claim?
So much for your reliance on lab results.
Actually, I set the bar higher than the 'god helmet', based on the wiki page. However, that is all you seem to have at the moment.
So, you said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans", and brought in the subject of the god helmet. Not electrocution, or getting hit by lightening. As god helmets do not occur in nature, how did you establish that there is "no doubt" (your words) that an electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans, at the very least, of the type described in the god helmet wiki page?
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
These two were so short that I almost missed them, but I'll take them into consideration.
This one made it!
(This one was so close, were it not for that last paragraph)
I'm posting this but I'll add some more posts (in the correct order).
Michael, I hope you'll get why I'm doing this.
And I haven't forgotten to respond to your responses.
Edit: Added 13. This went back to, and included, page 89.
That's 19 posts, from four pages.
I did think about counting all "you" in your posts, since one would ideally skip that all, but I'll won't do more than state it. (Meta)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Why is the veracity of the (publicly edited) wikipedia article relevant to the case? Also, please point to the factual errors contained within said article. Citations please.
Well, not quite, WMAP hinted at it but it was still within the realms of statistical anomalies (or being explained by simple motion relative to the CMB). PLANCK showed that it wasn't statistical and couldn't be explained by foreground effects, so models that actually incorporate the hemispherical asymmetry came into the limelight and models that don't (such as slow-roll inflation) went back to the drawing board.
Yeah, when you find something that doesn't fit your model, you alter the model. What's odd about that? When we found that Mercury's orbit didn't fit Newton's theories, people went back to the drawing board and Einstein came up with the answer, a (major) modification to Newton's theories at certain scales. It didn't falsify Principia!
Because the model can be corrected! Lambda-CDM isn't a complete, single entity that can only come up for falsification once and then hit the trashcan! That's not how physics works.
Why, if one inflationary theory is inconsistent with observation, do all inflationary theories, regardless of what they say, have to pack up and go home? (That's a little like saying all Chechens should be put to death because a couple of them bombed Boston)
Why, if one SUSY theory is constrained, is another that is at present entirely consistent with observation (say MSSM-AKM) discarded in your book?
If I said to you - because Zwicky's model of tired light was falsified, all tired light theories are wrong forever more irrespective of what they say, you'd say "that's ridiculous"! And rightly so.
Ashmore's process of "new tired light" was exactly the same change to a previous theory as the process of altering the inflation model to match. He changed the model to see if he could. (It was not a tenable change and was mathematically barmy but hey, at least he recognizes the process and that modifying a theory is not "fudging" or "cheating" but "how physics works")
Curvaton inflation is simply not the same theory as slow roll inflation, and it is entirely consistent with current observations. If you want to falsify it, find data that is inconsistent with it and you're done, however - this does not falsify all inflationary theories. It does not de facto falsify any successor to curvaton inflation, should data be found inconsistent with curvaton inflationary models and people quite rationally try to modify those models to make them consistent.
You actually think if you find one piece of data that is inconsistent with one (or a few) inflationary theories, the entire field of inflationary theories, both future and past packs up and goes home? Are you nuts?
I can just imagine....
"There's no piece of data that's inconsistent with our theory, which perfectly describes the CMB data we just got in - but guys, the theory of those people over there doesn't quite fit the data, so we must be wrong too. What's that you say? Haven't they had a chance to modify their model to incorporate the new data? No, sorry, Michael has spoken, modifying a theory is not allowed. Whatever is the form of a theory first postulated, if you find a single bit of data inconsistent, that's the whole field gone, no matter what."
Einstein's relativity is, in essence a modification of Newton's theories of gravity. Slow roll inflation matches data to a point, but the new data it doesn't match, thus curvaton theories (that do match) are currently the strongest model.
If you find data that doesn't match curvaton models, people will try and work on updating their model to see if it can be improved. This is the steady improvement process of physics. It's how it works.
And regardless, even if there was a way to falsify the entire field of inflationary theories - the lot - in one fell swoop, that wouldn't help your theory at all, which is entirely inconsistent with the very well empirically tested field of quantum mechanics.
I noticed you still fail to answer the questions regarding:
a) spectra of Markarian 501 and 421 showing clear dips in the multi-TeV range, dips that would be impossible if gamma ray photons were travelling at anything less than C or photon travel time fluctuations were happening, and if you assume special relativity is correct (but with your recent support of Santilli, I guess you're happy to toss SR now?)
b) The PLANCK data contraining the baryonic matter % to 4.82% with an error margin of just 0.05%. You say untenable assumptions are made? Name them, in the context of that data and why they are untenable.
Note that simply saying "I don't like non-baryonic matter isn't enough". You have to show why that data doesn't demand non-baryonic matter, (whatever it is, which we don't yet know) and why it is consistent with an entirely baryonic matter (and energy) make up of the universe? Because it doesn't imply that all.
Do you even have an explanation of why the CMB has a black body spectrum in "EU/PC theory"?
You say that "sun mass separation", or the "chemical makeup of suns", whatever that is (do you mean stars?), somehow changes these numbers. Please demonstrate how, with citations. What are the details? How should "sun mass separation" alter the analysis of the CMB data from PLANCK, precisely? Please tell me. Prove it.
If you can't bother to answer any of my points with anything approaching real physics, I'm done talking to you. You talk a lot about "ethics" and "messengers" and "qualification" and "SUSY" and "inflation" and nothing about any details of anything to cover up for the fact that your knowledge extends to "whatever I can google".
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
