Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

That IS an inflation hypothesis.

You're not limiting yourself to "inflation" anymore, you're trying to stuff it full of something called curvatons, yet *another* (now forth) ad hoc entity, just to keep one otherwise dead cosmology theory on life support.

It rises on its own consistency with observation, which, at present, is complete consistency.

No, inflation alone *wasn't* enough. Those authors all stuffed the process full of *another* particle! You've created an *entirely new metaphysical sidekick* to keep inflation theory from imploding under its own prediction set.

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?

You *should have* used those 'tests" to verify or falsify your *original* metaphysical claim, otherwise your theory isn't falsifiable at all! You didn't do that. You kludged your religion with yet another supernatural entity, of unknown origin.

What part of discarding a theory entirely consistent with current observation is rational?

The part where you added yet a *forth* supernatural construct.

What data can you present against it, what observation is currently inconsistent with its model? Citations please and statistical methods shown.

Holy cow. Already you expect me to "demonstrate a negative", right after you just got done making and 'ad hoc' modification to your theory that makes yet *another* leap of faith in invisible new particles that have never been seen in the lab! Wow!

So let's see if I understand the defense mechanism of this religion properly. Every observation that would actually be a 'falsification' of your theory simply results in the creation of yet *another* ad hoc entity. This ad hoc entity is then incorporated into the math to make a "perfect fit" with the data. The data is then held up as a 'great triumph' in terms of *verifying* a new BB theory, one that now requires *four* forms of metaphysical leaps of faith on the part of the believer.

Anyone who then publicly 'doubts' your *qualification* claims, is assaulted personally over their *quantification* skills, and you continue pretend that you don't have *any* qualification problems, let alone admitting to having four of them. Wow, just wow!

It's not possible to falsify your claim mathematically because you keep moving the mathematical goal posts, adding ad hoc entities when you feel like it, and modifying your growing menagerie of invisible friends at will to fit *any* and *every* observation possible.

It's not possible to falsify your theory in the lab either. Those failed SUSY experiments didn't mean anything at all to you. The other claims aren't even testable in the lab *by definition*!

In short, you've created a moving goalpost of a religion that now involves *four* supernatural constructs.

When your beliefs are empirically compared to my "religion", your 'scientific' quadruple "leap of faith" hypothesis is a complete and total joke on Earth, and it's a completely useless and utterly unfalsifiable belief system.

Are you sure you don't want to just change to a simpler religion? You can't even make any useful predictions in space that actually pan out correctly, nor can you make any predictions at all related to human beliefs with your theory. On the other hand, I can actually make predictions about human experiences of "God" in my cosmology theory, and I don't even have to make up or rely upon new forms of matter or energy. Even awareness shows up on Earth in a wide variety of forms.

Your cosmological belief systems is a completely metaphysical disaster IMO. I see nothing useful or good about it in fact. Even a basic EU/PC theory *without* panetheistic overtone would be a good choice for you. I frankly don't even see how you can defend that nonsense with a straight face, let alone with that attitude you're sporting.

 

[davidbilby]

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!

By the way, Michael, claiming that somebody "fudged" data means only one thing - you imply that somehow the PLANCK data says one thing, but that a scientist changed the data to something else. This is a very dangerous thing to say. This is a thing that if you said it in an actual scientific forum (I'm not thinking the internet, by the way) would, unless you could back it up, get you thrown out, and even prosecuted.

Since that is a direct accusation of fraud, one that is not tenable (unless you can point to the numbers in the PLANCK data set that differ from the number in any of those papers), claiming that "data was fudged" would be libel, and yes, you could (actually in the real world, unlike your hypothetical post title) be sued for that statement. So maybe...be a little more careful?

If one was benevolent, I'm sure what you meant to say was "fudged the model", but as I just pointed out - modification of models is the vary basis of physics and has been for centuries. When your model doesn't match, you try and alter it and see if you can make it match. Thats what we do!

 

[davidbilby]

This actually gave me belly laughs. Thanks for the entertainment.

I think Chen's work is a good start. We'd need to be able to *control* the power (AC/DC)

The power to what? The laser?? Why both AC and DC to whatever you're connecting to this AC and DC?

control the voltages and amperage

of what?

control the various densities and temperatures of the plasma and dust in the chamber

What chamber? How? The Chen paper was testing the AC stark effect in carbon nanotubes. Why would you not say "simulate a plasma like that of intergalactic space" in which case the obvious question arises...how do you do that on the planet Earth? Last time I checked, there wasn't a massive of amount of the Earth's gravitational field in intergalactic plasma...

control the light sources

How and what? What light sources? Produced by what? What do you mean by "control"? Do you mean give them an on and off switch? Use a 60W instead of a 40W bulb?

and we'd need to play with a wide variety of wavelengths and materials (like we find in space).

Like what?

At least I can *dream up* a way to create real experiments with real control mechanisms, real wavelengths, and real detectors.

As opposed to fake wavelengths and fake detectors? Which detectors? What wavelengths? What control mechanisms?

All you've essentially proposed is:

"we could shine a light on some stuff in a box, maybe all kinds of stuff, not sure what - maybe plasma, though I can't tell you what kind of plasma and what would generate it, and connect some electricity to it, I don't know where or what or why or how. We'd "control" it, though I have no earthly idea what I mean by "control"."

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

 

[davidbilby]

You're not limiting yourself to "inflation" anymore, you're trying to stuff it full of something called curvatons, yet *another* (now forth) ad hoc entity, just to keep one otherwise dead cosmology theory on life support.

I think this post marks the fourth time you've spelled "fourth" wrong.

No, inflation alone *wasn't* enough. Those authors all stuffed the process full of *another* particle!

Actually it's more like a scalar field approach, just like the Higgs field, the particle is spin zero. And "stuffing" is an interesting mathematical term that I've not seen much on Arxiv. Care to define? Is this part of Riemannian geometry with which I'm not familiar?

You've created an *entirely new metaphysical sidekick* to keep inflation theory from imploding under its own prediction set.

No, it's a different inflation theory. It just happens to involve inflation, but unlikely slow roll inflation, it predicts that the curvaton scalar field eventually had more influence than the inflaton scalar field. (basically).

You *should have* used those 'tests" to verify or falsify your *original* metaphysical claim.

No, you use new data to update your model...in real physics. Only if a model is entirely irreconcilable, such that no modification could ever make it fit, would it be abandoned.

You don't total your car when a bird poops on it.

otherwise your theory isn't falsifiable at all!

Entire fields do not fall because one idea in one of them doesn't prove to be correct, just like oak trees do not fall down when you pull a leaf off. Why do you think they do?

You didn't do that. You kludged your religion with yet another supernatural entity, of unknown origin.

Here's Michael in a math exam. (yeah, I'm torturing the messenger now).

2+2 = why, how dare you make my metaphysically kludge my quantification problem into a religiously qualified panentheistic word salad! Oy vey.

The part where you added yet a *forth* supernatural construct.

Five times! With asterisks! Pedantry is fun.

Holy cow. Already you expect me to "demonstrate a negative"

No, I'm asking you to point to data that is inconsistent with any particular curvaton model. You're saying that it exists. I'm asking you to show me. If you think that's demonstrating a negative, then you just admitted that curvaton models are consistent (because there is no data that you can demonstrate that is negative towards them). Thanks. I'm right.

right after you just got done making and 'ad hoc' modification to your theory

An ad hoc modification would be one made without data which spurs on that modification - an arbitrary modification without motivation.

Since PLANCK and WMAP data, as you yourself pointed out, led to the modification of these theories, they're not ad hoc by your own admission!

Wow! (in your words)

that makes yet *another* leap of faith in invisible new particles that have never been seen in the lab! Wow!

Wow! That's what just about every particle physics hypothesis has done! We theorized top quarks! Then found them! Wow! We theorize particles...then hunt for them! Wow! Wow! Wow!

Wow! Oy vey.

So let's see if I understand the defense mechanism of this religion properly. Every observation that would actually be a 'falsification' of your theory simply results in the creation of yet *another* ad hoc entity.

No, any observation that is inconsistent with the model leads people to try and alter the model. That is either

a) successful, leading to a new model

b) unsuccessful, whereby the model is irreconcilable with the data.

a) happens a lot. b) quite rarely, but occasionally. You are asking for a) to not exist and b) to be the only recourse. This is irrational.

This ad hoc entity is then incorporated into the math to make a "perfect fit" with the data.

Would be pretty stupid if it wasn't.

The data is then held up as a 'great triumph' in terms of *verifying* a new BB theory, one that now requires *four* forms of metaphysical leaps of faith on the part of the believer.

I love that you now think there are four pillars, dark energy, dark matter, inflation and the curvaton. Poor poor inflatons and gravitons, they feel so left out!

Anyone who then publicly 'doubts' your *qualification* claims, is assaulted personally over their *quantification* skills, and you continue pretend that you don't have *any* qualification problems, let alone admitting to having four of them. Wow, just wow!

Quantification, or as we like to call it in English, math.

It's not possible to falsify your theory in the lab either. Those failed SUSY experiments didn't mean anything at all to you. The other claims aren't even testable in the lab *by definition*!

They meant a lot. They meant basic MSSM has problems and MSSM_AKM, for example, doesn't. Can you name me a single difference between those two, by any chance, to demonstrate even a passing understanding of SUSY?

Er...what do you think the next run of LHC is doing, baking bread? There's quite a number of SUSY particles that should potentially have decay signatures that would be visible on the next higher energy levels.

I cut the rest of the twaddle, it's too irrational to respond to.

 

[classicalhero]

This is a statement from a website called cosmosology statement, since this is what it is about. http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, when you find something that doesn't fit your model, you alter the model. What's odd about that?

What's "odd" about it is the fact that you created a *new* supernatural construct! Is there any logical limit on how many supernatural constructs you'll put faith in before you reject an idea? How could you possibly have the audacity to reject all concepts of God, yet put faith in four metaphysical constructs all packed into *one* "hypothesis"?

Because the model can be corrected!

Only with new "magic"! You didn't "correct" your theory, you added a whole new supernatural construct to your growing list of *qualification* problems. Now you cannot link inflation, dark energy *or* curvatons to photon redshift in any lab on Earth, but you expect me to believe you that they all exist and all have the effect on photons that you claim they have.

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.

In the case of astronomy, *physics* isn't working at all. You've effectively created a "supernatural' religion that requires no less than four "supernatural" entities. I must have 'faith' that they exist(ed) in nature, because they don't show up in real experimentation on Earth. I also can't falsify your metaphysical claims because you keep adding metaphysical gap filler in a purely ad hoc manner in an effort to *avoid falsification*! It's a moving metaphysical goalpost, with an ever growing list of metaphysical entities.

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?

If they all predicted something that turned out not to be true, why should I let you start kludging them up with *new* supernatural claims?

Why, if one SUSY theory is constrained, is another that is at present entirely consistent with observation (say MSSM-AKM) discarded in your book?

The term "constrained" is your euphemistic term for "falsification'. You refuse to accept that all the "popular" brands of SUSY theory were already falsified. You're now peddling a SUSY theory of the gaps argument.

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.

But that's just it. You're essentially doing exactly that over a couple of experiments and a based upon *Compton* scattering implications, not based on an extensive testing of all inelastic scattering methods in a wide variety of conditions.

Curvaton inflation is simply not the same theory as slow roll inflation, and it is entirely consistent with current observations.

Curvaton inflation isn't just inflation, it's inflation with another supernatural sidekick and yet *another* hypothetical ad hoc element.

Your "new and improved" brand of metaphysics absolutely *has* to be entirely consistent with observation because your supernatural sidekick was *invented* with that express intent and purpose! It cannot "not fit" the current data anymore than your original supernatural claims about inflation could "not fit" with the observations that they were designed to fit. The only observations they might *not* fit are *future* observations, and you've already demonstrated that a *falsification* of metaphysics is impossible since you can continue to add metaphysical constructs every time the old stuff fails!

If you want to falsify it, find data that is inconsistent with it and you're done,

I just did that for you! You didn't let your theory die a natural death, you cheated instead. You "made up" and simply added a *new* supernatural construct and you refused to accept falsification. You simply moved the goal posts again.

however - this does not falsify all inflationary theories.

Which inflation theory *alone* actually work *without* adding a new ad hoc supernatural sidekick?

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.

Right, because if it every does fail any 'test', it will morph into an "inflation/curvaton/ad hoc construct #5" model and the supernatural constructs will just increase again! You did it with "dark energy". You're doing it again with 'curvatons', and you'll do it again till the day you die apparently. There's no way to falsify an infinite number of possible supernatural constructs. Your cosmology beliefs are therefore unfalsifiable.

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?

You actually think it's "ok" to simply compound one supernatural claim with another with another with another? Are you nuts? Why exactly did you reject God concepts again?

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."

You aren't just modifying your beliefs based upon *current* physics. You're 'making up physics' to fit with your preconceived ideas. When physics fails to offer an explanation you like, you simply "make one up" to suit yourself!

The religious flipside of that argument would be me making a bunch of predictions/claims about cosmology based on "god1+god2+god3+5 percent token physics explains everything we see. You then demonstrate to me that my theory doesn't work right so I change my theory to read "god1+god2+god3+god4+five percent token physics explains everything I see', therefore I *must* be right! Sheesh.

Einstein's relativity is, in essence a modification of Newton's theories of gravity.

The difference is that gravity shows up on Earth, and Einstein just tinkered with the math a bit. Your stuff doesn't show up in the lab and you won't accept the outcome of uncontrolled "tests". You just add new ad hoc junk and keep going.

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.

In other words inflation makes actual 'testable predictions', the outcome of which you simply refuse to abide by in terms of allowing you theory to be 'falsified'.

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.

Sorry, but simply adding metaphysical constructs isn't "steady improvement", it's "steady descent into metaphysical garbage'. Now you have *four* extraordinary claims, none of which have been *qualified* in any way shape or form.

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.

Again, your statement of knowledge is not actually knowledge at all. You're just making this stuff up as you go since you never *tested* anything. You simply hold up 6 lines of overly simplistic math and you refuse to actually do any exhaustive testing.

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,

So what? Eventually I would expect a high enough energy photon to simply get *absorbed/partially absorbed* by the *whole medium*, not just interact with a few other photons. I still see no logical correlation between one and the other unless you make a *huge number of assumptions* about the influence of the medium on the photons themselves.

The only thing I asked you about Santilli, was how one might go about verifying or falsifying his redshift claims in a way that *you* would approve of. No, I'm not tossing out SR or GR, just your metaphysically kludged "blunder" theory.

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.

How about starting with demonstrating that suns do not mass separate, and how that "mixing of elements" in the upper solar atmosphere is even possible now that convection is known to be 2 orders of magnetic *slower* than predicted? You can't even be sure that sun are mostly composed of h hydrogen and helium, you *assume* that it's true.

You're also over budget at this point. You were only missing half of the baryons 5 years ago. Since then you've found *more than twice* what you started with! More plasma would found around our galaxy than exist in the rest of the stars in the galaxy. Galaxies are actually twice as bright and contain four times as many small stars as we predicted. Not a single ounce of the matter we've "found" in the past 5 years is anything other than baryonic material in fact.

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,

Burden shift much? I have to to *disprove* your claims now? You have never demonstrated that the data 'demands' anything. The only thing the data does is give us data. You're the one 'demanding' that that the universe *must* be composed of exotic forms of matter but you've never demonstrated why that's the case. Apparently you expect me to simply "believe" a whole host of claims related to solar physics, creation claims related to matter being created by exotic kinds of energy, etc.

(whatever it is, which we don't yet know) and why it is consistent with an
Do you even have an explanation of why the CMB has a black body spectrum in "EU/PC theory"?

I don't even need one to reject your hypothesis.

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.

I'll be happy to do that once you explain how you "decided" that exotic matter *must necessarily* (demands) exist. As far as I can tell, the only cosmology hypothesis that "demands" any such thing is *your own* hypothesis.

What are the details? How should "sun mass separation" alter the analysis of the CMB data from PLANCK, precisely? Please tell me. Prove it.

First you'll have to prove (or at least explain) to me why you think that nature "demands" the existence of exotic matter. Then I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong.

If you can't bother to answer any of my points with anything approaching real physics, I'm done talking to you.

What "real" physics are you offering me? You've handed me about 5 percent token physics, mixed in now with *four* other kinds of supernatural constructs. That's not "physics" IMO, that's myth-making with multiple supernatural constructs.

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".

And of course your highly emotional, far below the belt debate tactics rear their ugly head again. Your debate tactics are an embarrassment to physics and atheism IMO.

 

[Michael]

This is a statement from a website called cosmosology statement, since this is what it is about. cosmologystatement.org

It's been kludged up again now with curvatons apparently.

 

[Michael]

This actually gave me belly laughs. Thanks for the entertainment.
....
And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

And you wonder why a growing number of people don't take your industry seriously anymore? Even when I handed you the basics of an experiment that *you* asked for, you immediately ridiculed the idea, attacked the individual, and dismissed the idea out of hand *without* lifting a finger to actually run any real experiments.

Oy Vey! You folks are apparently allergic to empirical physics.

 

[Davian]

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)

Yes, I meant to compliment Michael on finally responding to one my posts without any mad swings at mainstream theory ("This one made it!"), but then, he fell right back into it the next post.

 

[Michael]

By the way, Michael, claiming that somebody "fudged" data means only one thing - you imply that somehow the PLANCK data says one thing, but that a scientist changed the data to something else.

What are you talking about? I didn't accuse anyone of changing the Planck data, I accused you of irrationally adding yet another new supernatural construct just to fit the data, instead of allowing that very same data set to verify or falsify your original supernatural claim. You won't allow inflation theory to be falsified based upon a falsified prediction, instead you add additional supernatural entities to 'save' it from falsification.

This is a very dangerous thing to say.

It's a good thing that *I* didn't say it!

 

[Michael]

Yes, I meant to compliment Michael on finally responding to one my posts without any mad swings at mainstream theory ("This one made it!"), but then, he fell right back into it the next post.

Apparently you keep posting to the wrong thread and you keep blaming me for it.

 

[Michael]

By the way, Michael, claiming that somebody "fudged" data means only one thing - you imply that somehow the PLANCK data says one thing, but that a scientist changed the data to something else.

....
If one was benevolent, I'm sure what you meant to say was "fudged the model", but as I just pointed out - modification of models is the vary basis of physics and has been for centuries. When your model doesn't match, you try and alter it and see if you can make it match. Thats what we do!

After rereading the single sentence in question, you're right that the one sentence in question was sloppy and it *could be* taken out of context. I think I've been pretty clear actually, but you're right, they are fudging the model, not the data.

 

[Michael]

I'm actually blown away.

I must admit david that I'm actually blown away to hear an intelligent guy supporting a *forth* supernatural construct. I'm really curious to know if there is any actual limit on how many 'leaps of faith' that you're willing to take in unseen particles/energy before you'll just call it quits? We're up to four already! If uncontrolled observation cannot be used to ever actually falsify the inflation hypothesis, what possibly can?

 

[Michael]

So......

Apparently when the supernova data set "should have" actually falsified an expansion interpretation of photon redshift, instead we got "dark energy" as BB "gap filler".

Now when inflation claims "should have" been falsified by the Planck data set, instead of allowing inflation to be falsified based upon it's falsified predictions, you want to convince me that 'curvatons and inflation did it' instead? Really?

Do you have *any* idea how outrageous that *new* extraordinary claim sounds to someone that's already a "skeptic"? I lacked belief in your first three metaphysical claims due to your lack of empirical support, and now you actually expect me to "have faith" in yet another new supernatural form of metaphysics? All I can say is 'Wow'.

 

[Davian]

Apparently you keep posting to the wrong thread and you keep blaming me for it.

Where did I do that?

I am simply posting in the thread in which you are making the claims. As I said earlier, you are free to move it if you like. Retract your claim if you like.

 

[Michael]

Sure. In that context, your "EM influence on humans" could be comparable to Neptune's gravitational effect on humans. Who cares?

Er, no. Whereas lightning strikes and electrocution kill humans every single year, Neptune's movements through spacetime do not. What a strange comparison from my perspective.

Is pantheism no more significant than astrology?
On second thought, you don't believe in astrology, do you?

Er, no. I have about as much respect for astrology and numerology as I have for what passes for 'astronomy' today, in other words none.

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?

You still have yet to explain why you expect *more* from me than from anyone else. I already showed you that even magnetic fields can and do have an influence on human thought, and I've pointed out that nature creates *even more powerful* fields than those produced in such experiments. Again, all that is required is a *documented influence*.

Dismissed. That is a local phenomenon. The subject at hand is your "electric universe".

What? So what if it's a "local" phenomenon? Aurora are also a "local" phenomenon, but they are a direct result of solar wind.

I have not seen evidence of this being a possibility, other than your "I see patterns" statements.

String theory may limit space brain threat - physics-math - 22 May 2013 - New Scientist

Even physics acknowledges the possibility of cosmological scale "brains". Apparently only string theory can save us from them in fact.

That is your opinion, not fact. Of course there is doubt.

Without the experiments to replicate this, it will remain so.

You need to get your objections straight IMO. The 'doubt' that you apparently hold doesn't actually relate to a doubt that electrical shocks and magnetic fields have a real effect on humans. Your doubt apparently relates to whether or not the universe *consciously interacts* with humans. The universe does strike humans dead on a regular basis, so my *original* claim is valid. You're no longer talking about my original claim, but something completely different.

Go read what I wrote again. The statement was not made on my behalf.

Either way, hammers are real and have a real effect on real human tissue, including brain tissue.

The subject at hand is magnetic fields and your "electric universe", not current. Put those goalposts down.

Again, you keep trying to 'dumb down" *electro*magnetism to simply "magnetism", apparently trying to get magnetism without an actual source of magnetism. You can't do that! It wouldn't matter anyway in terms of my original claim (not yours) since both current *and* magnetic fields have an effect on humans, not just one or the other.

So you have gone from 'definitely have' to 'might have' in your claim?

Actually no. Our universe is *electro*magnetic in nature, and it *does have* a direct empirical effect on humans on Earth, including all those who die every year from lightning strikes. There's no doubt about the electromagnetic nature of spacetime, and no doubt that it has a physical effect on humans. The only thing that might be 'debatable" is whether or not it does so *consciously*, not *if* it happens.

So much for your reliance on lab results.

Not at all. I consider my own meditations as a type of 'lab result' and I can even dream up *purely empirical ways* of testing the concept.

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.

I don't need to provide you with 'more' evidence of EM field effects on humans, you need to clarify your objection. You want *experimental evidence of *conscious* interaction* between the universe and humans, you're not actually claiming that EM fields have no effect on humans.

So, you said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans",

Note what *I* actually claimed.

and brought in the subject of the god helmet. Not electrocution, or getting hit by lightening.

These are *examples* of humans being affect by EM fields.

As god helmets do not occur in nature,

Whole *brains*, complete with internal EM field, *do* occur in nature! Nature produces *larger* fields than god helmets.

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?

You're still missing the point. The universe *is* electromagnetic in nature since it's 98+ percent "plasma". It definite *does* have an empirical effect on humans, including light, heat, and EM fields galore. You cannot deny that the physical universe exists, includes EM fields and has a tangible effect on humans. You can only "debate" whether or not it does these things consciously or not. The rest isn't even debatable in terms of pure physics.

 

[Michael]

Michael, I hope you'll get why I'm doing this.

I do. I'll try to tone it down.

I must say however that it's a tad disconcerting that "prediction" and uncontrolled observation is not actually being used to falsify these various hypothetical entities. Instead of falsifying inflation theory based on the Planck data, the mainstream simply adds new hypothetical items to the mix to get the "fit" that they want, and the hypothetical entities just keep multiplying. How then is it actually possible to falsify inflation theory?

Note that that this new desire to stuff curvatons into Lambda-CDM represents the *second* time in just two decades that the mainstream has quite literally "created" a new ad hoc hypothetical entity to 'fix' a failed prediction in one cosmology hypothesis, rather than allow that failed prediction to falsify the previous hypothetical entities, and predictions based upon those entities. Dark energy was the previous "ad hoc" entity that was created to avoid any attempt at "falsifying" the mainstream BB model based upon uncontrolled observation. The curvaton is just the *latest* example of this "fix the hypothesis at any cost" mentality. If there isn't a way to actually falsify inflation based upon uncontrolled observation, how can it even be considered a "scientific" hypothesis?

Likewise I'm more than a tad bothered by the fact that few if any actual controlled experiments have been conducted on inelastic scattering in plasma in various laboratory conditions.

It's also noteworthy that a lot of 'missing mass' has been found in the past few years, all of very "normal" matter, and some of it located exactly where "dark matter" is supposed to be located. Again, from the outside looking in, it appears that very little, in fact *nothing* has been done to update galaxy rotation models based upon recent (last five years) revelations of the amount of plasma around galaxies, and the number of stars in galaxies, and the loss of light from galaxies that is much greater than we imagined. I certainly don't see anything remotely like an attempt to minimize the need for exotic matter based upon recent data.

Between these various behaviors, it's unlikely that any Lambda-CDM model could ever actually be falsified. How then can it actually be called a form of 'science' if there is no logical way to falsify a belief system built upon four 4 hypothetical entities, not one of which has a defined source?

 

[Michael]

So, you said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans",......

Without the experiments to replicate this, it will remain so.

FYI Dav, I respectfully suggest that you're barking up the wrong tree.

If I had said something like "A dark energy universe would definitely be able to have a physical influence on humans", your objection would have merit. No "source" of dark energy has ever been defined. No control mechanism of dark energy is defined. No "experiment" has ever shown "dark energy" to have any tangible effect on a human being, or anything else for that matter.

Likewise if I had said that "A 'curvaton' universe would definitely have some physical effect on human beings", your objection would also be warranted. Ditto for claims about inflation and exotic matter. None of these things have actually been shown to exist in nature. No source can be defined for any of them. No control mechanism has been defined for any of them. There are no experiments with these things, nor could there be any actual experiments with these things without defining a source and control mechanism.

Your objection to *my* statement however is *not* warranted because EM fields *have been* shown to exist in nature. They have a defined source (charged particles). They *do* show up in laboratory experiments. They *have* been shown to have a direct effect on humans in many experiments.

Notice that in the sentence you objected to, I didn't even technically assign *awareness* to that 'electric universe'. I simply said that an electric universe could have a physical effect on humans. Since "real experiments" have demonstrated this possibility in many ways, and I didn't even ascribe awareness to that 'electric universe', your objection is illogical IMO. There is *plenty* of evidence that EM fields do have tangible physical effects on real things in real experiments, including having an effect on humans.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

What you *really* want( are asking for I think) is A) evidence that the universe is actually "aware", and B) evidence that it *consciously* interacts with humans. These are the kinds of things that could only be demonstrated in relatively expensive experiments. That isn't however what I originally claimed in that particular sentence.

 

[Davian]

Er, no. Whereas lightning strikes and electrocution kill humans every single year, Neptune's movements through spacetime do not. What a strange comparison from my perspective.

Indeed, in light of your equivocation. Show me a coroner's report that details how a golfer was "influenced" by lightning while on that golf course in Florida.

Er, no. I have about as much respect for astrology and numerology as I have for what passes for 'astronomy' today, in other words none.

So, is pantheism less significant than astrology? Shall we take a trip back to the bookstore?

You still have yet to explain why you expect *more* from me than from anyone else.

Don't make this about others. Your claims must stand or fall on their own merit.

I already showed you that even magnetic fields can and do have an influence on human thought, and I've pointed out that nature creates *even more powerful* fields than those produced in such experiments. Again, all that is required is a *documented influence*.

A *documented influence* that you lack. No one sticks their head into a solar flare.

What? So what if it's a "local" phenomenon? Aurora are also a "local" phenomenon, but they are a direct result of solar wind.

More equivocation. The subject was your "electric universe" and "EM fields", and you are moving to lightning and electrocution. I have called you on that already.

url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829184.400-string-theory-may-limit-space-brain-threat.html]String theory may limit space brain threat - physics-math - 22 May 2013 - New Scientist[/url]

Even physics acknowledges the possibility of cosmological scale "brains". Apparently only string theory can save us from them in fact.

And if you walk into a wall, physics will state that there is a chance (albeit extremely small) that you may walk right through it, given enough tries (trillions on trillions).

Do you just throw everything against the wall and see what sticks?

You need to get your objections straight IMO. The 'doubt' that you apparently hold doesn't actually relate to a doubt that electrical shocks and magnetic fields have a real effect on humans. Your doubt apparently relates to whether or not the universe *consciously interacts* with humans.

No, do not put words in my mouth.

What I doubt is the existence of a magnetic field produced by your 'electric universe' that might have an effect on the human brain that would produce, at the very least, effects such as those seen with the god helmet.

The universe does strike humans dead on a regular basis, so my *original* claim is valid. You're no longer talking about my original claim, but something completely different.

In light of your equivocations, you can retract that.

Either way, hammers are real and have a real effect on real human tissue, including brain tissue.

Again, you keep trying to 'dumb down" *electro*magnetism to simply "magnetism", apparently trying to get magnetism without an actual source of magnetism. You can't do that!

Actually, *you* did it, when you brought in the effects of the god helmet.

It would appear that this equivocation schtick is an attempt to dig yourself out of that hole.

It wouldn't matter anyway in terms of my original claim (not yours) since both current *and* magnetic fields have an effect on humans, not just one or the other.

In light of your equivocations, your comments on current are irrelevant.

Actually no. Our universe is *electro*magnetic in nature, and it *does have* a direct empirical effect on humans on Earth, including all those who die every year from lightning strikes.

Enough with the equivocation. We are not talking about lightning, unless you are claiming that your pantheist god is "throwing down bolts from on high".

There's no doubt about the electromagnetic nature of spacetime, and no doubt that it has a physical effect on humans. The only thing that might be 'debatable" is whether or not it does so *consciously*, not *if* it happens.

No, that your "electric universe" is conscious *another* thing that is debatable, given the absence of evidence for it.

Not at all. I consider my own meditations as a type of 'lab result' and I can even dream up *purely empirical ways* of testing the concept.

Do not insult my intelligence. You call that "lab results"? Are we done here?

I don't need to provide you with 'more' evidence of EM field effects on humans, you need to clarify your objection. You want *experimental evidence of *conscious* interaction* between the universe and humans, you're not actually claiming that EM fields have no effect on humans.

No, more like, experimental evidence for a *mechanism* for interaction between your "electric universe" and humans.

This will need to be much more than "solar flares" and "lightning".

Note what *I* actually claimed.

Yes, and I am aware of the context in which you made it.

These are *examples* of humans being affect by EM fields.

This is an example of your equivocation.

Whole *brains*, complete with internal EM field, *do* occur in nature! Nature produces *larger* fields than god helmets.

Read the wiki. The EM fields in question are about strength, proximity, AND complexity.

You're still missing the point. The universe *is* electromagnetic in nature since it's 98+ percent "plasma". It definite *does* have an empirical effect on humans, including light, heat, and EM fields galore. You cannot deny that the physical universe exists, includes EM fields and has a tangible effect on humans. You can only "debate" whether or not it does these things consciously or not. The rest isn't even debatable in terms of pure physics.

That's not what I am taking about.

FYI Dav, I respectfully suggest that you're barking up the wrong tree.

If I had said something like "A dark energy universe would definitely be able to have a physical influence on humans", your objection would have merit. No "source" of dark energy has ever been defined. No control mechanism of dark energy is defined. No "experiment" has ever shown "dark energy" to have any tangible effect on a human being, or anything else for that matter.

Likewise if I had said that "A 'curvaton' universe would definitely have some physical effect on human beings", your objection would also be warranted. Ditto for claims about inflation and exotic matter. None of these things have actually been shown to exist in nature. No source can be defined for any of them. No control mechanism has been defined for any of them. There are no experiments with these things, nor could there be any actual experiments with these things without defining a source and control mechanism.

Your objection to *my* statement however is *not* warranted because EM fields *have been* shown to exist in nature. They have a defined source (charged particles). They *do* show up in laboratory experiments. They *have* been shown to have a direct effect on humans in many experiments.

Notice that in the sentence you objected to, I didn't even technically assign *awareness* to that 'electric universe'. I simply said that an electric universe could have a physical effect on humans. Since "real experiments" have demonstrated this possibility in many ways, and I didn't even ascribe awareness to that 'electric universe', your objection is illogical IMO. There is *plenty* of evidence that EM fields do have tangible physical effects on real things in real experiments, including having an effect on humans.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

What you *really* want( are asking for I think) is A) evidence that the universe is actually "aware", and B) evidence that it *consciously* interacts with humans. These are the kinds of things that could only be demonstrated in relatively expensive experiments. That isn't however what I originally claimed in that particular sentence.

You are reading too much into what I am saying.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans", in the context of the effects seen by the god helmet. "Definitely", by the dictionary, would be "without doubt". That implies robust, scientific, experimental support.

Now, if you would like to retract that context, and say that all you meant was "death by lightning", go for it.

The bottom line: Are we talking about a mechanism that would lead to support for pantheism, or "electricity would definitely be able to electrocute humans"?

 

[Elendur]

I do. I'll try to tone it down.

I must say however that it's a tad disconcerting that "prediction" and uncontrolled observation is not actually being used to falsify these various hypothetical entities. Instead of falsifying inflation theory based on the Planck data, the mainstream simply adds new hypothetical items to the mix to get the "fit" that they want, and the hypothetical entities just keep multiplying. How then is it actually possible to falsify inflation theory?

Note that that this new desire to stuff curvatons into Lambda-CDM represents the *second* time in just two decades that the mainstream has quite literally "created" a new ad hoc hypothetical entity to 'fix' a failed prediction in one cosmology hypothesis, rather than allow that failed prediction to falsify the previous hypothetical entities, and predictions based upon those entities. Dark energy was the previous "ad hoc" entity that was created to avoid any attempt at "falsifying" the mainstream BB model based upon uncontrolled observation. The curvaton is just the *latest* example of this "fix the hypothesis at any cost" mentality. If there isn't a way to actually falsify inflation based upon uncontrolled observation, how can it even be considered a "scientific" hypothesis?

Likewise I'm more than a tad bothered by the fact that few if any actual controlled experiments have been conducted on inelastic scattering in plasma in various laboratory conditions.

It's also noteworthy that a lot of 'missing mass' has been found in the past few years, all of very "normal" matter, and some of it located exactly where "dark matter" is supposed to be located. Again, from the outside looking in, it appears that very little, in fact *nothing* has been done to update galaxy rotation models based upon recent (last five years) revelations of the amount of plasma around galaxies, and the number of stars in galaxies, and the loss of light from galaxies that is much greater than we imagined. I certainly don't see anything remotely like an attempt to minimize the need for exotic matter based upon recent data.

Between these various behaviors, it's unlikely that any Lambda-CDM model could ever actually be falsified. How then can it actually be called a form of 'science' if there is no logical way to falsify a belief system built upon four 4 hypothetical entities, not one of which has a defined source?

I think I can present a possible explanation of how I perceive it.

Say that the real model would be equivalent to the function:
f(x)=e^x
(And that's what our observations will mimic)

We inspect the function loosely in a broad spectrum.
This indicates that we don't observe any periodicity within our observation span.

We have knowledge about functions in the shape of x^n, for integers n>=0.

We observe carefully around x=0 and find that we have a bunch of values around 1, and thus produce the hypothetical function:
g(x)=1

We continue to observe in order to try to validate or falsify the hypothesis.
We observe the interval (-0.5,0.5) and it doesn't look good:

We try with:
g(x)=1+x

and get:

It's still not good enough so we try with:
g(x)=1+x+(x^2)/2

and get:

Now we're talking. So lets try to expand our search, to about (-1,1). That sounds good.

We get:

Ok. So it wasn't as good as we thought.

Lets try:
g(x)=1+x+(x^2)/2+(x^3)/6

we get:

now this is some really good stuff.

Someone wants us to try:
g(x)=2^x

Ok, lets see:

I'm sorry, the current one contains less errors. You'll have to try again.


How many hypotheses/theories were falsified?
Which one will ultimately be closer?
Which one is closer given the information we have now?
Do you think any of those six are spot on?


Edit:

Also, awesome that you'll tone it down it was becoming quite the annoyance. Thanks!