Well, real derived examples at best![]()
You're right of course, but my point still stands. They're not even sure if it's actually an "energy" at all, yet they're running around calling it "dark energy" and claiming that "dark energy" makes up about 70 percent of the mass/energy of the universe. Like I said, "false advertizing".
Sorry, I'll try to be more careful and leave "you" out if it. It was a "hypothetical situation" that might involve you. ")If you mean you as in the general sense, then I'd agree fully (within reasonable bounds of "show anyhing").
If you mean you as in me, then I'd have to protest and state that I'm not claiming anything of the sorts.
Notice however that we can test all of our core assumptions in the lab and none of it involves "unseen" (in the lab) forces of nature? There's an empirical connection between cause->effect and observation.And that is a prime example of the power of conclusions from observations.
To 'observe' (a fundamental necessity in science) requires that we assume that the observer exists.Well I'll give you that it's a kind of evidence, however strictly speaking one can't really trust that evidence because you'd still, fundamentally, have to assume that you exist.
At least we seem to agree on something.I've yet to find a way around that. Of course, I haven't explored it so much since it feels as a reasonable assumption.
We could start with what we *do* know. For instance we know that electrical discharges emit gamma rays and release positrons. Lots of observations and published papers confirm that.It's an issue because I'm trying to keep the discussion at a level where we can sort out fundamental differences (and hopefully learn something on the way there).
It's obvious we have different knowledge of the issues we discuss and that we've got different opinions in 'high-level' issues.
Since I cannot spend enough time to take my knowledge to your level and then work from there I'd have to take the discussion down to a level where we can come to an agreement and then work our way upward to the point where we had the original issues (if we still remember it) or, at some point, agree to disagree.
I like to exemplify it by imagining two persons standing and getting ready to fence only to discover that they're standing on two completely separate mountains.
They can fence around all they want on each side, without any real use coming from it, or work their way down to common ground.
Do you have any evidence that exotic forms of matter exist or emit positrons?
From the standpoint of science, and Occum's razor, the "most likely" explanation for gamma ray emissions from space is what?
I'll try to get there with you. I won't guarantee you I'll ever 'defend' mainstream theory as you do, but I'll "try" to see things "neutrally" and stop picking on them, if you'll try to see things my way.Of course, it may seem unnecessary if one doesn't value the path to the goal as much as the goal (or even more, as I do)![]()
Which part of that statement don't you accept since the net result would be 'redshift'?If there occurs scattering in plasma and there is plasma in space then there occurs scattering in space.
Can you show me any galaxy at the highest redshifts that are completely devoid of any and all amount of scattering?However, to me there seems to be an obvious lack of amount of said scattering to explain the redshift due to lack of expected consequences.
I'll have to hear you justify the positron answer to get much further. I'll drop this point (and several below) until you have a chance to respond.I'd have to answer "I don't know".
Depending on how I divide that sentence and analyze each part I find things I agree with, things I disagree with and things I honestly, and quickly, can state that I don't know. All depending on definitions and base assumptions.
I think you do. You can peruse the data on positron emissions and electrical discharges on Earth as well as anyone.I don't think I possess enough knowledge of the matter to form an honest educated opinion. I don't even think I could start to evaluate most of the evidence before educating myself on several areas.
They do have a bearing on my life since my tax dollars are being wasted on this nonsense, and they keep making false public claims to support that waste. If they weren't spending my money, and they weren't being dishonest about *common* causes of these observations, I might be inclined to ignore them.Sure, it's a hassle to falsify things. But if they have no bearing on your life, do they need to be falsified?
Do most atheists do that before evangelically crusading against all forms of "religion"?I'd rather take an arduous road to inform myself and then properly state my opinion along with my reasons for doing so than to state my opinion and do a lot of research retroactively to inform others of what I haven't taken into account.
Our goals are apparently not that far apart. Our *perceptions* seem to be light years apart however. I can't for the life of me understand why you would publicly support Lambda-CDM and reject 'simple and demonstrated' alternatives like inelastic scattering events in plasma. Why would you support and accept metaphysical constructs like inflation and dark energy?Why I'd to that research retroactively is because I want my thought process to be as transparent as possible so that others, who'd take part of my opinion, would be helped in forming their own. Or, more importantly, point out the errors in my reasoning.
That's my ideal, for now. I have my goal and strive to accomplish as much of it as I possibly can.
Last edited:
Upvote
0