Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[Elendur]

To start of, do you want to lift out any of the following subjects from this discussion?
1. Lab requirement.
2. Source requirement.
3. Control requirement.
4. Faith.

That seemed rather non responsive to my point. My point was that *empirical physics* does a decent job of explaining the observations we have from space. The question is whether they are able to actually "explain' anything using all their supernatural constructs, all of which defy empirical support in terms of cause/effect justification. I don't see how their model is actually "superior" to ordinary empirical physical explanations of plasma behaviors.

I was not non-responsive, I was describing how one would need to go about to demonstrate that one model is superior over another. Just stating "this is more empirical than the other" gives nothing. I can't look at the data in question and confirm myself. How the heck does one compare "empirical-nes"?

The data available is already presented as numbers. Use that to your advantage, by showing through a norm that your preferred models is a better fit. Unless the reason you're not is that you're actually afraid that you'd show that's not the case, but in that case I'd justly call you biased and dishonest (which I'd rather avoid).

Not really, just "theoretical" physics. I can empirically demonstrate a cause/effect link between magnetic fields and moving charged particles for instance. I can name a number of items you could pick up in the store to demonstrate the effects for yourself.

I disagree. I can show an empirical cause/effect link in a lab between moving objects and redshift (and blueshift). I can demonstrate a cause effect link between photon redshift and inelastic scattering in plasma and dust too in the lab. I don't have to "take it on faith" that these physical processes are interrelated.

In terms of "space expansion" claims however, it's a "pure act of faith" on the part of the believer, and there is no way to *physically* demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between 'expanding space" and photon redshift, nor "contracting space" and photon blueshift.

Again, ditch mentioning the lab or extract to another thread. Also, we've been over the term faith as well, where I think we left off with me demonstrating how your usage of it devalues the term.

Now, regarding the actual content, you've missed my point. To clarify: We say that data is evidence of a hypothesis/theory because we would expect it (or at least a relative increase of occurrence) should the hypothesis/theory be true.

Demonstration:
1. If the given hypothesis/theory, named HT, is true, then we would observe the phenomenon P.
2. Therefore, per definition, P is evidence of HT.
3. We observe P.
4. Therefore HT is more likely to be true.

Or am I making a mistake in this structure, which is close to identical to the affirming the consequent fallacy?

I guess what I'm getting at is that as long as the presumed cause/effect mechanism can be demonstrated, its possible to *test* all of one's beliefs in controlled experimentation and make physical predictions like Birkeland based on what he *learned* from such experiments.

I reject that. One cannot test all of ones beliefs just with the help of a set of presumed cause/effect "mechanisms".

Everything related to mainstream theory is *postdicted* to make something fit a *known* data set. Guth for instance *knew* that the universe was relatively homogenous in terms of layout. He didn't actually *predict* it from experimentation with inflation in a lab. Likewise "dark energy' was an ad hoc postdicted fit to explain why their 'big bang' model failed another "test". The *postdicted* an ad hoc fit to a new data set to come up with dark energy.

How did he know that?
Also, again, ditch the lab. You know full well how that word devalues your arguments in my eyes and it serves no purpose to prompt me to point it out repeatedly.
I strongly suspect that your usage of "ad hoc" also leaves things to be desired, but that's not something I'd immediately jump on because it refers to knowledge I'm not privy to.

The mainstream doesn't really 'understand' dark energy (like where it comes from), or dark matter (like why it fails all their lab tests to date), so that alone would give me a reason according to your list here to *ignore* their claims entirely.

Again, source of phenomenon is irrelevant, this is also something we might lift to another thread. In response to this listed point, you're looking at the wrong meta level of the discussion. I'm not asking for examples of you not accepting a hypothesis/theory, I'm asking (implicitly) whether you would say that these points are sufficient as a method and/or whether they would result in an inconsistency. And if so, how.

I've waited plenty long enough already, and long enough to see it fail at least five lab tests, and 3 tests of their galaxy mass layout models that weren't worth the paper they were printed on when the came up with 'dark matter" in the first place.

Meh. It's not particularly self conflicted other than explaining why the whole thing didn't implode in the first second of the "bang". All that concentration of mass energy should have gravitationally crushed it instantly. I've never *really* heard a satisfactory explanation that wasn't purely ad/hoc in nature.

LHC, LUX, Pandax and those electron roundness "tests" all came up empty and conflicted with prior "tests" in some cases.

How do I falsify the claim that "space expands"?

See point above and my older response "I don't know, ask a physicist".

You personally, or everyone generally? If they fail all their 'predictions' at LUX and LHC, what exactly supports their claims in the first place? Certainly not those ridiculous galaxy mass estimation techniques since they've been falsified *repeatedly* over the past decade.

I personally of course, though I would argue that a majority of the population would also not have the level of abstraction and/or knowledge required to perform such a check.

Then atheism is necessarily without any merit whatsoever. The mere *report* of other interacting with "God" should suffice as *evidence of God* by your logic.

Please provide the explicit argumentation for that, preferable with as much detail as possible.

Empirical physics produces useful goods and services, whereas "dark energies" don't.

Now you've equated a bunch of things and bundled them together. I won't piece them apart for you, but I refer to the norm argument above.

I need to stop here for a moment. I'll see if I missed anything important as I get time today.

If there is anything of importance you've not yet addressed in my formed post, just add it in the response of this.

 

[mzungu]

It's certainly not surprising to me that you didn't read the empirical theory of God threads either.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Open a dictionary and look up the word Empirical. I don't blame you for lacking scientific erudition but when you play the all knowing scientist while dismissing the mainstream its too much.

 

[Michael]

Open a dictionary and look up the word Empirical. I don't blame you for lacking scientific erudition but when you play the all knowing scientist while dismissing the mainstream its too much.

Physicists Are Backing Away From the Biggest Discovery of This Century

First your heroes claimed to have found empirical evidence in the Bicep2 data sets of gravity waves, inflation, dark energy, space expansion, a surface of last scattering, and the metaphysical cosmic kitchen sink. They even claimed that the Bicep2 finding was "Nobel Prize worthy".

Now however it turns out that the emissions in question were caused by nothing more than a little dust near us. Oooops?

You folks don't have even the first clue what the term "empirical" means with respect to any of your cause/effect claims. You're peddling an affirming the consequent fallacy about supernatural constructs galore, and then *pretending* that it's some sort of "empirical evidence".

What a dusty crock!

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (4)"