Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

[PsychoSarah]

Ya, you're right about that. Hmmmm.

I make my niche the middle ground, an atheist which would rather not be atheist but psychologically is unable to believe, who respects religion in general but will dislike certain debate tactics used by both sides of debates.

 

[Elendur]

I make my niche the middle ground, an atheist which would rather not be atheist but psychologically is unable to believe, who respects religion in general but will dislike certain debate tactics used by both sides of debates.

Same here. I'd love for some mystical things to exist (including god/-s), but believing isn't really a choice.

 

[Michael]

I make my niche the middle ground, an atheist which would rather not be atheist but psychologically is unable to believe, who respects religion in general but will dislike certain debate tactics used by both sides of debates.

Ya, I get along with you non militant types just fine. I completely understand actually.

 

[Michael]

Same here. I'd love for some mystical things to exist (including god/-s), but believing isn't really a choice.

You're more of a sticker for details, and bit pitbullish about it at times, whereas she's a little more "refined" about it (usually).

Of course you both have *way* more patience than I do.

 

[JGG]

Ya, I get along with you non militant types just fine. I completely understand actually.

Could you define militant atheist?

 

[Kylie]

Er, since everything I see and experience in the universe is part of my "pet idea" as you call it, and includes everything from astronomy to various areas of physics and religion, how exactly would you suggest I *completely* avoid it?

Besides, Dav asked, and I simply answered. That's my story anyway, and I'm sticking to it.

Honestly, I';m starting to think that we could talk about whether disposable nappies or cloth nappies are better for a newborn and you'd bring it around to plasma redshift...

 

[[serious]]

If the universe is infinite, why is the sky dark at night?

Because outside of a certain distance from any arbitrary point in the universe, light is redshifted beyond our ability to detect it.

 

[Elendur]

You're more of a sticker for details, and bit pitbullish about it at times, whereas she's a little more "refined" about it (usually).

Of course you both have *way* more patience than I do.

I spare my refinery for my studies (not really though )

But yay for details and patience

 

[Davian]

Dust and distance. It's not actually even dark on every wavelength, or "dark" on hardly *any* wavelength for that matter. The scattering effect depends on the wavelength and the materials in the ISM and IGM.

Dust and distance does not resolve Olbers' paradox.

 

[Michael]

Dust and distance does not resolve Olbers' paradox.

Of course it does. I'm also not adverse to an *expanding* universe, I simply lack belief that "space expansion' has anything at all to do with it. (You're they one hijacking the thread now.) Your turn to take the heat.

 

[Davian]

Because outside of a certain distance from any arbitrary point in the universe, light is redshifted beyond our ability to detect it.

Sure, but in a static/eternal/infinite universe the answer is not so simple.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

Sure, but in a static/eternal/infinite universe the answer is not so simple.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then it's called a 'CMBR'. You'll also see a similar result if you look at the universe is x-rays.

 

[[serious]]

Dust and distance does not resolve Olbers' paradox.

Is THAT what he's arguing?

The dust thing would work only if the average temperature of the universe was the same as the CBMR. This should be completely uniform in an infinitely old steady state system. It would not explain why experimental data shows changes in the CMB based on distance. The current model explains this well as the universe would be expected to be hotter further back in time and continually cooling with expansion.

 

[Michael]

Is THAT what he's arguing?

The dust thing would work only if the average temperature of the universe was the same as the CBMR.

Bingo! FYI, I'm also open to an expansion process related to *objects in motion*, just not space expansion.

This should be completely uniform in an infinitely old steady state system.

Not necessarily. Everything around us would have to be spaced almost exactly evenly for it to be uniform, and we couldn't be too close to any high emitting objects without filtering them out.

It would not explain why experimental data shows changes in the CMB based on distance.

Why would you assume the mass layouts and dust distributions are exactly the same in every direction?

The current model explains this well as the universe would be expected to be hotter further back in time and continually cooling with expansion.

I'm not sure why you think *that* is somehow superior to simply a mass distribution variation, but maybe you could explain it?

 

[Davian]

Is THAT what he's arguing?

The dust thing would work only if the average temperature of the universe was the same as the CBMR. This should be completely uniform in an infinitely old steady state system. It would not explain why experimental data shows changes in the CMB based on distance. The current model explains this well as the universe would be expected to be hotter further back in time and continually cooling with expansion.

I didn't expect to get anything more than some handwaving.

 

[Michael]

I didn't expect to get anything more than some handwaving.

Right. The mainstream can handwave in a half dozen supernatural constructs at you to get a 'fit' to that CMB and that's fine by you. Eddington did with nothing but scattering of starlight in the dust of spacetime, and that's somehow a "handwave".

 

[Davian]

I didn't expect to get anything more than some handwaving.

Right. <snip false dichotomy>

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right. The mainstream can handwave in a half dozen supernatural constructs at you to get a 'fit' to that CMB and that's fine by you. Eddington did with nothing but scattering of starlight in the dust of spacetime, and that's somehow a "handwave".

Inflexibility on your part to work with rather than against the absolute tsunami force of mainstream physics is your downfall.

 

[Michael]

Inflexibility on your part to work with rather than against the absolute tsunami force of mainstream physics is your downfall.

The problem from my perspective is that there is very little middle ground. A full 95 percent of their belief system relies upon ideas and beliefs that lack empirical support and that are threatened by EU/PC theory. Even their 'magnetic reconnection" theories related to solar physics go up in smoke according to Alfven. There isn't much middle ground to even work with. The only *useful* thing about their belief system is GR theory itself, but *without* all the supernatural extensions.

I don't even know where to look for middle ground in dealing with mainstream *astronomy*. Mainstream physics is a completely different issue actually. I have no beef with standard particle physic theory for instance. It's really just Lambda-CDM I have a beef with, but 95 percent of it is useless IMO.

If you've got some insights as to where and how I might make some strategy changes, I'm all ears.

 

[Michael]

You couldn't be more wrong. There was no false dichotomy involved. Eddington's calculations related to the temperature of dust is space are not a handwave and they do not evoke a half dozen supernatural constructs like the alternative.