Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Tomk80]

So apparently if one doesn't accept the existence of dark energy, inflation, exotic matter, and requires empirical evidence, one is a troll?

If that was all you did, no. But again, you are pretending I said things that I did not, which seems to be a common feature with you.

The continuous harping on your ideas that you do, carrying your pet peaves into every topic where it is not relevant, together with the, let's go for terse, language you use whenever you write about that topic, and the fact that you conveniently, dishonestly and above all inconsistently ignore any and all evidence that doesn't fit your pet peeves makes you a troll.

How about going over to Cosmoquest and tell me what my great "sin" was for me? I never did figure that out. The excuse I got was absurd, but maybe you can pick out a couple of 'trollish' posts for me.

Given that I have seen your style in a couple of forums now:
The continuous harping on your ideas that you do, carrying your pet peaves into every topic where it is not relevant, together with the, let's go for terse, language you use whenever you write about that topic, and the fact that you conveniently, dishonestly and above all inconsistently ignore any and all evidence that doesn't fit your pet peeves makes you a troll.

 

[Michael]

Getting in a row on an internet forum doesn't mean anything.

True. That's why I published papers.

The ideas you wish to promote haven't been published.

Actually the ones I "wished" to promote have already been published. It was the treatment that I received on the public forums that turned me sour toward the mainstream.

Um, yeah, the internet is chock full of loony ideas. You are significantly overestimating the notice taken of scribbling in cyberspace.

If I had never published any papers, and I never 'made the rounds' in cyberspace, you might have a point.

Yes, they do.

Apparently I have only your word for that.

There is also a rather more likely reason why your ideas haven't caught on.

Yep. The mainstream hates EU/PC theory with a public passion. You can't even discuss the topic on Cosmoquest anymore. Even their draconian rule system about what ideas can be discussed and for how long demonstrates the irrational and *cult like* nature of astronomy today. It's outrageous.

Not everyone is a maverick genius with brilliant, revolutionary ideas, you know.

Yes, I know, and I haven't claimed to be a genius, nor is the cathode sun concept even mine to start with. Birkeland and Alfven were however in the realm of "genius" even if lowly ol me isn't. I don't even need to be all that smart to recognize a good idea when I see one.

They've never even heard of you.

I'm sure that's true for the vast majority of astronomers. Most of them *still* haven't a clue about Birkeland's work, Alfven's work, etc too. Their ignorance isn't my fault, and I"m not going to change their ignorance all by myself.

I think you are under a misapprehension that you are creating some sort of big noise on the internet. You aren't.

When did I even make such a claim? I've posted to various internet messages boards. Big deal. My website has probably been read by 200 times more people than all my website posts combined.

Well that's fair enough.

I'm just here enjoying myself here like everyone else. I happen to have favorite topics here like everyone else.

 

[Michael]

If that was all you did, no. But again, you are pretending I said things that I did not, which seems to be a common feature with you.

The continuous harping on your ideas that you do, carrying your pet peaves into every topic where it is not relevant, together with the, let's go for terse, language you use whenever you write about that topic, and the fact that you conveniently, dishonestly and above all inconsistently ignore any and all evidence that doesn't fit your pet peeves makes you a troll.

Dishonestly? Wow! Let's talk about 'dishonest claims'. The mainstream constantly dishonestly misrepresents plasma in spacetime as a "hot gas". They claim they "observe expansions" when all they *actually* observe is photon redshift. They make *zero* allowance for *any* kind of inelastic scattering in their models. Their galaxy mass estimates have been falsified three times in the past five years. Their solar model was falsified last year when their convection predictions were shown to be of by two full orders of magnitude last year. Planck shows a hemispheric difference in the data set that *should* falsify inflation theory once and for all if they were *honest* about it.

This "topic" is about naturalism on a "Christian' forum, and I'm probably one of the few "Christians" that posts there that believes in a completely *natural* God. Of course I'm attracted to the topic. Pardon me if that bothers an atheist on a Christian website.

Who doesn't ultimately 'harp' on a few of their favorite topics? I go through phases here. When I started about a decade ago, I discussed mostly theology. I spent some time debating YEC for awhile and got tired of it too. I've enjoyed astronomy since I was a kid and watched people walking on the moon. So what?

carrying your pet peaves into every topic where it is not relevant,

It's certainly relevant here, and probably to any topic that attempts to compare 'science' to 'religion'.

 

[Michael]

They banned you, did they?

For what reason?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yep. The mainstream hates EU/PC theory with a public passion. You can't even discuss the topic on Cosmoquest anymore. Even their draconian rule system about what ideas can be discussed and for how long demonstrates the irrational and *cult like* nature of astronomy today. It's outrageous.

You sound very aggrieved. It's just an internet forum. Looking at the Cosmoquest forum I see they have a thread giving reasons why people were banned that runs to 34 pages, so you're just another statistic over there, which may or may not be a consolation to you. I have to say, most forums in my experience don't go to the trouble of devoting a thread to explaining why members have been banned, they just ban them, so Cosmoquest at least looks as if it's trying to be transparent.

 

[Tomk80]

Dishonestly?

Yes, dishonestly.

<snipped large tu quoque fallacy>

This "topic" is about naturalism on a "Christian' forum, and I'm probably one of the few "Christians" that posts there that believes in a completely *natural* God. Of course I'm attracted to the topic. Pardon me if that bothers an atheist on a Christian website.

And more specifically, it is about the limits of naturalism. You can discuss that topic entirely without referring to cosmology in any way. And in fact, as others have pointed out, in some posts where you stated you agreement with Heissonnear, you were in fact completely disagreeing with him. But as I said earlier, you regularly put words in my mouth that I didn't say, so I'm not entirely surprised that you do this with others as well.

You could have addressed the topic without introducing any of your crackpot ideas. It was especially utterly and completely unnecessary to introduce your gripes with dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

Who doesn't ultimately 'harp' on a few of their favorite topics? I go through phases here. When I started about a decade ago, I discussed mostly theology. I spent some time debating YEC for awhile and got tired of it too. I've enjoyed astronomy since I was a kid and watched people walking on the moon. So what?

Most of the posters here do not introduce their favorite topics in every thread they post in. Instead, they stick to the topic. There are a few utter lunatics, like AV1611VET and dad who cannot help themselves and introduce their pet peeves in every thread they participate in. And then there is you.

It's certainly relevant here, and probably to any topic that attempts to compare 'science' to 'religion'.

Nope. You can address those topics perfectly without introducing your pet peeves. Quite frankly, the fact that you don't seem able to is pathetic.

 

[Michael]

You sound very aggrieved. It's just an internet forum.

I felt mistreated there, I'll say that much. I'm actually more bothered and disgusted by their draconian rule system more than I'm bothered by their treatment of any specific individual, myself included.

Looking at the Cosmoquest forum I see they have a thread giving reasons why people were banned that runs to 34 pages, so you're just another statistic over there,

Yep. Just another EU/PC "crackpot' in their book. You can't even discuss that topic there in fact without it turning into a personal witch hunt.

which may or may not be a consolation to you. I have to say, most forums in my experience don't go to the trouble of devoting a thread to explaining why members have been banned, they just ban them, so Cosmoquest at least looks as if it's trying to be transparent.

Oh for crying out loud! Go look at their rule system. If you wish to discuss topics they agree with, they like you and you can stay and discuss those topics freely, anywhere on their forum. If you don't agree with them, they don't just herd you into your own forums like any other *normal* website, they actually put you *on trial* and then close your thread after 30 days. After that point you can no longer discuss that topic there-*or else*.

For crying out loud! It's a complete witch hunt over there, complete with virtual executions. The fact they keep track of all the witches they burn at the stake is irrelevant IMO.

 

[Loudmouth]

You repeatedly demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between a pure observation and an experiment with real control mechanisms.

Control mechanisms were in place. They are part of any measurement, and are part of this experiment.

That isn't an *experiment*, that's an *observation* that *assumes* the *cause*.

Just as you assume that the plasma is causing scattering in the experiments you cite.

It's a very simple concept to differentiate between an experiment and an observation too, but apparently it's beyond your abilities.

It is beyond the abilities of you. Any time you test a hypothesis with a set of observations it is an experiment.

You only have evidence of redshift.

We observe redshift which is evidence of expansion. We have the evidence. No faith required.

 

[Loudmouth]

So apparently if one doesn't accept the existence of dark energy, inflation, exotic matter, and requires empirical evidence, one is a troll?

You are ignoring the evidence. That's the problem.

 

[Michael]

And more specifically, it is about the limits of naturalism.

Yes indeed.

You can discuss that topic entirely without referring to cosmology in any way.

Only if you never bother asking how we got here, and where we come from. We could probably exclude evolutionary theory for a topic related to naturalism too, but why?

And in fact, as others have pointed out, in some posts where you stated you agreement with Heissonnear, you were in fact completely disagreeing with him. But as I said earlier, you regularly put words in my mouth that I didn't say, so I'm not entirely surprised that you do this with others as well.

I do disagree with him in some areas, not so much in others. Ultimately any view of reality requires a little 'faith', be it faith in science, or faith in something else.

You could have addressed the topic without introducing any of your crackpot ideas.

Even your emotional need to label a form of pure empirical physics a "crackpot idea" is bogus. You're using the term "crackpot' the way a theist might use the term 'evil' to depict an atheist. It's a cheap debate tactic.

It was especially utterly and completely unnecessary to introduce your gripes with dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

It was necessary to point out the limits of "naturalism". Those things do not show up 'naturally' in any lab on Earth, yet "scientists" put their "faith" in these hypothetical constructs none the less. There is an element of 'faith', even in 'science'! That was my whole point in a nutshell.

Most of the posters here do not introduce their favorite topics in every thread they post in. Instead, they stick to the topic. There are a few utter lunatics, like AV1611VET and dad who cannot help themselves and introduce their pet peeves in every thread they participate in. And then there is you.

Yep. Then there is me.

Nope. You can address those topics perfectly without introducing your pet peeves. Quite frankly, the fact that you don't seem able to is pathetic.

So I can expect you to never discuss or mention the topics of God or YEC around here again too? Why exactly do atheists and agnostics come to 'Christian' websites anyway?

I'll grant you that I *could have* focused on QM and/or non standard brands of particle physics theory to achieve a similar goal, but it would not have been the *same* goal. I was trying to point out to Heissonnear that there is a perfectly *natural* explanation for God (he needn't fear naturalism), and explain to you that even scientific 'belief' is sometimes an "act of personal faith". I couldn't have done both of those things by focusing on QM, so I picked the hypothetical entities of astronomy instead.

 

[Michael]

You are ignoring the evidence. That's the problem.

No, I'm not ignoring the evidence of redshift, I'm ignoring your handwave that it's caused by your invisible friends until you can A) show they aren't a figment of your imagination, and B) show they have some tangible effect on a photon in a real experiment.

I already have three perfectly *logical and natural* ways to explain photon redshift.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I'm not ignoring the evidence of redshift, I'm ignoring your handwave that it's caused by your invisible friends

They aren't invisible. The redshift is observed.

 

[Michael]

Control mechanisms were in place.

False. You can't "control" anything related to object redshift with a telescope.

They are part of any measurement, and are part of this experiment.

Only the redshift, and or the observation of signal broadening can be 'measured'. What you do with that "measurement" is something else altogether.

Just as you assume that the plasma is causing scattering in the experiments you cite.

The difference is that signal broadening, scattering, and redshift are *caused by* inelastic scattering in real labs on Earth, and those things are observed in telescopes.

It is beyond the abilities of you. Any time you test a hypothesis with a set of observations it is an experiment.

Like I said, you've demonstrated repeatedly that you can't tell the difference between an uncontrolled observation redshift, and a real experiment with real control mechanisms where redshift shows up, like inelastic scattering events in the lab.

We observe redshift which is evidence of expansion.

No, it's not. It's evidence of redshift. If your *assumption* is dubious.

We have the evidence. No faith required.

You've only got evidence for redshift, and *faith* that your invisible friends are the 'cause'.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes indeed.

Only if you never bother asking how we got here, and where we come from. We could probably exclude evolutionary theory for a topic related to naturalism too, but why?

Nobody talks about never bothering to ask. You just don't have to answer that question specifically in order to discuss the topic of this thread.

I do disagree with him in some areas, not so much in others. Ultimately any view of reality requires a little 'faith', be it faith in science, or faith in something else.

The problem is that the posts where you voiced agreement with him, were posts where you

Even your emotional need to label a form of pure empirical physics a "crackpot idea" is bogus. You're using the term "crackpot' the way a theist might use the term 'evil' to depict an atheist. It's a cheap debate tactic.

Nah, it's just a label that is most likely accurate. That it carries an emotional charge for you, doesn't mean you get to project that onto me.

It was necessary to point out the limits of "naturalism". Those things do not show up 'naturally' in any lab on Earth, yet "scientists" put their "faith" in these hypothetical constructs none the less. There is an element of 'faith', even in 'science'! That was my whole point in a nutshell.

And that whole point could have been made using any other theory, including those tested in the lab. No point in bringing those topics up at all, and certainly not in the way you did.

Yep. Then there is me.

So I can expect you to never discuss or mention the topics of God or YEC around here again too? Why exactly do atheists and agnostics come to 'Christian' websites anyway?

If they are not relevant to the topic at hand, I generally avoid discussing them in the topic at hand. I discussed those here, because they were directly relevant to the assertions made by Heisonnear.

Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to have those often. I never stated that you cannot discuss your pet peeves at all. I never stated you cannot go to a whole boatload of forums to discuss them. Eat your heart out, I don't care. What I stated was that the reason I think your behavior is trolling and pathetic, is because you cannot seem to stop talking about them on topics where they are not relevant.

I'll grant you that I *could have* focused on QM and/or non standard brands of particle physics theory to achieve a similar goal, but it would no have been the *same* goal. I was trying to point out to Heissonnear that there is a perfectly *natural* explanation for God (he needn't fear naturalism), and explain to you that even scientific 'belief' is sometimes an "act of personal faith". I couldn't have done both of those things by focusing on QM, so I picked the hypothetical entities of astronomy instead.

And that is where the problem lies. Because even if your pet peeve is true, or would make any sense at all, it directly contradicts his assertions nonetheless. Your pet peeves were entirely irrelevant. Yet you had to bring all of them up.

 

[Michael]

They aren't invisible. The redshift is observed.

You can't demonstrate that photon redshift is caused by your invisible friends in the first place, and three other *natural* explanations for redshift already exist!

 

[Loudmouth]

False. You can't "control" anything related to object redshift with a telescope.

Yes, you can. You can control the temperature of the CCD on the camera in the telescope, the black levels, binning of photons on diodes, etc. Everything in the measurement is controlled and certified so that you can detect the differences needed to either confirm or falsify the hypothesis. You can even have internal light sources as controls in these experiments.

That is what a control is in an experiment. It is a series of qualifications that demonstrates that your measurements are accurate and unbiased. It also shows that if the observations were consistent with the null hypothesis that your experiment would be able to detect it.

Only the redshift, and or the observation of signal broadening can be 'measured'.

Right, and the controls are there to ensure that what you are measuring really is a redshift that is not being produced by the instrument itself.

What you do with that "measurement" is something else altogether.

You use it to test your hypothesis, of course.

The difference is that signal broadening, scattering, and redshift are *caused by* inelastic scattering in real labs on Earth, and those things are observed in telescopes.

No, you measure scattering in the lab, and conclude that it is being caused by the plasma. It is no different than the experiments being done with telescopes.

Like I said, you've demonstrated repeatedly that you can't tell the difference between an uncontrolled observation redshift, and a real experiment with real control mechanisms where redshift shows up, like inelastic scattering events in the lab.

Yes, I can, and have done so.

No, it's not. It's evidence of redshift. If your *assumption* is dubious.

It isn't an assumption. It is an hypothesis which we are testing with redshift and a whole host of other observations.

[qutoe]You've only got evidence for redshift,[/quote]

Just like you have evidence of scattering in the lab. You just "assume" that it is the plasma that is causing the scattering. No different.

and *faith* that your invisible friends are the 'cause'.

We have the evidence. No faith required.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't demonstrate that photon redshift is caused by your invisible friends in the first place,[/qutoe]

We can and have.

Two additional tests have also been done to confirm that it is expansion causing the redshift.

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired - ScienceNOW

and three other *natural* explanations for redshift already exist!

None of which satisfy the other observations, most notable the lack of blurring of distant galaxies.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

 

[Michael]

Nah, it's just a label that is most likely accurate. That it carries an emotional charge for you, doesn't mean you get to project that onto me.

The only reason you used the term was because it's a derogatory term. It's akin to me calling you "evil' because you refuse to believe in God.

And that whole point could have been made using any other theory, including those tested in the lab. No point in bringing those topics up at all, and certainly not in the way you did.

Actually no. I could have picked something that *doesn't* show up in lab, but has to be a 'hypothetical' entity from some branch of physics. Astronomy just happens to be the easiest target and the logical one in terms of demonstrating that there is a 'natural' explanation for God.

If they are not relevant to the topic at hand, I generally avoid discussing them in the topic at hand. I discussed those here, because they were directly relevant to the assertions made by Heisonnear.

As I said, part of my point was to demonstrate to Heisonnear (and everyone) that there is a perfectly *natural* explanation for God, and therefore "naturalism' isn't really that much of a limitation in the first place.

What I stated was that the reason I think your behavior is trolling and pathetic, is because you cannot seem to stop talking about them on topics where they are not relevant.

Well, that's certainly not the case in this thread since I'm probably one of the few "Christian" in this thread that believes in a natural God.

And that is where the problem lies. Because even if your pet peeve is true, or would make any sense at all, it directly contradicts his assertions nonetheless. Your pet peeves were entirely irrelevant. Yet you had to bring all of them up.

I wasn't trying to necessarily agree with his assertions, your assertions or anyone else's assertions, I was simply interjecting my own thoughts into a discussion that happened to interest me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually no. I could have picked something that *doesn't* show up in lab,

Expansion shows up in this lab.

 

[Michael]

We can and have.

No, you didn't. You can't do that with "uncontrolled observations" in the first place.

Two additional tests have also been done to confirm that it is expansion causing the redshift.

"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired - ScienceNOW

All you observed is standard signal broadening in plasma and you misinterpreted it to be 'time dilation'.

http://lyndonashmore.com/tired_light_explains_supernovae_.htm

None of which satisfy the other observations, most notable the lack of blurring of distant galaxies.

When you can show me a galaxy with a redshift of 10 that isn't a blurry blob, you let me know. In fact post it here so we can see those nice spiral arms and those clear features you expect to see.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Unpublished website nonsense that is based entirely upon one paper that was written in 1929 by a guy that was peddling his own tired light theory and who happened to handwave at one type of inelastic scattering in that 1929 paper.