Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

Expansion shows up in this lab.

Only the observations of redshift and signal broadening show up in that lab. Your interpretation of the *causes* of redshift and signal broadening does not. Inelastic scattering and signal broadening in plasma does show in labs on Earth, whereas your invisible friends do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Yes, you can. That's how controls work.

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

Where did you show that it is being misinterpreted? You didn't.

Tired Light Explains Supernovae Light Curve Broadening

Citing other internet crackpots is not science.

When you can show me a galaxy with a redshift of 10 that isn't a blurry blob, you let me know.

When you can show me that you understand the difference between blur and pixelation, let me know. You have gotten that wrong every time. You can't understand something as simple as optical resolution.

Unpublished website nonsense . . .

Oh the irony.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only the observations of redshift and signal broadening show up in that lab. Your interpretation of the *causes* of redshift and signal broadening does not.

Then you are also not observing plasma scatter light in the experiments you are citing. You are only assuming that it is the cause.

 

[Michael]

Then you are also not observing plasma scatter light in the experiments you are citing. You are only assuming that it is the cause.

The thing you don't want to have to admit here is that your *assuming* the cause, you're not demonstrating it empirically.

I can empirically demonstrate that moving objects, inelastic scattering and heavy gravity wells cause photon redshift , so I have no need whatsoever for any other explanation for redshift and signal broadening.

You have *faith* that A) your invisible friends exists somewhere out there in space, and B) they some effect on a photon.

Both of those A) and B) claims are *acts of pure faith* on your part. You can't even show that your friends exist in nature, or that they have any effect on a photon. Furthermore at least three *empirical* explanations already exist which can easily account for what we observe. Handwave away at Holushko's work all you like, but I have showed it to you.

 

[Michael]

Yes, you can. That's how controls work.

Chen "controlled" the amount of redshift in his inelastic scattering experiments by increasing and decreasing the current flowing through his chamber. How do I 'control' dark energy?

Either you honestly cannot tell the difference between observation and experimentation, or you're not being honest, which is it?

Where did you show that it is being misinterpreted? You didn't.

Sure I did. I handed you those MAGIC data sets and you ignored them. The higher energy wavelengths traveled at a different speed from the lower energy wavelengths. You don't even care!

Citing other internet crackpots is not science.

Right. Anyone you disagree with is a "crackpot" (like me calling you evil) simply because you disagree with them. You don't even debate fairly.

When you can show me that you understand the difference between blur and pixelation, let me know.

There you go again running like pagan hades away from my request because they are all blurry!

You have gotten that wrong every time. You can't understand something as simple as optical resolution.

I understand and recognize a complete dodge when I see one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chen "controlled" the amount of redshift in his inelastic scattering experiments by increasing and decreasing the current flowing through his chamber.

By your own logic, he only observed scattering. He just assumed that the current was causing it. He was not controlling the individual atoms and ions in the plasma, so it is just as uncontrolled as any measurement by a telescope.

Either you honestly cannot tell the difference between observation and experimentation, or you're not being honest, which is it?

You are the one not being honest. In the example above you make the very same mistake you keep accusing others of. You are confusing the observation of scattering with the conclusion that plasma is causing it.

Sure I did.

The entire field of astronomy disagrees with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The thing you don't want to have to admit here is that your *assuming* the cause, you're not demonstrating it empirically.

Then neither are you, by the very same reasoning.

I can empirically demonstrate that moving objects, inelastic scattering and heavy gravity wells cause photon redshift , so I have no need whatsoever for any other explanation for redshift and signal broadening.

No, you observe redshift, you are assuming the cause.

You have *faith*

I have evidence. No need for faith.

 

[Michael]

Then neither are you, by the very same reasoning.

False. Chen's work shows a direct empirical link between free electrons in plasma and photon redshift. Cause/effect mechanisms have been demonstrated to support inelastic scattering theories. That's also true of any moving object theories.

No, you observe redshift, you are assuming the cause.

I'm not "assuming* cause *before* I start pointing at the sky. I showed cause in plasma on Earth, and then logically applied it to plasma in space.

I have evidence. No need for faith.

You only have evidence of redshift and you have near absolute faith that your invisible friends did it.

 

[Michael]

By your own logic, he only observed scattering. He just assumed that the current was causing it. He was not controlling the individual atoms and ions in the plasma, so it is just as uncontrolled as any measurement by a telescope.

False. He *controlled* the current/free electrons in the plasma and noticed that it made a difference in his result. You didn't control anything.

You are the one not being honest. In the example above you make the very same mistake you keep accusing others of. You are confusing the observation of scattering with the conclusion that plasma is causing it.

False. By modifying the current he was able to vary the amount of redshift. They showed the free electron/redshift relationship empirically using actual control mechanisms to vary the current.

The entire field of astronomy disagrees with you.

The entire Christian (theistic) community disagrees with you too. What's your point?

 

[Michael]

It seems to me that you're not happy about the fact that your belief in hypothetical entities is an 'act of faith' on your part. You'd rather keep trying to dance around the need for *qualification* in controlled experimentation like Chen did. You didn't *qualify* any of your claims to start with, making your claims about your friends nothing more an an affirming the consequent fallacy, and a pure "act of faith" on your part.

You have *faith* that your invisible friends exist, and you have *faith* that your invisible friends have some sort of an effect on photons.

Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that "faith in the unseen' (in the lab) is a necessary element in both science and religion, not *just* religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems to me that you're not happy about the fact that your belief in hypothetical entities is an 'act of faith' on your part.

I have the evidence. No need for faith. Why does that upset you?

You'd rather keep trying to dance around the need for *qualification* in controlled experimentation like Chen did.

No, that is you who keeps trying to assert this requirement that the scientific method has never needed nor used. Observations of distant galaxies through a telescope are no different than the observations made by Chen or anyone else.

You didn't *qualify* any of your claims to start with, making your claims about your friends nothing more an an affirming the consequent fallacy, and a pure "act of faith" on your part.

I have evidence. No need for faith.

You have *faith* that your invisible friends exist, and you have *faith* that your invisible friends have some sort of an effect on photons.

I have evidence that they exist. No need for faith.

Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that "faith in the unseen' (in the lab)

It is seen in this lab.

is a necessary element in both science and religion, not *just* religion.

Still trying to drag science into the mud with you, I see.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. He *controlled* the current/free electrons in the plasma and noticed that it made a difference in his result.

False. He only measured scattering. He only assumed that the changes he made to the current caused changes in the scattering.

You didn't control anything.

You have never run imaging hardware and software, have you? If so, you wouldn't make massive mistakes like this one.

False. By modifying the current he was able to vary the amount of redshift.

You are assuming that the current changes the redshift.

They showed the free electron/redshift relationship empirically using actual control mechanisms to vary the current.

Nope. All you measured was redshift.

The entire Christian (theistic) community disagrees with you too. What's your point?

That your interpretation of the evidence runs contrary to everyone in the field of astronomy.

 

[Michael]

False. He only measured scattering. He only assumed that the changes he made to the current caused changes in the scattering.

No. Did you even bother to read that paper? He measured *redshift*, not scattering, and by varying the current he varied the redshift.

You have never run imaging hardware and software, have you? If so, you wouldn't make massive mistakes like this one.

You completely dodged the point!

You are assuming that the current changes the redshift.

No, Chen verified it *experimentally*, complete with control mechanism.

That your interpretation of the evidence runs contrary to everyone in the field of astronomy.

Like you personally speak for everyone in the field of astronomy? Give your double fallacy a rest.

 

[Michael]

I have the evidence. No need for faith.

You have evidence of redshift and absolute faith that your invisible friends did it.

Why does that upset you?

I always find pure denial to be rather upsetting.

No, that is you who keeps trying to assert this requirement that the scientific method has never needed nor used.

You're doing exactly the same thing as it relates to the topic of God. You're applying *empirical standards* to 'God' and you ignore them with respect to your invisible friends.

Observations of distant galaxies through a telescope are no different than the observations made by Chen or anyone else.

Boloney. He *varied* something in the *experiment*, specifically current, and showed cause effect relationships. You're just living in pure denial of scientific fact.

I have evidence. No need for faith.

You only have evidence of redshift and you need *faith* to believe your invisible friends have any real effect on a even one photon.

The rest is pure rehash because you're in pure denial.

 

[Michael]

This whole conversation comes right back to the same thing every time. Faith is an *integral* part of both science and religion. Deny it all you like, but your faith in invisible sky thingies is a pure act of faith in the unseen (in the lab).

 

[TLK Valentine]

This whole conversation comes right back to the same thing every time. Faith is an *integral* part of both science and religion. Deny it all you like, but your faith in invisible sky thingies is a pure act of faith in the unseen (in the lab).

Aren't you forgetting the difference? what happens in the lab is seen -- that's the whole point of doing it in the lab.

 

[Michael]

Aren't you forgetting the difference? what happens in the lab is seen -- that's the whole point of doing it in the lab.

I agree with you of course, but hypothetical entities like SUSY sparticles remain "unseen" in the lab, whereas the Higgs has been seen. There is an empirical difference between *standard* particle physics theories and non standard theories in term of what is actually been "seen" in those labs.

Belief in a Higgs is no longer an "act of faith", whereas belief in SUSY sparticles remains an act of faith, perhaps forever.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I agree with you of course, but hypothetical entities like SUSY sparticles remain "unseen" in the lab, whereas the Higgs has been seen. There is an empirical difference between *standard* particle physics theories and non standard theories in term of what is actually been "seen" in those labs.

Belief in a Higgs is no longer an "act of faith", whereas belief in SUSY sparticles remains an act of faith, perhaps forever.

This is the only Higgs Bosun you are ever going to see.

The Particle Zoo: Subatomic Particle plushies

Anyone that thinks they have discovered the HB because they smashed two particles together at fractions of the speed of c and got a maybe after 50 million tries is fooling themselves. These mushed together particles within milliseconds immediately split into their basic components, protons, electrons, neutrons. The mushed together particle only existed because you smashed them together, using electrical forces I might add.

This in a highly controlled experiment where the path of the particles was guided with precision. So let us assume they did find the HB after millions of tries with precisely guiding relativistic particles to collide. The odds are therefore astronomical that they would exist in nature in anywhere near the quantity needed to sustain theory. Why were there not two HB? Would not each particle you smashed together each have contained one according to theory?

Here, take another look at the HB, it is that rare if it does exist.

The Particle Zoo: Subatomic Particle plushies

 

[Heissonear]

I have the evidence. No need for faith. Why does that upset you?

No, that is you who keeps trying to assert this requirement that the scientific method has never needed nor used. Observations of distant galaxies through a telescope are no different than the observations made by Chen or anyone else.

I have evidence. No need for faith.

I have evidence that they exist. No need for faith.. [ /QUOTE]



Fundamental Naturalists have yet to learn and admit they walk by faith. They dislike those scientists who point out this truth.

As a mature geologist I cannot tell you how many times WHILE IN COLLEGE that fellow geologists around me and teaching me would base their geologic discussion on speculation, and over the past three decades in the working world it has been no different.

There is a fundamental reason for their continuing use of speculation - it's because in historical events on earth there have been no eye witnesses; no human who has first hand observed the historic event. Speculation is the middle name of godless geologists.

Once you know this geologic trait it is simple and easy to pickup. Go to some geology classes or the like and listen. But on this website naturalists are mute on this truth. And the same is true about how they walk by faith - they deny it's true. Who are they kidding?

 

[Davian]

It is pure speculation that inflation exists or ever existed. That's why it's a *hypothetical* entity. Likewise it's pure speculation that "dark energy" exists or has any effect on a photon. Ditto for exotic matter. Speculation with math is still "speculation". All the popular SUSY theories went up in flame already at LHC. It's now an 'exotic matter of the gaps' claim. Yep, that's "speculation' alright.

Theories based on observation and math are not "pure speculation", are they? You just call it that because you don't like it.

I read it. I've also been the mainstreams biggest critic for the better part of decade now. I see no evidence at all that the universe has a finite age, a finite size, a finite *anything*!

I said, you have what the article said backwards. The article states "A particular problem is that most Boltzmann brains will exist in the far future when the universe is no more than an inky void, with a past indistinguishable from the future. This would make our experience of time's arrow highly unusual.

However, if we can demonstrate that the universe has a finite lifespan, that would deny Boltzmann brains the infinite time they need to outnumber us. "

You got what the article said wrong, didn't you?