Method for accepting science

[Doveaman]

Where's yours, kid? Your sunglasses are floating! It's like there's nothing there!

Is that alcohol you are drinking?

 

[sandwiches]

From the article "One group received no prayers." How did they know this? Not all people pray for show. Also Luke gives example of a very religious Pharisee's prayer compared to a publican. The publican was heard while the Pharisee was not. Pharisee's prayer was out in public while the publican was in private.

The people conducting the experiment in the best possible way they could think of. I'm sure they would love to hear your ideas on how to perform a better prayer experiment.

 

[CabVet]

The people conducting the experiment in the best possible way they could think of. I'm sure they would love to hear your ideas on how to perform a better prayer experiment.

To give him credit, I thought his response was the perfect apology: the "good" that happened was because someones cousin's brother in law was praying for them without them knowing about it. You can justify everything like that. For the religious there are only three possible answers to prayers:

1. You asked and it didn't happen? God said no and is reserving something better for you down the line.

2. You asked and it happened? God said yes.

3. You didn't ask and it happened anyways? Someone else that you don't know and never heard about prayed for you.

Another good explanation that I heard for this (and other similar) studies was that God actually wanted them to turn out like that so that only the really faithful would still believe.

 

[Michael]

Slowly can be decades if need be. Again, they needed more evidence and they required satellites to do so. I'm not sure how often I can keep repeating that.

Fascinating. I'm always really amazed when an atheist shows so much patience and so much 'faith' in the "scientific" method, and so little faith in the concept of an intelligent creator.

Purely from the standpoint of empirical, lab tested physics, what's the physical or functional difference between what you're calling (dark) 'science' based on 96 percent "unseen entities" (in the lab) and any ordinary theistic belief system? If you're willing to be patient for decades, perhaps (most likely IMO) only to discover that empirical physics ultimately rules the day once we figure it all out, why wouldn't you apply that same logic to the topic of an intelligent creator and "have a little faith' in the majority belief?

You really are finding it hard to grasp how the theoretical side of physics and math works.

Not really. I've seen it all in action now for more than 3 decades, including 7 years of online internet debates with astronomers from all over planet Earth. I've seen how it works first hand, including a number of virtual executions for my heresy. The astronomy community functions like a violent cult for all intents and purposes. They place PURE FAITH in mathematical formulas and they tend to ignore ACTUAL PHYSICS to the point of pure absurdity. I've seen them claim that electrical discharges cannot occur in a plasma. I've seen them make so many false assertions that I've simply lost count. I know EXACTLY how "it works", and frankly it's FUBAR. No wonder they're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. They've entirely forgotten the value of empirical physics and they actually have a "haters" mentality toward pure empirical physics. It's the most irrational cultish behavior I've ever seen on the internet, regardless of the topic. They even attack the individual rather than to stay on topic.

Compared to the conversations around here, regardless of the topic, conversations at astronomy based websites are CHILDISH. They never stay on the scientific topic, they engage in a mob public BEATING of anyone they disagree with.

I know EXACTLY how it works.

They create models that try to describe the universe. Some people start from crazy ideas (like strings) either because they enjoy the math or well they had a thought. The equations get worked through and the results interpreted. If the universe is a "string" universe then there will be other dimensions, but since no evidence exists to suggest that we live in a "string universe", those new dimensions aren't taken as fact.

FYI, I'm not really dismayed or bothered by the idea that astronomers entertain various mathematical concepts about how our universe might work. It's the utter exclusion of the value of empirical, lab tested physics that bothers me.

For instance, 7 of 7 key high energy emissions seen in solar flares, that are DIRECTLY associated with electrical discharges in labs and process in the Earth's atmosphere are blamed on "magnetic reconnection" by the mainstream, even though Alfven called that theory 'pseudoscience", and even though they cannot link any of those 7 key high energy signatures to "magnetic reconnection" in the lab. When I've tried to explain how 'reconnection' in double layers and 'electrical discharges' in double layers are the exact same process, they freak out. They diss circuit theory completely and they bury their collective heads in the sand. Simply bizarre behavior, and so much online 'hatred' toward empirical physics! That's the part that bothers me, not the fact they entertain string theory or inflation theory, or "dark energy". They've simply forgotten physics entirely. Nothing is qualified, nothing matters other than math to those folks.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the name is unimportant. The mechanism is unknown and when/if we do find out it might get renamed.

You do realize that you're now defending a "dark energy of the gaps" argument, correct? From my skeptical of supernatural energy perspective, and EU/PC perspective, THE most likely force of nature that might explain an accelerating body of plasma is the EM field. It would probably need to be an EXTERNAL (to the visible sliver of our universe) EM field, but the EM field is 39 OOM more powerful that gravity. The possibility that gravity, as in a tug from an external mass, causes this acceleration has one very MAJOR problem. The acceleration is evidently constant in all directions. We can't arrange external mass in a way that would do such a thing. Again, THE most likely cause of acceleration of plasma is the EM field.

No one will claim otherwise that it isn't a gap a of our knowledge.

I suppose my aversion to the 'dark' gap fillers of mainstream theory is much like your concept of a "God of the gaps' process. You're convinced (as am I actually) that there is a scientific explanation for everything (I simply include God in that 'everything'), and some concept of "God" aren't actually helpful in discovering that "scientific explanation" in full detail. Whereas you have faith that science will prevail (as do I oddly enough), as PC/EU proponent, I have faith that empirical physics will prevail. When they finally figure it out, it will lead them right back to empirical physics IMO, probably kicking and screaming all they way.

The Wiki summed it up nicely.

The WIKI article doesn't include Learners work, or really address Peratt's models.

Well personally, I am not a cosmologist but the community of cosmologists has refuted and moved on from his ideas regarding the universe. That is good enough for me at this current moment in time.

They essentially gave up on actual qualified physics in favor of a dark religion. They can't even explain how their sky entities came to exist, where their energy comes from, or much of anything about 96 percent of what they claim exists out there somewhere.

Whatever the problems of EU theory, and nobody denies that they exist, they PALE in comparison to all that metaphysical gap filler in their theory. It's not even close. Instead of spending some actual time and effort to FIX what's broken in the PC model, many of them spend their days and nights BASHING empirical physics in cyberspace. It's not even rational behavior!

I can understand their preference for one idea over another, but the irrational reaction they have to ANYONE that attempts to discuss PC/EU theory is simply bizarre.

We have yet to reproduce the stellar conditions on Earth. Therefore your line of reasoning dicates that fusion in the Sin does not exist (I assume you are an Iron Sun guy so thats good for you ) as we have yet to observe it.

Were it not for the neutrino problem it creates, I would LOVE to entertain a fission based energy source, but alas even I tend to favor a fusion model at this time, even with an outer 'crust'. It's not so good for me in other words. I still however think the whole argument is bogus because we do produce fusion reactions on Earth, you're just whining about the EXACT KIND of fusion. You can't get ANY dark energy acceleration, not a little, not some acceleration that isn't quite like we see in space, NOTHING!

I'm happy that you like to work on it and maybe one day I'll your name on a paper showing off your ideas.

Some of the ideas are already out there.
arXiv.org Search

I'm actually more interested in solar satellites and solar physics than I am interested in other areas of cosmology theory. I suspect that will remain the case for quite some time yet. IMO the mainstream hasn't even figure out the basics of atmospheric solar physics. They are AT LEAST 100 years behind Birkeland in that sense. Until they come out of the magnetic dark ages of solar physics, there is no point in even discussing activity outside of our solar system IMO. They haven't even learned to walk with electrical currents in space, so why try to run yet?

So, when the "mainstream" wants more empirical evidence (thus why they sent up satellites), you complain about the lack of progress.

I'm not complaining about a lack of TECHNICAL and HARDWARE progress. I love SDO. I'm talking about a lack of THEORETICAL progress and CONCEPTUAL progress. Even though Birkeland PREDICTED that electrical discharges occur in the solar atmosphere, many in the mainstream still insist to this very day that electrical discharges cannot and do not occur in the solar atmosphere. Bruce showed them math to dispute such a belief, as did Alfven, as have MANY others. The mainstream doesn't even understand the circuit orientation of coronal loop theory as Alfven explained it. They don't care to learn about it either. They therefore cannot even connect the E or B orientations of solar physics. That's the lack of progress I'm talking about. Haters are not interested in progress. Astronomers now spend so much of their time and effort HATING empirical physics publicly on the internet they've become utterly irrational. If they even adopted a "live and let live" public attitude toward PC theory *THAT* would be progress. Instead they conduct online witch hunts and bash PEOPLE. That isn't progress.

Laboratories can only go so far. Sometimes you need observations that can either come only from space or improved telescopes. In this case, they needed space observations to confirm the result.

They should have favored Birkeland's model all along. Had they put any value whatsoever on lab testing and in situ measurements, Birkeland's model should have been the FAVORED model all along. Instead they chose (and still chose) a MATH ONLY attitude toward the universe. They like SIMPLE math, SIMPLE solutions. They don't like messy old physics. They don't value it at all. They ignored all of Birkeland's lab work ENTIRELY when choosing Chapman's model. They ignored POLAR EXPEDITIONS designed to collect in-situ measurements of the magnetic fields of Earth during solar flare activity. Birkeland and his team worked and worked and worked to support their ideas. Chapman did NONE of that. He tinkered with some simple math formulas and that was enough for astronomers. They like quantification and simplified math. They don't like physics and they really hate messy or incomplete mathematical models. That's been their problem for the last 100 years now!

Really, complaining about people bashing things on the internet is like complaining about a oven being hot after it has been on for hours.

Not really. I get really irritated sometimes at what I would call evolutionary theory "haters" that simply IGNORE the data that doesn't jive with their preconceived ideas. I think it's ridiculous to use denial of evidence as a front line defense. Obviously not every critic of EV theory does that, but I've certainly seen it happen. I don't have much patience for it. I have the exact same reaction when I see astronomers bashing empirical physics on the internet while promoting their dark religion and banning anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. That kind of "hater" attitude is what stinks to high heaven.

People can be unfortunately rude, but if they bash something either because they don't like it or it is wrong. I don't spend anytime on astronomy forums so I can't really say anything.

Look at the discussions between us. I think we've all been pretty civil toward one another. Whatever disagreements we've had on various topics, I think most folks have tried to stay focused on the topic and keep things "impersonal" to a great degree. I like how the conversations work here. That's how things should work IMO, regardless of the topic.

Unfortunately it's not like that on astronomy forums. Critics and skeptics and particularly EU promoters are definitely NOT welcome. They literally hold virtual witch hunts. God only help you if you actually dare to use your REAL name as I did. They will in fact publicly execute people consistently and maliciously. They attack PEOPLE, not ideas. That kind of bad behavior is a serious problem.

Well, if Alfven and the like explained it completely then why is it ignored?

For starters, it's incomplete. It's not nearly as "simple" to get the math to work out correctly if you cant' just "make up" a bunch of metaphysical gap filler. It's also apparently "too hard" for them as well. They actually tend to REFUSE to study the idea via actual reading material, particularly the most vocal haters.

It makes no sense unless either they didn't explain it or some sort of conspiracy.

It's not actually a conspiracy in any conventional sense as far as I can tell. It's a behavior based on blind ignorance as best as I can tell. They just don't like, nor do they value the concept of qualified PHYSICS. All that matters to them is math, preferably simple math, preferably math they can explain to their students. What they don't seem to understand today, nor did they understand 100 years ago, is that PHYSICS rules the universe. Math simply MODELS what goes on at the level of PHYSICS. Astronomers have NEVER valued the power of physics. That's the problem. It's not a conspiracy as far as I can tell, it's an IGNORANCE, a WILLFUL and vocal ignorance in the case of "haters".

 

[Michael]

So the reason is blind hated in using electricity in space. Blind hatred requires a reason and still you have to even give an answer to that.

The excuse they typically use is that here aren't quantified models. That actually isn't even true. There may not be one that EXACTLY matches their concepts, their beliefs about expansion/acceleration etc, but there are quantified models out there. They don't necessarily all add up to a 'creation mythos' however, so I guess they just aren't as "attractive" to them. I think it's basically a quantification over qualification bias, the same bias that made them favor Chapman's ideas over Birkeland's ideas for those 60 years, and it may continue to blind them to the rest of Birkeland's work for another 3000 years at this rate. At this pace they'll be groping around in the magnetic dark ages of astronomer for all eternity!

Otherwise I suspect it might be due to the fact that have dismissed PC/EU and Iron Sun and that doesn't sit right with you.

Ya know......

When I first began discussing my solar ideas I FULLY expected to take a lot of criticisms, particularly over the concept of a solid crust. I fully expected to be LAMBASTED over that claim. I had no illusions about how silly that must have sounded to many folks involved in solar physics.

What I didn't really expect however was all FLACK I took over the electrical aspects of this model, particularly as it relates to solar flare events. I 'expected' the mainstream to understand that "reconnection" and "electrical discharge" are one and the same process. Dungey explained that fact over 50 years ago when coining the term "reconnection". Instead I heard the squeal like a pig over the electrical aspects of the solar model, even though I have MASSIVE amounts of published support for coronal loop models based on circuit theory and discharge theory. That kind of irrational hatred toward electricity in space I really didn't expect. I'll be honest. I just didn't think that was even "controversial" until I started discussing it publicly on the internet. I actually ASSUMED that astronomers UNDERSTOOD both the E and B orientations to plasma physics. They do not. The haters even refuse to learn.

This whole percussion on internet forums does seem very far fetched to me.

Believe me when I tell you that I certainly didn't expect it, nor would have I believed it had I not see it for myself. I understand your doubt, but I also know what I've personally experience publicly on several astronomy oriented websites. The reaction towards all things electrical in space is palpable and quite real I assure you.

 

[Michael]

The people conducting the experiment in the best possible way they could think of. I'm sure they would love to hear your ideas on how to perform a better prayer experiment.

FYI, I personally think it might be helpful if the person(s) performing the prayers actually knew the individual and cared about the individual. The notion that "any old" prayer from anyone should necessarily sway God seems like an illogical assumption from my standpoint. Their methods seem WAY to "impersonal" from my vantage point.

 

[selfinflikted]

Fascinating. I'm always really amazed when an atheist shows so much patience and so much 'faith' in the "scientific" method, and so little faith in the concept of an intelligent creator.

This isn't really amazing at all, Michael, if you stop to consider: One of those has always worked. One of those always.. hasn't.

 

[sandwiches]

To give him credit, I thought his response was the perfect apology: the "good" that happened was because someones cousin's brother in law was praying for them without them knowing about it. You can justify everything like that. For the religious there are only three possible answers to prayers:

1. You asked and it didn't happen? God said no and is reserving something better for you down the line.

2. You asked and it happened? God said yes.

3. You didn't ask and it happened anyways? Someone else that you don't know and never heard about prayed for you.

Another good explanation that I heard for this (and other similar) studies was that God actually wanted them to turn out like that so that only the really faithful would still believe.

Exactly. So, bottom line regardless of the excuses, as we've said countless times, it seems that prayer makes no empirically detectable difference.

 

[sandwiches]

Is that alcohol you are drinking?

Nope. Chamomile tea, actually.

But I was joking about his avatar.

 

[selfinflikted]

Nope. Chamomile tea, actually.

It's a good pic. It would be better if your avatar was a pic of you eating a sandwich.

 

[sandwiches]

It's a good pic. It would be better if your avatar was a pic of you eating a sandwich.

Oh! In the picture? Yea, it was something from Stone but I can't remember what. The only reason I remember the brewery is because the server kept reminding us they had some special on their beers.

Thanks! And I've thought of doing the sandwich-eating picture for funs.

 

[CabVet]

Fascinating. I'm always really amazed when an atheist shows so much patience and so much 'faith' in the "scientific" method, and so little faith in the concept of an intelligent creator.

That is where you are mistaken, an intelligent creator (and by the way, don't get me started on which one of the thousands possible from different religions) requires faith, the scientific method requires observation of natural phenomena.

 

[Michael]

That is where you are mistaken, an intelligent creator (and by the way, don't get me started on which one of the thousands possible from different religions) requires faith, the scientific method requires observation of natural phenomena.

In terms of demonstrating 'cause/effect' relationships however, the acts of faith are exactly the same. How do you know "dark energy" even exists, let alone that IT is the 'cause' of acceleration? How do you KNOW that "dark matter' isn't simply ORDINARY matter? Inflation? Really? What cause/effect relationships exist to demonstrate that WHOPPER of a claim?

 

[CabVet]

In terms of demonstrating 'cause/effect' relationships however, the acts of faith are exactly the same. How do you know "dark energy" even exists, let alone that IT is the 'cause' of acceleration? How do you KNOW that "dark matter' isn't simply ORDINARY matter? Inflation? Really? What cause/effect relationships exist to demonstrate that WHOPPER of a claim?

It requires faith from you, but not from people that understand them mathematically and physically.

 

[mkatzwork]

In terms of demonstrating 'cause/effect' relationships however, the acts of faith are exactly the same. How do you know "dark energy" even exists, let alone that IT is the 'cause' of acceleration? How do you KNOW that "dark matter' isn't simply ORDINARY matter? Inflation? Really? What cause/effect relationships exist to demonstrate that WHOPPER of a claim?

I know we're discussing this in two threads, but if you hypothesize something as the cause of something, that sort of answers your question as to why we think it is the cause of something. It is our hypothesis of what is causing that effect.

We don't know if it exists or not in this form, otherwise it wouldn't be a hypothesis any more; it's a mathematical explanation for what we think we see going on, and the evidence and predictions that can be extended from it is so far fitting the bill pretty well observationally.

Once again...you can either attack the hypothesis on mathematical grounds, or the observations that led to it on technical grounds (and I know you favor this latter option), but you can't attack connecting the proposed cause and effect hypothetically as some kind of 'religion' as that's what every scientific hypothesis does.

As to dark energy, mainstream cosmology is proposing a cosmological constant as the reason for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, because so far (to most people who've studied it in depth) it seems to fit the data best. So far. It could get blown out of the water, it might not. Open book. Work in progress.

Dark matter, if it exists, is likely not ordinary matter - we can say this because it doesn't seem to interact with ordinary matter - this doesn't mean that it isn't matter, it's a question of definition.

If you want to propose an alternative idea (as I know you subscribe to alternative ideas), it has to explain all the data so far and make predictions about what we might find next.

A good summary that covers the basics for anybody not up on it - it's quite technical but worth a read:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0472v1.pdf

 

[ExpoTheo]

an intelligent creator requires faith, the scientific method requires observation of natural phenomena.

I would rather put my faith in God then to put my faith in man's ability to be able to observe natural phenomena.

 

[mkatzwork]

I would rather put my faith in God then to put my faith in man's ability to be able to observe natural phenomena.

The computer you're using right now, and the probe currently leaving our solar system, are two of many thousands of testaments to our ability to observe and harness natural phenomena.

What's the testament you're using to God's abilities? Just the Old and the New?

 

[Michael]

It requires faith from you, but not from people that understand them mathematically and physically.

Talk about double speak. *IF* like an EM field "dark energy" actually existed, and actually had some tangible effect on matter, I wouldn't have to "take anyone's word for it", I could see it work for myself like any other ordinary form of energy. It's only because it's INVISIBLE, MAKE BELIEVE and ultimately nothing but "gap filler" for ONE otherwise DEAD cosmology theory that one must somehow magically "understand" them via math alone. Whatever the heck you actually mean by understanding them 'physically' you're evidently talking about the METAPHYSICAL ad hoc properties that are required to plug the gaps of one theory, not any actual physics that is related to something "tested" in a lab in a real experiment.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's only because it's INVISIBLE, MAKE BELIEVE and ultimately nothing but "gap filler"...

This sounds vaguely familiar and ironic. <evilgrin>

 

[Michael]

I would rather put my faith in God then to put my faith in man's ability to be able to observe natural phenomena.

It's not the observation that typically creates the problem, it's the "interpretations" and the "explanations" they offer that tend to be ridiculous. The observation that the universe is flat isn't the problem. It's the fact they try to claim that the 'flatness' is somehow a 'successful prediction' of inflation theory, *WITHOUT* bothering to mention the fact that it's MUCH MORE likely to be "flat" *WITHOUT* any kind of inflation, 10 to the 100th power more likely in fact!