Method for accepting science

[Michael]

This sounds vaguely familiar and ironic. <evilgrin>

Indeed.

Ya know, it's probably my stint as an atheist that causes me to reject pretty much ALL supernatural ideas, not just religious ones, but those handed to me under the banner of "science" as well. A dead inflation sky deity sounds about as useless to me personally as the worst "supernatural' concepts related to God.

 

[mkatzwork]

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.

Not all "real" experiments are in laboratories, you know. Right?

You can keep banging out these terms with the shift key down, but it makes them no less accurate. It does dissuade those who haven't studied what you're talking about, but they should take heart from the fact that those of us who have know you're not right in what you say. You cannot see electrons, you can only measure their effects. We see an effect that has no known cause, we hypothesize a cause whilst checking the observation is correct with other techniques. No faith required. If someone shows the observation is wrong or proposes a cause that fits the observation better, then the entire consensus will shift, very rapidly - as we've seen numerous times in the history of science.

Incidentally, no good scientist would ever use 'invisible' as a derogatory term for something they didn't like, particularly one with an understanding of the subatomic world...

 

[mkatzwork]

Indeed.

Ya know, it's probably my stint as an atheist that causes me to reject pretty much ALL supernatural ideas, not just religious ones, but those handed to me under the banner of "science" as well. A dead inflation sky deity sounds about as useless to me personally as the worst "supernatural' concepts related to God.

All except the main, "big daddy" of supernatural ideas...?

 

[mkatzwork]

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!

Flatness predictions were around well before inflation. Inflation predicts the angular breadth of certain parts of the CMB, and if those predictions had turned out wrong, it'd be dead. They didn't, so it's not.

Penrose's assumption is less good to your case than Kiessling's by the way (who suggested the probability of it happening was infinitely low), so you're not even using the most impressive number! Unfortunately both require thermodynamics to be a settled issue on the cosmological level, which it's not, so it's relatively speaking not that meaningful a number (which is why it doesn't scare the numerous inflation-proponents out there - eg. Hawking, who worked with Penrose)

 

[Michael]

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.

It's a 'God did it' claim. You ASSUMED cause, you didn't SHOW cause.

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.

That's a really weak argument IMO. Of course it must "fit the bill". It's metaphysical gap filler to MAKE it fit. If it didn't fit, it would be TWEAKED until it did fit. It's the "perfect" kind of gap filler too because it can't be falsified on Earth.

Once again...you can either attack the hypothesis on mathematical grounds,

There's no problem with the math, just the PHYSICS, specifically there is a GIANT hole in your theory related to cause/effect justification for your claims. That's the basic problem, not the math.

or the observations that led to it on technical grounds (and I know you favor this latter option),

I tend to question the mainstream "interpretations", not the observations.

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.

Of course I can! It would be like me claiming "God energy did it". There's no justification for connecting the concept of "God energy" to the concept of acceleration. PERIOD. No amount of mathematical lipstick on that pig (and then calling it "science") is going to change the fact that you NEVER showed that A) dark energy even exists, or B) that it has the physical ability to accelerate things as you claim. Its nothing more than a self serving religion, dressed up as a "science".

As to dark energy, mainstream cosmology is proposing a cosmological constant as the reason for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe,

A "constant" in a math formula isn't a physical "cause", it's just a constant in a math formula! I'm really starting to wonder if astronomers even understand the difference between qualification and quantification. They seem to ASSUME if it's quantified it's also automatically QUALIFIED as well.

because so far (to most people who've studied it in depth) it seems to fit the data best.

So? It has to "fit the data", and it will be 'made to fit' the data perfectly. It couldn't be any other way because they simply 'make up' whatever property they need to make it fit. What I resent is then IGNORING AND REJECTING anything that isn't as mathematically 'elegant' or 'simple'. Didn't you guys learn ANYTHING from that Chapman/Birkeland incident? Apparently not.

So far. It could get blown out of the water, it might not. Open book. Work in progress.

I don't know how you could ever falsify something that was "make believe" from the very start. About they only thing that might happen is someone might come up with a way to use an ordinary EM field to replace it, and THEN it might actually die a natural scientific death. At the moment however it's like in invisible sky god theory. It's untouchable and unobservable directly.

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.

There's a HUGE difference between claiming "I don't know" why we can't identify all the mass, and claiming "exotic forms of matter did it". It's not my fault they chose the latter approach. I personally didn't the "dark matter' theory when it was most commonly associated with MACHO brands of ORDINARY matter. It's the 'Exotic matter did it" claim that I do not accept.

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.

But that's the problem. It's SHOULD NOT HAVE to "explain all the data". An honest "I don't know" is actually "better than" making up stuff just to "claim" you've achieved an "explanation". Is dark energy really an "explanation" for anything? Does inflation really "explain" why the universe is flat?

I think what I resent the most is the fact that PC/EU theory is being "graded" by how well it "competes" only at the level of mathematics. Nobody could get a 'better' fit to data using ACTUAL forces of nature, and not everyone likes to simply "make up stuff" to fill the gaps of their ignorance. Dark stuff isn't actually even an "explanation" in the first place.

 

[selfinflikted]

Indeed.

Ya know, it's probably my stint as an atheist that causes me to reject pretty much ALL supernatural ideas, not just religious ones, but those handed to me under the banner of "science" as well. A dead inflation sky deity sounds about as useless to me personally as the worst "supernatural' concepts related to God.

Well, that's your perogative. But, it is my understanding that, as far as "Dark Matter" goes... It is really a placeholder term. It is simply the name given to the matter that science cannot (probably, yet) account for, in that, there isn't enough mass in the universe to account for certain forces, so there must be something there that we aren't "seeing" (hence the term). Granted, I am not a physicist nor a cosmologist nor an astronomer and I claim absolutely no expertise in this area of discussion. "Dark matter" is merely a hypothesis, as far as I know.

It seems to me that you are on some kind of crusade against dark matter and nearly always steer the conversation in that direction in much the same way that AV nearly always brings up Pluto's demotion to a dwarf planet. Much like his arguments, I can't see much of a point in this mission of yours.

 

[Elendur]

That's a really weak argument IMO. Of course it must "fit the bill". It's metaphysical gap filler to MAKE it fit. If it didn't fit, it would be TWEAKED until it did fit. It's the "perfect" kind of gap filler too because it can't be falsified on Earth.

And since when is it wrong to tweak?
Pretty much every theory/hypothesis has been modified, it's kind of in the scientific method.

1. Make a hypothesis to explain the given data.
2. Test it.
3. Refine it.
4. Repeat steps 2-3 infinitely.

 

[mkatzwork]

It's a 'God did it' claim. You ASSUMED cause, you didn't SHOW cause.

I can't quite believe I have to explain the concept of hypothesis to you.
We hypothesized that there was a cause to the observed effect. We named the hypothesis the cosmological constant, others gave it different names, some of which confuse people. We're testing the idea. So far the tests of the predictions derived from the theory have come back in agreement with the model, but that might change in the future.

That's a really weak argument IMO. Of course it must "fit the bill". It's metaphysical gap filler to MAKE it fit. If it didn't fit, it would be TWEAKED until it did fit. It's the "perfect" kind of gap filler too because it can't be falsified on Earth.

It's perfectly falsifiable, that just hasn't happened yet. If a reading came in that contradicted, and that observation was confirmed, it would be falsified....done with. Finished. By fitting the bill, I mean that we can extend from the hypothesis logical predictions that we can test, and so far, those predictions have proven to be right. We fitted the hypothesis to the data because only a FOOL wouldn't!

There's no problem with the math, just the PHYSICS, specifically there is a GIANT hole in your theory related to cause/effect justification for your claims. That's the basic problem, not the math.

Just plain wrong. You're basically arguing that if we observe something we can't explain, we're not allowed to hypothesize a cause. Ridiculous.

I tend to question the mainstream "interpretations", not the observations.

Good! But you'd better bring evidence that can be checked!

Of course I can! It would be like me claiming "God energy did it". There's no justification for connection "God energy" to acceleration. PERIOD.

If you called it God energy, that would imply something divine, so I think people would object. Dark energy is simply not a very good name for it because you're interpreting it wrong (as have many).

No amount of lipstick on that pig (by calling it "science") is going to change the fact that you NEVER showed that A) dark energy even exists, or B) that it has the physical ability to accelerate things as you claim. Its nothing more than a self serving religion, dressed up as a "science".

We see the acceleration. Either the observation is wrong, or we have to find an explanation for this acceleration. Since the observation has been checked using other techniques...the most reasonable thing is to work on possible causes. Why do you not understand this?

A "constant" in a math formula isn't a physical "cause", it's just a constant in a math formula! I'm really starting to wonder if astronomers even understand the difference between qualification and quantification. They seem to ASSUME if it's quantified it's also automatically QUALIFIED as well.

The constant is the mathematical description and name for how this cause is operating. It is not the cause itself, just a label.

So? It has to "fit the data", and it will be 'made to fit' the data perfectly. It couldn't be any other way because they simply 'make up' whatever property they need to make it fit. What I resent is then IGNORING AND REJECTING anything that isn't as mathematically 'elegant' or 'simple'. Didn't you guys learn ANYTHING from that Chapman/Birkeland incident? Apparently not.

If you have observations, you have to make a hypothesis that fits the data, otherwise you're a fool. If you think an observation is wrong, you check it. By the way, not only are you wrong about it, you're complaining that inflation "can't be falsified from Earth", which if you really knew about Chapman's objections to Birkeland's theories, you'd know that was what Chapman said in response to Birkeland.

Your knowledge of your own field seems weaker than you think.

There's a HUGE difference between claiming "I don't know" why we can't identify all the mass, and claiming "exotic forms of matter did it". It's not my fault they chose the latter approach. I personally didn't the "dark matter' theory when it was most commonly associated with MACHO brands of ORDINARY matter. It's the 'Exotic matter did it" claim that I do not accept.

Science does not ever really claim "I don't know" and walk away. The point is to come up with an idea of what is going on, and then test it. "I don't know" is never something I would say and just stop there.

But that's the problem. It's SHOULD NOT HAVE to "explain all the data". An honest "I don't know" is actually "better than" making up stuff just to "claim" you've achieved an "explanation". Is dark energy really an "explanation" for anything? Does inflation really "explain" why the universe is flat?

So it's ok for a hypothesis to not fit prior observations?

That also depends on what you're talking about with just the word 'inflation'.

The exponential growth of space-time does however fit with the observed universe so far, explains why curvature tends to zero, and requires some kind of constant on a cosmological level to explain things. If we find observations that don't match this, then the whole thing will be rethought.

I think what I resent the most is the fact that PC/EU theory is being "graded" by how well it "competes" only at the level of mathematics. Nobody could get a 'better' fit to data using ACTUAL forces of nature, and not everyone likes to simply "make up stuff" to fill the gaps of their ignorance. Dark stuff isn't actually even an "explanation" in the first place.

No, it's being graded on how well it fits observations, which is to say - not so well. It'd be good though if you could come up with stronger mathematics for starters, since you're trying to overturn something with extremely strong mathematics. It's kind of like playing basketball against the Lakers and complaining that they're too tall...

 

[Michael]

All except the main, "big daddy" of supernatural ideas...?

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

There's nothing "supernatural" about my concept of God. Everything in that theory is found here on Earth, including awareness, electrical circuits, etc. Everything in that theory is 100 percent pure empirical physics and nothing but empirical physics. Even the cause effect mechanisms are described and verified to actually work in the lab.

Compared to the trilogy of invisible sky gods of mainstream cosmology theory, you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to complain about.

 

[Michael]

You cannot see electrons, you can only measure their effects.

Electron Gets Film Debut In First-ever Video Of Its Kind

We certainly see photons coming from them. What exactly do you mean by "see"?

We see an effect that has no known cause, we hypothesize a cause

God did it?

whilst checking the observation is correct with other techniques.

What other "techniques"? What other technique do I need besides "God" if any old "goddidit" kind of "explanation' will do?

No faith required.

Boloney. If I can't demonstrate that God energy even exists in nature, I can't claim "God energy did it" and start slapping on some mathematical lipstick on that metaphysical PIG of a claim! Where's the evidence "dark energy" even exists, let alone that it does what you claim? How do you even know it's dark rather than just ordinary light we haven't the capacity to even "see" yet?

If someone shows the observation is wrong or proposes a cause that fits the observation better, then the entire consensus will shift, very rapidly - as we've seen numerous times in the history of science.

We've also seen it sit in pure stagnation for 60 years until satellites in space FINALLY woke up the mainstream and they FINALLY looked at the possibility of electrical currents in space. The got as far as the current IN the aurora but never bother to track that current back to it's proper SOURCE! Holy Cow. If they had any clue about cause/effect relationships they would immediately realize that solar flares are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere just as Birkeland PREDICTED (real actual empirical predictions that he learned in the lab) from his empirical experiments. They're still entirely CLUELESS about the events observed in our own solar atmosphere! I can't even BELIEVE the ignorance quotient of the average EU hater. It's beyond pathetic. Even the average astronomer seems to know very very very little about plasma physics in general. There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but when you've been around the block as many times as I have, you start to notice patterns. I've met a total of I believe 3, maybe 4 astronomers that even own or have read a single book on the topic of plasma physics. Many of them aren't even proficient in basic EM theory.

Incidentally, no good scientist would ever use 'invisible' as a derogatory term for something they didn't like, particularly one with an understanding of the subatomic world...

Well, I find it rather interesting to discuss this topic on this website. Most atheists tend to reject the concept of God because God is 'invisible' or can't be seen with their eyes. It's almost always an EMPIRICAL objection in the final analysis, one typically related to a lack of demonstrated cause/effect relationships.

When it comes to "science" however, empirical cause/effect justification objections go flying out the window and essentially 'anything goes'. You don't see any glaring double standards? I sure do.

 

[Michael]

Flatness predictions were around well before inflation. Inflation predicts the angular breadth of certain parts of the CMB, and if those predictions had turned out wrong, it'd be dead. They didn't, so it's not.

It would (and likely was) 'tweaked' until it did fit. There is absolutely, positively no cause/effect justification for ANY of Guth's claims or any of the subsequent claims of 'guthanity' which has already mophed into at least a half dozen different metaphysical religions, all with "slightly" unique "predictions".

Penrose's assumption is less good to your case than Kiessling's by the way (who suggested the probability of it happening was infinitely low), so you're not even using the most impressive number! Unfortunately both require thermodynamics to be a settled issue on the cosmological level, which it's not, so it's relatively speaking not that meaningful a number (which is why it doesn't scare the numerous inflation-proponents out there - eg. Hawking, who worked with Penrose)

The problem is that the mainstream keeps claiming that it's beloved theory makes all these important "predictions". When we study history however we find out they are almost all of them are actually POSTDICTIONS related to known observations, or related to gap fillers to explain complete failures of their previous BB theories. I can't tell you have many folks I've seen (like Krauss) put all this amazing importance on the concept of 'flatness' to their beliefs when in fact inflation should be excluded on that issue alone based on how damn UNLIKELY it that it would be flat were inflation to actually be involved.

There's no rhyme nor reason to justify any of these handwavy claims. They just seem to make them up as they go, and they add liberal doses of metaphysics gap filler whereever and whenever needed. Empirical physics be damned, they're full speed ahead into realm of metaphysics and they have no intention of ever looking back.

 

[NGC 6712]

There is more to dark energy being the hypothesis than just redshift measurements.

 

[Michael]

Well, that's your perogative. But, it is my understanding that, as far as "Dark Matter" goes... It is really a placeholder term. It is simply the name given to the matter that science cannot (probably, yet) account for, in that, there isn't enough mass in the universe to account for certain forces, so there must be something there that we aren't "seeing" (hence the term).

Well, kind of, and ultimately yes, it's a placeholder term. It used to be a placeholder term for "pure ignorance' as you suggest. In other words it had no "knowledge" claim associated with it. It 'could have been' associated with MACHO (ordinary matter) brands of 'dark matter'. In astronomy today however there's a knowledge claim that is being associated with that term. The mainstream keeps claiming that it is NOT made of ordinary matter. That knowledge CLAIM is utterly and entirely bogus.

Granted, I am not a physicist nor a cosmologist nor an astronomer and I claim absolutely no expertise in this area of discussion. "Dark matter" is merely a hypothesis, as far as I know.

You're actually correct, and in some ways more correct (more honest IMO) in terms of actual science. Your explanation, devoid of any claim of knowledge is a valid theory and a valid description of dark matter theory IMO. Theirs is not. It includes a knowledge claim that they don't actually KNOW at all.

It seems to me that you are on some kind of crusade against dark matter and nearly always steer the conversation in that direction in much the same way that AV nearly always brings up Pluto's demotion to a dwarf planet. Much like his arguments, I can't see much of a point in this mission of yours.

Hmm. Well. Thank you. I actually appreciate that feedback. I mean that.

Since you can't seem to see my point, let me try to explain my point. In terms of pure physics, if I'm "on crusade' (I didn't mean to seem that way), it's not actually against "dark" theories, it's 'for' a different cosmology theory, specifically Plasma Cosmology theory, or Electric Universe theory. IMO it's a "better' way to explain the universe we live in because it is based on pure plasma physics and pure empirical physics. It's the merging of GR theory as Einstein described it (no dark energy), and MHD theories.

Where that "against" aspect tends to come into the conversations on this forum (it can be different on different forums) is where we get into the topic of God, vs any other scientific 'hypothesis" we might consider. There tends to be a "compare and contrast' aspect that goes on between "science" and "religion". If something as bizarre as string theory or inflation theory can be considered a form of "science', then surely any empirical theory of God, or the universe (or both at once in my case) are also valid "scientific" theories.

A lot of the atheists around here (and some theists) keep claiming that God is 'supernatural", or they claim that God can't be studied scientifically, or they claim that the topic of God isn't even a "scientific' topic. Those are all absolutely false claims. That's my real motive. In a round about way I'm crusading "for' things, not against anything.

I must admit however that I do believe that mainstream cosmology theory is about the most pitiful "scientific" theory that I've ever seen or read, and believe me when I tell you that I've seen more than a few in my day. I freely admit that I don't like Lambda-CDM theory at all, but I'm actually not crusading against it. If I'm crusading, I'm crusading for the proper inclusion of PC theory into the field of astronomy, and I'm crusading for God.

I'll have to pay more attention to my statements from now on based on your feedback. Thank you. I don't want to sound like I'm on a Lambda-CDM beatdown crusade, but apparently that's how I am coming across. Evidently it's time for me to focus more on discussing PC/EU theory, and electric sun theory, and focus a lot less on mainstream cosmology theory. There's no sense in becoming what I loathe, and being seen as just another 'hater' on another topic..... That wasn't my intent, but I can see that my distaste for Lambda-theory has probably colored a lot of my comments.

 

[mkatzwork]

Electron Gets Film Debut In First-ever Video Of Its Kind

We certainly see photons coming from them. What exactly do you mean by "see"?

Let me clarify - you cannot directly observe electrons with the naked eye or under a microscope - they are 'invisible' directly to our eyes (and we can't even be sure exactly where they are until we measure for them)...you can only directly observe the effects or products of their existence.

Point still stands. You used 'invisible' as a derogatory without even considering its meaning.

God did it?

Sure, that's a hypothesis too, technically; but you'd have to define "God" to get it going...and that's where you run into problems. It's a considerably worse description of what's going on in the universe for sure, but it's still an attempt at a 'description'.

What other "techniques"? What other technique do I need besides "God" if any old "goddidit" kind of "explanation' will do?

Expansion of the universe is confirmed by several sources, predominantly the uniform cooling of the CMB, the homogenous nature of the universe beyond 100 megaparsecs ('the end of greatness'), the red shifting of the photons coming from all the galaxies so far measured with known distances within a reasonable error margin (with no better explanation yet proposed, but I know you don't like this), and the even distribution of supernovae and gamma-ray sources which point to the fact that we're not in a 'special' place in the universe.

Boloney. If I can't demonstrate that God energy even exists in nature, I can't claim "God energy did it" and start slapping on some mathematical lipstick on that metaphysical PIG of a claim!

Where's the evidence "dark energy" even exists, let alone that it does what you claim? How do you even know it's dark rather than just ordinary light we haven't the capacity to even "see" yet?

Why are you assuming it is "light"? Do you think its supposed to be made of photons? I think I see where you're going wrong. You're still at least subconsciously assuming it is 'stuff'...and you betray this assumption repeatedly.

The evidence a propulsive (or inversely thought out, negatively pressured) force exists is the observed expansion of the universe. Either attack the observation or propose alternative theories, but don't mock the simple making of a reasoned hypothesis (that the effect should have a cause, which seems as yet unobserved). That hypothesis is still valid. Invalidate it using evidence, or do something else. The way you attack science is the way creationists attack it - using hyperbole, capital letters, and seemingly derogatory remarks about the nature of scientific research.

You have no mathematics to back up your hypotheses, and again, having no mathematics and complaining how much physicists use it is like offering to play basketball against the Lakers and then complaining they are too tall once you get on the court. Tough. Whining about it makes no difference.

You seem generally rude, dismissive and intolerant of those who hold differing opinions. If you have received that treatment from fellow scientists, then, guess what, so are they, and they should know better too. I don't doubt that scientists are often very human, but you're doing no better.

Pigs are clean, intelligent animals and if they had higher intelligence, they would probably like to register their displeasure at your abundant and ineffective use of cliche, especially that used in conjunction with ungrammatical CAPITAL LETTERS.

We've also seen it sit in pure stagnation for 60 years until satellites in space FINALLY woke up the mainstream and they FINALLY looked at the possibility of electrical currents in space. The got as far as the current IN the aurora but never bother to track that current back to it's proper SOURCE! Holy Cow. If they had any clue about cause/effect relationships they would immediately realize that solar flares are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere just as Birkeland PREDICTED (real actual empirical predictions that he learned in the lab) from his empirical experiments. They're still entirely CLUELESS about the events observed in our own solar atmosphere! I can't even BELIEVE the ignorance quotient of the average EU hater. It's beyond pathetic. Even the average astronomer seems to know very very very little about plasma physics in general. There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but when you've been around the block as many times as I have, you start to notice patterns. I've met a total of I believe 3, maybe 4 astronomers that even own or have read a single book on the topic of plasma physics. Many of them aren't even proficient in basic EM theory.

Why are you talking to astronomers about plasma physics? I'm sure most of them don't own all that many books on quantum electrodynamics either, that doesn't mean they aren't proficient in their field. You're talking to the wrong people about a subject they're unlikely to fully understand, and then expressing surprise.

Go talk to physicists instead and try your ideas out there. I think you pick astronomers because of a) perceived slights in cosmology and b) because the only topic of physics you seem to have good proficiency in is plasma - you make basic, undergraduate level errors in other fields, albeit well-intentioned ones, and any physicist would challenge you to back up your assertions with the mathematics, as you well know. You pick astronomers because they are in a peripatetic field to physics, a little less schooled in the advanced details, and you stand a chance at bamboozling them because of that. You're picking easy targets. Boring.

Where did you study? (that's just out of interest)

Well, I find it rather interesting to discuss this topic on this website. Most atheists tend to reject the concept of God because God is 'invisible' or can't be seen with their eyes. It's almost always an EMPIRICAL objection in the final analysis, one typically related to a lack of demonstrated cause/effect relationships.

But you're basically a Christian pantheist, arguably one of the least empirically testable God-hypotheses ever.

Anyhow...you're complaining atheists complain about a lack of cause and effect and saying doing that is somehow wrong, whilst complaining about a perceived lack of cause and effect in relation to inflation? Or is complaining about the lack of cause and effect ok? It's only semi-relevant, because there is an effect, the hypothesis in inflation relates to the cause. All hypotheses have to relate to either the cause or the effect, and you just (selectively and inconsistently) don't like the ones which refer to the former and not the latter.

When it comes to "science" however, empirical cause/effect justification objections go flying out the window and essentially 'anything goes'. You don't see any glaring double standards? I sure do.

No, we just don't let you make hypotheses that don't fit all the known evidence, without justifiably and reasonably challenging the evidence that doesn't fit; that's what you don't like about science. Everything else you're just fine with. Also, if the recent detector data proves to be correct regarding WIMPs, your attack will prove baseless anyway, so you'd better have an alternative theory ready.

 

[[serious]]

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.

Were neutrinos invisible-magic-make-believe in 1940?

We know there is something there as we are getting interaction in our detectors
BBC News - Dark matter hinted at again at Cresst experiment

 

[mkatzwork]

Well, kind of, and ultimately yes, it's a placeholder term. It used to be a placeholder term for "pure ignorance' as you suggest. In other words it had no "knowledge" claim associated with it. It 'could have been' associated with MACHO (ordinary matter) brands of 'dark matter'. In astronomy today however there's a knowledge claim that is being associated with that term. The mainstream keeps claiming that it is NOT made of ordinary matter. That knowledge CLAIM is utterly and entirely bogus.

Wrong, again. Of the two principle kinds of 'dark' matter - MACHO's are baryonic - which is what physicists call "ordinary" (a lousy term that we avoid) matter. They would be observable if you got nearer to them for example, or if there wasn't something else obscuring their presence.

WIMPS are essentially non-baryonic, they fit the mathematics considerably better as the predominant source for the perceived missing matter in the universe that is evidenced by numerous observations, and guess what...they are testable in most mainstream theories, and we're looking for them right now. Might well even be found in the next twelve months or so, but the hoopla's going to be about the Higgs - looks like we might have actually found that already.

 

[mkatzwork]

PS...did you give up in the other thread?

 

[NGC 6712]

Why are you talking to astronomers about plasma physics? I'm sure most of them don't own all that many books on quantum electrodynamics either, that doesn't mean they aren't proficient in their field. You're talking to the wrong people about a subject they're unlikely to fully understand, and then expressing surprise.

Because astronomers and astrophysicists tend to know far more about astrophysical plasmas than plasma physicists working on fusion research. I'm an astrophysicist (cosmologist primarily) but my background was originally theoretical particle physics - I do have quite a lot of books on QED, QCD and QFT in my library. (And plasma physics for that matter too).

 

[mkatzwork]

Because astronomers and astrophysicists tend to know far more about astrophysical plasmas than plasma physicists working on fusion research. I'm an astrophysicist (cosmologist primarily) but my background was originally theoretical particle physics - I do have quite a lot of books on QED, QCD and QFT in my library. (And plasma physics for that matter too).

Ok, that's a fair point. I saw the blanket term and thought it a little general (as well as a little general in its assumptions of ignorance on their part) - but of course, you're then blowing his assertion that the majority of "astronomers" (whatever he means specifically by that) generally know nothing about basic electromagnetic theory kind of out of the water...unless I'm missing something big. I still say he doesn't have the maths to back up his assertions, which is the only reason he doesn't like the fact that other theories do...

 

[NGC 6712]

Ok, that's a fair point. I saw the blanket term and thought it a little general (as well as a little general in its assumptions of ignorance on their part) - but of course, you're then blowing his assertion that the majority of "astronomers" (whatever he means specifically by that) generally know nothing about basic electromagnetic theory kind of out of the water...unless I'm missing something big. I still say he doesn't have the maths to back up his assertions, which is the only reason he doesn't like the fact that other theories do...

Astronomy is applied physics - astrophysics is both applied and theoretical physics. To be honest the terms are interchangeable. I personally tend to use astronomer for researchers working on direct observation - people like myself who work in front of computer creating models of physical phenomena that relates to astronomy I call astrophysicists. But there is often much overlap between the two.

Most (if not all) astronomers do the same basic coursework as physicists and the specialisation later on will determine the breadth of expertise in a given regime of physics. Certainly they all do the standard EM/QM/Atomic/Nuclear/Mechanics education. Heck, in most universities the astronomy section is a group within the physics department just like condensed matter groups, particle physics groups etc etc. Even when Astronomy has its own department there are usually cross discipline professorships where people hold positions in both departments. I used to have such a position myself though now I am solely in the physics department.