Method for accepting science

[Elendur]

From my perspective at least, the real problem is related to pure denial on your part. You simply REFUSE to acknowledge the fact that big bang THEORY includes three different "hypotheses", and it requires several "acts of faith" in a number of "hypothetical" entities.

I could hand you papers that demonstrate that plasma redshift does explain the very same redshift features, and it enjoys laboratory support, but you're not interested in the topic or the facts apparently. What's the point?

As I said earlier, unless you have some dark energy, dark matter and a cute little inflation faerie hiding in your back pocket, any belief they exist are simply 'acts of faith' on your part, or anyone's part that puts their faith in such nonsense.

You're talking about astronomy, I'm talking about two sloppy arguments done by you.
If you actually read the argument presented you would get it, hopefully.
The argument includes astronomy but goes far beyond as well. I don't know how to put it simpler.

I'm not interested in the astronomy, read the argument presented and respond in kind.
Then you might go further and say that astronomy isn't a science according to you, or whatever direction else you want.

 

[Michael]

You're talking about astronomy, I'm talking about two sloppy arguments done by you.
If you actually read the argument presented you would get it, hopefully.

The only thing I "get" is that you don't wish to embrace the reality of how science actually works, nor can you accept that "faith" is a common part of science. I've seen pure denial play out on many topics on many forums. We're going nowhere fast.

Nothing I might say at this point is likely to sway you, and nothing you've said thus far has even come close to changing my opinions. I think at this point it would simply be best to agree to disagree on this issue. There's just no point in continuing to whip this dead horse IMO.

 

[Elendur]

The only thing I "get" is that you don't wish to embrace the reality of how science actually works, nor can you accept that "faith" is a common part of science. I've seen pure denial play out on many topics on many forums. We're going nowhere fast.

Nothing I might say at this point is likely to sway you, and nothing you've said thus far has even come close to changing my opinions. I think at this point it would simply be best to agree to disagree on this issue. There's just no point in continuing to whip this dead horse IMO.

Post #477 is the core of why I started arguing with you.
I am only interested in those two arguments.
You keep bringing into your opinions in every post, I've given you objective definitions and arguments based upon them to resolve this entire mess.
You keep fiddling around, not even trying to stick to the main issue, I try to weed out the irrelevant parts to make you answer in kind.

1. Can you present an argument, based on the definitions of theory and faith (feel free to include more definitions), why science requires faith?
2. Can you present an argument, based on the definitions of theory and hypothesis (feel free to include more definitions), why the difference between theory and hypothesis is arbitrary?


Edit: (By the way, recognize the structure?)

 

[sandwiches]

Post #477 is the core of why I started arguing with you.
I am only interested in those two arguments.
You keep bringing into your opinions in every post, I've given you objective definitions and arguments based upon them to resolve this entire mess.
You keep fiddling around, not even trying to stick to the main issue, I try to weed out the irrelevant parts to make you answer in kind.

1. Can you present an argument, based on the definitions of theory and faith (feel free to include more definitions), why science requires faith?
2. Can you present an argument, based on the definitions of theory and hypothesis (feel free to include more definitions), why the difference between theory and hypothesis is arbitrary?

Edit: (By the way, recognize the structure?)

I feel the same way. Michael never answers anything head on. He always likes to ramble on about "Guthanity," dark energy of the gaps, and other nonsense. When he goes off the deep end about faith of inflation or ad hoc inventions of Guth, I just stop responding, usually.

 

[Elendur]

I feel the same way. Michael never answers anything head on. He always likes to ramble on about "Guthanity," dark energy of the gaps, and other nonsense. When he goes off the deep end about faith of inflation or ad hoc inventions of Guth, I just stop responding, usually.

So I wasn't the only one feeling this way. Phew.
Too bad I don't have the sense to stop responding I'm just too stubborn.

Btw, thanks for the response

 

[Michael]

Post #477 is the core of why I started arguing with you.
I am only interested in those two arguments.

I'm sure I'm going to regret even responding to this argument one more time, but:

That's the problem. You're trying to OVERSIMPLIFY the issue down to a couple of paragraphs and definitions and you keep ignoring the real world application entirely.

You keep bringing into your opinions in every post,

As do you, starting with your claim that faith isn't required with theories. The definition that you cited doesn't actually say any such thing. It notes in fact that even theories can and might be falsified in the future, so it's necessarily an act of faith on the part of the believer.

I've given you objective definitions and arguments based upon them to resolve this entire mess. You keep fiddling around, not even trying to stick to the main issue, I try to weed out the irrelevant parts to make you answer in kind.

From my vantage point, you're intentionally ignoring the parts of my responses that you don't want to deal with, and those are the places where your argument actually falls apart. The definitions mean nothing by themselves. We need to actually look a few REAL theories to see how they *ACTUALLY* (not theoretically) work. The ACTUAL process requires FAITH in the unseen (in the lab).

1. Can you present an argument, based on the definitions of theory and faith (feel free to include more definitions), why science requires faith?

Sure:

Theory:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

The first definition of faith doesn't even say anything about logical proof or material evidence. One's faith COULD BE related to empirical support, or not related to any support. All that is actually required is 'confidence' in an idea and 'belief in' something. Astronomers certainly are confident in their beliefs. They therefore have FAITH in their ideas.

It "just so happens" that astronomy also fits the second definition, not just the first one. There *ISN'T* any logical proof of, nor any material evidence to actually support dark energy. It's a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of redshift, not an OBJECTIVE observation of expansion/acceleration.

I'm not even going to go on to the second question until I see how you do with the first one.

 

[Elendur]

I'm sure I'm going to regret even responding to this argument one more time, but:

That's the problem. You're trying to OVERSIMPLIFY the issue down to a couple of paragraphs and definitions and you keep ignoring the real world application entirely.

There is no simplification going on, I was simply answering to your poor choice of words. Those words only.

As do you, starting with your claim that faith isn't required with theories. The definition that you cited doesn't actually say any such thing. It notes in fact that even theories can and might be falsified in the future, so it's necessarily an act of faith on the part of the believer.

So, because something is falsifiable it's an act of faith? You've suddenly included everything ever attempted to describe the whole natural world, rendering the definition of faith useless.
I applaud you.

From my vantage point, you're intentionally ignoring the parts of my responses that you don't want to deal with, and those are the places where your argument actually falls apart. The definitions mean nothing by themselves. We need to actually look a few REAL theories to see how they *ACTUALLY* (not theoretically) work. The ACTUAL process requires FAITH in the unseen (in the lab).

I don't want to deal with them because they're irrelevant.

Sure:

Theory:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

The first definition of faith doesn't even say anything about logical proof or material evidence. One's faith COULD BE related to empirical support, or not related to any support. All that is actually required is 'confidence' in an idea and 'belief in' something. Astronomers certainly are confident in their beliefs. They therefore have FAITH in their ideas.

Finally! Thank you for the response. I'll just white out the irrelevant part.

1. I've given you my argument, you should have included a refutation to that as well.
2. Only relying on one definition, nit picked and chosen as a synonym for another term (in this case having confidence in something), is rarely a good idea to make a solid case. Especially since there are two other definitions that come really close to each other:

...
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
...
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.
...

What you are doing is essentially using the word "faith" as a synonym for "having confidence". If that is your definition, I'll cede this point. I won't say that confidence isn't a part of a theory.
However, that is not the definition you've hinted at earlier.

It "just so happens" that astronomy also fits the second definition, not jst the first. There *ISN"T* any logical proof of or material evidence to actually support dark energy. It's a SUBJECTIVE interpretation, not an OBJECTIVE observation.

Here you go off into another irrelevant tangent, but I'll forgive you for this time.

I'm not even going to go on to the second question until I see how you do with the first one.

Allright.

 

[NGC 6712]

Plasma Redshift.

Why no blueshifts?
It is nothing more than a tired light theory - why no blurring of distant objects?
Cannot predict a CMB.
Ari's paper actually if you do the math correctly predicts no redshift at all.

 

[Michael]

1. I've given you my argument, you should have included a refutation to that as well.

Oy Vey. I was trying to keep it VERY SIMPLE. I was only trying to link 'theory' with 'faith'. Period. I'm not REFUTING anything.

What you are doing is essentially using the word "faith" as a synonym for "having confidence". If that is your definition, I'll cede this point. I won't say that confidence isn't a part of a theory.

Note that I didn't create the definition nor provide that definition. The definition that you provided equates confidence to "faith", not me. It doesn't matter if that confidence is warranted by the evidence or not. That act of confidence in the idea is still an "act of faith". It also still applies to THEORIES (as opposed to LAWS) because theories can always be falsified by a single observation. Furthermore, I even know WHICH observation that's going to falsify 'dark energy' eventually. It's mortal empirical enemy is plasma redshift, and plasma redshift has ALREADY been confirmed in the lab.

As long as we're getting closer, let's try point number two again, which unfortunately requires that you consider the way the terms are used in THE REAL WORLD OF PHYSICS:

Redshifted photons from space are observed. PERIOD. The empirical CAUSE for that phenomenon remains technically unknown in mainstream theory. In PC/EU theory I'm pretty sure that I already KNOW that redshift is caused by plasma redshift, because that phenomenon can and has already been documented in the lab.

The mainstream cosmology "theory", includes not one, not two, but three different "hypothetical" entities related to "cause". Not a single one of them enjoy any kind of empirical confirmation. NONE. Stuffing all three hypotheses into a single idea and calling it "theory" is just plain absurd. You can't build a 'theory' out of three different "hypothetical" entities and still call it a "theory", but that is EXACTLY what the mainstream is doing. There is no rhyme nor reason for calling big bang ideas a "theory". It's ultimately a triple hypothesis, metaphysical grab bag, it's not actually even a real theory.

 

[Michael]

Plasma Redshift.

Why no blueshifts?
It is nothing more than a tired light theory - why no blurring of distant objects?
Cannot predict a CMB.
Ari's paper actually if you do the math correctly predicts no redshift at all.

Not according to Ari. Where and how did you CORRECT it?

 

[NGC 6712]

Not according to Ari. Where and how did you CORRECT it?

Where does he ever mention blueshifts?
How does he avoid blurring?

Why does his appendix A (equation A15) in the 2004 paper (and the error repeated in his review) which is the solution to the equation of motion (equation A12) of the electron at r = 0 indicate the electron does not move. His solution is equal to zero BUT he misses this entirely.

 

[Michael]

Where does he ever mention blueshifts?

You tell me.

How does he avoid blurring?

He doesn't have to avoid it. We even observe SOME amount of blurring.

Why does his appendix A (equation A15) in the 2004 paper (and the error repeated in his review) which is the solution to the equation of motion (equation A12) of the electron at r = 0 indicate the electron does not move. His solution is equal to zero BUT he misses this entirely.

No! He's simply setting r to 0 to have a simple initial starting point and electrons are NEVER stationary!

 

[SkyWriting]

What irrefutable evidence have you stumbled upon?

Answered prayer. Nothing is more clear that one is dealing with intelligence than a conversation. You'll note that intelligence is the first thing questioned around here by some folks.

 

[SkyWriting]

Long story short: unverifiable, unrepeatable anecdotes. That would be a "no" for objective evidence.

confirmation bias - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Confirmation bias does apply to my observations of intelligent design in the universe. The is an equal level of seeming randomness with no Creator in sight.

But it doesn't apply to my experiences of answered prayer.
They come in at a 100% "success" rate. More important, the timing
is beyond instant. The "answers" are put in place before the request.
God does that just to prove a point I think.

 

[NGC 6712]

You tell me.

Why no blueshifting? Why always redshifting?

He doesn't have to avoid it. We even observe SOME amount of blurring.

Of course he has to avoid it - the blurring from any tired light theory (which is all this plasma redshift is) is not observed, period.

No! He's simply setting r to 0 to have a simple initial starting point and electrons are NEVER stationary!

My point is that he has a blatant mathematical error. His solution is zero.

 

[Michael]

Why no blueshifting? Why always redshifting?

I'm not sure, but that is exactly what seems to occur in the lab as well:

ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

Perhaps it's due to the nature of the interaction itself since the photon is always traveling faster than the target electron(s) and it's typically transferring photon kinetic energy to the electron.

Of course he has to avoid it - the blurring from any tired light theory (which is all this plasma redshift is) is not observed, period.

That's not the case. The point of interaction matters, the process itself makes a difference too. You can't just handwave in a claim "It should be blurry" and act like that is actually a valid argument. There are MANY factors involved in plasma redshift and it's a COMPLICATED process. Most importantly it depends on the number of free electrons present. In EU/PC theory that occurs CLOSEST to suns and galaxies, not way out in deep space where fewer free electrons are present.

My point is that he has a blatant mathematical error. His solution is zero.

There is no error! Setting a initial variable state to zero to SIMPLIFY the calculation doesn't constitute a "mathematical error'.

 

[NGC 6712]

I'm not sure, but that is exactly what seems to occur in the lab as well:

ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

Huh? That's not even the same process as the plasma redshift theory you linked to? Can't have both be right?

Perhaps it's due to the nature of the interaction itself since the photon is always traveling faster than the target electron(s) and it's typically transferring photon kinetic energy to the electron.

You really might want to rethink this statement? Do you know why?

That's not the case. The point of interaction matters, the process itself makes a difference too. You can't just handwave in a claim "It should be blurry" and act like that is actually a valid argument. There are MANY factors involved in plasma redshift and it's a COMPLICATED process. Most importantly it depends on the number of free electrons present. In EU/PC theory that occurs CLOSEST to suns and galaxies, not way out in deep space where fewer free electrons are present.

What happens to the photons momentum? You cannot lower the frequency of a photon without a corresponding momentum change. Hence blurring.

There is no error! Setting a initial variable state to zero to SIMPLIFY the calculation doesn't constitute a "mathematical error'.

That is not what he does. Do you have any mathematical background?

 

[Smidlee]

So the fact that science and religion are both based on faith, as you claim, makes science as strong and valid as or as weak and unjustified as religion?

While we like to divide things into subjects like religion and science (nothing wrong with that) yet both are the product of the inter-most part of man. (not claiming God = religion) Both speaks just as much about the human heart as it does with the outside world.

 

[mkatzwork]

That's not the case. The point of interaction matters, the process itself makes a difference too. You can't just handwave in a claim "It should be blurry" and act like that is actually a valid argument. There are MANY factors involved in plasma redshift and it's a COMPLICATED process. Most importantly it depends on the number of free electrons present. In EU/PC theory that occurs CLOSEST to suns and galaxies, not way out in deep space where fewer free electrons are present.

Then the redshift should be measurably, markedly different in the light that passes close to suns and galaxies and that which doesn't - we could measure that very easily with our own sun and observing objects with light passing nearer to it than others? I don't think such an observation has ever been made.

There is no error! Setting a initial variable state to zero to SIMPLIFY the calculation doesn't constitute a "mathematical error'.

I hadn't spotted this one, it is an error as NGC has shown and one he indeed repeats in the review, the second paper - "Plasma-redshift cosmology: a review"

http://plasmaredshift.org/Article_Archive_files/10CCC2AReviewFinal.pdf

In the equation on page 2, from (eq 2) we can see that r = 0 is only possible in one state, that if e = 0 or A = 0.

His mathematics seems to require electrons to be stationary.......

Incidentally, I am positive you can't normalize the Poynting vector of a single photon, since the EM "field" of a single photon is something of a meaningless idea in that sense due to uncertainty (especially when we're talking vectors) - but I'll have something more concrete on that when I get around to it.

 

[Elendur]

Oy Vey. I was trying to keep it VERY SIMPLE. I was only trying to link 'theory' with 'faith'. Period. I'm not REFUTING anything.

So then we have two arguments.
One that utilizes the term 'faith' as a term of unique value and one that utilizes the term 'faith' as a synonym.
One saying that 'faith' isn't a part of theories and one that confidence is a part of theories.
Too bad you took the easy way out, really.

Note that I didn't create the definition nor provide that definition. The definition that you provided equates confidence to "faith", not me. It doesn't matter if that confidence is warranted by the evidence or not. That act of confidence in the idea is still an "act of faith". It also still applies to THEORIES (as opposed to LAWS) because theories can always be falsified by a single observation. Furthermore, I even know WHICH observation that's going to falsify 'dark energy' eventually. It's mortal empirical enemy is plasma redshift, and plasma redshift has ALREADY been confirmed in the lab.

Sure, if it's all about the confidence. If you'd read my argument, you'd noticed that I use it as the unique term it is (which makes your strong statements much more sensible, since going on and on about having confidence in something makes no sense).

As long as we're getting closer, let's try point number two again, which unfortunately requires that you consider the way the terms are used in THE REAL WORLD OF PHYSICS:

If you'd read anything I've posted recently you'd seen that I haven't been talking about physics.
And no. It doesn't require your 'real world application'.
(Edit: Maybe you would benefit from reading more mathematics, you don't have to worry about the real world until you're done. In this case one can start to look how long science has drifted of from its core, after one is done)

Redshifted photons from space are observed. PERIOD. The empirical CAUSE for that phenomenon remains technically unknown in mainstream theory. In PC/EU theory I'm pretty sure that I already KNOW that redshift is caused by plasma redshift, because that phenomenon can and has already been documented in the lab.

The mainstream cosmology "theory", includes not one, not two, but three different "hypothetical" entities related to "cause". Not a single one of them enjoy any kind of empirical confirmation. NONE. Stuffing all three hypotheses into a single idea and calling it "theory" is just plain absurd. You can't build a 'theory' out of three different "hypothetical" entities and still call it a "theory", but that is EXACTLY what the mainstream is doing. There is no rhyme nor reason for calling big bang ideas a "theory". It's ultimately a triple hypothesis, metaphysical grab bag, it's not actually even a real theory.

Do you know why I argue from the definitions? Because that's a simple way to keep all the clutter out. All that has nothing to do with what we're arguing about.