Method for accepting science

[Michael]

You sure talk a lot about how models are falsified and how they suck without actually explaining how the math is wrong.

Their mathematical models of "dark matter" currently predict that:
Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them.

A) 'dark matter' is not composed of 'ordinary' baryonic matter, it's "cold(slow moving) dark/invisible matter" of some form.

B) we should be SURROUNDED by the stuff in our area of the galaxy.

We aren't swimming in anything but ordinary matter, and ordinary matter CAN account for that 'missing mass' after all:

[1205.5037] A huge reservoir of ionized gas around the Milky Way: Accounting for the Missing Mass?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm

It their mathematical models were correct and their claim that dark matter is NOT composed of ordinary matter were correct, then that last observation should have come up SHORT in finding all the necessary mass to explain local rotation. Instead we find that all the mass is accounted for and it's all composed of ordinary matter. It's not "cold" or "dark". It's simply HOT plasma as PC/EU theory PREDICTS!

 

[Davian]

Ah, and therein lies the rub.

I cannot COMPLETELY falsify the concept of an invisible unicorn either.

All I can do it note that ANOTHER key "prediction" of Lambda-magic-matter-in-the-sky theory bites the dust! According to their precious mathematical models (math is all that matters to astronomers you know), we should be SWIMMING in a BUNCH of "dark matter" in our area of the galaxy. They even do underground "tests" for "dark matter" based on the ASSUMPTION that we are "swimming" in the stuff in our area of the galaxy. Their models STINK! They failed. Their math is USELESS when it comes to making any REAL predictions. Most of their stuff is postdicted nonsense based ENTIRELY upon mythical creatures with mathematical properties designed to "fill the gaps" of their otherwise falsified theory. When we do any serious research however, we find their metaphysical stuff is just not there. It doesn't need to be there either according to PC/EU theory.

Not really. They don't actually "explain" anything. It's really just DARK terms for what amounts to pure human ignorance on a stick. Honestly, 95 percent of their theory is made of metaphysical gap filler.

I wholeheartedly agree, but Newton's laws have NOTHING to do with Lambda-CDM theory however. GR theory (a blunderized version) is the heart and soul of cosmology theory these days.

But that's the key problem. There is no actual "falsification" mechanism or the mainstream would have thrown in the towel on creation mythos decades ago.

In terms of the creation events described in religious literature and "big bang" theory, what's the actual empirical physical difference between them? How are they EMPIRICALLY different? You don't find it somewhat suspect that only two theories in the universe require "faster than light speed expansion" trickery, young earth creationism and big bang theory?

I do not see where the big bang theory requires "faster than light speed expansion trickery" although I have seen where you attempt to use the expansion of space to show where it might be required.

As for the YEC stories, I have not seen two of them that bent the rules in quite the same way, so you will need to be more specific about what you are proposing.

I already did that. I already noted that you could provide evidence that the universe is A) not electrical in nature, and B) not cyclical in nature like living organisms, or some other option of your choice.

As you say, I could provide that evidence, but that is not why I am here. The point is to see if you can show how your "God" hypothesis is falsifiable, and that you can do it without bashing the standard model.

Compare and contrast that with your willingness to simply "look the other way" when "dark matter" predictions when up in mathematical smoke. Talk about 1st class rationalizations. That one must be a "doozey".

It would appear that you cannot.

How can one POSSIBLY falsify something that has no DEMONSTRATED EMPIRICAL effect on reality in the first place?

That seems to be the biggest problem with "God".

 

[Michael]

I do not see where the big bang theory requires "faster than light speed expansion trickery" although I have seen where you attempt to use the expansion of space to show where it might be required.

The universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years across and nothing made of mass can move faster than light. Space never 'expands' in the lab, it only presumably does that in creation mythos.

As for the YEC stories, I have not seen two of them that bent the rules in quite the same way, so you will need to be more specific about what you are proposing.

A creative YEC could simply make the "bang" start later, and inflation last longer and space simply 'expands' faster. What's the difference when you don't care about the speed limits of matter?

As you say, I could provide that evidence, but that is not why I am here. The point is to see if you can show how your "God" hypothesis is falsifiable, and that you can do it without bashing the standard model.

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

There you go.

It would appear that you cannot.

I can't help but compared and contrast the relative strengths and weaknesses of both cosmology theories. Why shouldn't I compare them?

That seems to be the biggest problem with "God".

It's not a problem with my concept of 'God'. The universe reaches out and touches me on a daily (moment to moment) basis.

 

[Davian]

The universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years across and nothing made of mass can move faster than light. Space never 'expands' in the lab, it only presumably does that in creation mythos.

That is the fallacy I spoke of.

A creative YEC could simply make the "bang" start later, and inflation last longer and space simply 'expands' faster. What's the difference when you don't care about the speed limits of matter?

You go talk to the YECers.

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

There you go.

I have been through that. As I have already said, I do not see where you explain its falsifiability.

I can't help but compared and contrast the relative strengths and weaknesses of both cosmology theories. Why shouldn't I compare them?

I did not say you should not. I said that it appears that you cannot explain the strength and weaknesses of *your* hypothesis without bashing the others.

It's not a problem with my concept of 'God'. The universe reaches out and touches me on a daily (moment to moment) basis.

So you call the universe "God". The universe exists, therefore "God" exists. That is not even cute.

Whose deity are you referring to again? And is it of any relation to the Christian "God"?

 

[Michael]

That is the fallacy I spoke of.

I'm not following you. There's no fallacy from my perspective. Space never 'expands' in the lab. That is a fact. Furthermore, matter doesn't travel faster than light. That is also a demonstrated fact. The universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years across. Something doesn't add up.

You go talk to the YECers.

Sorry, but I personally put Lambda-magic theory and YEC in the same mythological, scientifically unsupportable category. I'm not scientifically impressed with any creation mythos.

I have been through that. As I have already said, I do not see where you explain its falsifiability.

We could falsify the idea that our sun is electrically interacting with the Earth, or with the rest of the galaxy. We could falsify the concept that galaxies are "wired together" and the idea that currents flow between them.

I did not say you should not. I said that it appears that you cannot explain the strength and weaknesses of *your* hypothesis without bashing the others.

That's not true. I've posted PLENTY of solid physical (empirical) evidence related to both electric sun and electric universe theory. Invariably however there will be strengths and weaknesses in ALL theories. It then becomes necessary to compare and contrast these strengths and weaknesses when deciding which theories have 'scientific merit' and which do not. If you're going to talk about falsifiability problems with an empirical theory of God for instance, such falsification problems PALE in comparison the falsifiability problems that are intrinsic to mainstream cosmology theory. That is simply a scientific fact and there no reason to ignore that point or that comparison.

So you call the universe "God". The universe exists, therefore "God" exists. That is not even cute.

It's not even unfalsifiable.

Whose deity are you referring to again? And is it of any relation to the Christian "God"?

From a purely scientific perspective, specific religions are irrelevant to this discussion IMO. The universe created us all, and every religion we espouse.

 

[Naraoia]

I'm not following you. There's no fallacy from my perspective. Space never 'expands' in the lab. That is a fact. Furthermore, matter doesn't travel faster than light. That is also a demonstrated fact. The universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years across. Something doesn't add up.

It seems to me that the universe is only larger than 27.4 billion light years across if you accept either or both of:

(1) the existence of regions too distant to observe
(2) the expansion of space that means the things that emitted light 13.7 billion years ago are physically much farther than 13.7 billion light years away.

(1) is problematic in light of your obsession with observability, and I didn't get the impression that you were on friendly terms with (2).

 

[Michael]

It seems to me that the universe is only larger than 27.4 billion light years across if you accept either or both of:

(1) the existence of regions too distant to observe
(2) the expansion of space that means the things that emitted light 13.7 billion years ago are physically much farther than 13.7 billion light years away.

(1) is problematic in light of your obsession with observability, and I didn't get the impression that you were on friendly terms with (2).

Oh, it's not a problem for ME or my beliefs. Something doesn't add up in MAINSTREAM theory.

AFAIK, the universe is infinite and eternal. I have no evidence to the contrary at this moment in time. Tired light theories have been around for as long as expansion concepts and I've fine with either option.

I'm simply noting that only two creation mythos known to man require "faster than light speed expansion" processes to take place and to still explain the stars in the heavens, YEC and Lambda-magic matter theory. I find both options rather distasteful for exactly the same reason. Space never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab, and noting expands faster than the speed of light. It's therefore impossible for the universe to be as large as the mainstream claims it to be, and be as "young" of a universe as they claim it to be. It's a "young universe creation" theory or YUC theory that requires "father than light" expansion of space tricks to have some effect on starlight just like YEC.

 

[Davian]

Oh, it's not a problem for ME or my beliefs. Something doesn't add up in MAINSTREAM theory.

AFAIK, the universe is infinite and eternal.
...

How do you know this?

 

[elahmine]

Good old-fashioned Hubble anyone?

 

[Naraoia]

How do you know this?

... surely not by observing it in a lab. Michael says he doesn't have any evidence to the contrary. But to a self-confessed hardcore empiricist, why would an infinite universe be the default assumption when we obviously can't see infinitely far in either space or time?

 

[Michael]

How do you know this?

I don't "know" for sure that the universe is expanding:

Menu

I don't have any evidence that there was a time when the universe has ever NOT existed. Hubble sees galaxies as far as it can see. AFAIK it's eternal and infinite. How do you KNOW it's not?

 

[Michael]

... surely not by observing it in a lab.

Surely not by observing any limitations in a lab either.

Michael says he doesn't have any evidence to the contrary.

No, I don't.
Menu

But to a self-confessed hardcore empiricist, why would an infinite universe be the default assumption when we obviously can't see infinitely far in either space or time?

Well, for starters we find massive and "mature" galaxies as far as we can see so far. As I said, AFAIK the universe is infinite and eternal. Any 'belief' to the contrary is based ENTIRELY upon a purely subjective and highly METAPHYSICAL interpretation of the redshift phenomenon.

 

[Naraoia]

Surely not by observing any limitations in a lab either.

What does that even mean?

Well, for starters we find massive and "mature" galaxies as far as we can see so far.

Quasars are mature? That's news to me.

(I also remember doing some classifying of distant galaxies for Galaxy Zoo Hubble. There are lots of weird-looking galaxies in that sample, though I'm by no means an expert on cosmic taxonomy.)

No, I don't.

*cough*

AFAIK, the universe is infinite and eternal. I have no evidence to the contrary at this moment in time.

 

[Michael]

What does that even mean?

It means that I don't personally see any evidence to suggest that the universe is finite in any way. As far as I know it has ALWAYS existed in some energy state or another, some form or another, some configuration or another. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the ENERGY has ABSOLUTELY always existed. AFAIK "matter" has always existed as well.

Humans however tend to have a hard time with concepts like 'infinite' and 'eternal'. They think more in terms of finite 'stories' with beginnings and endings, "births", "deaths", etc, things that mirror the human condition on Earth. Infinity isn't really a concept that most folks easily wrap their heads around, therefore "creation stories" are appealing to us all. That's true for astronomers as well. They like the idea of ASSUMING there was time when matter did not exist. There is actually zero evidence to suggest such a thing is true.

Quasars are mature? That's news to me.

Did they exist in the first 10 minutes of the universe?

(I also remember doing some classifying of distant galaxies for Galaxy Zoo Hubble. There are lots of weird-looking galaxies in that sample, though I'm by no means an expert on cosmic taxonomy.)

The problem is that recent observations tend to show that galaxies in the past were MORE massive than our own, with MATURE features, again FALSIFYING the notion of galaxy evolution, not "supporting" that concept:

Scientists Find Mature Galaxy Eight Times Larger Than Milky Way

*cough*

FYI, I meant that "'no, I don't' have any evidence to suggest that there was a time when matter did not exist". I didn't mean to imply that your statement was false. Sorry about the terse wording. I can see how that response didn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Naraoia]

It means that I don't personally see any evidence to suggest that the universe is finite in any way.

That's all the answer I needed.

Did they exist in the first 10 minutes of the universe?

Wait, why 10 minutes?

The problem is that recent observations tend to show that galaxies in the past were MORE massive than our own, with MATURE features, again FALSIFYING the notion of galaxy evolution, not "supporting" that concept:

Scientists Find Mature Galaxy Eight Times Larger Than Milky Way

That isn't a tendency, that is a single observation. Statistics, statistics?

FYI, I meant that "'no, I don't' have any evidence to suggest that there was a time when matter did not exist".

Yes, that's how I interpreted it from the beginning, ergo I thought you were contradicting yourself... It seems I was the one not making sense :o

 

[Michael]

Wait, why 10 minutes?

I dunno. I suppose even that was arbitrary.

That isn't a tendency, that is a single observation. Statistics, statistics?

That's true. IMO you'll have to wait for the James Webb Telescope to get enough "statistics" at those distances (and beyond) to be meaningful. It's still an observation of a very mature galaxy that doesn't jive with the notion of galaxy evolution.

FYI there may be an age issue in play here since I'm no spring chicken anymore. Astronomers have constantly been "surprised" by the maturity of galaxies for many decades. In fact they keep pushing back the galaxy formation dates based upon newer information. IMO that trend is likely to continue as our technology continues to improve.

Yes, that's how I interpreted it from the beginning, ergo I thought you were contradicting yourself... It seems I was the one not making sense :o

That's quite understandable actually. :o

 

[Naraoia]

I dunno. I suppose even that was arbitrary.

Mmmmkay. I thought you had a point...

That's true. IMO you'll have to wait for the James Webb Telescope to get enough "statistics" at those distances (and beyond) to be meaningful. It's still an observation of a very mature galaxy that doesn't jive with the notion of galaxy evolution.

Every rule will have exceptions, nature isn't neat and tidy. The question is: are distant galaxies on average younger than nearby ones? I'm a little bit surprised that Hubble data wouldn't be enough to tell, to be honest. Maybe I'm too much in awe of the absolute legend that is the Hubble Space Telescope.

FYI there may be an age issue in play here since I'm no spring chicken anymore. Astronomers have constantly been "surprised" by the maturity of galaxies for many decades. In fact they keep pushing back the galaxy formation dates based upon newer information. IMO that trend is likely to continue as our technology continues to improve.

I think it's more likely to be a "what we pay attention to" issue. I don't get much hot-off-the-press cosmology news unless it appears in Nature, Science or PNAS. If I need universe-related info, I just google things and check what the first few reliable-sounding sources - i.e. not news sites - say. I do have to say that what you describe sounds suspiciously like news story hype over and over again. I can see how a few decades of that would make someone a bit cynical, I'm already in a state of constant eye-rolling at science news reporting

 

[Michael]

Mmmmkay. I thought you had a point...

Every rule will have exceptions, nature isn't neat and tidy. The question is: are distant galaxies on average younger than nearby ones? I'm a little bit surprised that Hubble data wouldn't be enough to tell, to be honest. Maybe I'm too much in awe of the absolute legend that is the Hubble Space Telescope.

Active Galaxies and Quasars - Evolution of Quasars

I suppose that depends on how one attempts to describe "maturity" in galaxies, and how one subjectively interprets the data. Quasars are sometimes used to attempt to make that case. Quasars tend to show changes in their numbers at higher redshift and distance. Is that observation actually a valid barometer of maturity in a galaxy, or is that indicative of the fact that currents flow through various regions of spacetime at different rates? Is that cutoff we observe at higher redshifts actually real/there, or are quasars just harder to spot at higher redshifts due to light absorption? Notice the "?" on the left? The Webb Telescope will help fill in some of that information.

I think it's more likely to be a "what we pay attention to" issue. I don't get much hot-off-the-press cosmology news unless it appears in Nature, Science or PNAS. If I need universe-related info, I just google things and check what the first few reliable-sounding sources - i.e. not news sites - say. I do have to say that what you describe sounds suspiciously like news story hype over and over again. I can see how a few decades of that would make someone a bit cynical, I'm already in a state of constant eye-rolling at science news reporting

FYI, I've rolled my eyes at reporters since I was editor for my High School newspaper.

I often cite news articles during debate only because they tend to "sum up" the findings of the paper (usually fairly reliably) in few paragraphs, whereas the studies themselves can be HUGE. The studies these articles are based upon are available on Arxiv as I recall. I'll round them up for you if you promise to respond to them.

 

[Naraoia]

FYI, I've rolled my eyes at reporters since I was editor for my High School newspaper.

I was fortunately sheltered from the awfulness of high school newspapers

I often cite news articles during debate only because they tend to "sum up" the findings of the paper (usually fairly reliably) in few paragraphs, whereas the studies themselves can be HUGE.

I've learned not to trust news articles to accurately summarise papers for me. Burned a few times, never again (This is why it drives me up the wall when news reports don't include a proper citation/link. )

The studies these articles are based upon are available on Arxiv as I recall. I'll round them up for you if you promise to respond to them.

I'm not sure I can respond in any meaningful way, seeing as nearly all of my knowledge of physical sciences is informal, but abstracts would certainly make me happier than press releases

 

[Davian]

I don't "know" for sure that the universe is expanding:
Menu

I have flash turned off. Why would they need flash for text? Simply - does this falsify redshift as an indicator of relative motion?

I don't have any evidence that there was a time when the universe has ever NOT existed.

How is that incompatible with the big bang theory?

Hubble sees galaxies as far as it can see.

Do you have a citation for that? I was just there:

"The variety of galaxies we see is amazing. In time these Hubble data could turn out to be the double helix of galaxy formation. We are clearly seeing some of the galaxies as they were more than ten billion years ago, in the process of formation," said Robert Williams, Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, Maryland. "As the images have come up on our screens, we have not been able to keep from wondering if we might somehow be seeing our own origins in all of this. The past ten days have been an unbelievable experience."

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View of the Universe Unveils Bewildering Galaxies across Billions of Years (01/15/1996) - Release Text

AFAIK it's eternal and infinite.

How do you know this?

How do you KNOW it's not?

You are the one claiming to KNOW.

I don't have a problem with the universe being 'eternal'. The universe is the set of everything. You are saying that the set of everything is infinite. Is it? What if it isn't?