Method for accepting science

[CaliforniaSun]

Exodus 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.

Sidebar: That doesn't keep some people from claiming God 'works magic' though, does it?

I don't know, does it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know, does it?

You decide: 89

 

[Davian]

You decide: 89

What's wrong with 'magically'? Would you prefer 'miracally'? (sp?)

 

[Davian]

Lot's of that "missing mass" has already been located in the past 4 - 5 years, not that the "science dogma" has changed even a single percentage point as a result. They still keep claiming it's NOT ordinary matter, even though they keep finding lots more "normal" matter which their models never accounted for in the first place! They are stuck in pure denial at this point.

That it not my impression.

Define "more parsimonious". An "explanation" that is 95 percent METAPHYSICAL in nature is 95 percent "religion" and only 5 percent actual physics. I would argue that virtually ANYTHING is better than that! PC/EU theory (even without any theist overtones) beats mainstream theory hands down in terms of providing useful answers to mysteries in space.

The theist overtones are a problem (particularly with parsimony), and I would be wary of your false dichotomy; problems with the mainstream model do not validate your EU concept.

Then it really doesn't matter if anyone studies God "scientifically" as you put it.

Exactly how would one scientifically study something that cannot be demonstrated to exist? Do you mean your 'god' or the Christian 'God', or are they both the same? You are not clear here.

That 'consensus' amounts to nothing more than an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy combo pack. Inflation doesn't actually DO anything in any REAL experiments with REAL control mechanisms. Not one astronomer on the planet knows where "dark energy' might come from. So what if their science little cult has a "consensus" about their dead inflation sky deity? That dead metaphysical monstrosity cannot ever have a tangle effect on me today. It's a dead deistic religion, it's not "physics".

You are misrepresenting the concept of scientific consensus, and I see that you deleted my specific reference to you proposing something testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable, which I find to intellectually dishonest.

Dark energy is such a wimp on Earth, it's incapable of EVER being detected in a real science experiment with actual control mechanisms. No amount of CONSENSUS makes up for the fact that their beliefs are unfalsifiable and unverifiable in any empirical manner.

Repeated use of invalid criticisms.

You have no falsifiable 'God hypothesis'.

Science. You are doing it wrong.

 

[Michael]

That it not my impression.

Since the introduction of "dark energy" about 20 years ago, what's fundamentally, or even INCREMENTALLY changed? What did they do to respond to those four recent observations of "missing mass"? Did they incorporate them into Lambda-magic matter theory in any way?

The theist overtones are a problem (particularly with parsimony), and I would be wary of your false dichotomy; problems with the mainstream model do not validate your EU concept.

FYI, EU theory isn't necessarily a theistic or an atheistic theory. It's based upon the principles of pure physics, specifically MHD theory and GR theory. My own beliefs related to the "awareness" of the universe itself are not an integral or even a necessary component of pure EU/PC theory.

The "validation" of EU/PC theory has NOTHING to do with my personal distaste for supernatural sky entities. My PREFERENCE of cosmology theories is related to that issue, but EU theory itself derives it's VALIDATION through pure physics related to MHD theory and GR theory. It's not dependent upon the destruction of mainstream concepts of inflation, dark energy or dark matter. The existence of non existence of these things is utterly irrelevant to EU/PC theory.

Exactly how would one scientifically study something that cannot be demonstrated to exist?

That's my fundamental complaint about inflation and dark energy and dark matter by the way. When have they been shown to actually exist in nature? Their only actually use is evidently to save a single otherwise FALSIFIED cosmology theory.

Do you mean your 'god' or the Christian 'God', or are they both the same? You are not clear here.

All monotheists accept that there is but one God and many individual "religions/dogmas" related to that one being. Why would it be "my" God, any more than it's "my" universe? When did *I* suddenly own the universe?

You are misrepresenting the concept of scientific consensus, and I see that you deleted my specific reference to you proposing something testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable, which I find to intellectually dishonest.

What's intellectually dishonest of you is to NOT read through the THREAD that I provided you with on this very topic and then ACCUSE me of intellectual dishonestly due to your own laziness.

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

There are plenty of empirical things to test for in that theory, starting with electric suns, etc.

Repeated use of invalid criticisms.

It's not an "invalid" criticism, you just don't personally care for it.

You have no falsifiable 'God hypothesis'.

You have a denial routine going. I've CLEARLY provided you with a highly falsifiable hypothesis, and an appropriate thread to read through and respond to, anytime you're interested in discussing it.

Science. You are doing it wrong.

My brand WORKS in the lab, up to and including the existence of intelligence in the lab. The mainstream version of "science" only works on paper.

 

[Davian]

...
What's intellectually dishonest of you is to NOT read through the THREAD that I provided you with on this very topic and then ACCUSE me of intellectual dishonestly due to your own laziness.

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

...

I did attempt to engage you in that thread, and my post was overlooked or ignored. Perhaps you should have done your homework on that one.

 

[NGC 6712]

Since the introduction of "dark energy" about 20 years ago, what's fundamentally, or even INCREMENTALLY changed? What did they do to respond to those four recent observations of "missing mass"? Did they incorporate them into Lambda-magic matter theory in any way?

Since I have been so busy recently I have lost track in the various threads you keep alluding to certain claims.

What are the 4 observations and explain what they are and why they are important in your viewpoint and why I should be modelling them?

That's my fundamental complaint about inflation and dark energy and dark matter by the way. When have they been shown to actually exist in nature? Their only actually use is evidently to save a single otherwise FALSIFIED cosmology theory.

What is your definition of exist? Why do these things in your eyes not exist?

My brand WORKS in the lab, up to and including the existence of intelligence in the lab. The mainstream version of "science" only works on paper.

Not true.

 

[Michael]

Since I have been so busy recently I have lost track in the various threads you keep alluding to certain claims.

Each and every one of these observations falsifies mainstream galaxy mass layout models, and/or demonstrates another FALSIFIED "prediction" of mainstream beliefs. Is anyone EVER going to change the amount of magic mass required to make mainstream theory "work" (if only on paper)?

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The biggest black holes may be bigger than we thought | astrobites
Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

That's quite literally 4 falsifications of mainstream models and theories in 4 years. What's it going to take anyway?

What is your definition of exist? Why do these things in your eyes not exist?

Well, for starters, none of them are REQUIRED any other theory OTHER THAN one single cosmology theory that has otherwise been falsified, dead and buried. That should be our first clue.

Not true.

When can I expect to seen any consumer product run on "inflation", "dark energy" or "dark matter"? These things are "made up" and nothing more than metaphysical gap fillers to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. They have no tangible effect whatsoever on anything in a controlled experiment. In fact no astronomer on the planet can even explain where "dark energy" comes from, let alone "control" in in a real experiment.

 

[Michael]

I did attempt to engage you in that thread, and my post was overlooked or ignored. Perhaps you should have done your homework on that one.

Which post of yours did you believe that I ignored? It's possible I simply overlooked it.

 

[NGC 6712]

Each and every one of these observations falsifies mainstream galaxy mass layout models, and/or demonstrates another FALSIFIED "prediction" of mainstream beliefs. Is anyone EVER going to change the amount of magic mass required to make mainstream theory "work" (if only on paper)?

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The biggest black holes may be bigger than we thought | astrobites
Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

That's quite literally 4 falsifications of mainstream models and theories in 4 years. What's it going to take anyway?

Do you understand what falsify means? Because it seems you do not. I do not think you have understood what those first two papers are saying - the third paper is irrelevant for what you want it to imply and the fourth is problematical in many ways.

Tell me - in a sentence for each of the four - what do you think they are saying and what they falsify?

Well, for starters, none of them are REQUIRED any other theory OTHER THAN one single cosmology theory that has otherwise been falsified, dead and buried. That should be our first clue.

Dark Energy is a requirement by current cosmological theory but dark matter is a consequence of many other local universe observations irrespective of cosmological model.

When can I expect to seen any consumer product run on "inflation", "dark energy" or "dark matter"? These things are "made up" and nothing more than metaphysical gap fillers to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. They have no tangible effect whatsoever on anything in a controlled experiment. In fact no astronomer on the planet can even explain where "dark energy" comes from, let alone "control" in in a real experiment.

This is a ludicrous objection. No consumer product or experiment uses strange quarks, supernovae or nitrogen geysers on Triton either. Doesn't mean they do not exist does it?

 

[Davian]

Which post of yours did you believe that I ignored? It's possible I simply overlooked it.

You may have just overlooked it. But you appear to be confused on the concepts of falsification and scientific consensus, so it does not matter now. Let us see how you do with NGC 6712's last post.

 

[Michael]

Do you understand what falsify means? Because it seems you do not. I do not think you have understood what those first two papers are saying - the third paper is irrelevant for what you want it to imply and the fourth is problematical in many ways.

The last paper is an OUTRIGHT FALSIFICATION of mainstream claims about "dark matter"! There *ISN'T ANY* in our region of space. That's a HUGE problem because mainstream galaxy models PREDICT that we should be swimming in the dark stuff at our point in the galaxy. Nothing like that is the case. Nothing is "missing'. Nothing is "dark". All the mass is there and accounted for. There is no "dark matter" in our area of the galaxy as standard theory PREDICTS. Failed predictions are the ONLY way to "falsify" these metaphysical monstrosities in the first place! If you fail to accept the evidence that falsifies the metaphysical theory, how is it even possible falsify any concept? The mainstream REFUSES to:

A) update it's galaxy mass estimation models even though the first two studies both demonstrate that such a change is CLEARLY warranted.

B) update it's emotional NEED for exotic forms of mass even a single percentage point, in spite of the fact that the first two studies demonstrate it is NECESSARY to do so, and the last observation is an outright falsification of their exotic dark matter claims!

C) deal with evidence that outright falsifies their claims as that last study does, and Guth's falsified inflation theory should have done.

Instead of letting Lambda-magic matter theory die a natural scientific empirical death, they keep modifying the magical variables, and outright ignoring the falsification mechanisms entirely!

Tell me - in a sentence for each of the four - what do you think they are saying and what they falsify?

The brightness study demonstrates that the mainstream entirely BLEW it's large star mass estimates. The small star study demonstrates that it INCORRECTLY estimates even the number of WHOLE STARS in a given galaxy by HUGE NUMBERS! The black hole studies show that galaxy formation/evolution models weren't worth the paper they are printed on. The LAST study demonstrates that the mainstream's "predictions" about the amount of "dark matter" we should observe in our area of the galaxy is UTTERLY AND ENTIRELY USELESS! That one was an outright falsification of the their whole "dark matter" layout models. Nothing about their predictions has been shown to actually be accurate, yet not a single percentage point change in their need for "exotic" matter.

Dark Energy is a requirement by current cosmological theory but dark matter is a consequence of many other local universe observations irrespective of cosmological model.

Such as? All you have are galaxy rotation/formation patterns that the mainstream cannot explain that ARE explained by PC/EU theory and Peratt's PIC models.

This is a ludicrous objection. No consumer product or experiment uses strange quarks, supernovae or nitrogen geysers on Triton either. Doesn't mean they do not exist does it?

All of them use strange quarks actually.

We can liquify nitrogen here on Earth just fine, and I've seen plenty of geysers on Earth. It's only when you start making up pure metaphysical gap filler to save a single otherwise falsified cosmology theory that I cry foul.

 

[Michael]

You may have just overlooked it. But you appear to be confused on the concepts of falsification and scientific consensus, so it does not matter now. Let us see how you do with NGC 6712's last post.

How in the UNIVERSE is it possible to falsify magic matter claims if that last study doesn't suffice? There cannot be any other way to falsify mainstream 'dark matter of the gap' claims other than by demonstrating that there is no actual gap. That's been done two different ways now.

Perratt's mathematical PIC models of galaxy mass layouts demonstrate that galaxy formation patterns are related to electromagnetic field influences, not JUST gravity. His models require no magic matter at all!

That last study blows galaxy dark matter layout predictions totally out of the water! According to mainstream theory we should be swimming in the exotic dark stuff in our little area of the galaxy. Instead there isn't any matter that is actually "missing" at all! What other way is there to 'falsify" the mainstream "exotic matter of the gaps" arguments other than by demonstrating that there are no gaps, and it's key 'predictions' were proven to be false?

 

[Naraoia]

In the Old Testament, when people overstepped their bounds, God would send a plague of locusts or in other ways smite them. Why isn't there any evidence of God smiting scientists nowdays?

He's not been very generous with funding lately, has he?

What's wrong with 'magically'? Would you prefer 'miracally'? (sp?)

Miraculously?

 

[Davian]

You may have just overlooked it. But you appear to be confused on the concepts of falsification and scientific consensus, so it does not matter now.
...

How in the UNIVERSE is it possible to falsify magic matter claims if that last study doesn't suffice? ...

But it did not completely falsify it. The standard model still has plenty of explanatory power. Newton's laws still land spacecraft on other planets.

My point was specific to how you address the concepts of falsification and scientific consensus.

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other when it comes to the big picture questions, like how we all got here.

Not true. Occam's razor knocks most of them down before they get out of the starting gate. But that was not the aim of my question.

Do you see a difference between consensus as the majority of opinion and scientific consensus?

...
You could start by falsifying electric universe theory. No electricity, no "awareness", no "God".

I'm not here to falsify it. I was asking you to show some ways in which your "God" hypothesis could be falsified. It's up to you to provide a testable and falsifiable definition of "God". Can you do that without taking swing at the standard model?

 

[SkyWriting]

Not true. Occam's razor knocks most of them down before they get out of the starting gate.

There is no such use for Occam's razor. It can't be used for discriminating or eliminating anything. And there is no "Occam's Razor" anyway. It's a generalized combination of philosophical thought.

 

[Davian]

There is no such use for Occam's razor. It can't be used for discriminating or eliminating anything. And there is no "Occam's Razor" anyway. It's a generalized combination of philosophical thought.

So there is no such use for it, it can't be used, it does not exist, and it is a generalized combination of philosophical thought.

Thank you for clarifying that. For a moment I thought I had not applied it properly.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Kind of like love is just a particular state of brain function.

 

[Michael]

But it did not completely falsify it.

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.

The standard model still has plenty of explanatory power.

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.

Newton's laws still land spacecraft on other planets.

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.

My point was specific to how you address the concepts of falsification and scientific consensus.

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.

Do you see a difference between consensus as the majority of opinion and scientific consensus?

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'm not here to falsify it. I was asking you to show some ways in which your "God" hypothesis could be falsified. It's up to you to provide a testable and falsifiable definition of "God". Can you do that without taking swing at the standard model?

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.

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

 

[Trogool]

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 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.

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

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