Method for accepting science

[Michael]

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

FYI, here are links to the relevant papers on Arxiv. One of them is like an 80 page WHOPPER of presentation by the way.

arXiv.org Search

Essentially he offers an alternative (tired light) way of interpreting the same data sets used to support expansion and acceleration. No movement is involved in the redshift phenomenon, it is simply a "tired light" process that affects the photons over distance.

How is that incompatible with the big bang theory?

It implies/suggests that galaxies are not moving. It supports a "static" universe concept.

Do you have a citation for that?

A citation for what exactly? You mean that Hubble see galaxies as far as it can see in deep field images?

http://spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/opo9841e.jpg
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...ield+images&gbv=2&oq=hubble+deep+field+images

Every little tiny "smudge" you see in those deep field Hubble images is likely to turn out to be whole galaxies in James Webb images. AFAIK galaxies are always forming and joining.

How do you know this?

You are the one claiming to KNOW.

No I'm not. I don't know, nor do I really care quite frankly. PC theory isn't predicated upon creation dates, or expansion concepts. It's really just based upon MHD theory and GR theory. All I really do know is that as far as I can ''see" in Hubble images, the galaxies go on INFINITELY.

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?

It's no skin off my nose either way. I simply have no evidence to suggest it's actually "limited" in any way.

 

[Davian]

FYI, here are links to the relevant papers on Arxiv. One of them is like an 80 page WHOPPER of presentation by the way.

arXiv.org Search

Essentially he offers an alternative (tired light) way of interpreting the same data sets used to support expansion and acceleration. No movement is involved in the redshift phenomenon, it is simply a "tired light" process that affects the photons over distance.

Simply - does this falsify redshift as an indicator of relative motion?

It implies/suggests that galaxies are not moving. It supports a "static" universe concept.

Is the idea of an eternal universe incompatible with the big bang theory?

A citation for what exactly? You mean that Hubble see galaxies as far as it can see in deep field images?

http://spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/opo9841e.jpg
hubble deep field images - Google Search

Every little tiny "smudge" you see in those deep field Hubble images is likely to turn out to be whole galaxies in James Webb images. AFAIK galaxies are always forming and joining.

No I'm not. I don't know, nor do I really care quite frankly.

Strangely, you do keep saying that you know.

PC theory isn't predicated upon creation dates, or expansion concepts. It's really just based upon MHD theory and GR theory. All I really do know is that as far as I can ''see" in Hubble images, the galaxies go on INFINITELY.

The Hubble images do not show that. You are speculating.

It's no skin off my nose either way. I simply have no evidence to suggest it's actually "limited" in any way.

There is a difference between *you* not having evidence and there not being evidence.

 

[Michael]

Simply - does this falsify redshift as an indicator of relative motion?

No, of course not. Nothing could. We aren't talking about the relative motion of OBJECTS as the cause of redshift in Lambda-religion. Redshift has NEVER been empirically linked to 'expanding space', just the movement of objects. One can never FALSIFY a concept that was never DEMONSTRATED to begin with! Since space has never been shown to expand, and the relative motion is GREATER THAN the speed of light, what REAL options are left?

Is the idea of an eternal universe incompatible with the big bang theory?

Yep. They seem to believe there was a time BEFORE matter and they believe the universe has a finite size at this moment in time.

Strangely, you do keep saying that you know.

I'm guessing you just didnt' like my AFAIK terminology? I'm willing to accept that I simply do not know.

The Hubble images do not show that. You are speculating.

The images do show the existence of entire galaxies up to the very limits of Hubble's resolution capacity. There is no evidence that this trend will end at some magic location based ONLY on the images we've seen from Hubble.

There is a difference between *you* not having evidence and there not being evidence.

Maybe. It entirely depends on what you call "evidence", and even that becomes ENTIRELY subjective. If I DOUBT or have skepticism that "dark energy" actually exists or has any effect on anything, pointing at the sky, adding some math and claiming "dark energy did it' isn't actually 'evidence' that "dark energy" did anything. Therein lies the problem. There is only "evidence' to support these ideas ONLY if I "have faith" in metaphysical constructs that have no tangible effect on anything in an experiment on Earth.

 

[Davian]

No, of course not. Nothing could. We aren't talking about the relative motion of OBJECTS as the cause of redshift in Lambda-religion.

If not relative motion, then what?

Redshift has NEVER been empirically linked to 'expanding space', just the movement of objects.
One can never FALSIFY a concept that was never DEMONSTRATED to begin with! Since space has never been shown to expand, and the relative motion is GREATER THAN the speed of light, what REAL options are left?

Your 'not seen in the laboratory' argument again?

Yep. They seem to believe there was a time BEFORE matter and they believe the universe has a finite size at this moment in time.

So if there was time before the BB, the universe could be eternal. So that would be "Nope".

And you said you did not care if it was finite or not but you brought it up again.

I'm guessing you just didnt' like my AFAIK terminology? I'm willing to accept that I simply do not know.

The images do show the existence of entire galaxies up to the very limits of Hubble's resolution capacity. There is no evidence that this trend will end at some magic location based ONLY on the images we've seen from Hubble.

But they work with more than just the Hubble. Again with the "no evidence" comment.

Maybe.

I saw your edit.

It entirely depends on what you call "evidence", and even that becomes ENTIRELY subjective. If I DOUBT or have skepticism that "dark energy" actually exists or has any effect on anything, pointing at the sky, adding some math and claiming "dark energy did it' isn't actually 'evidence' that "dark energy" did anything. Therein lies the problem. There is only "evidence' to support these ideas ONLY if I "have faith" in metaphysical constructs that have no tangible effect on anything in an experiment on Earth.

But if "dark energy" is just a placeholder for the observed effects, your criticism does not apply. It just appears that you don't like the standard model, and you have not made clear why that is so - unless it implies that your 'god' is not eternal. Is that it?

 

[[serious]]

No, of course not. Nothing could. We aren't talking about the relative motion of OBJECTS as the cause of redshift in Lambda-religion. Redshift has NEVER been empirically linked to 'expanding space', just the movement of objects. One can never FALSIFY a concept that was never DEMONSTRATED to begin with! Since space has never been shown to expand, and the relative motion is GREATER THAN the speed of light, what REAL options are left?

Yeah, it's never been demonstrated here on earth, just observed in space. Kinda like the sun. We've never made a sun in the lab, so obviously the sun doesn't really exist. It's just a conspiracy by scientists!

 

[Michael]

If not relative motion, then what?

Tired light? Time dilation?

Your 'not seen in the laboratory' argument again?

It can't even be TESTED in a lab, nor is there any HOPE to test "dark energy" in a lab because no human on Earth can tell any of us where it supposedly even comes from.

So if there was time before the BB, the universe could be eternal.

Energy is in fact eternal according to the laws of physics as we understand them, so SOMETHING has in fact existed eternally, something will exist eternally, and humans are simply a blip on the time line of eternity.

But they work with more than just the Hubble. Again with the "no evidence" comment.

It's all based upon the ASSUMPTIONS that:

A) space (physically undefined no less) does some sort of magic expansion trick.
B) "inflation did it" without cause/effect justification
C) "dark energy did it", again without cause/effect justification.
D) 'dark matter did it" IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE that they BLEW it when it comes to CORRECTLY estimating the mass of galaxies.

Sure, other than that, it's got lot's of "evidence' to support it.

I saw your edit.

But if "dark energy" is just a placeholder for the observed effects, your criticism does not apply.

It's certainly no "explanation" for anything if it's only a "placeholder term" for what amounts to human ignorance. It's nothing more than a "dark" religions, parts of which HAVE ALREADY BEEN FALSIFIED (dark matter) on numerous occasions in just the past 4 years alone.

It just appears that you don't like the standard model, and you have not made clear why that is so - unless it implies that your 'god' is not eternal. Is that it?

No. Actually my displeasure with Lambda-dark-religion is based upon my displeasure over "supernatural" explanations, the fact that PARTS of it have already been falsified, parts of it are PURE speculation, and parts of it come right from the human imagination of a single identifiable human being who literally just "made it up" one night in his head. The whole creation mythos that it describes literally REEKS of a religion. Worse yet, the industry itself operates as an OPPRESSIVE religion in terms of how it handles external criticisms, and how open it is toward OTHER competing ideas.

I would be willing to admit however that were anyone actually able to demonstrate that there was a time when matter as we know it did not exist, that would in fact be a valid "falsification mechanism" of the empirical theory of God thread that I started. That's yet ANOTHER valid falsification mechanism of the theory I put forth, making it SUPERIOR in terms of actual falsification potential to any "scientific" description of the universe today.

I would point out however that my faith in God began LONG before I stumbled upon EU/PC theory, and long before I then entertained the concept of pantheism. I'm capable of changing my mind about ideas both scientific and religious ideas. I don't personally feel threatened by change, or the possibility that ONE empirical concept of God happens to be falsified in some way, even if it happens to be my favorite one at the moment.

Once you get used to the concept of "personal growth" and start to embrace "change' as one of the constants of the universe, the universe isn't really that scary anymore. That was one of the benefits I got from my stint as an atheist by the way. Fear of change isn't much of a motivator anymore.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, it's never been demonstrated here on earth, just observed in space. Kinda like the sun.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that an absolutely TERRIBLE analogy. We can SEE the sun, it's not "dark"/invisible. We can FEEL the sun's warmth on our skin. We don't 'see' dark stuff.

Secondly we don't "observe" this stuff in space. That's why it's "dark". What we "observe" is redshifted photons here on Earth. We INTERPRET that SUBJECTIVELY to be equated with something called "expansion of space". We don't OBSERVE any expansion of space, we SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRET that redshift to INCLUDE such things.

We've never made a sun in the lab, so obviously the sun doesn't really exist. It's just a conspiracy by scientists!

Actually we do release energy in fusion reactions on Earth so again your analogy is silly and inappropriate and completely UNLIKE dark energy mythology. You'll have to SCALE anything in space and you're allowed to SCALE anything known to exist on Earth, like hydrogen, to an appropriate size if you like. There's nothing wrong with that. Birkeland even built a "working model" of a "cathode sun" in his lab.

 

[[serious]]

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that an absolutely TERRIBLE analogy. We can SEE the sun, it's not "dark"/invisible. We can FEEL the sun's warmth on our skin. We don't 'see' dark stuff.

Secondly we don't "observe" this stuff in space. That's why it's "dark". What we "observe" is redshifted photons here on Earth. We INTERPRET that SUBJECTIVELY to be equated with something called "expansion of space". We don't OBSERVE any expansion of space, we SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRET that redshift to INCLUDE such things.

Actually we do release energy in fusion reactions on Earth so again your analogy is silly and inappropriate and completely UNLIKE dark energy mythology. You'll have to SCALE anything in space and you're allowed to SCALE anything known to exist on Earth, like hydrogen, to an appropriate size if you like. There's nothing wrong with that. Birkeland even built a "working model" of a "cathode sun" in his lab.

You're right, the sun is a bad analogy. We can feel the sun. Stars are fake though. All we see is light from something that seems to indicate stars are there. We don't OBSERVE sustained nuclear fusion, we just see light that we SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRET to be from sustained nuclear fusion. We haven't made self sustaining nuclear fusion in the lab though, so it doesn't exist.

 

[Michael]

You're right, the sun is a bad analogy. We can feel the sun. Stars are fake though. All we see is light from something that seems to indicate stars are there. We don't OBSERVE sustained nuclear fusion, we just see light that we SUBJECTIVELY INTERPRET to be from sustained nuclear fusion. We haven't made self sustaining nuclear fusion in the lab though, so it doesn't exist.

It's still a bad analogy. When we DO simulate solar core conditions (similar temperature/pressure) fusion does occur. The sustainability aspect is simply a "scaling' issue at that point and all theories will require some amount of scaling.

You can't even get "dark energy' to move a single atom in a lab!

 

[[serious]]

It's still a bad analogy. When we DO simulate solar core conditions (similar temperature/pressure) fusion does occur. The sustainability aspect is simply a "scaling' issue at that point and all theories will require some amount of scaling.

You can't even get "dark energy' to move a single atom in a lab!

Oh, OK. Then both the strong and weak forces are fake as neither of them has moved a single atom in the laboratory.

 

[NGC 6712]

It's still a bad analogy. When we DO simulate solar core conditions (similar temperature/pressure) fusion does occur. The sustainability aspect is simply a "scaling' issue at that point and all theories will require some amount of scaling.

You can't even get "dark energy' to move a single atom in a lab!

Again - more absolute uninformed nonsense from Michael.

WE DO NOT simulate solar core conditions and get fusion. I have pointed this out to him before - he just cannot understand technical arguments or is being deliberately obtuse.

Michael - go away and actually learn some physics and about the topics you waffle about. It's embarrassing how uninformed you are for someone claiming knowledge.

 

[Davian]

Tired light? Time dilation?

I would expect a response that was structured thusly:

"When cosmological redshifts were first discovered, Fritz Zwicky proposed an effect known as tired light. While usually considered for historical interests, it is sometimes, along with intrinsic redshift suggestions, utilized by nonstandard cosmologies. In 1981, H. J. Reboul summarised many alternative redshift mechanisms that had been discussed in the literature since the 1930s. In 2001, Geoffrey Burbidge remarked in a review that the wider astronomical community has marginalized such discussions since the 1960s. Burbidge and Halton Arp, while investigating the mystery of the nature of quasars, tried to develop alternative redshift mechanisms, and very few of their fellow scientists acknowledged let alone accepted their work. Moreover, Goldhaber et al. 2001; "Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Lightcurves", ApJ, 558:359-386, 2001 September 1 pointed out that alternative theories are unable to account for timescale stretch observed in type Ia supernovae."
Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It can't even be TESTED in a lab, nor is there any HOPE to test "dark energy" in a lab because no human on Earth can tell any of us where it supposedly even comes from.

Who says it should show up in a lab?

Energy is in fact eternal according to the laws of physics as we understand them, so SOMETHING has in fact existed eternally, something will exist eternally,

If the universe is flat, then the total energy is zero. So much for that then.

and humans are simply a blip on the time line of eternity.

It would appear so.

It's all based upon the ASSUMPTIONS that:

A) space (physically undefined no less) does some sort of magic expansion trick.
B) "inflation did it" without cause/effect justification
C) "dark energy did it", again without cause/effect justification.
D) 'dark matter did it" IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE that they BLEW it when it comes to CORRECTLY estimating the mass of galaxies.

Sure, other than that, it's got lot's of "evidence' to support it.

No, I meant how you keep saying *you* don't have evidence.

It's certainly no "explanation" for anything if it's only a "placeholder term" for what amounts to human ignorance. It's nothing more than a "dark" religions, parts of which HAVE ALREADY BEEN FALSIFIED (dark matter) on numerous occasions in just the past 4 years alone.

A theist criticizing science as a religion? You have really got to give up on that tactic.

No.

So you are okay with a god that is not eternal? Is that your Christian God or this "Universe God" that you are okay with not being eternal?

Actually my displeasure with Lambda-dark-religion is based upon my displeasure over "supernatural" explanations, the fact that PARTS of it have already been falsified, parts of it are PURE speculation, and parts of it come right from the human imagination of a single identifiable human being who literally just "made it up" one night in his head. The whole creation mythos that it describes literally REEKS of a religion. Worse yet, the industry itself operates as an OPPRESSIVE religion in terms of how it handles external criticisms, and how open it is toward OTHER competing ideas.

You are projecting. You are not doing science.

I would be willing to admit however that were anyone actually able to demonstrate that there was a time when matter as we know it did not exist, that would in fact be a valid "falsification mechanism" of the empirical theory of God thread that I started. That's yet ANOTHER valid falsification mechanism of the theory I put forth, making it SUPERIOR in terms of actual falsification potential to any "scientific" description of the universe today.

You still don't get this 'falsification' concept. The big bang theory is already there. You just don't like it. You still have yet to show how *your* hypothesis is falsifiable. Note that I do not use the word "theory" as you do.

I would point out however that my faith in God began LONG before I stumbled upon EU/PC theory, and long before I then entertained the concept of pantheism. I'm capable of changing my mind about ideas both scientific and religious ideas. I don't personally feel threatened by change, or the possibility that ONE empirical concept of God happens to be falsified in some way, even if it happens to be my favorite one at the moment.

So which god are we talking about now? Is that your Christian God or this "Universe God"?

Once you get used to the concept of "personal growth" and start to embrace "change' as one of the constants of the universe, the universe isn't really that scary anymore. That was one of the benefits I got from my stint as an atheist by the way. Fear of change isn't much of a motivator anymore.

That is not the impression you have given me.

 

[Michael]

I would expect a response that was structured thusly:

"When cosmological redshifts were first discovered, Fritz Zwicky proposed an effect known as tired light. While usually considered for historical interests, it is sometimes, along with intrinsic redshift suggestions, utilized by nonstandard cosmologies. In 1981, H. J. Reboul summarised many alternative redshift mechanisms that had been discussed in the literature since the 1930s. In 2001, Geoffrey Burbidge remarked in a review that the wider astronomical community has marginalized such discussions since the 1960s. Burbidge and Halton Arp, while investigating the mystery of the nature of quasars, tried to develop alternative redshift mechanisms, and very few of their fellow scientists acknowledged let alone accepted their work. Moreover, Goldhaber et al. 2001; "Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Lightcurves", ApJ, 558:359-386, 2001 September 1 pointed out that alternative theories are unable to account for timescale stretch observed in type Ia supernovae."
Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Menu

FYI, I have already pointed out in several threads now that the WIKI article which you cite is INACCURATE in terms of tired light theories being "unable to account" for supernovae data. Ari's work demonstrates that tired light theories absolutely can and do account for ALL the data that is typically associated with expansion and acceleration interpretations of redshifted photons.

Who says it should show up in a lab?

Why wouldn't it? If mainstream model "predictions" related to "dark matter" were accurate we SHOULD BE swimming in exotic matter in our area of the Milky Way. That PREDICTION went up in smoke. They are in fact conducting experiments on Earth that are supposed to 'detect' this exotic matter that is supposed to surround us. According to that last study, dark matter isn't even likely to be around Earth to begin with.

Dark energy is more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God according to their theory, so it's definitely not capable of showing up in a lab, therefore it has no empirical falsification mechanism at all. It should however have an pretty darn obvious source if makes up 70% of the physical universe. Forget the dead inflation sky god of Guthianity. It's just an unfalsifiable metaphysical kludge IMO.

If the universe is flat, then the total energy is zero. So much for that then.

No. The claim that the total energy of the universe is zero or could be zero is a highly popular 'atheist meme'. The universe is full of kinetic and potential energy and it has always contained that energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. Those are the LAWS of physics as we understand them. The idea you can try to "offset" kinetic energy with gravity is pure nonsense. Guth's claim about a "free lunch" was also atheistic nonsense.

No, I meant how you keep saying *you* don't have evidence.

Ah. My bad.

A theist criticizing science as a religion? You have really got to give up on that tactic.

Hmm. Considering the venue, you're probably correct in that assessment. Shouldn't there be some tangible physical difference between "science" and "religion" however? If not, how are they "different"?

So you are okay with a god that is not eternal?

Maybe. Is there a huge fundamental difference between a being that existed eternally in the past, vs one one 'formed' from chaos that existed in the past but will continue to exist "eternally" from here forward? I could personally live with either option.

Is that your Christian God or this "Universe God" that you are okay with not being eternal?

I'm pretty sure it's s my personal beliefs and concepts that were talking about at this point.

You are projecting. You are not doing science.

I'm not projecting, I'm telling you what my experiences have been for the past 7 years. Birkeland and Alfven, Bruce, Peratt, Lerner and many others have "done the science" of plasma physics for more than 100 years. I'm a programmer by trade and quite happy with that choice thank you very much.

You still don't get this 'falsification' concept. The big bang theory is already there. You just don't like it.

True. I'm certainly not the only one that doesn't like it.

cosmologystatement.org

I'm certainly not the only one to embrace EU/PC theory either.

You still have yet to show how *your* hypothesis is falsifiable. Note that I do not use the word "theory" as you do.

From my vantage point it seems as though you've ignored every mechanism I've offered you to date, including the falsification mechanism we just talked about in terms of the length of time that matter has existed. In fact there are a host of falsification mechanisms related to PC/EU theory to consider BEFORE we ever get to the property of AWARENESS.

So which god are we talking about now? Is that your Christian God or this "Universe God"?

FYI, I don't personally see any distinction between my beliefs and the "Christian" God. I love Jesus. My beliefs are congruent with his teachings, at least as *I* see things. Others might disagree of course and I'm sure lots would. On the other hand, I don't care what judgements other Christians might throw my way since Christ told us not to judge others. I certainly don't care what atheists might think of my beliefs. There's no point in attempting to differentiate between "Christianity" and "Universe God" from my personal perspective, however it's a valid argument, and I do accept that from a scientific perspective, a living universe is essentially "religion neutral" from the perspective of pure physics. A living universe might be used to support ANY number of theistic belief systems from the perspective of physics, and potentially even atheist beliefs too for all I know. EU/PC theory is essentially religion neutral, and it's even 'theistic/atheist' neutral in terms of pure physics.

That is not the impression you have given me.

I'm afraid I can't speak much to your mind reading skills beyond what I've already stated.

FYI, based on my own personal life experience, I've been a theists (again) for almost 30 years. FYI, my scientific disenchantment with BB theory began with the introduction of Guthianity/inflation into the big bang dogma. Before that time I was quite a BB fan in fact, young mind you, but a fan none the less. I still tend to personally favor an expanding universe albeit not "space" expansion. I would say that in light of current tired light models, that's really just a leftover prejudice on my part that is leftover from my youth.

The "final straws" (last two) from my perspective were watching the term "dark matter' morph into a term that mostly represented the concept "matter our limited technologies and models have yet to correctly identify", to "exotic matter did it!" The last and final one was watching dark energy turn into a gap filler of epic proportions. That was just too much for me. Since the the introduction of "dark energy' I've just never really thought much of that particular theory. I'm pretty sure that stems from my stint as an atheist and my rejection of "supernatural" concepts in general.

I didn't actually even KNOW that PC/EU theory even existed until about 7 years ago. That particular interest is what led me to reevaluate my position on pantheism and really reconsider that idea, say 5 years ago. I'm not really even emotionally attached to the idea because most of my life I've been theist *WITHOUT* a scientific explanation for my beliefs and experience and that's just fine by me. That's what FAITH is all about.

On the other hand, my scientific curiosity simply wants to know if the universe is aware and is alive. These are legitimate scientific questions that have legitimate empirical scientific answers.

What I finally did come to realize only within the past few years is that a pantheistic explanation of the universe is *AT LEAST* as scientifically viable and scientifically/empirically falsifiable as any other popular cosmology theory. IMO that makes it worth a look.

 

[Michael]

Again - more absolute uninformed nonsense from Michael.

WE DO NOT simulate solar core conditions and get fusion.

Of course we do. We heat materials up to very high temperatures and create very high densities of particles to achieve 'fusion'. That's how a star does it too. Yes, there are differences but pressure and temperature are simply SCALING issues.

I have pointed this out to him before - he just cannot understand technical arguments or is being deliberately obtuse.

I'm simply unwilling to ignore the fact that pressure and temperature are the only things we can't properly scale here on Earth AFAIK.

Michael - go away and actually learn some physics and about the topics you waffle about.

Just out of curiosity, how many BOOKS on MHD theory have you personally read? Have you even read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven?

It's embarrassing how uninformed you are for someone claiming knowledge.

IMO it's embarrassing that you're simply ignoring the fact that we've actually fused atoms together in real experiments on Earth.

 

[Naraoia]

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that an absolutely TERRIBLE analogy. We can SEE the sun, it's not "dark"/invisible. We can FEEL the sun's warmth on our skin. We don't 'see' dark stuff.

When I've been looking at a candle for long enough, I can SEE a candlelight-shaped blob on the wall when I look away. This experience can be replicated by anyone with functioning eyes, it still doesn't mean that candlelight-shaped blobs appear on walls as a consequence of people looking at candles.

 

[Michael]

When I've been looking at a candle for long enough, I can SEE a candlelight-shaped blob on the wall when I look away. This experience can be replicated by anyone with functioning eyes, it still doesn't mean that candlelight-shaped blobs appear on walls as a consequence of people looking at candles.

I have no idea how to respond to that comment. You're now mixing metaphors to the point of silliness. Does the candle exist?

 

[Davian]

...
Hmm. Considering the venue, you're probably correct in that assessment. Shouldn't there be some tangible physical difference between "science" and "religion" however? If not, how are they "different"?
...

When you work that out, I am sure you will start making progress.

 

[Michael]

When you work that out, I am sure you will start making progress.

That's exactly why I switched to PC theory.

 

[Naraoia]

I have no idea how to respond to that comment. You're now mixing metaphors to the point of silliness.

Look a bit more closely.

Does the candle exist?

Oh, sure it does. But SEEing something is not evidence of its nature. The candle exists - and you could argue even the purple blob exists, but simply being able to see it

(1) doesn't mean it exists outside of you (the blob is an artefact of the detector, so to speak)
(2) doesn't tell you its true nature

Which, I guess, brings me to the point(s) of the analogy:

(1) What makes seeing any more reliable than other methods of detecting reality?

(2) Seeing something doesn't equal understanding it - when you see the sun, you don't see a giant ball of plasma undergoing fusion and whatnot. You see a round, immensely bright shape that wanders across the sky.

You always need methods other than seeing to interpret what you see.

 

[NGC 6712]

Of course we do. We heat materials up to very high temperatures and create very high densities of particles to achieve 'fusion'. That's how a star does it too. Yes, there are differences but pressure and temperature are simply SCALING issues.

No we do not. This is NOT a scaling issue. The reactions are different. The reactions in a star are completely useless in terrestrial experiments - hence they are not used. Do some research !!!!!!!