Method for accepting science

[Michael]

And the thing that irritates you is that you know I actually work in this area of science.

No, the thing that irritates me is that your tactics are SLEAZY. Instead of citing an actual flaw in the work I presented, you keep remaining in denial that it's been done and you keep asserting false statements as fact. That's the part I find annoying.

The only one contradicting themselves is you.

 

[Michael]

I said I will show you the contradiction. I do not have the time at the minute to post this - I said I would.

I'll expect to see that "flaw" in that SR paper about the time hell freezes over.

Not by choice - by the fact is it crap. And no I am not going to hunt down or peruse paper after paper that has been rejected by the astrophysical community.

In other words, you can't be bothered to consider anything outside of your comfort zone and you won't deal with the very thing you asked for, specifically a mathematical alternative to your current beliefs. Typical astronomer (bury your head in the sand) nonsense.

They have been rejected for a reason in the past. I do not have the professional time to do this.

Then at LEAST stop asking me for something I've already provided and stop claiming I didn't give it to you.

Can you link me the MNRAS, ApJ, A&A or Physics Letters references for your papers?

Why just those specific references?

Why do you deflect all the time?

Talk about projection! I asked you to site a specific flaw in the papers that I've provided that are directly related to this topic (redshift and GR). You refuse to do so. I asked you what other handles you've used. You refuse to say.

Why do you argue about a point and then all of a sudden throw up some links to unrelated papers and say "What about this then?" - you do it all the time.

What? That redshift paper is DIRECTLY related to this conversation on 'scattering happens' in space! You're the one RUNNING from that paper now.

And by the way - you did all but say it is a conspiracy to ignore "other wavelengths".

I didn't say that. You keep saying that and sticking those words in my mouth.

Again - why do you think the CMB gets so much interest?

. Show me a number a calculation as to why this shouldn't be the case.

I showed you 85 pages worth of calculations that shows why this background exists *WITHOUT* your precious invisible and impotent sky entities. When did you intend to acknowledge it and read it and find any flaw in it?

By the way - notice I do NOT argue by link or throw up 500 of them to deflect.

I only cited one paper that is directly related to the "scattering happens" claim that I made. Either you deal with it, or you don't, but quit pretending I didn't give you what you asked for.

 

[Naraoia]

Sure, but you must see my point. You're virtually arbitrarily picking one small subset of the entire energy spectrum to come with an "average temperature" of "spacetime". Even if we IGNORE those gamma ray background signatures for a moment, it's clear that stars and galaxies emit these wavelengths of light. Many theoretical models about the effects of starlight on material in space came MUCH closer to the actual background temperature of spacetime than early BB theories did!

Much closer than this? I dunno much about cosmology, but I've seen enough graphs to be in slackjawed awe at that degree of fit.

Because it is obvious you cannot - one is you never do and secondly, some things are so obvious numbers wise yet you completely miss them.

Would you be nice and demonstrate some of these obvious things to those of us with little physical background when you have the time? Or is it only "obvious" with a lot of background?

I mean, from the outside right now it just looks like you're both clubbing each other like cavemen. I understand the frustration when some clueless angry layperson comes up with the same clueless arguments for the thousandth time (oh, ye gods, I do... biologist in a crevo forum ). Nevertheless, the show would be much more interesting with some tangible arguments sprinkled in every now and then

 

[Nabobalis]

Some do, some don't. It depends on what kind of 'science' we're talking about. String theory for instance produces no "testable" predictions that I am aware of that would distinguish it uniquely from any other theory. It's still considered to be 'science' even though it proposes MULTIPLE additional dimensions, none of which can be empirically shown to exist.

Is string theory "true"? Is it a part of 'science'?

No think's string theory is validated science or true. You might have that impression but no in the actual scientific community does. String theory is a mathematical theory which can get confusing for the lay person.

String theory has one major issue (which I still think is being worked on) and that is it so far has made no testable prediction due to either the complex theory or technological restrictions. They hope to use the basic string theory to describe quark-gluon plasmas in the LHC but I have not followed their progress.

 

[Michael]

Much closer than this? I dunno much about cosmology, but I've seen enough graphs to be in slackjawed awe at that degree of fit.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420v3.pdf

I'm not exactly sure why you're slackjawed at what amounts to an average temperature of spacetime due to the effects of starlight (at various wavelengths) on molecules in space, but Ari covers the idea starting on page 50 of that presentation. Essentially the intergalactic plasma absorbs and emits photons and that curve you see shows approximately the average temperature of spacetime.

Keep in mind that the "fit" that you see in that particular graph involves not one, not two, but THREE metaphysical entities to make the mainstream's argument actually fit that curve. That's quite a lot to swallow considering the fact that the very same curve can be explained as the net thermal effect of starlight on plasma over large distances.

Nevertheless, the show would be much more interesting with some tangible arguments sprinkled in every now and then

Keep in mind that is that very same lack of "tangibility' that I find disturbing about mainstream theory. If inflation wasn't enough of a metaphysical monstrosity, dark energy appears to be a purely 'ad hoc' metaphysical creation meant to save an otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Only 5 percent of mainstream theory has a tangible effect on anything in the lab, whereas PC/EU theory is 100 percent empirical physics, hence my personal preference for PC/EU theory.

 

[[serious]]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420v3.pdf
Keep in mind that the "fit" that you see in that particular graph involves not one, not two, but THREE metaphysical entities to make the mainstream's argument actually fit that curve. That's quite a lot to swallow considering the fact that the very same curve can be explained as the net effect on starlight on plasma over large distances.

Would you be nice and demonstrate some of these obvious things to those of us with little physical background when you have the time? Or is it only "obvious" with a lot of background?

Keep in mind that is that very same lack of "tangibility' that I find disturbing about mainstream theory. If inflation wasn't enough of a metaphysical monstrosity, dark energy appears to be a purely 'ad hoc' metaphysical creation meant to save an otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Only 5 percent of mainstream theory has a tangible effect on anything in the lab, whereas PC/EU theory is 100 percent empirical physics, hence my personal preference for PC/EU theory.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Michael]

No think's string theory is validated science or true. You might have that impression but no in the actual scientific community does. String theory is a mathematical theory which can get confusing for the lay person.

"Validated science"? Hmmm.

String theory is in fact an "acceptable" topic in astronomy/science. Materials are regularly published on that topic. Whether it's "true" or not or even considered 'likely', it often sees the light of publishing day. It's an idea that is 'entertained' within a small subset of the scientific community, much like a small religion.

String theory has one major issue (which I still think is being worked on) and that is it so far has made no testable prediction due to either the complex theory or technological restrictions. They hope to use the basic string theory to describe quark-gluon plasmas in the LHC but I have not followed their progress.

I suppose my point is this:

The theory itself has no known testable predictions that make it "unique" compared to any other theory. It's a mathematical construct that may or may not be valid. Even still, that particular theory is considered a part of "science". Not all scientific idea have empirical merit or testable premises, just as not all religious ideas have empirical merit or testable premises.

 

[Michael]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Would you prefer "supernatural"? Where does dark energy even come from?

 

[Tiberius]

Some do, some don't. It depends on what kind of 'science' we're talking about. String theory for instance produces no "testable" predictions that I am aware of that would distinguish it uniquely from any other theory. It's still considered to be 'science' even though it proposes MULTIPLE additional dimensions, none of which can be empirically shown to exist.

Is string theory "true"? Is it a part of 'science'?

You want to show me some scientist who works in the field who claims that string theory is definitely true, no doubt about it even though there is no sufficient evidence?

As far as my understanding goes, string theory is currently considered to be a neat idea which MAY be true, and scientists are investigating it so they can find out if it really is true.

 

[Michael]

You want to show me some scientist who works in the field who claims that string theory is definitely true, no doubt about it even though there is no sufficient evidence?

People devote much of their public careers to publishing papers on various topics, including string theory. When someone devotes the majority of their professional career toward some "non tangible", and potentially even not testable topic like string theory, how is that effectively any less "waste of his/her time" than any religion in terms of having any hope of empirical validation in their lifetime?

As far as my understanding goes, string theory is currently considered to be a neat idea which MAY be true, and scientists are investigating it so they can find out if it really is true.

Don't you think that a lot of theists believe that certain religious ideas are "neat ideas which may be true", and therefore worth investigating further?

 

[Trogool]

People devote much of their public careers to publishing papers on various topics, including string theory. When someone devotes the majority of their professional career toward some "non tangible", and potentially even not testable topic like string theory, how is that effectively any less "waste of his/her time" than any religion in terms of having any hope of empirical validation in their lifetime?

*stares*

Seriously? Because understanding how our universe is a good thing and leads to technological advances, maybe?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[[serious]]

Would you prefer "supernatural"? Where does dark energy even come from?

How does "interacting with gravity and possibly the weak force" translate to "magic?"

Would neutrinos likewise be magic to you?

 

[sandwiches]

How does "interacting with gravity and possibly the weak force" translate to "magic?"

Would neutrinos likewise be magic to you?

Because Michael tries very hard to equate dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc with religion because he understands we see his view of the universe as a religion. He insists that the universe is God and his entire cosmology revolves around that belief.

 

[Tiberius]

People devote much of their public careers to publishing papers on various topics, including string theory. When someone devotes the majority of their professional career toward some "non tangible", and potentially even not testable topic like string theory, how is that effectively any less "waste of his/her time" than any religion in terms of having any hope of empirical validation in their lifetime?

Because they are working to objectively show something is science. That it can produce useful information, testable predictions, repeatable results.

What would you have them do? Work at things that have only been shown to be true already? How could any new progress be made if that was the way things were done?

And how is it different to religion? Well, I don't see any priests working to show how creationism leads to testable predictions.

Don't you think that a lot of theists believe that certain religious ideas are "neat ideas which may be true", and therefore worth investigating further?

Sure, but since their ideas are all completely unfalsifiable, there is no way to test them, is there?

But I find it very telling that on the few occasions that the ideas HAVE been testable (such as the power of prayer), the tests have always shown that the ideas are wrong!

 

[Nabobalis]

"Validated science"? Hmmm.

Accepted scientific theories are validated, due to the evidence that supports them. String theory is not a scientific theory at this current time.

String theory is in fact an "acceptable" topic in astronomy/science. Materials are regularly published on that topic. Whether it's "true" or not or even considered 'likely', it often sees the light of publishing day. It's an idea that is 'entertained' within a small subset of the scientific community, much like a small religion.

So is quantum gravity, so is a whole manner of other mathematical ideas. It is how theoretical journals work. People send in their consistent mathematical ideas and they might get published, then others will expand on them and so on and so on. Many mathematical theories always attract a small group of people because generally, the math is complex and it intrigues people so they work on it. The same happened with SR/GR in the early 20th century.

You do love trying to tie everything in science to religion. But the simple matter of the fact, the two are nothing alike, the people who work on string theory don't worship the creator of it and don't pray to the math god.

I suppose my point is this:

The theory itself has no known testable predictions that make it "unique" compared to any other theory. It's a mathematical construct that may or may not be valid. Even still, that particular theory is considered a part of "science". Not all scientific idea have empirical merit or testable premises, just as not all religious ideas have empirical merit or testable premises.

It might be form of an scientific hypothesis that needs loads more work before it is testable. But it isn't a part of science, no one in the community takes it that seriously due mainly to the issue that it can not be tested as of yet. It may appear to be a part of science if all you follow is popular science in the media. But ask particle physics or astrophysics, the idea of string theory is moot.

 

[Michael]

Accepted scientific theories are validated, due to the evidence that supports them. String theory is not a scientific theory at this current time.

String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm. Wiki would tend to disagree:

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter.

They sure "market" it as scientific theory, in fact they claim it's a "theory of everything" that presumably ties all physics together. That sure "sounds" like a "scientific theory".

So is quantum gravity, so is a whole manner of other mathematical ideas. It is how theoretical journals work. People send in their consistent mathematical ideas and they might get published, then others will expand on them and so on and so on. Many mathematical theories always attract a small group of people because generally, the math is complex and it intrigues people so they work on it. The same happened with SR/GR in the early 20th century.

So how are they really any different (functionally) than any "small religion/cult"? They can't ALL be "truth" can they?

You do love trying to tie everything in science to religion. But the simple matter of the fact, the two are nothing alike, the people who work on string theory don't worship the creator of it and don't pray to the math god.

Actually I beg to differ in terms of "praying to the math god". Astronomers tend to have an emotional and a professional need to QUANTIFY everything, yet they have no need whatsoever to "qualify' any of their ideas. None of them are 'qualified', but all of them are 'quantified'. They worship the math in their little "groups' because that's really all they have to work with in the first place. They also tend to "beat up" anyone and everyone that doesn't have their math skills, or even appears weaker in any way. In terms of their behaviors, they do in fact "worship" math in way that isn't particularly healthy IMO.

It might be form of an scientific hypothesis that needs loads more work before it is testable. But it isn't a part of science, no one in the community takes it that seriously due mainly to the issue that it can not be tested as of yet.

The term "no one" isn't really accurate. SOME people do put time and effort into these ideas and "hold belief" in these ideas. They at least believe that their beliefs are "scientific" beliefs that are well quantified and well expressed mathematically. That's true for dark matter proponents as well as MOND theory proponents.

It may appear to be a part of science if all you follow is popular science in the media. But ask particle physics or astrophysics, the idea of string theory is moot.

Hmmm. Does that matter? GR theory took time to become "accepted" by the mainstream. The transition wasn't instant. Is it really valid to use "popularity' to decide which ideas have scientific merit and which don't?

 

[Michael]

Because they are working to objectively show something is science.

If it's ultimately not accurate, was it ever actually "useful science"?

That it can produce useful information, testable predictions, repeatable results.

But dark energy theory doesn't actually produce any testable "predictions" it only produces testable POSTDICTIONS. It's a total dud in the lab and nobody on Earth knows where it would even come from were it to actually exist. String theory isn't actually 'testable', nor is the concept of MULTIPLE extra dimensions. Inflation isn't "testable" in the lab either. There are all "acts of faith' on the part of the 'believers' in those 'scientific' concepts. What makes "inflation' any more empirically 'scientific' than string theory?

What would you have them do? Work at things that have only been shown to be true already? How could any new progress be made if that was the way things were done?

So can atheists really fault theists for their attempt to explain reality via various "religions"?

And how is it different to religion? Well, I don't see any priests working to show how creationism leads to testable predictions.

I think your idea of 'predictions' vs. postdiction (gap filler) is a bit naive for starters. 'Dark energy' came right out of someone's back pocket quite frankly. It wasn't invented to 'predict' anything we MIGHT find in space, it was POSTDICTED 'gap filler' to try to 'explain' a set of observations related to redshift phenomenon.

Sure, but since their ideas are all completely unfalsifiable, there is no way to test them, is there?

That would depend entirely on the type of theory wouldn't it?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Pretty much all the electric universe aspects of that particular theory could in fact act as a falsification mechanism to this theory, whereas none of those aspects would NECESSARILY demonstrate a macroscopic "awareness".

How is inflation theory any more 'falsifiable'?

But I find it very telling that on the few occasions that the ideas HAVE been testable (such as the power of prayer), the tests have always shown that the ideas are wrong!

Only if you ASSUME that God's answer SHOULD NECESSARILY ALWAYS BE YES. Why would you start ANY experiment based on that premise?

 

[Michael]

How does "interacting with gravity and possibly the weak force" translate to "magic?"

Because nobody even knows where it comes from, and it magically filled the gaps of their otherwise FALSIFIED interpretation of the redshift phenomenon.

Would neutrinos likewise be magic to you?

Absolutely not. Neutrinos were first proposed due to observations made in CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION ON EARTH. Either a law of physics was being violated, or some amount of energy was being "lost" to some other particle. Their SOURCE was clearly identified and methods of generation and detection were absolutely possible here on Earth. Dark energy on the other hand has NOTHING to do with "controlled experimentation" and everything to do with SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of pure observation. No source has been identified, and therefore no controlled experimentation is even possible. Two ENTIRELY different animals. One idea came from controlled experimentation the other did not. One idea is well qualified in terms of source, the other is not. One has been verified in many labs, the other can NOT be tested here on Earth because no source has been identified. One is physics. The other is "magic gap filler" to save one and only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

 

[Naraoia]

You do love trying to tie everything in science to religion. But the simple matter of the fact, the two are nothing alike, the people who work on string theory don't worship the creator of it and don't pray to the math god.

Math is god.

 

[Michael]

Because Michael tries very hard to equate dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc with religion because he understands we see his view of the universe as a religion.

Um, even I would would argue that it's technically a religion as well as being a 'scientific' theory. So? I simply see "inflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" as a "religion" as well, a religion that requires FAITH in the UNSEEN, in the lab. No such "acts of faith" are even necessary in my 'religion' or my scientific theory. All of the proposed physical mechanisms and emergent qualities of those physical mechanisms (awareness) exist on Earth in ABUNDANCE. Awareness exists in MANY forms on Earth. That's not something I have to accept on FAITH alone.

He insists that the universe is God and his entire cosmology revolves around that belief.

Actually my cosmology beliefs revolve around the PC/EU orientation to plasma physics with or without any concepts related to awareness. I also 'entertain' the possibility that the physical universe is "aware" and "aware of me", and it may provide a rational physical 'explanation' for the human experiences of 'God'. My "faith" in the existence of God however PREDATES my cosmology preference changes, and I'm not emotionally attached to any ONE concept of God. I tend to favor EMPIRICAL concepts and I tend to put less credence in "supernatural" ideas of God, or inflation for that matter. It's nothing personal, it's just a personal preference for empirical physics.

FYI I started publicly promoting EU/PC theory several years before even really reconsidering a pantheistic view of the universe. It's only because it is electric in nature that I'm willing to entertain the idea that it's also "aware". In other words, the electrical current, the 'physics' and science related to PC/EU theory actually piqued my curiosity in a pantheistic view of the universe. Until I got into the 'science' of PC/EU theory, pantheism wasn't really even a consideration from my perspective. The universe seemed "dead" to me. Now it seems to posses many more qualities that are typically associated with 'life' and living organisms. I can't help but see how the science (physics of plasma) might very nicely tie directly back to the "religious' aspects (awareness of the entire organism).