Method for accepting science

[Michael]

I see this thread is still active. And I will provide some analysis of Michael's plasma paper link and special relativity paper link. I haven't forgotten - I had emergency surgery the other day - I snapped my achilles tendon and tore my ACL & MCL in my right leg at the same time. Not pleasant. Bed ridden and unable to stand at the moment.

Yikes! That sounds terribly painful. Take your time, and take care of yourself. The paper can certainly wait. I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers and I hope you have a speedy recovery.

 

[Naraoia]

That is only true for the people not hearing God's answers.

Every person is speaking directly to God at all times.

His answer is in direct response to the level of Trust or Faith that underlies the communication. I say this because none of us are blessed with the ability to speak at birth. But all can converse with God immediately. Those who listen with Belief & Faith are blessed with actual conversation. The rest just hear the background noise of blessings that all of God's Children receive, whether they are believers or not.

Let me just say that I didn't hear any more of God's answers when I was trying than I do now. I didn't want to be an atheist, ya know.

Correlation does not equal causation. Doesn't in any way suggest that the religion is true or that prayers are being answered. The key thing here is it doesn't actually matter which religion you follow, to get the beneficial effect, which clearly shows veracity has nothing to do with it...so it doesn't exactly help your cause at all - quite the opposite.

Incidentally, the study is very biased, because it is only in the United States - and here's proof. The Swedes - arguably one of the least religious societies on earth - have one of the longest average life expectancies at 80 years...compare with Swaziland, with 82.7% of the population estimated as being Christian, which has the second lowest average life expectancy on the planet, less than 40 years.......

So perhaps religion has a lot less to do with it than say, economic circumstances...

And the social benefits. Churches are communities. Full of like-minded friends, organised social activities et cetera. Socialising is good for you.

I have a vague recollection that the beneficial effect of religion (or lack thereof) also depends on the cultural environment. In societies where being an atheist doesn't carry a stigma, being religious doesn't make much difference. But I can't remember where I read that off hand, so I might just be making it up...

I can get some measured quantity of neutrinos from a nuclear reactor too, not that I'd want to play with one in my garage.

Playing with neutrinos isn't terribly likely to harm you

You guys can't even name a source of "dark energy".

"Empty" space. And the fact that you said this casts some doubt on your understanding of mainstream cosmology.

I see this thread is still active. And I will provide some analysis of Michael's plasma paper link and special relativity paper link. I haven't forgotten - I had emergency surgery the other day - I snapped my achilles tendon and tore my ACL & MCL in my right leg at the same time. Not pleasant. Bed ridden and unable to stand at the moment.

Ouch.

 

[Michael]

Photons, according to the standard model came from the cooling of the quark-gluon plasma (which only has certain similarities with the plasma you are more familiar with) - which allowed hadronic matter to form.

Well, if you're trying to 'simplify' this creation of matter process to a SINGLE type of energy that is contained inside all forms of matter, I would agree that the simple photon would probably suffice. I mean if you're going to claim that electrons and positrons are created by light, you might as well go all the way and claim that protons and neutrons are simply collections of positron and electrons arranged in some group configuration. The matter/antimatter collider experiments produced other subatomic particles just by slamming electrons and protons together at high speed.

I'm always amazed at this point that crusading atheists like Krauss can claim with a straight face, or even believe that the universe has zero net energy. There could NEVER have been a time in all of eternity when 'energy' did not exist in some form or another. Atheistic memes are just strange IMO.

Sure we can, by that standard. Space itself would appear to be the source of dark energy, by your standard - that you can go and 'get some' electrons and photons from an atom.

Wow, talk about metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. "Space" isn't even physically defined. "Spacetime" is described and defined by GR, but the gaps between matter don't PRODUCE energy, they simply are points in spacetime that existing energy traverses.

How do I empirically verify that 'space' produces magic unicorns, or dark invisible gnomes, or "dark energy" here on Earth? I mean if you claimed that magnetic fields were created by the flow of current, you'd have no problem demonstrating that claim in a lab. Something powerful enough to accelerate an entire universe would surely be able to move a couple atoms in a lab, right?

Actually, for the neutrinos, you probably already have some - inside you. They won't hang about for long though...and you couldn't contain the ones from the nuclear reactor either. In fact, you couldn't observe the neutrino at all, only the paths of the mesons produced by the collisions the neutrinos had with protons...

The point is that they do in fact exist inside of me right now by the billions and they are detectable by standard empirical physics. We can identify a known source of them. We can 'control' that source as well and thereby verify the cause/effect link between transmitter and receiver.

You can't even identify a PHYSICAL source because "space" isn't PHYSICALLY defined in the first place!

Where can you go "get" some potential energy

Pick up a rock.

or kinetic energy?

Let go of it now and watch it fall to the ground. That's how potential energy is converted into kinetic energy on Earth.

It would seem from your statements that you think dark energy is like a liquid, or a solid, or something you can put in a box - are you grasping the concept of energy?

I grasp the concept of PARTICLE KINETIC ENERGY like neutrinos and EM fields and such. I understand potential energy, spacetime curvature/gravity and many other things that actually show up in the lab. Neutrinos for instance are ultimately just a form of particle kinetic energy with an identifiable source. Ditto for EM fields. Their carrier particle is the (virtual) photon, a particle that carries simple kinetic energy from one location to another. We can "create" EM fields with ordinary current, again establishing cause/effect connections is no problem in the lab. I don't have a CLUE what "dark energy" might be, how to acquire it, use it, manipulate it or "create" some in any way/shape or form, and neither does anyone else on this planet. It's apparently a complete dud in the lab, akin to any 'religion' based on a "deistic' deity.

In terms of a physical description - what is your physical description of potential energy, for example? Just so I know what your standard is...

I can demonstrate it on Earth with a simple rock.

WMAP, and observations of type A supernovae - two independent observations based on different scientific ideas - yield very close approximations to how much of the universe should be dark energy, which is why the 70% number seems about right.

But as those 'tired light' papers demonstrate, a simple scattering effect explains those same observations WITHOUT magic energy. Which is the "simpler" explanation?

 

[Michael]

Playing with neutrinos isn't terribly likely to harm you

I was thinking more in terms of a playing with a nuclear reactor in my garage. My wife would throw a fit, and men in black would probably show up at my door. Not a good idea......

"Empty" space. And the fact that you said this casts some doubt on your understanding of mainstream cosmology.

It can't be "empty" space and also be the "source" of energy. What PRODUCES this energy? Astronomers are like Buddhists. You guys literally MAKE UP these contradictory claims that are PURELY metaphysical in nature, and then you BLAME others for 'not understanding' such silly nonsense. Ask two astronomers the same set of questions, and you're likely to get two conflicting set of answers as well.

 

[[serious]]

I was thinking more in terms of a playing with a nuclear reactor in my garage. My wife would throw a fit, and men in black would probably show up at my door. Not a good idea......



It can't be "empty" space and also be the "source" of energy. What PRODUCES this energy? Astronomers are like Buddhists. You guys literally MAKE UP these contradictory claims that are PURELY metaphysical in nature, and then you BLAME others for 'not understanding' such silly nonsense. Ask two astronomers the same set of questions, and you're likely to get two conflicting set of answers as well.

What's your competing explanation of the casimir effect?

 

[Michael]

What's your competing explanation of the casimir effect?

I would explain it as EM field (quantum) pressure DIFFERENCES between the outside and inside of the plates. The quantum field pressure on the outside of the plates is "greater than" the field pressure between the plates.

It would also be valid to suggest that there is an EM field ATTRACTION between the molecules in the plates.

Are you claiming "dark energy" is nothing more than an ordinary EM field effect like the Casimir effect? If so, you're actually a closet EU/PC enthusiast.

 

[Michael]

What's your competing explanation of the casimir effect?

FYI that effect is directly related to the fact that our universe is full of kinetic energy. Nobody doubts the fact that our present "spacetime' includes a lot of kinetic energy between objects inside of spacetime. Like I said, EM fields are THE most likely 'cause' of any acceleration of a mostly plasma universe. If you're looking for a rational "cause' to explain the "acceleration' of plasma, EM fields are entirely "acceptable' to me. "Dark evil green energy", and "magic unicorns" aren't all that acceptable in terms of likely causes for acceleration of a plasma universe, or "likely" for that matter.

 

[NGC 6712]

Yikes! That sounds terribly painful. Take your time, and take care of yourself. The paper can certainly wait. I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers and I hope you have a speedy recovery.

Thanks.

Beyond painful - I felt the achilles snap and that caused me to fall over whilst twisting my knee and I felt that snap as well. All I was doing was walking up to the house after being out for dinner, wasn't even inebriated - just one of those things.

About the only thing I can say is that the drugs they gave me are good - not conducive to thinking but good for zoning out. Doesn't help I am a very large individual so I am falling from a large height and with a lot of weight going down on the knee. Been told I have quite a few months of rehab ahead of me.

 

[Naraoia]

It can't be "empty" space and also be the "source" of energy. What PRODUCES this energy?

Atoms don't "produce" electrons unless some beta decay is going on. Decide what you're asking for, please.

 

[Michael]

Atoms don't "produce" electrons unless some beta decay is going on. Decide what you're asking for, please.

Oh give me a break! You know EXACTLY what I'm looking for, specifically a way to get a quantity of dark energy to play with in CONTROLLED conditions. How do I know it's not simply a figment of your imagination if you can't even tell us how to get some? It's like pointing at space and claiming "God did it".

FYI, a simple chemical reaction will release electrons. Heat anything up to sufficient temperature and you'll get a plasma that includes free electrons. The movement of those electrons will generate magnetic fields too that are MEASURABLE and have a tangible effect on the movement of charged particles.

 

[Michael]

Thanks.

Beyond painful - I felt the achilles snap and that caused me to fall over whilst twisting my knee and I felt that snap as well. All I was doing was walking up to the house after being out for dinner, wasn't even inebriated - just one of those things.

About the only thing I can say is that the drugs they gave me are good - not conducive to thinking but good for zoning out. Doesn't help I am a very large individual so I am falling from a large height and with a lot of weight going down on the knee. Been told I have quite a few months of rehab ahead of me.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Tendon tears tend to take a long time to heal and knee problems are typically pretty painful. Sending some love your way......

 

[sandwiches]

Hmmm. "Observable effect"? I dunno. QM experiments, as well as the "placebo effect", demonstrate that our thoughts can have a direct effect on the outcome of various experiments. I would assume that applies to prayer as well as "thoughts". Even the "belief" that one is taking a drug that might help them improve can improve someone's heath (placebo effect). Our behaviors (like attending church) can also have a positive effect on something as tangible as longevity. I certainly can't rule it out in ALL situations.

You didn't answer my question. So I'll rephrase it as clearly as I can:
Are the effects of prayer objective observable, yes or no?

 

[SkyWriting]

You didn't answer my question. So I'll rephrase it as clearly as I can:
Are the effects of prayer objective observable, yes or no?

They are objectively observable yes. 100% Objective.

 

[sandwiches]

They are objectively observable yes. 100% Objective.

So, we should be able to see a difference when people pray and when they don't. We don't see that difference. What would your hypothesis be for this and how can could we test it?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, we should be able to see a difference when people pray and when they don't. We don't see that difference. What would your hypothesis be for this and how can could we test it?

That's a social science response.
You can't predict how a person will respond to a request for help.
Even the same request could get two different responses.
The entire idea of testing it is fraught with error from conception.
Where is your head?

 

[sandwiches]

That's a social science response.
You can't predict how a person will respond to a request for help.
Even the same request could get two different responses.
The entire idea of testing it is fraught with error from conception.
Where is your head?

Where's yours, kid? Your sunglasses are floating! It's like there's nothing there!

So, we can't observe objectively the effects of prayer. Weird. I could've sworn you had just said the opposite. hehe

 

[[serious]]

That's a social science response.
You can't predict how a person will respond to a request for help.
Even the same request could get two different responses.
The entire idea of testing it is fraught with error from conception.
Where is your head?

You could certainly run an experiment to measure this on a living human. Let's say people email me requests for donations. You could certainly look to see if charities that requested a $20 donation from me had a $20 donation arrive in their account. Sure, some charities might be denied, but if asking for money via email was an effective method of soliciting donations from me, there should certainly be a testable way of determining that. Likewise, if prayer is an effective way of soliciting divine intervention, we should be able to detect that even if God just doesn't like giving some of the participants what they want.

 

[Tiberius]

That's a social science response.
You can't predict how a person will respond to a request for help.
Even the same request could get two different responses.
The entire idea of testing it is fraught with error from conception.
Where is your head?

But prayer doesn't affect the person, does it. You pray to GOD, not PEOPLE.

 

[Naraoia]

They are objectively observable yes. 100% Objective.

If it's OBJECTIVELY observable, then how come only some people are capable of observing it, and it disappears in systematic studies designed to be objective?

 

[Michael]

So, we should be able to see a difference when people pray and when they don't. We don't see that difference.

Assuming the change that occurs creates a "difference' inside the individual that prays, exactly what "difference" would you expect to see from the outside looking in?

What would your hypothesis be for this and how can could we test it?

Hmm, I don't know, "Longer, happier lives?"