Method for accepting science

[Nabobalis]

I suppose, "nothing" is wrong with that attitude, assuming you apply that same concept to ALL topics, including the topic of God.

Well I am a weak atheist, so I do take this approach.

It's tad more than a mathematical model in the sense that it suggests/requieres that there are many new whole dimensions of spacetime that we know absolutely nothing about. If you'd entertain a concept that "far out", and still call it "science" what can't be considered "science"? Certainly there are more empirical concepts of "God" that don't require ANY extra dimensions.

We don't call it science, you seem not to be grasping the concept here. String "theory" is a mathematical framework when worked through gives out the idea of needing more dimensions. No one says they exist. You seem to think that any mathematical idea that i publish is taken to be fact and science. It is pure math and nothing else.

Oh boloney. Any number of issues/problems related to EU/PC theory could easily be used to "falsify" the concepts that I put forth. For that matter PC/EU theory isn't even a "mainstream" theory to begin with, in fact it's a MINORITY position within any cosmology group. Awareness isn't NECESSARILY unfalsifiable either, so nothing I've proposed is unfalsifiable, certainly not the extreme of something like string theory, or inflation.

I doubt it is even a minority position in the cosmology group.

No, it simply requires MULTIPLE extra dimensions to exist, none of which can be shown to exist. Talk about FAITH!

You really don't understand how pure math works do you? No one claims that they exist, it is a result of working through the math which is then published.

You mean BESIDES all those extra dimensions? You certainly can't claim to have EVIDENCE that extra dimensions exist. What else can you call it besides 'faith'?

Again, no one claims they exist. You are really not grasping how mathematicians work.

No, but they'll still take your funding/money anyway.

Research takes time and money. So people should only take money when they claim to know the truth? An interesting position.

I've tried the publishing route too. I see no evidence whatsoever that the astronomy community is even INTERESTED in making any "progress". They keep dumbing down events in space to "magnetism" when they know perfectly well it's an "ELECTROmagnetic process". Birkeland explained why the solar atmosphere is hotter than it's surface over 100 years ago! He also explained coronal loops to them over 100 years ago. They aren't the LEAST BIT interested in PROGRESS IMO.

They do care about progress. You clearly have not been in any scientific community for long. Ask anyone on this board who does a Phd or something higher, they will tell you that progress is very important. Again with the Birkeland thing, the community required independent evidence to confirm his findings. Why don't you understand this?

Unfortunately most of them (even the nice ones) know almost nothing about MHD theory as it relates to solar physics, my personal field of interest. They go out of their way to ignore the effect of electrical current in events in space to the point of shear absurdity. The high coronal temperatures would NOT have been a "mystery' to Birkeland. The fact it's still a mystery to astronomers today, 100 years later, is a powerful testament to the fact that mainstream astronomers have absolutely no interest or desire in progress, or at least no aptitude for it.

Yes, I agree. Astronomers just sit around going to themselves, we must prevent knowledge of Birkeland and Alfven's work from ever reaching the public or we will loose our funding. *evil laugh*

The reason we still don't know what exactly heats the corona is because it a massively complex system that now telescopes, theory and computers are able to start to come together in a way not been possible before. If you had some solution I am sure some astronomer would look at it and publish it right away.

 

[sandwiches]

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?

Well, according to Skywriting, prayer has 100% objective effects. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that it doesn't. Again, which is it?

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

That's religion, not prayer.

 

[Michael]

Well I am a weak atheist, so I do take this approach.

Ok...

We don't call it science, you seem not to be grasping the concept here.

Who is "we" exactly, and when did you personally start deciding what is "science" and what is not anyway?

String "theory" is a mathematical framework when worked through gives out the idea of needing more dimensions.

So it's essentially a form of "faith" in unseen extra dimensions.

No one says they exist. You seem to think that any mathematical idea that i publish is taken to be fact and science. It is pure math and nothing else.

But that's also true for inflation theory (aka guthanity), dark stuff, gravitons, etc. Heck, that statement even applies to a the concept of a "God particle/Higgs Boson" at the moment, certainly to SUSY theories. All of these are nothing more than mathematical models, in fact a series of them.

I doubt it is even a minority position in the cosmology group.

Which only confirms my point. Unlike most cosmology theories, it's A) completely empirically falsifiable, B) it's a minority position.

You really don't understand how pure math works do you? No one claims that they exist, it is a result of working through the math which is then published.

Ya and then they start claiming that more than 70 percent of the universe is made of "dark energy" based on such a "math only" approach to physics. Dark energy is nothing more than a mathematical model, in fact it nothing more than a metaphysical/supernatural gap filler within a mathematical model.

Again, no one claims they exist. You are really not grasping how mathematicians work.

I think you're kind of ignoring the fact they they DO claim that "dark energy" exists and they do claim that exotic brands of "dark matter" exist based on NOTHING MORE than a little math.

Research takes time and money. So people should only take money when they claim to know the truth? An interesting position.

Suppose I wanted money to fund a study on the feasibility of an Earth centric universe? Would you support taxpayer funds be spent on such a "study"? If not, why should I as a skeptic be expected to pay for satellites built at taxpayer expense to study "dark energy"?

They do care about progress. You clearly have not been in any scientific community for long. Ask anyone on this board who does a Phd or something higher, they will tell you that progress is very important.

What "progress"? I haven't seen a single percentage point of "progress" in over 15 years! The dogma got stuck at "dark energy" apparently.

Again with the Birkeland thing, the community required independent evidence to confirm his findings. Why don't you understand this?

I do understand that. I also understand that it took them over 60 years to "confirm" his findings about the flow of current in the aurora. At the pace they are going it will take them another 150 years to figure out that current flows between the solar surface and the heliosphere.

Yes, I agree. Astronomers just sit around going to themselves, we must prevent knowledge of Birkeland and Alfven's work from ever reaching the public or we will loose our funding. *evil laugh*

No, evidently they sit around writing about their impotent on Earth, possibly now dead (in the case of inflation) sky deities while bashing empirical physics on the internet. Yawn. Plasma physics isn't particularly glamorous, but it does lead toward EMPIRICAL solutions to solving problems.

The reason we still don't know what exactly heats the corona is because it a massively complex system that now telescopes, theory and computers are able to start to come together in a way not been possible before. If you had some solution I am sure some astronomer would look at it and publish it right away.

Birkeland had a solution and he published it. Alfven had a solution and he published it too. Dr. Charles Bruce published solutions too. The mainstream isn't even interested in actual physics, current or circuit theory applied to events in space. In fact it resists/avoids the E orientation to plasma physics like the plague. Circuit theory is hardly even mentioned in solar physics today, and at least half the folks involved in solar physics research are virtually oblivious to Alfven's actual theories, and 99 percent of them are virtually clueless about Birkeland's work and his theories.

 

[Michael]

Well, according to Skywriting, prayer has 100% objective effects. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that it doesn't. Again, which is it?

Define "objective". I'd say it has a tangible effect on my internal thinking processes, my sense of "peace", my sense of well being, etc. Others have the same or similar experiences so in that sense you could call these "objective" effects.

That's religion, not prayer.

Prayer and communion with God is typically a big part of "religion".

 

[Michael]

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?

BBC News - Brains of Buddhist monks scanned in meditation study

Nothing "disappears" in objective studies of the tangible and very real effects of meditation/prayer on the brain. The effects are quite tangible and they show up in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine. From the article:

"One thing that meditation does for those who practise it a lot is that it cultivates attentional skills," Dr Josipovic says, adding that those harnessed skills can help lead to a more tranquil and happier way of being. "Meditation research, particularly in the last 10 years or so, has shown to be very promising because it points to an ability of the brain to change and optimise in a way we didn't know previously was possible."

There are in fact very tangible, very real, very OBJECTIVE changes in the brain as a result of meditation and prayer. There are both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL effects to discuss and look at here, not just EXTERNAL effects.

 

[Nabobalis]

Who is "we" exactly, and when did you personally start deciding what is "science" and what is not anyway?

When it is accepted by the mainstream does it really become accepted science. You can have scientific hypothesis and the like as long as they meet the basic requirements. [/QUOTE]

So it's essentially a form of "faith" in unseen extra dimensions.

Really? Are you still not understanding? The equations of string theory when worked trough give you more dimensions. That is it. No other claims of how valid they are or if they even exist. There is nothing to have faith in.

But that's also true for inflation theory (aka guthanity), dark stuff, gravitons, etc. Heck, that statement even applies to a the concept of a "God particle/Higgs Boson" at the moment, certainly to SUSY theories. All of these are nothing more than mathematical models, in fact a series of them.

Most of them are mathematical models, but they have the ability to predict the existence of things that maybe one day can be tested for. But they don't claim to be true when they are formulated.

Which only confirms my point. Unlike most cosmology theories, it's A) completely empirically falsifiable, B) it's a minority position.

A) Already falsified within/by the astrophysical community. B) Doesn't matter, it can be very easy for minority positions to become the majority.

Ya and then they start claiming that more than 70 percent of the universe is made of "dark energy" based on such a "math only" approach to physics. Dark energy is nothing more than a mathematical model, in fact it nothing more than a metaphysical/supernatural gap filler within a mathematical model.

Dark energy is a mathematical solution to observations taken 20 years ago. To explain the expansion of the universe.

I think you're kind of ignoring the fact they they DO claim that "dark energy" exists and they do claim that exotic brands of "dark matter" exist based on NOTHING MORE than a little math.

They claim that the universe is expanding and that something they have labeled as dark energy is the cause. They don't know what dark energy is.

Suppose I wanted money to fund a study on the feasibility of an Earth centric universe? Would you support taxpayer funds be spent on such a "study"? If not, why should I as a skeptic be expected to pay for satellites built at taxpayer expense to study "dark energy"?

No, that was shown to be wrong centuries ago. Dark energy has been inferred from the observations.

What "progress"? I haven't seen a single percentage point of "progress" in over 15 years! The dogma got stuck at "dark energy" apparently.

And? Progress can be very slow, money and time is not easy to come by.

I do understand that. I also understand that it took them over 60 years to "confirm" his findings about the flow of current in the aurora. At the pace they are going it will take them another 150 years to figure out that current flows between the solar surface and the heliosphere.

They took 60 years to confirm his finding because there was no other way to back up his results without the use of satellites. It be like taking the result from OPERA and going, well we don't need to independently check it.

Birkeland had a solution and he published it. Alfven had a solution and he published it too. Dr. Charles Bruce published solutions too. The mainstream isn't even interested in actual physics, current or circuit theory applied to events in space. In fact it resists/avoids the E orientation to plasma physics like the plague. Circuit theory is hardly even mentioned in solar physics today, and at least half the folks involved in solar physics research are virtually oblivious to Alfven's actual theories, and 99 percent of them are virtually clueless about Birkeland's work and his theories.

I forgot how no one in the solar physics community actually cares about solving any issue to do with the sun since they are so focused on suppressing anything to do with a PC/EU. You'll love reconnection, all they talk about is electric currents and electric fields.

 

[Michael]

When it is accepted by the mainstream does it really become accepted science. You can have scientific hypothesis and the like as long as they meet the basic requirements.

IMO you sort of skirted my question. Who's WE and when did you start deciding what is considered to be 'science' and what is not?

Really? Are you still not understanding? The equations of string theory when worked trough give you more dimensions. That is it. No other claims of how valid they are or if they even exist. There is nothing to have faith in.

The equations mean NOTHING and DO nothing AFAIK.

Most of them are mathematical models, but they have the ability to predict the existence of things that maybe one day can be tested for. But they don't claim to be true when they are formulated.

Astronomers do in fact often claim that "dark energy" is responsible for the "acceleration" of the universe. No "predictions" were involved, it was all POSTDICTED from the very start. No cause/effect relationships were ever demonstrated. It's NOTHING BUT a mathematical mythology. It's a "dark religion' in a very real way.

A) Already falsified within/by the astrophysical community.

False. They reject something they don't even bother to take the time to even understand. Most of them haven't even read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven.

B) Doesn't matter, it can be very easy for minority positions to become the majority.

I'm counting on it. Even still, you can't claim part A is true and also claim that the theory is also unfalsifiable. Which is it? Has it been falsified or not? Is it falsifiable or not?

Dark energy is a mathematical solution to observations taken 20 years ago. To explain the expansion of the universe.

No such "expansion" (actually acceleration) has ever been directly OBSERVED. Only redshift has been observed. Acceleration is an INTERPRETATION of that redshift phenomenon, it's not a DIRECT OBSERVATION. In fact, most astronomers don't even bother making that distinction or even NOTING that distinction.

They claim that the universe is expanding and that something they have labeled as dark energy is the cause. They don't know what dark energy is.

I know exactly what it is. It's metaphysical ad hoc gap filler that was intentionally and specifically designed to save ONE otherwise FALSIFIED cosmology theory. That's it's only useful purpose in fact.

No, that was shown to be wrong centuries ago. Dark energy has been inferred from the observations.

The inference isn't even warranted IMO. Whatever might "cause" acceleration it can't be magical energy, God energy, or "dark energy" because none of these things have been shown to empirically exist in nature or have any tangible effect on nature.

And? Progress can be very slow, money and time is not easy to come by.

And I'd rather pursue PC/EU theory and move at my own pace thank you very much. If I have to wait another 60 years for them to figure out that flares are the result of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, I'll be dead!

They took 60 years to confirm his finding because there was no other way to back up his results without the use of satellites.

He already "Backed up" his claims with direct in-situ ground measurements and laboratory experiments. What did Chapman have other than a simple math formula? Why in the world did the mainstream prefer a PURELY MATH solution over a solution that included math PLUS physical experiments PLUS ground measurements? Oh ya, they only care about QUANTIFICATION, not QUALIFICATION.

It be like taking the result from OPERA and going, well we don't need to independently check it.

It's impossible to 'independently check" most of the mainstream claims. The moment one "lacks belief" in their impotent sky entities, the whole thing goes up in one big puff of metaphysical smoke. There are NO empirical cause/effect links to be demonstrated, and none that ever WILL be demonstrated for that matter.

I forgot how no one in the solar physics community actually cares about solving any issue to do with the sun since they are so focused on suppressing anything to do with a PC/EU.

Most of them can't actually suppress something that they don't even understand in the first place. FYI, several astronomers spend an INORDINATE amount of time on the internet BASHING PC theory. You don't hear them complain a lot about MOND theory, string theory, or anything else for that matter. About the only thing you see the haters actively attack on the internet is EU/PC theory, a purely EMPIRICAL form of physics.

You'll love reconnection, all they talk about is electric currents and electric fields.

Actually, no. Most papers I've read on "reconnection'' never mention anything about voltages or amperes or anything of the sort. It's typically all "dumbed down' to the B orientation of plasma physics.

Of the seven key high energy signatures related to flares, including gamma rays, x-rays, neutron capture signatures and million degree ion temperatures, every single one of them has been directly and empirically (in the lab) linked to 'electrical discharges" in plasma. "Reconnection" hasn't never even been empirically linked with even one of them. I think the best anyone ever did was show that ELECTRONS (not necessarily ions) can be accelerated in a 'reconnection' process involving TWO CURRENTS. That's it. Not a single one of the more important observations of flares have EVER been empirically linked to 'reconnection' in the lab. Every single one of them HAS BEEN empirically linked to electrical discharges in plasma. Why then is the mainstream so damn afraid of the term "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares? It's always 'magnetic yada yada yada" in mainstream solar physics papers rather than ELECTROmagnetic blah blah blah. They typically and routinely dumb down everything to magnetism.

 

[sandwiches]

Define "objective". I'd say it has a tangible effect on my internal thinking processes, my sense of "peace", my sense of well being, etc. Others have the same or similar experiences so in that sense you could call these "objective" effects.

I hope we don't get into a semantics argument. Now, I use it to mean independent of one's thoughts and feelings. So, are there effects that can be independently verified and observed that differentiate a person who prays and one who doesn't? Again, the point is that, so far, all studies on prayer have shown either no results or even negative results.

Prayer and communion with God is typically a big part of "religion".

That's fine, but prayer alone seems to have no effect and we're talking about prayer, not religion.

 

[Michael]

I hope we don't get into a semantics argument.

I don't think we're arguing semantics at this point. We seem to be debating the issue of internal physiological changes vs. tangible "yes or no" answers/changes that are related directly to the decisions of something called 'God'. It's relatively EASY to demonstrate the internal physiological changes to the brain due to prayer and meditation. It's relatively DIFFICULT however to determine if such a prayer was actually answered by something called "God" and whether that answer was yes or no.

Now, I use it to mean independent of one's thoughts and feelings.

That won't work in terms of explaining the internal brain wave changes that are associated with prayer and meditation. Such changes are directly related to the thoughts of the individual.

So, are there effects that can be independently verified and observed that differentiate a person who prays and one who doesn't?

Couldn't we just LOOK at and measure the fMRI while someone prays and while they don't to see what brain wave differences might exist between those two mental states?

Again, the point is that, so far, all studies on prayer have shown either no results or even negative results.

Internally or externally? How did any of those aforementioned studies that you're referring to determine which answer God "should' have given them (yes or no)?

That's fine, but prayer alone seems to have no effect and we're talking about prayer, not religion.

I'm talking about INTERNAL effects of prayer whereas you seem to be talking about the external tangible results on someone else as a result of that prayer. I still don't see how anyone might determine what God "should do' as a result of such prayers.

 

[Nabobalis]

IMO you sort of skirted my question. Who's WE and when did you start deciding what is considered to be 'science' and what is not?

The community that exists around a field. Those will generally decide, either by an idea slowly gaining acceptance or it will be accepted quickly.

The equations mean NOTHING and DO nothing AFAIK.

They do mean something, and they do something. They can be solved and the results can be interpreted as such.

Astronomers do in fact often claim that "dark energy" is responsible for the "acceleration" of the universe. No "predictions" were involved, it was all POSTDICTED from the very start. No cause/effect relationships were ever demonstrated. It's NOTHING BUT a mathematical mythology. It's a "dark religion' in a very real way.

They claim that something is causing the expansion of the universe and it has been labelled dark energy. That is as far as they have gotten. No one has a clue on what it is.

False. They reject something they don't even bother to take the time to even understand. Most of them haven't even read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven.

Why would they need to learn something that was shown to be wrong decades ago?

I'm counting on it. Even still, you can't claim part A is true and also claim that the theory is also unfalsifiable. Which is it? Has it been falsified or not? Is it falsifiable or not?

Alfven's work on PC was shown to be wrong. However your "empirical theory of god" is separate in its claims.

No such "expansion" (actually acceleration) has ever been directly OBSERVED. Only redshift has been observed. Acceleration is an INTERPRETATION of that redshift phenomenon, it's not a DIRECT OBSERVATION. In fact, most astronomers don't even bother making that distinction or even NOTING that distinction.

We observe the expansion, it has been measured. But remember we haven't observed many things directly. If I recall, some other posters made this argument against you with regards to solar fusion.

I know exactly what it is. It's metaphysical ad hoc gap filler that was intentionally and specifically designed to save ONE otherwise FALSIFIED cosmology theory. That's it's only useful purpose in fact.

Ok.

The inference isn't even warranted IMO. Whatever might "cause" acceleration it can't be magical energy, God energy, or "dark energy" because none of these things have been shown to empirically exist in nature or have any tangible effect on nature.

And I'd rather pursue PC/EU theory and move at my own pace thank you very much. If I have to wait another 60 years for them to figure out that flares are the result of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, I'll be dead!

Well what work do you do on PC/EU? Are you the only person working on it?

He already "Backed up" his claims with direct in-situ ground measurements and laboratory experiments. What did Chapman have other than a simple math formula? Why in the world did the mainstream prefer a PURELY MATH solution over a solution that included math PLUS physical experiments PLUS ground measurements? Oh ya, they only care about QUANTIFICATION, not QUALIFICATION.

Ground measurement were not enough. Why don't you understand that? They needed more observations and they have to come from space.

It's impossible to 'independently check" most of the mainstream claims. The moment one "lacks belief" in their impotent sky entities, the whole thing goes up in one big puff of metaphysical smoke. There are NO empirical cause/effect links to be demonstrated, and none that ever WILL be demonstrated for that matter.

Ok

Most of them can't actually suppress something that they don't even understand in the first place. FYI, several astronomers spend an INORDINATE amount of time on the internet BASHING PC theory. You don't hear them complain a lot about MOND theory, string theory, or anything else for that matter. About the only thing you see the haters actively attack on the internet is EU/PC theory, a purely EMPIRICAL form of physics.

Oh no, people on the internet are bashing my pet theory.

Actually, no. Most papers I've read on "reconnection'' never mention anything about voltages or amperes or anything of the sort. It's typically all "dumbed down' to the B orientation of plasma physics.

They you really should go to the same talks as I do. They talk about current a lot.

Of the seven key high energy signatures related to flares, including gamma rays, x-rays, neutron capture signatures and million degree ion temperatures, every single one of them has been directly and empirically (in the lab) linked to 'electrical discharges" in plasma. "Reconnection" hasn't never even been empirically linked with even one of them. I think the best anyone ever did was show that ELECTRONS (not necessarily ions) can be accelerated in a 'reconnection' process involving TWO CURRENTS. That's it. Not a single one of the more important observations of flares have EVER been empirically linked to 'reconnection' in the lab. Every single one of them HAS BEEN empirically linked to electrical discharges in plasma. Why then is the mainstream so damn afraid of the term "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares? It's always 'magnetic yada yada yada" in mainstream solar physics papers rather than ELECTROmagnetic blah blah blah. They typically and routinely dumb down everything to magnetism.

So why do you think they dumb it down to just magnetism and are so afraid of using the term electrical discharge?

 

[Smidlee]

No such "expansion" (actually acceleration) has ever been directly OBSERVED. Only redshift has been observed. Acceleration is an INTERPRETATION of that redshift phenomenon, it's not a DIRECT OBSERVATION. In fact, most astronomers don't even bother making that distinction or even NOTING that distinction.
.

I've observed dark matter and dark energy in Star Wars. Luke Skywalker focus a large amount of dark matter at his finger tips to cause his light-saber to fly into his hand and Dark Vader uses dark energy to throw stuff at Luke.

 

[Michael]

The community that exists around a field. Those will generally decide, either by an idea slowly gaining acceptance or it will be accepted quickly.

Define "slowly". Birkeland's auroral theories took over 60 years to become "accepted" by the mainstream, but he powered his auroral events with 'current' (as did Alfven by the way), not "magnetic reconnection". In other words it took them 60 years to understand only a PART of how an aurora actually works. That's not just "slow", that's a snails pace! At that rate I'll be LONG dead before they "slowly" accept the fact that the sun is electrical in nature. If they can't figure out solar physics, what confidence should I have that they have ANY CLUE how a whole universe works?

They do mean something, and they do something. They can be solved and the results can be interpreted as such.

You're essentially describing a "fantasy universe" where extra dimensions, unicorns and God knows what else "might" exist. It's nothing more than "make believe with math" as far as anyone knows.

They claim that something is causing the expansion of the universe and it has been labelled dark energy.

Even if I accept the concept that the universe is accelerating over time, nothing suggests that "magic energy" did it, "God energy" did it, or "dark energy" did it. Those are all self serving statements since no empirical "cause/effect" link exists between any of these labels and the acceleration of matter.

That is as far as they have gotten. No one has a clue on what it is.

From an actual "knowledge" standpoint, that's not much of an "explanation" IMO. It's pretty much a "(dark) God did it" claim. It's literally a "dark energy of the gaps" argument, our human ignorance being the actual "gap".

Why would they need to learn something that was shown to be wrong decades ago?

Just out of curiosity, what EXACTLY do you believe was "shown to be wrong" about Alfven's cosmology beliefs?

Alfven's work on PC was shown to be wrong. However your "empirical theory of god" is separate in its claims.

I guess I'll have to wait to see what you feel is "wrong" about his beliefs before I can actually comment on your claim. You're sort of handwaving in a general sense without much in the way of specifics.

We observe the expansion, it has been measured.

How did you "observe" it, and how did you "measure" it?

But remember we haven't observed many things directly. If I recall, some other posters made this argument against you with regards to solar fusion.

It was an entirely bogus claim IMO because fusion does in fact occur on Earth, albeit not exactly the SAME way or in the SAME EXACT process.

Ok.

Well what work do you do on PC/EU?

arXiv.org Search

Are you the only person working on it?

Far from it.

Ground measurement were not enough. Why don't you understand that?

Because IMO those measurements and experiments were in fact MORE than enough evidence to choose Birkeland's theories over Chapman's ideas. Of course since the mainstream doesn't actually respect empirical physics, just math, it chose the "simpler math" over "test laboratory physics". The mainstream has a documented pattern of IGNORING direct empirical support and choose "mathematical simplicity/elegance" over ACTUAL WORKING PHYSICS. They've been wrong before and they're still wrong. What's even worse is that the CAUSE of their blindness is EXACTLY the same problem as it was 100 years ago, but it's actually WORSE.

They needed more observations and they have to come from space.

No, the information to make an accurate choice didn't "have" to come that way, they just chose to drag their feet until they didn't have any other option but to accept reality. Like I said, they have a bad track record of choosing math over working laboratory physics. Chapman's theories ONLY worked on paper. Birkeland's ideas worked in the lab. Birkeland's ideas were always therefore preferable over a "math only" model. The mainstream just didn't "get it" then and it still doesn't "get it" now because all they care about is math on paper and to hell with empirical physics.

Oh no, people on the internet are bashing my pet theory.

No, professional astronomers are spending their time bashing a form of pure empirical physics. That isn't even logical, let alone rational behavior. They seem so emotionally attached to metaphysics that they've completely given up on empirical physics entirely.

They you really should go to the same talks as I do. They talk about current a lot.

They don't do it much in comparison to the "magnetic magnetic magnetic" jargon. They pretty much ignore circuit theory in relationship to coronal loop activity even though Birkeland "predicted" that they were discharge processes, based on EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION over 100 years ago. Bruce demonstrated it again for them over 60 years ago. Alfven used circuit theory to explain coronal loops to them over 50 years ago. The mainstream STILL can't explain them properly.

So why do you think they dumb it down to just magnetism and are so afraid of using the term electrical discharge?

Beats me. Dungey used the same term in relationship to "reconnection" events when he first coined the term "reconnection" over 50 years ago. Even mentioning that term on in relationship to solar flare events on an astronomy oriented website today however gets you tossed into the "against the mainstream" forum and put on "trial", if not banned outright in a heartbeat. You'd think if astronomers actually "understood" how circuit theory worked, their behaviors would reflect that reality. Since their hatred is blind and directed at any topic that involves electricity in space, they pretty much have no clue how it works, nor any desire to learn how it works. That's just sad IMO.

 

[Michael]

I've observed dark matter and dark energy in Star Wars. Luke Skywalker focus a large amount of dark matter at his finger tips to cause his light-saber to fly into his hand and Dark Vader uses dark energy to throw stuff at Luke.

Welcome to the discussion.

 

[NGC 6712]

Define "slowly". Birkeland's auroral theories took over 60 years to become "accepted" by the mainstream, but he powered his auroral events with 'current' (as did Alfven by the way), not "magnetic reconnection". In other words it took them 60 years to understand only a PART of how an aurora actually works. That's not just "slow", that's a snails pace! At that rate I'll be LONG dead before they "slowly" accept the fact that the sun is electrical in nature. If they can't figure out solar physics, what confidence should I have that they have ANY CLUE how a whole universe works?

Birkeland's theory was an hypothesis that needed experimental observation which was impossible until satellite measurements half a century after his death. And it wasn't like Chapman's ideas were off the wall - in fact looking back you can see why Birkeland's hypothesis was the less favoured one even though he turned out to be correct on this auroral topic.

Just out of curiosity, what EXACTLY do you believe was "shown to be wrong" about Alfven's cosmology beliefs?

Just the small matters of being unable to explain the CMB, BBN and several other things like the currents required cannot exist at early times in the universe.

It was an entirely bogus claim IMO because fusion does in fact occur on Earth, albeit not exactly the SAME way or in the SAME EXACT process.

Acceleration occurs when you drive your car - it's not the same as cosmological acceleration but they are both accelerations ergo it exists. If you want this kind of argument for fusion then we can have it for acceleration.

arXiv.org Search

I thought you had let go the "Iron Sun" silliness?

 

[sandwiches]

I don't think we're arguing semantics at this point. We seem to be debating the issue of internal physiological changes vs. tangible "yes or no" answers/changes that are related directly to the decisions of something called 'God'. It's relatively EASY to demonstrate the internal physiological changes to the brain due to prayer and meditation. It's relatively DIFFICULT however to determine if such a prayer was actually answered by something called "God" and whether that answer was yes or no.

Agree.

This paragraph:

That won't work in terms of explaining the internal brain wave changes that are associated with prayer and meditation. Such changes are directly related to the thoughts of the individual.

Seems to contradict this one:

Couldn't we just LOOK at and measure the fMRI while someone prays and while they don't to see what brain wave differences might exist between those two mental states?

If we're able to look AND distinguish different mental states, THAT an is objective effect. However, beyond mental states, prayer has no objective effects? After all, alcohol, lust, hunger, trauma, etc can all evoke different mental states, yet we don't seem to think they're divine effects.

Internally or externally? How did any of those aforementioned studies that you're referring to determine which answer God "should' have given them (yes or no)?

One example. You can Google a lot more.
Prayers Don't Help Heart Surgery Patients; Some Fare Worse When Prayed For
From the article:

The evaluation found that third-party prayer has no effect at all on recovery from surgery without complications, and that patients who knew they were receiving prayer fared worse that those who were not prayed for.

I'm talking about INTERNAL effects of prayer whereas you seem to be talking about the external tangible results on someone else as a result of that prayer. I still don't see how anyone might determine what God "should do' as a result of such prayers.

We're not trying to determine what God "should" do. We're trying to determine whether there's an objective effect by those who pray.

So, if the studies show no empirical effect, then we can deduce one of two things:
1) Prayer doesn't work
2) God didn't answer those prayers in any way anyone could detect.

Now, if God didn't answer those prayers in a way someone can notice, then how can then theists turn around and say prayer works..

 

[Smidlee]

One example. You can Google a lot more.
Prayers Don't Help Heart Surgery Patients; Some Fare Worse When Prayed For
From the article:

From the article "One group received no prayers." How did they know this? Not all people pray for show. Also Luke gives example of a very religious Pharisee's prayer compared to a publican. The publican was heard while the Pharisee was not. Pharisee's prayer was out in public while the publican was in private.

 

[Michael]

This paragraph:

Seems to contradict this one:

It seems to me that in order for any study of this type to work, the individual being studied in the fMRI machine for their internal effects are going to necessarily need to be focused on meditation and/or prayer. In this case thoughts really do matter because it's those very same thoughts and/or responses to such thought and processes that we're studying.

Now if we turn that around a bit and put the PATIENT in the fMRI machine THEIR thoughts may or may not matter in terms of looking for "changes" due to the prayer (for them, presumably in that moment). In terms of the "transmitter"/prayer, the specific thoughts and intents of the individual must be on topic.

If we're able to look AND distinguish different mental states, THAT an is objective effect. However, beyond mental states, prayer has no objective effects?

I'm not sure yet. Should I really personally have the ability and the power to alter God's long range "plans" based on MY personal preferences in that moment?

After all, alcohol, lust, hunger, trauma, etc can all evoke different mental states, yet we don't seem to think they're divine effects.

I suppose that is due to the differences that people experience in terms of the various mental states they experience from each activity/drug?

One example. You can Google a lot more.
Prayers Don't Help Heart Surgery Patients; Some Fare Worse When Prayed For
From the article:

A couple of things about this study seem noteworthy to me. The study group size seems large enough, but the methodology seems a little "suspect" IMO. As I understand the study, those being prayed FOR were not even KNOWN the those doing the praying. In fact all they knew of the individual was their initials. That's probably the least "intimate" prayer I can think of. What the study suggests is that prayers should always be answered "yes", even with those doing the 'praying' have little or no knowledge of the individual. It more or less treats God like a machine that "should" respond simply to pure numbers rather than any actual intimate KNOWLEDGE about the individual. It's also not clear to me that the ones getting prayer for weren't simply "freaked out" because they were "scared" by the concept that folks they didn't even know NEEDED to pray for them.

I can't say I'm real impressed with that particular study based on it's rather impersonal methodology. In my experience one's inner relationship with God is very PERSONAL and something like impersonal prayer from semi-interested third parties (perhaps motivated more out of curiosity than concern) should somehow sway God's very intimate "plan" for that individual simply based on some impersonal prayer. I find that concept to be rather untenable in the final analysis. Unless you know WHY God SHOULD and WOULD say yes, why would you ASSUME God should respond to pure impersonal numbers rather than go with his own plans?

We're not trying to determine what God "should" do. We're trying to determine whether there's an objective effect by those who pray.

How can you even be sure that regaining one's physical health is really in that SOUL's best long term interest? You're pretty much ASSUMING that God should necessarily respond to relatively impersonal prayer. Why? In most cases it appears that those doing the praying didn't even know the persons actual real first or last name, just their initials. How IMPERSONAL can it get?

So, if the studies show no empirical effect, then we can deduce one of two things:
1) Prayer doesn't work
2) God didn't answer those prayers in any way anyone could detect.

False dichotomy fallacy alert. It could just be a poor study with a poor or questionable methodology. I think a lot of possibilities might explain such results.

Now, if God didn't answer those prayers in a way someone can notice, then how can then theists turn around and say prayer works..

I suspect that's because it may depend on what you ask for, your level of sincerity and a whole host of factors that you and I can't possibly know anything about from the outside looking in. For instance, sometimes I've simply prayed to "find peace", or for clarity over some question I've been thinking about. In those cases my "focus/prayer/meditation" often produces very 'real' (from my perspective) results in terms of getting what I asked for.

I have however sat and prayed for "World Peace" with lots of folks in a big circle. Unfortunately those particular prayers weren't immediately answered in the affirmative.

 

[Michael]

Birkeland's theory was an hypothesis that needed experimental observation which was impossible until satellite measurements half a century after his death.

But Birkeland put in WAY more sweat equity than Chapman. He ALREADY took in-situ measurements of the EM fields of Earth during solar storms. In fact he risked life and limb to take those very valuable measurements. He also built WORKING MODELS of aurora in a lab. He put in TONS more effort and used empirical experimentation to back up his theories with real physical models. Chapman was nothing but a couch potato pencil pusher in the final analysis. His "math only" approach to physics was relatively LAZY in comparison to the trials and tribulations that Birkeland and his team endured to collect REAL DATA to support their ideas.

Birkeland ALREADY had empirical measurements to support his ideas. Chapman had NOTHING like that kind of sweat equity to support his ideas. The satellites simply CONFIRMED what Birkeland and his team already knew because of they did the real work. They put real SWEAT EQUITY in real empirical physical measurements and experiments. It was only a "surprise" to Chapman supporters. Mainstreamers ALWAYS seem to be surprised when their "math only" approach to physics bites the dust *AGAIN*. I don't know why they are always surprised. They keep repeating the same error over and over and over again. In fact they show even MORE disrespect for empirical physics today than they did 100 years ago. At the rate they're going we could be stuck in the "dark ages" of astronomy for another 200 years!

And it wasn't like Chapman's ideas were off the wall - in fact looking back you can see why Birkeland's hypothesis was the less favoured one even though he turned out to be correct on this auroral topic.

They were 'less favored' because the mathematical models that Birkeland proposed were "uglier", less simple/elegant, and less easy to explain to students. Sometimes nature isn't "simple" or "elegant" in terms of the mathematics. That's why empirical EXPERIMENTATION is so valuable.

Just the small matters of being unable to explain the CMB,

That is simply not the case:

Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data

Acceleration occurs when you drive your car - it's not the same as cosmological acceleration but they are both accelerations ergo it exists. If you want this kind of argument for fusion then we can have it for acceleration.

I'm ultimately not actually questioning the concept that "acceleration happens" I'm doubting your claim that "dark energy did it". Lerner can explain to you how to get fusion to occur in a lab on Earth. In fact I believe I read that he and his team achieved a breakthrough just this year. You guys cannot even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, let alone show it can accelerate anything.

I thought you had let go the "Iron Sun" silliness?

Absolutely not. I'm just not focused on discussing the topic on the internet at the moment, but I am definitely working on collecting SDO data to support the idea. I'm pleased and cautious with how things are going so far. It would be extremely helpful to me if the sun would enter it's most active phase since I'm looking for particular types of flares. So far this cycle has been pretty uneventful and boring compared to the last solar cycle. That's slowing the process of data collection down a bit, but I'm LOVING the SDO equipment, particularly it's cadence and resolution enhancements over SOHO. Wow is it nice to have so many new wavelengths to look at and enjoy in 16 megapixel resolution and 2 second cadenced compared to the 1 megapixel and 10 minute cadence of SOHO. It's like night and day in terms of the improvement in technology. My hat is off to the engineers that work(ed) on SDO.

 

[Nabobalis]

Define "slowly". Birkeland's auroral theories took over 60 years to become "accepted" by the mainstream, but he powered his auroral events with 'current' (as did Alfven by the way), not "magnetic reconnection". In other words it took them 60 years to understand only a PART of how an aurora actually works. That's not just "slow", that's a snails pace! At that rate I'll be LONG dead before they "slowly" accept the fact that the sun is electrical in nature. If they can't figure out solar physics, what confidence should I have that they have ANY CLUE how a whole universe works?

Slowly can be decades if need be. Again, they needed more evidence and they required satellites to do so. I'm not sure how often I can keep repeating that.

You're essentially describing a "fantasy universe" where extra dimensions, unicorns and God knows what else "might" exist. It's nothing more than "make believe with math" as far as anyone knows.

You really are finding it hard to grasp how the theoretical side of physics and math works. They create models that try to describe the universe. Some people start from crazy ideas (like strings) either because they enjoy the math or well they had a thought. The equations get worked through and the results interpreted. If the universe is a "string" universe then there will be other dimensions, but since no evidence exists to suggest that we live in a "string universe", those new dimensions aren't taken as fact.

Even if I accept the concept that the universe is accelerating over time, nothing suggests that "magic energy" did it, "God energy" did it, or "dark energy" did it. Those are all self serving statements since no empirical "cause/effect" link exists between any of these labels and the acceleration of matter.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the name is unimportant. The mechanism is unknown and when/if we do find out it might get renamed.

From an actual "knowledge" standpoint, that's not much of an "explanation" IMO. It's pretty much a "(dark) God did it" claim. It's literally a "dark energy of the gaps" argument, our human ignorance being the actual "gap".

No one will claim otherwise that it isn't a gap a of our knowledge.

Just out of curiosity, what EXACTLY do you believe was "shown to be wrong" about Alfven's cosmology beliefs?

The Wiki summed it up nicely.

I guess I'll have to wait to see what you feel is "wrong" about his beliefs before I can actually comment on your claim. You're sort of handwaving in a general sense without much in the way of specifics.

Well personally, I am not a cosmologist but the community of cosmologists has refuted and moved on from his ideas regarding the universe. That is good enough for me at this current moment in time.

How did you "observe" it, and how did you "measure" it?

In 1998, published observations of Type Ia supernovae ("one-A") by the High-z Supernova Search Team[5] followed in 1999 by the Supernova Cosmology Project[6] suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[7] The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this work.[8][9]

It was an entirely bogus claim IMO because fusion does in fact occur on Earth, albeit not exactly the SAME way or in the SAME EXACT process.

We have yet to reproduce the stellar conditions on Earth. Therefore your line of reasoning dicates that fusion in the Sin does not exist (I assume you are an Iron Sun guy so thats good for you ) as we have yet to observe it.

arXiv.org Search

Far from it.[/QUOTE]

I'm happy that you like to work on it and maybe one day I'll your name on a paper showing off your ideas.

Because IMO those measurements and experiments were in fact MORE than enough evidence to choose Birkeland's theories over Chapman's ideas. Of course since the mainstream doesn't actually respect empirical physics, just math, it chose the "simpler math" over "test laboratory physics". The mainstream has a documented pattern of IGNORING direct empirical support and choose "mathematical simplicity/elegance" over ACTUAL WORKING PHYSICS. They've been wrong before and they're still wrong. What's even worse is that the CAUSE of their blindness is EXACTLY the same problem as it was 100 years ago, but it's actually WORSE.

So, when the "mainstream" wants more empirical evidence (thus why they sent up satellites), you complain about the lack of progress.

No, the information to make an accurate choice didn't "have" to come that way, they just chose to drag their feet until they didn't have any other option but to accept reality. Like I said, they have a bad track record of choosing math over working laboratory physics. Chapman's theories ONLY worked on paper. Birkeland's ideas worked in the lab. Birkeland's ideas were always therefore preferable over a "math only" model. The mainstream just didn't "get it" then and it still doesn't "get it" now because all they care about is math on paper and to hell with empirical physics.

Laboratories can only go so far. Sometimes you need observations that can either come only from space or improved telescopes. In this case, they needed space observations to confirm the result.

No, professional astronomers are spending their time bashing a form of pure empirical physics. That isn't even logical, let alone rational behavior. They seem so emotionally attached to metaphysics that they've completely given up on empirical physics entirely.

Really, complaining about people bashing things on the internet is like complaining about a oven being hot after it has been on for hours. People can be unfortunately rude, but if they bash something either because they don't like it or it is wrong. I don't spend anytime on astronomy forums so I can't really say anything.

They don't do it much in comparison to the "magnetic magnetic magnetic" jargon. They pretty much ignore circuit theory in relationship to coronal loop activity even though Birkeland "predicted" that they were discharge processes, based on EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION over 100 years ago. Bruce demonstrated it again for them over 60 years ago. Alfven used circuit theory to explain coronal loops to them over 50 years ago. The mainstream STILL can't explain them properly.

Well, if Alfven and the like explained it completely then why is it ignored? It makes no sense unless either they didn't explain it or some sort of conspiracy.

Beats me. Dungey used the same term in relationship to "reconnection" events when he first coined the term "reconnection" over 50 years ago. Even mentioning that term on in relationship to solar flare events on an astronomy oriented website today however gets you tossed into the "against the mainstream" forum and put on "trial", if not banned outright in a heartbeat. You'd think if astronomers actually "understood" how circuit theory worked, their behaviors would reflect that reality. Since their hatred is blind and directed at any topic that involves electricity in space, they pretty much have no clue how it works, nor any desire to learn how it works. That's just sad IMO.

So the reason is blind hated in using electricity in space. Blind hatred requires a reason and still you have to even give an answer to that. Otherwise I suspect it might be due to the fact that have dismissed PC/EU and Iron Sun and that doesn't sit right with you. This whole percussion on internet forums does seem very far fetched to me.

 

[Elendur]

Well, if Alfven and the like explained it completely then why is it ignored? It makes no sense unless either they didn't explain it or some sort of conspiracy.

Oh noes, not the 'c'-word! You know how that gets things started