Method for accepting science

[mkatzwork]

Astronomy is applied physics - astrophysics is both applied and theoretical physics. To be honest the terms are interchangeable. I personally tend to use astronomer for researchers working on direct observation - people like myself who work in front of computer creating models of physical phenomena that relates to astronomy I call astrophysicists. But there is often much overlap between the two.

Most (if not all) astronomers do the same basic coursework as physicists and the specialisation later on will determine the breadth of expertise in a given regime of physics. Certainly they all do the standard EM/QM/Atomic/Nuclear/Mechanics education. Heck, in most universities the astronomy section is a group within the physics department just like condensed matter groups, particle physics groups etc etc. Even when Astronomy has its own department there are usually cross discipline professorships where people hold positions in both departments. I used to have such a position myself though now I am solely in the physics department.

Well, I just did undergrad in London before doing something completely different (finance), and I always leaned more towards theoretical stuff.

Was mainly responding to the ridiculous generalizations he made...

 

[Naraoia]

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.

I should've said I wasn't talking about effects of meditation/prayer (nice job equating the two) on the brain. Brains are plastic. The things we use them to do affect their wiring. So what?

Is there any evidence that praying, as in praying for something, causes a measureable effect related to that something that ordinary brain plasticity, the placebo effect and similar internal factors cannot account for?

I would rather put my faith in God then to put my faith in man's ability to be able to observe natural phenomena.

If you don't have much faith in man's ability to observe natural phenomena, why would you have more faith in man's ability to observe God? You are using the same senses and the same brain for both.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is there any evidence that praying, as in praying for something, causes a measureable effect related to that something that ordinary brain plasticity, the placebo effect and similar internal factors cannot account for?

If you don't have much faith in man's ability to observe natural phenomena, why would you have more faith in man's ability to observe God? You are using the same senses and the same brain for both.

There is evidence, in my experiences, that cannot be duplicated by random chance events. Because such events cannot be duplicated at my will, they are not scientifically verifiable. But if you and I were in "a dire situation" you wouldn't need to believe that God existed in order to instantly receive help from God directly. You would only need a person earnestly praying on your behalf.

Can we assume the events I've experienced are due to my imagination? Multiple events of pre-answer to prayers have convinced me that they are not. Pre-answer is when the results to prayer have been in "action" long before the events took place. The "miracle" in these events is God telling you what to pray for just before you receive what He has planned for you.

And it's happened multiple times in my life. If you think the brain is plastic enough to see into the future and cause you to pray for things you will be receiving in the next hour or so, then your theory may have some merit. About an hours worth of prophesy could account for most of the answered prayers I've experienced. Not all of them, but most.

 

[Michael]

I should've said I wasn't talking about effects of meditation/prayer (nice job equating the two) on the brain. Brains are plastic. The things we use them to do affect their wiring. So what?

So what? Let's see:

So far I've provided you with a demonstrated "cause/effect" link between external EM fields and internal "experiences". I've provided evidence that that electrical currents exist in space, just as they exist in our physics forms. I can demonstrate that persistent physical forms, chemical reactions and electrical current can and do give rise to awareness in a wide variety of forms here on Earth. We have evidence that the human brain can be "rewired" (a real physical change) as a result of prayer. About the only "steps" not demonstrated in my cosmology beliefs, and beliefs about prayer are a "rewiring" of the person's brain that is being "prayed for", and a direct piece of evidence that the universe is in fact "aware". Nothing else is left to chance. Nothing NEW, now new energies or forms of matter are required to exist somewhere out there in space, that doesn't exist right here on Earth.

Compared to the "dark religion" called a "scientific" cosmology theory today, you have NOTHING to complain about in terms of empirical support, and EVERY reason in the world to keep LOOKING for empirical evidence to support the concepts that I've put forth, and specifically the concepts of "God", and the effect of prayer on humans.

Compared to any other cosmology theory out there, Pantheistic views of the universe are 95 percent MORE empirical than any "scientific" view of the universe.

Is there any evidence that praying, as in praying for something, causes a measureable effect related to that something that ordinary brain plasticity, the placebo effect and similar internal factors cannot account for?

That "placebo effect" that you're describing demonstrates that we can and do rewire our own brain, and even generate physical changes in the body based on mere THOUGHTS alone. There's therefore no way to guarantee that even knowledge that one is being 'prayed for' can have a direct measurable effect on one's one internal thoughts, causing an internal "rewiring", and internal physiological changes to occur. Even that last study seems to demonstrate just such an effect, albeit a NEGATIVE effect, perhaps because nobody knew anyone in the study.

If you don't have much faith in man's ability to observe natural phenomena, why would you have more faith in man's ability to observe God? You are using the same senses and the same brain for both.

I don't really have any issue with the mainstream's ability to 'observe natural phenomenon". I typically have a problem with their 'interpretations", not their "observations".

Assuming that "God" as I have described/theorized God WANTED to be known to humanity in no uncertain terms, he certainly 'could' do so in a very "empirical way", right here on Earth, right now. There's nothing preventing it from occurring.

 

[mkatzwork]

So what? Let's see:

So far I've provided you with a demonstrated "cause/effect" link between external EM fields and internal "experiences".

Which was this? I missed and can't find.

I've provided evidence that that electrical currents exist in space, just as they exist in our physics forms. I can demonstrate that physics forms, chemical reactions and electrical current give rise to awareness in a wide variety of forms. We have evidence that the brain can be "rewired" (a real physical change) as a result of prayer.

Internal, not external (i.e. there's no evidence someone else praying for you has any effect on your brain), but granted, if you pray, that might change your brain in some way.

About the only "steps" not demonstrated in my cosmology beliefs are a "rewire" of the person's brain that is being "prayed for"

Not so much a step as a gaping chasm without any empirical support or evidence whatsoever in the entire history of humanity. Other than that....

and a direct piece of evidence that the universe is in fact "aware". Nothing else is left to chance. Nothing NEW is required that doesn't exist right here on Earth.

Other than a universe that is completely self-aware and gives a toss about something that is barely significant in terms of mass and energy, as well as the ability for some to change someone else's brain simply by thinking about it (even from the other side of the planet when lots of other people could be thinking lots of other things to interfere with the 'signal'), no nothing new at all.

Unless you're suggesting some part of our brains can become quantumly entangled with one another such that interference would be impossible, which would be a fascinating theory but one also devoid of empirical support or even cause and effect.

Compared to the "dark religions" of "scientific" concept of cosmology theory today, you have NOTHING to complain about in terms of empirical support, and EVERY reason to keep LOOKING for evidence to support the concepts I've put forth, and specifically the concept of "God". Compared to any other cosmology theory out there, Pantheistic views of the universe are 95 percent MORE empirical than any "scientific" view of the universe.

95 percent? Show your working, please. It's going to be impressive I know, because your mathematics is ever so good. Science is based entirely on observations of the universe, measurement of the world around us, and building and testing hypotheses that make predictions about what we should be able to observe in the future.

So far, our scientific exploration of the universe have gotten a probe out of the solar system and man on the moon, so I'm sure what you have to show for pantheism is equally impressive.

I cannot see how your ideas are more empirical in any way whatsoever than any other God hypothesis, and the reason is, they're not. Simply pretending that God is not supernatural through a small semantic distinction, and that you think he might be everywhere does not help the cause of any one particular deity, be it the Judeo-Christian God and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, or Ahura Mazda, even if it validated the notion of a generic deity in the first place, which it does not.

I notice you gave up entirely in the other thread where your "alternative cosmologies" supposedly trumping inflationary theories were shown to be utterly in error on equation 1...any answers yet? Anything on the fact that 'tired light' in this Brynjolfsson guy's theory violates 2nd law of TD in of itself, amongst several other major errors?

If not, perhaps stop being so dismissive of others hypotheses, since as I've pointed out several times, you should know that a hypothesis is a) not a religion and b) derived from the evidence already validated.

Since mathematics has been the foundation of physics and at its very forefront since 1905, you cannot justifiably use the complaint that you don't have any and don't like that fact.

 

[Michael]

Let me clarify - you cannot directly observe electrons with the naked eye or under a microscope - they are 'invisible' directly to our eyes (and we can't even be sure exactly where they are until we measure for them)...you can only directly observe the effects or products of their existence.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I even agree with that statement quite frankly. We "see" photons coming from them, just as I "see" photons coming from people. If you claim that photons coming from objects aren't "direct observations", then what is directly observed in nature?

Point still stands. You used 'invisible' as a derogatory without even considering its meaning.

No, I considered it's meaning. To most theists it's not a derogatory term at all. Only atheists seem to insist that God must be 'seen' to be "believed" in. I fully realize that my arguments aren't universally applicable, they are subjectively interpreted by the listener.

Sure, that's a hypothesis too, technically; but you'd have to define "God" to get it going...and that's where you run into problems. It's a considerably worse description of what's going on in the universe for sure, but it's still an attempt at a 'description'.

It's not "worse". It's a description that is based on 100 percent empirical physics. When we get to places were "we don't know", we just accept that "we don't know'. My "religion" doesn't necessitate the "making up" of "dark stuff' to fill in the gaps of human ignorance. It doesn't require metaphysical constructs of any sort. Compared to what passes for "modern science' (in terms of cosmology), it's *FAR BETTER*!

If however, all that matters is mathematical abstractions with mythical invisibly sky entities, then and only then can you start claiming anything else is 'better".

Expansion of the universe is confirmed by several sources, predominantly the uniform cooling of the CMB,

But it's not. The average temperature of the universe was actually 'better" predicted by the effect of starlight on ordinary matter. It's not any way related to "cooling", it's a temperature EQUILIBRIUM feature that is caused by the average kinetic energy of the universe.

the homogenous nature of the universe beyond 100 megaparsecs

Again, that is a pure "act of faith" on your part because inflation has never caused even two atoms to "spread out homogeneously" in any empirical experiment on Earth. Your claims are all circular arguments based on "Godflation did it, here's the math, forget the physics".

('the end of greatness'),

You'll have to explain that one for me.

the red shifting of the photons coming from all the galaxies so far measured with known distances within a reasonable error margin (with no better explanation yet proposed, but I know you don't like this),

I don't like it because it has nothing to do with the "expansion of space'. I've provided papers demonstrating that it's probably a time dilation feature, assuming it's even expansion related. I've also provided tired light alternatives.

and the even distribution of supernovae and gamma-ray sources which point to the fact that we're not in a 'special' place in the universe.

Tired light theories, and expansion based EU theories are not dependent upon us being "special" in any way either.

Why are you assuming it is "light"?

Why are you assuming it's not? So you really think we've seen every spectrum of energy that flows through our universe?

Do you think its supposed to be made of photons?

DO you think it's supposed to NOT be made of ordinary forms of matter and energy? Do EM fields count as "photons"?

I think I see where you're going wrong. You're still at least subconsciously assuming it is 'stuff'...and you betray this assumption repeatedly.

No, you just consciously keep assuming that it's not physical in any way. I don't make such ASSUMPTIONS. How exactly does "space" expand if there's no "stuff' in it?

The evidence a propulsive (or inversely thought out, negatively pressured) force exists is the observed expansion of the universe.

There is no such thing as "negative pressure" in a vacuum. That's MYTH created by GUTH and his buddies. That is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Talk about metaphysical nonsense. The BEST vacuum that exists that all kinds of kinetic energy flowing through it, including neutrinos and photons and potentially an almost INFINITE number of wavelengths. There's no possible way for a "vacuum" to possess "negative pressure'. That's a myth related to guthianity.

Either attack the observation or propose alternative theories, but don't mock the simple making of a reasoned hypothesis (that the effect should have a cause,

But your hypothesis aren't even REASONABLE in the first place! It's not REASONABLE propose a "negative pressure" from a vacuum in the first place. Whatever REASONS you have for that claim don't have anything do with empirical physics.

which seems as yet unobserved). That hypothesis is still valid. Invalidate it using evidence, or do something else. The way you attack science is the way creationists attack it - using hyperbole, capital letters, and seemingly derogatory remarks about the nature of scientific research.

No. I simply keep pointing out that your concepts lack empirical and even theoretical support in some cases, particularly that claim about 'negative pressures". When confronted with these facts, astronomers just keep pointing at mathematical formulas related to their dark deities and keep ignoring the need for real empirical physical support.

You have no mathematics to back up your hypotheses, and again, having no mathematics and complaining how much physicists use it is like offering to play basketball against the Lakers and then complaining they are too tall once you get on the court. Tough.

Um, you're dead wrong. There are MANY MANY MANY mathematical expressions of and in EU theory. There are VERY competitive mathematically. That assertion is absolutely false. They aren't as "popular". So what?

The complain I have is that astronomers aren't playing by ordinary rules of Basketball. They double dribble, don't dribble and all, and don't even take the court. Instead they put together a bunch of "what if we did this" mathematical presentations what the baskets they MIGHT score if they ever took the court against the Heat. They then claim "victory" and then ran like hell the moment the game begins.

Whining about it makes no difference.

Sure it does. It points out the problem and it points out the weaknesses of mainstream theory and behaviors.

You seem generally rude, dismissive and intolerant of those who hold differing opinions.

Not really. I'm actually pretty tolerant of atheism for instance. I'm not really tolerant toward mainstream astronomy anymore because of the way I've seen astronomers treat empirical physics for the past 30 years. I'm allowed to pick and choose what dismiss and what I don't.

If you have received that treatment from fellow scientists, then, guess what, so are they, and they should know better too. I don't doubt that scientists are often very human, but you're doing no better.

Define "better". I've never virtually executed anyone for disagreeing with me. That's more than I can say for astronomers.

Pigs are clean, intelligent animals and if they had higher intelligence, they would probably like to register their displeasure at your abundant and ineffective use of cliche, especially that used in conjunction with ungrammatical CAPITAL LETTERS.

Kinda touchy about the term "pigs" there aren't you?

Why are you talking to astronomers about plasma physics?

Because I have, and they don't want to talk about it. In fact they've taken very dramatic steps to ensure that I DON'T talk about it with them on their turf.

I'm sure most of them don't own all that many books on quantum electrodynamics either, that doesn't mean they aren't proficient in their field.

It's hard to believe anyone is actually proficient at "dark energy" when nobody can even cite a legitimate source for the stuff.

Go talk to physicists instead and try your ideas out there.

I've actually been published in particle physics journals. That's not a problem.

I think you pick astronomers because of a) perceived slights in cosmology

96 percent metaphysics isn't a small "slight', it's a huge issue IMO.

and b) because the only topic of physics you seem to have good proficiency in is plasma -

Well, it is THE most important part of physics in EU theory.

you make basic, undergraduate level errors in other fields, albeit well-intentioned ones,

Which one(s) are you referring to exactly? I tend to cop to my mistakes rather quickly. It don't sit and wallow in them for 30-60 years like the mainstream does.

and any physicist would challenge you to back up your assertions with the mathematics, as you well know.

But I've had no problem getting material published in Journals related to particle physics. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I've published material in just such journals.

You pick astronomers because they are in a peripatetic field to physics, a little less schooled in the advanced details, and you stand a chance at bamboozling them because of that. You're picking easy targets. Boring.

No. I got involved with "astronomers' personally about 7 years ago when I put up a website related to non standard solar theory. I began debating the ideas in cyberspace. I fully expected to take a lot of heat over the "rigid surface" aspect of the ideas we put forth, but I never expected the resistance I received to the idea of 'electrical discharges' in the solar atmosphere. That was actually quite a "shock" (pun intended). I never though that was even a controversial concept since it's been talked about in published literature for more than 100 years now. I pick on them for their utter ignorance of topic, period.

But you're basically a Christian pantheist, arguably one of the least empirically testable God-hypotheses ever.

Huh? I'd claim exactly the opposite is true. It's THE most "empirically' based cosmology theory on the books.

Anyhow...you're complaining atheists complain about a lack of cause and effect and saying doing that is somehow wrong,

Actually, I'm NOT suggesting it's wrong, I'm suggesting it's a legitimate argument.

whilst complaining about a perceived lack of cause and effect in relation to inflation? Or is complaining about the lack of cause and effect ok?

It's a valid argument. "Inflation did it" doesn't work for me anymore than "Godflation did it " would work for you, just because I include some pilfered math related to inflation.

It's only semi-relevant, because there is an effect, the hypothesis in inflation relates to the cause.

It's a circular argument related to FAITH you have in some PERCEIVED cause. It's exactly the same as a "God did it" explanation. It's therefore NO explanation at all!

All hypotheses have to relate to either the cause or the effect, and you just (selectively and inconsistently) don't like the ones which refer to the former and not the latter.

Empirical physics requires BOTH be demonstrated, otherwise it's a "God did it" type of "explanation", it's no empirically better than "God did it" at the level of actual physics.

No, we just don't let you make hypotheses that don't fit all the known evidence, without justifiably and reasonably challenging the evidence that doesn't fit; that's what you don't like about science.

No, I don't really have a problem with that. What I don't like is the fact that an honest "I don't know" is somehow unacceptable to you, when in fact "dark energy" is noting more than a placeholder term for human ignorance.

Everything else you're just fine with. Also, if the recent detector data proves to be correct regarding WIMPs, your attack will prove baseless anyway, so you'd better have an alternative theory ready.

FYI, those experiments tend to amount to a 'dark matter of the gaps' argument because they have to "filter out" hits from 'normal' things. The moment you underestimate the effect of NORMAL things, the "gaps" suddenly appear for the metaphysical entity of choice. No known actual source, no real 'experiment'. LHC experiments are real experiments IMO. If you end up with "evidence" from both sources, come talk to me. I'm currently not real impressed with the DM detection methods. Let's see the result produced by different groups with different detection methods and different ASSUMPTIONS about rates from ORDINARY influences.

FYI, "dark matter" is easily the least "metaphysical" aspect of mainstream theory. It's not entirely impossible even from my perspective to gain empirical support for that idea over time. Dark energy and particularly inflation are actually your biggest metaphysical kludges.

 

[Michael]

Well, I just did undergrad in London before doing something completely different (finance), and I always leaned more towards theoretical stuff.

Was mainly responding to the ridiculous generalizations he made...

Surely you must see the irony in an atheists that favors 'theoretical stuff' which lacks in empirical support? The theistic beliefs that I put forth require absolutely no leaps of faith in anything that isn't observed on Earth in abundant variety, including "awareness".

 

[Michael]

PS...did you give up in the other thread?

Nah, I just took the weekend off.

 

[mkatzwork]

Surely you must see the irony in an atheists that favors 'theoretical stuff' which lacks in empirical support? The theistic beliefs that I put forth require absolutely no leaps of faith in anything that isn't observed on Earth in abundant variety, including "awareness".

Apart from a universal pantheistic God that is aware which has no empirical evidence whatsoever OR mathematical basis based on observation. Dark energy/cosmological constant is an attempt at explaining an observation. There is no scientific observation which would lead you to believe in a pantheistic God as the most logical explanation.

The most logical explanation for the empirically observed expansion of the universe is something is propelling it ever faster, universally, in all directions. You can it all 'we don't know' energy if you LIKE, but the effect is observed, and the cosmological constant is the hypothesis for its cause - something that is part of the fabric of space-time itself is making the universe expand ever faster. You can attack the observation - you've tried, and failed miserably so far...if you have things to correct Brynjolfsson's mistakes, please, do tell (since you put so much faith in disputing the observed expansion of the universe).

We just don't take that extra (colossal) leap with our hypothesis, that of labeling it "God" and worshipping it as the origin and creator of the universe. We're a little more careful with our conclusions, shall we say...

 

[NGC 6712]

But it's not. The average temperature of the universe was actually 'better" predicted by the effect of starlight on ordinary matter.

Temperature prediction is the LEAST important part of this argument. The starlight prediction had nothing to do with predicting a CMB temperature and is irrelevant.

 

[Michael]

Astronomy is applied physics - astrophysics is both applied and theoretical physics. To be honest the terms are interchangeable. I personally tend to use astronomer for researchers working on direct observation - people like myself who work in front of computer creating models of physical phenomena that relates to astronomy I call astrophysicists. But there is often much overlap between the two.

Most (if not all) astronomers do the same basic coursework as physicists and the specialisation later on will determine the breadth of expertise in a given regime of physics. Certainly they all do the standard EM/QM/Atomic/Nuclear/Mechanics education.

Well, that's a lovely, lovely theory and all, but it's simply not true in my experience. If they all actually did understand basic EM theory and plasma physics theory, why do they have such an emotional and intellectual aversion to the concept of electrical discharges in plasma!?!?!?!?!?!?!??? I've watched an entire group of EU HATERS/astronomers simply go into pure denial over that issue for over an entire year, even after handing them published materials galore! They definitely don't even have a CLUE about 'magnetic reconnection" and what that term actually means at the level of kinetic energy and physics. They're utterly and entirely clueless about what the term RECONNECTION RATE even refers to at the level of actual physics! Their conceptual understanding of even very basic plasma physical processes are simply PITIFUL.

Heck, in most universities the astronomy section is a group within the physics department just like condensed matter groups, particle physics groups etc etc. Even when Astronomy has its own department there are usually cross discipline professorships where people hold positions in both departments. I used to have such a position myself though now I am solely in the physics department.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule, such as yourself, but I've seen real astronomers in action now for over 7 years. Their basic understanding of plasma physics is atrocious in my experience, and frankly it's inexcusable IMO. More than 98 percent of the known universe is in the plasma state. You'd think that issue alone would be motive enough to learn something about plasma physics. I see no evidence that most astronomers even understand basic plasma processes like filamentation caused by the flow of current through plasma, and electrical discharge processes in plasma. If they haven't figure out that solar flares are electrical discharges yet, your claim about their "experience" rings rather hollow. Birkeland PREDICTED that over 100 years ago, Bruce and Dungey demonstrated it over 50 years ago, and Alfven even explained it to them using circuit theory over 40 years ago.

 

[Michael]

Wrong, again. Of the two principle kinds of 'dark' matter - MACHO's are baryonic - which is what physicists call "ordinary" (a lousy term that we avoid) matter.

I just said that.

They would be observable if you got nearer to them for example, or if there wasn't something else obscuring their presence.

Yes, I know. In my youth (not today) the term "dark matter" wasn't necessarily associated with any 'exotic' forms of matter. The term has CHANGED over the years to include a knowledge claim, specifically this one:

WIMPS are essentially non-baryonic, they fit the mathematics considerably better as the predominant source for the perceived missing matter in the universe that is evidenced by numerous observations, and guess what...they are testable in most mainstream theories, and we're looking for them right now. Might well even be found in the next twelve months or so, but the hoopla's going to be about the Higgs - looks like we might have actually found that already.

Unfortunately for you, those very same LHC experiments that have found some evidence for the Higgs, have already all but ruled out the simplest versions of SUSY theory.

The problem from my perspective is that the industry is sitting around HOPING that LHC finds something to help them fill their gaps, and PRAYING that they don't rule out SUSY theory entirely.

 

[NGC 6712]

Funny thing is I have some friends (even going back to undergrad) who went on to become some of the most famous plasma physicists involved in fusion research - and I have never heard them have a problem with the astrophysics community when it comes to the plasma physics that is involved in our area. Never heard them comment that the astrophysical community doesn't understand basic EM or plasma physics. We all had the same educations in this topic - we just ended up working in vastly different regimes, astrophysical plasmas versus terrestrial fusion research plasmas.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, kind of, and ultimately yes, it's a placeholder term. It used to be a placeholder term for "pure ignorance' as you suggest. In other words it had no "knowledge" claim associated with it. It 'could have been' associated with MACHO (ordinary matter) brands of 'dark matter'. In astronomy today however there's a knowledge claim that is being associated with that term. The mainstream keeps claiming that it is NOT made of ordinary matter. That knowledge CLAIM is utterly and entirely bogus.

I wouldn't know. I don't know enough about it to make a judgement call on it.

Hmm. Well. Thank you. I actually appreciate that feedback. I mean that.

Just a passing observation.

Since you can't seem to see my point, let me try to explain my point. In terms of pure physics, if I'm "on crusade' (I didn't mean to seem that way), it's not actually against "dark" theories, it's 'for' a different cosmology theory, specifically Plasma Cosmology theory, or Electric Universe theory. IMO it's a "better' way to explain the universe we live in because it is based on pure plasma physics and pure empirical physics. It's the merging of GR theory as Einstein described it (no dark energy), and MHD theories.

This stuff is way over my head. lol.

Where that "against" aspect tends to come into the conversations on this forum (it can be different on different forums) is where we get into the topic of God, vs any other scientific 'hypothesis" we might consider. There tends to be a "compare and contrast' aspect that goes on between "science" and "religion". If something as bizarre as string theory or inflation theory can be considered a form of "science', then surely any empirical theory of God, or the universe (or both at once in my case) are also valid "scientific" theories.

I wasn't aware that any empirical theories of god existed.

A lot of the atheists around here (and some theists) keep claiming that God is 'supernatural", or they claim that God can't be studied scientifically, or they claim that the topic of God isn't even a "scientific' topic. Those are all absolutely false claims. That's my real motive. In a round about way I'm crusading "for' things, not against anything.

I agree with you 100% here. I don't buy that god cannot be studied scientifically, if one exists.

I'll have to pay more attention to my statements from now on based on your feedback. Thank you. I don't want to sound like I'm on a Lambda-CDM beatdown crusade, but apparently that's how I am coming across. Evidently it's time for me to focus more on discussing PC/EU theory, and electric sun theory, and focus a lot less on mainstream cosmology theory. There's no sense in becoming what I loathe, and being seen as just another 'hater' on another topic..... That wasn't my intent, but I can see that my distaste for Lambda-theory has probably colored a lot of my comments.

Meh. I didn't mean to chastize you about it, just wondering what the point was, is all. I think I got it now.

 

[Michael]

Apart from a universal pantheistic God that is aware which has no empirical evidence whatsoever OR mathematical basis based on observation.

Woah. Again, EU theory is well quantified. You can't claim that there are no mathematical models when there are in fact models that you simply don't care for.

Dark energy/cosmological constant is an attempt at explaining an observation.

The observation is redshifted photons. Dark energy has no tangible effect on photons in any experiment on Earth. It's a "dark god did it" claim to start with, and you're not even sure where the 'dark god" comes from!

There is no scientific observation which would lead you to believe in a pantheistic God as the most logical explanation.

Yes, there is. The realization that even that atmosphere of our own sun is filled with trillions of working and visible "circuits' was enough to convince me that pantheism is worth a look. Compared to what passes for "science" today, it's head and shoulders more easy to demonstrate a link between awareness and electrical energy than it is to demonstrate a link between redshifted photons and "dark energy'.

The most logical explanation for the empirically observed expansion of the universe is something is propelling it ever faster, universally, in all directions.

Assuming that's actually a valid interpretation of the data, then an external EM field is the most likely 'cause' of such an acceleration process in plasma.

You can it all 'we don't know' energy if you LIKE, but the effect is observed, and the cosmological constant is the hypothesis for its cause - something that is part of the fabric of space-time itself is making the universe expand ever faster.

If you'd like to posit an EM field as the 'cause", be my guest. If you expect to posit 'magic energy' as the cause, I'll want to see valid empirical justification for such a claim.

You can attack the observation - you've tried, and failed miserably so far...

It's not the observation I take issue with in the first place. Nobody doubts that redshift happens. We're only debating WHY it happens, not that that it occurs.

if you have things to correct Brynjolfsson's mistakes, please, do tell (since you put so much faith in disputing the observed expansion of the universe).

I'm trying to catch up after being offline for a few days, but I'll discuss that paper with you. I've looked through every conversation I could find on his work and I've never seen anyone ever object to the first formula.

We just don't take that extra (colossal) leap with our hypothesis, that of labeling it "God" and worshipping it as the origin and creator of the universe. We're a little more careful with our conclusions, shall we say...

Oh Boloney. I've seen the videos of Penrose and Krauss. They jump to their own atheistic conclusions just as quickly as any theist jumps to theistic conclusions. My favorite part of Krauss's belief system is that it's all hinged upon the concept of a flat universe as though that one feature justifies his belief that the entire universe contains no net energy. In reality however, Penrose demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th paper LESS likely that the universe would be 'flat " with inflation than without it. Absolutely hysterical!

 

[Michael]

I wasn't aware that any empirical theories of god existed.

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

FYI, I really did appreciate your feedback. I think I'll spend more time on that thread and the electric sun thread rather than to keep harping on mainstream theory. I'm not happy with mainstream theory, but ultimately it is no worse than string theory or anything else in terms of lack of support. All theories have strengths and weaknesses, including the one I just cited. They pale in comparison to the problems found in mainstream 'scientific' theories about our universe however.

I agree with you 100% here. I don't buy that god cannot be studied scientifically, if one exists.

I think that is the most frustrating concept that I sometimes run across in cyberspace, and unfortunately it's not even limited to atheists.

 

[Michael]

Were neutrinos invisible-magic-make-believe in 1940?

We've been through all that a bunch of times now. The SOURCE was always understood, therefore the CONTROL MECHANISMS were never in doubt.

We know there is something there as we are getting interaction in our detectors
BBC News - Dark matter hinted at again at Cresst experiment

Meh. Such experiments have generally produced different results from different groups. More importantly, there is no 'source' that is "controlled" in such experiments. It's therefore ultimately a 'dark matter of the gaps" claim because there are other influences that COULD be responsible for these results. Furthermore there's no way to 'turn off the source' to be sure it's even related to what they claim it's related to! Again, these experiments are NOTHING like the neutrino experiment because there is no control mechanism.

 

[mathetes123]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

For me I am lucky enough to enjoy science and was good at it when I did it at school. Still I can't possibly accept or reject various theories based on my own full assessment of the theories. Nevertheless, based on my understanding of the scientific method and how science works I find it reasonable to accept scientific consensus as approximate truth. Of course this takes more than accepting what any one scientist says at any one time. This would also be my roughly my method for other subjects as well.

So what I want to ask to those who have high doubts about things like evolution and climate change, is why is this? Why do you consider it reasonable to accept the word of non-scientists or a tiny minority of scientists over the majority? Is this based on the assumption that you are able weed out the incorrect theories without the appropriate training?

If there is no God, and everything is the result of random forces, rather than an intelligent designer, why would you have an expectation of arriving at any truth? Why would you expect the universe to act as though it was designed and could therefore be studied and understood as such?

 

[Michael]

If there is no God, and everything is the result of random forces, rather than an intelligent designer, why would you have an expectation of arriving at any truth?

Wouldn't you still want to know if that was the case? Wouldn't it still be possible to arrive at the "correct" conclusion?

Why would you expect the universe to act as though it was designed and could therefore be studied and understood as such?

We wouldn't NECESSARILY expect that. It just seems like it is the most "probable" explanation of how we got here from most folks perspective.

 

[mathetes123]

Wouldn't you still want to know if that was the case? Wouldn't it still be possible to arrive at the "correct" conclusion?



We wouldn't NECESSARILY expect that. It just seems like it is the most "probable" explanation of how we got here from most folks perspective.

Your signature line says that all religions are branches of the same tree. Do you honestly believe they can all be true at the same time?