Method for accepting science

[Michael]

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.

Really? You must have missed a lot of the earliest controversies. Alfven himself called their precious "magnetic reconnection' theory a brand of "pseudoscience". They still have a tough time equating the "reconnection" process with "electrical discharges' even though Dungey (who coined the term reconnection) equated them. I can't tell you how pitiful it is that they can't see or envision coronal loops as "circuits" that erupt as Alfven explained to them over 40 years ago.

Never heard them comment that the astrophysical community doesn't understand basic EM or plasma physics.

I've never seen one correctly explain the concept of 'magnetic reconnection" in terms of kinetic energy, particularly the concept of the rate of reconnection. Apparently most of them seem to think that "reconnection" happens in a vacuum in the ABSENCE of all plasma.

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.

I've met about 3 folks total (4 including yourself) that have any type of firm background at all in MHD theory and plasma physics. In fact, most of the "EU haters" I've met are quite clueless even to basic theory. I've seem them claim that magnetic fields have "beginnings" and "endings" and all sorts of ridiculous claims. I've seen them claim that plasma isn't even a requirement for "reconnection" to occur, in spite of the fact that they can't even come up with a mathematical expression for the rate of reconnection in the absence of plasma.

Like I said, I've met only a handful of astronomers that even understand the basics of plasma physics. Most of them have SOME concept of plasma physics from the B or field orientation, but almost none of them have any familiarity with circuit theory and how it is properly applied to plasma physics and plasmas in space.

 

[Michael]

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?

Of course they cannot all be true at the same time, but they do all attempt to "explain" our universe and our existence. One of them might eventually lead to the "right' answer.

 

[mkatzwork]

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.

Bring 'em. Point them out. Which ones do you like best? Any rivaling GR? Any testable predictions at all?

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're seriously suggesting that photons are redshifted due to an expanding universe caused by....an electromagnetic field - i.e. photons...in plasma? Or did I misunderstand?

Incidentally, how do you solve Olbers Paradox within the infinite universe predicted by EU/PC? (that's just a question, as I read one answer that was completely incomprehensible...it was in English, but didn't mean anything so far as I could ascertain...)

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.

I had later objections but they were all less tasty than the misapplication of Poynting vectors to single photons as opposed to macroscopic EM fields.

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!

Yeah. Laugh out loud. Call a doctor, because I think my sides have split.

(tumbleweeds)

His calculation is great...other than the fact that probability theory is unlikely to apply in the initial state of the universe, because how exactly do you assign probabilities to the various outcomes? I mean...really. How?

He guessed...some extremely large guesses in fact, by and large ignoring thermodynamics, which is why nobody is hugely concerned, particularly then as his alternative idea is pretty off the rails and he couldn't show evidence of circular black hole residues in the CMB, so that paper died quietly. You can keep citing his probability idea, despite its lack of merit, because the ignorant will be bamboozled. I'm sure you will.

 

[Michael]

Bring 'em. Point them out. Which ones do you like best? Any rivaling GR? Any testable predictions at all?

No Big Bang : Contents

Sure. Learners published several papers and a whole book. I like Peratt's work, and Alfven's early work on 'Bang' theories too. Alfven's work s more 'dated'. It's akin to a pre-dark energy BB theory. Why would you think it necessarily wouldn't include GR theory by the way? Do you mean GR theory or GR+Dark metaphysics "blunder" theory?

You're seriously suggesting that photons are redshifted due to an expanding universe caused by....an electromagnetic field - i.e. photons...in plasma? Or did I misunderstand?

To be perfectly honest, I tend to personally favor an "expanding" universe concept, but I'm not emotionally attached to it. I like static universe concepts too, but I don't actually care one way or the other.

Incidentally, how do you solve Olbers Paradox within the infinite universe predicted by EU/PC?

For starters, not ALL EU/PC concepts involve an infinite universe and typically dust and distance are key limitation of redshifting features in most static PC/EU orientations.

I had later objections but they were all less tasty than the misapplication of Poynting vectors to single photons as opposed to macroscopic EM fields.

Any macroscopic EM fields in his paper would relate to the electrons. Any microscopic wave/particle features would be related to the photons.

Yeah. Laugh out loud. Call a doctor, because I think my sides have split.

(tumbleweeds)

His calculation is great...other than the fact that probability theory is unlikely to apply in the initial state of the universe, because how exactly do you assign probabilities to the various outcomes? I mean...really. How?

How did Guth do it? I mean really, how? All of these ideas become unsupportable in the final analysis because not one of use was there to watch it happen.

You can keep citing his probability idea, despite its lack of merit,
because the ignorant will be bamboozled. I'm sure you will.

Right. You don't like the implication of his work so everyone that disagrees with you is "ignorant and easily bamboozled". Argument by brute force and insult. Got it.

 

[GavinJenkins]

I'm going to stray away from the current topic a bit and go back to the main idea. I must add a quote from Euclid that has definitely helped diffuse the Faith vs. Science dispute for me - "The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God."

Also, I have recently read Language of God by Francis S. Collins. Parts of the book some Christians will disagree with because he is a believer in theistic evolution. However the overall tone and purpose of the book, in my opinion, is phenomenal. I encourage you to take a look at it if you are separating your science life and your spiritual life. For me, I finally have them living harmoniously together and accepting of one another.

As a biology major, I am often faced with atheistic professors and peers. Though I have gotten through to a few of them. My way of explaining it to them is by asking them to name a scientific theory or principle. So let's say gravity, DNA replication or oxidative phosphorylation. I will not go into the details of them, but basically they all work incredibly and allow life to exist. These three ideas can easily be explained because God created the mechanisms which allow them to function. Then, science explains these things by labeling them and 'discovering' smaller and more subtle parts to the whole of what they are looking at. Of course this is all objective research and therefore, our knowledge of these things are left as theories - because science merely tries to explain the material world and what God created. I am not sure if science will ever truly know and understand all of the intricacies of everything that God created.

They're doing a fairly good job in some aspects of science. For exmaple, quantum physics is becoming more and more compatible with Christianity.

Lastly, Francis S. Collins has said that even Richard Dawkins has admitted something incredible to him: “If they (constants in the universe) were set at a value that was just a tiny bit different, one part in a billion, the whole thing wouldn’t work anymore,”.

 

[Michael]

I'm going to stray away from the current topic a bit and go back to the main idea. I must add a quote from Euclid that has definitely helped diffuse the Faith vs. Science dispute for me - "The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God."

Also, I have recently read Language of God by Francis S. Collins. Parts of the book some Christians will disagree with because he is a believer in theistic evolution. However the overall tone and purpose of the book, in my opinion, is phenomenal. I encourage you to take a look at it if you are separating your science life and your spiritual life. For me, I finally have them living harmoniously together and accepting of one another.

As a biology major, I am often faced with atheistic professors and peers. Though I have gotten through to a few of them. My way of explaining it to them is by asking them to name a scientific theory or principle. So let's say gravity, DNA replication or oxidative phosphorylation. I will not go into the details of them, but basically they all work incredibly and allow life to exist. These three ideas can easily be explained because God created the mechanisms which allow them to function. Then, science explains these things by labeling them and 'discovering' smaller and more subtle parts to the whole of what they are looking at. Of course this is all objective research and therefore, our knowledge of these things are left as theories - because science merely tries to explain the material world and what God created. I am not sure if science will ever truly know and understand all of the intricacies of everything that God created.

They're doing a fairly good job in some aspects of science. For exmaple, quantum physics is becoming more and more compatible with Christianity.

Lastly, Francis S. Collins has said that even Richard Dawkins has admitted something incredible to him: “If they (constants in the universe) were set at a value that was just a tiny bit different, one part in a billion, the whole thing wouldn’t work anymore,”.

Welcome to the discussion. I agree with everything you said, particularly the part about science and religion living harmoniously. I really enjoyed your analogy about God creating 'mechanisms' to give rise to conscious beings, and us just learning how those mechanisms operate. That's pretty much exactly how I see things as well.

 

[mathetes123]

Of course they cannot all be true at the same time, but they do all attempt to "explain" our universe and our existence. One of them might eventually lead to the "right' answer.

According to your denomination symbol, you are a Christian. Do you not believe the Christian faith is the right answer?

 

[Michael]

According to your denomination symbol, you are a Christian. Do you not believe the Christian faith is the right answer?

I believe that Jesus is my Lord and my personal savior (from selfish ego) and he's the right answer for ME. Your mileage may vary, particularly depending on how you define the religion called "Christianity". If by 'Christianity" you mean YEC and Biblical literalism, forget it. If you mean Jesus and God and "love your enemy", sure.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

You are mistaken. God is Spirit and not manifested in the physical world.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

They all point toward a truth that God exists. Jesus claimed to know Him better that everyone else and claimed to be His Only Son. A good amount of evidence points to Him being Lord, rather than a liar or a lunatic.

There are really only those three options.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You are mistaken. God is Spirit and not manifested in the physical world.

Then you have no evidence to support your belief.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then you have no evidence to support your belief.

Well I was there when the evidence presented itself. I realize that you weren't there....so what can I say about that?

It's not a natural law or rule of nature that you or I can reproduce at will so
it is indeed, outside of the scientific method to reproduce.

But I will always have the irrefutable evidence for my own use.
Which is good enough for me.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

Long story short: unverifiable, unrepeatable anecdotes. That would be a "no" for objective evidence.

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.

confirmation bias - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

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.

A universe that "looks designed", i.e. behaves in a consistent manner governed by "physical laws" may well be absolutely necessary for intelligent observers to arise in it, and it's definitely necessary for scientific investigation to arise. That isn't an explanation of how an orderly universe got here, but it's an inevitable truth that observers like us would be observing one.

Tl;dr: weak anthropic principle.

As a biology major, I am often faced with atheistic professors and peers.

Statements like this always make me curious about other people's experiences. I'd be hard pressed to name the religious affiliation of a single person who taught me during my undergrad years. I didn't really care, and they didn't bring it into their teaching. Of course, various breeds of creationism got their occasional bashing in the evolution classes, but even then, it was the scientific shoddiness and not the theism that was under criticism. Is this a UK vs US thing?

Lastly, Francis S. Collins has said that even Richard Dawkins has admitted something incredible to him: “If they (constants in the universe) were set at a value that was just a tiny bit different, one part in a billion, the whole thing wouldn’t work anymore,”.

It's odd that he would call this incredible. Did he expect Dawkins to be so hell-bent on pushing atheism as to deny an obvious property of the universe?

(OK, maybe it's not that odd. Dawkins isn't exactly a diplomat when it comes to religion )

You are mistaken. God is Spirit and not manifested in the physical world.

What else do you call affecting the events of the physical world?

 

[selfinflikted]

Well I was there when the evidence presented itself. I realize that you weren't there....so what can I say about that?

It's not a natural law or rule of nature that you or I can reproduce at will so
it is indeed, outside of the scientific method to reproduce.

But I will always have the irrefutable evidence for my own use.
Which is good enough for me.

What irrefutable evidence have you stumbled upon?

 

[Smidlee]

Well I was there when the evidence presented itself. I realize that you weren't there....so what can I say about that?

It's not a natural law or rule of nature that you or I can reproduce at will so
it is indeed, outside of the scientific method to reproduce.

But I will always have the irrefutable evidence for my own use.
Which is good enough for me.

Even science foundations are built on faith. Finding atheist attacking faith is like someone destroying the foundation of an apartment building. When someone points out this is not a good idea he replied I'm not worried I live on the second floor.

 

[Elias526]

What irrefutable evidence have you stumbled upon?

When you "stumble" upon the Living God that is pretty irrefutable.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

When you "stumble" upon the Living God that is pretty irrefutable.

The fact that we're even having this conversation is refutation enough.

 

[Michael]

The fact that we're even having this conversation is refutation enough.

Er, no. I don't even think you understand what they actually mean by 'living God' in fact.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Even science foundations are built on faith. Finding atheist attacking faith is like someone destroying the foundation of an apartment building. When someone points out this is not a good idea he replied I'm not worried I live on the second floor.

Faith is an assertion of unreasonable convictions and defended against all reason.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Er, no. I don't even think you understand what they actually mean by 'living God' in fact.

Er, I understand you've made an assertion you've yet to back up.