MY favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian God:

[Michael]

No; what they are doing there is testing what they think are the most likely hypotheses.

What's the point of 'testing' if the results can't be used to falsify the claim? Axions, WIMPS and sterile neutrino models have all be "tested" and failed those tests.

 

[In situ]

1. Consensus of opinion.
2. Cause-and-Effect.

1. Relabel "the beginning" to "God" is not a argument. It is abuse of semantics. Just because more does it does not mean it is valid to do so.
2. Again, assertions are not arguments.

It is more honest to just say one choose to believe and motive it with it feels right to do so and it fits into the experience one have of life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's the point of 'testing' if the results can't be used to falsify the claim? Axions, WIMPS and sterile neutrino models have all be "tested" and failed those tests.

It's not a simple matter of one experiment not detecting one type of particle. There is a variety of different WIMPs that could fit the models, and not finding difficult to detect particles doesn't falsify the hypothesis; so many experiments must be done, preferably with different instruments, to raise the probability that a particular particle is not involved to the required level (usually 5-sigma). They have already narrowed the field down considerably, but they started with the 'low-hanging fruit', the most easily detectable candidates, so detection becomes more difficult as they progress.

I thought you knew something about this kind of research, given your comments about it; are we seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect at work?

 

[Michael]

It's not a simple matter of one experiment not detecting one type of particle. There is a variety of different WIMPs that could fit the models, and not finding difficult to detect particles doesn't falsify the hypothesis; so many experiments must be done, preferably with different instruments, to raise the probability that a particular particle is not involved to the required level (usually 5-sigma). They have already narrowed the field down considerably, but they started with the 'low-hanging fruit', the most easily detectable candidates, so detection becomes more difficult as they progress.

I thought you knew something about this kind of research, given your comments about it; are we seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect at work?

A decade ago they were pinning all their WIMP claims on SUSY theory but the LHC falsified all the popular models. They've "narrowed down" the window on WIMPS now so far that the next round of LUX and Xenon updates will push the interaction cross section down into the range of neutrinos. I love how you complain about me introducing just *one* speculated hypothetical entity into a cosmology theory yet you're fine putting four of them into a different cosmology theory, one of which has already failed billions of dollars with of 'tests'. What's it take to kill off a bad hypothesis anyway?

What's the point of engaging in personal attacks? Does it make you feel better somehow, because it's definitely not going to make all those failed "tests" go away, nor those two halos of plasma and gas they found over the last five years which contain more mass than all the stars in our galaxy combined. There's no evidence of "exotic" matter in the first place. The standard particle physics model correctly predicts everything we've observed at LHC with incredible precision and there's no evidence that astronomers have ever been able to correctly estimate the amount of mass in our own galaxy, let alone distant galaxies and clusters.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I love how you complain about me introducing just *one* speculated hypothetical entity into a cosmology theory yet you're fine putting four of them into a different cosmology theory, one of which has already failed billions of dollars with of 'tests'. What's it take to kill off a bad hypothesis anyway?

No complaints, just an explanation of why your proposal for FTL signaling in a cosmic-scale brain is pseudoscience.

You're keen on telling me what I'm fine with although I haven't expressed an opinion; but the difference between your proposal and theirs is that I've seen the evidence for the phenomena they're trying to explain, I've seen the reasoning and the physics behind the hypotheses they've proposed to explain those phenomena, and I've seen the explanations for how they're testing those hypotheses.

On the other hand, you've proposed an unexplained faster-than-light 'field' for signalling in a cosmic-scale brain for which there is no evidence, no apparent reason, and no clear explanation.

In other words, you propose a mechanism that contravenes the known laws of physics to explain something you made up; i.e. it's pseudoscience.

What's the point of engaging in personal attacks?

Oops, sorry about that, there was supposed to be a smiley in there - I've fixed it now. It was a gentle jibe to point out that for someone who persistently disparages the work of the mainstream astronomical community, to say things that imply no substantive understanding of that work, leads to questions of - as you put it - scientific competence.

... it's definitely not going to make all those failed "tests" go away...

In science, a 'failed' test is as important and telling as a 'successful' test - it tells you that a potential explanation has been ruled out.

Personally, I am fascinated to see how the dark matter search unfolds; whether they find a dark matter particle or not, there will be interesting new science as a result.

 

[Michael]

No complaints, just an explanation of why your proposal for FTL signaling in a cosmic-scale brain is pseudoscience.

If you applied that same logic to all cosmology models then LCDM is pseudoscience four times over.

You're keen on telling me what I'm fine with although I haven't expressed an opinion; but the difference between your proposal and theirs is that I've seen the evidence for the phenomena they're trying to explain,

Be specific then. What "evidence" do you believe supports the "exotic matter" claim?

I've seen the reasoning and the physics behind the hypotheses they've proposed to explain those phenomena,

I've seen it too and it's metaphysics not physics and the reasoning is based on questionable assumptions galore.

and I've seen the explanations for how they're testing those hypotheses.

What's the point of 'testing' if it can't be falsified by those tests? What observation in the lab can the standard particle physics model *not* explain?

On the other hand, you've proposed an unexplained faster-than-light 'field' for signalling in a cosmic-scale brain for which there is no evidence, no apparent reason, and no clear explanation.

I gave you two good "reasons", and no hypothetical entity has a "clear explanation".

In other words, you propose a mechanism that contravenes the known laws of physics to explain something you made up; i.e. it's pseudoscience.

Ok, I'll bite. What doesn't that same logic apply to Alan Guth's mythical 'inflation' thingy? According to Penrose it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that we'd end up with a flat universe *with* inflation than without it.

Oops, sorry about that, there was supposed to be a smiley in there - I've fixed it now. It was a gentle jibe to point out that for someone who persistently disparages the work of the mainstream astronomical community, to say things that imply no substantive understanding of that work, leads to questions of - as you put it - scientific competence.

Funny however that I'm on the correct end of all the LCH tests as well as every other supposed "test" of their DM claim, and for all their supposed "competence", they've batted *zero* on that score. Collectively they can't name a single source of dark energy, and they cant explain how and why it maintains constant density during expansion. They can't explain why the whole 'smaller than a proton" thing didn't implode instantly either. Your concept of "scientific competence" seems dubious at best all things considered.

In science, a 'failed' test is as important and telling as a 'successful' test - it tells you that a potential explanation has been ruled out.

But there are an *infinite* number of 'handwavy possibilities" to choose from and the whole basis of the claim is based on flawed mass estimation techniques that were never accurate in the first place.

Personally, I am fascinated to see how the dark matter search unfolds; whether they find a dark matter particle or not, there will be interesting new science as a result.

What exactly does it take to kill off the idea during your lifetime? How do you know for a fact that it's not just "ordinary matter" that generates those lensing patterns and rotation patterns, particularly after they've found more mass in those two plasma and gas halos they found around our own galaxy in the past five years which contain more mass than all the stars combined?

If your beliefs can't be falsified, how can it be considered "science" rather than 'unwavering faith in the unseen'?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Be specific then. What "evidence" do you believe supports the "exotic matter" claim?

Do your own research.

What's the point of 'testing' if it can't be falsified by those tests?

Falsification is somewhat of a mirage; large parts of science consist of strictly unfalsifiable hypotheses - particularly existential hypotheses; i.e. statements that assert the existence of something cannot be falsified by failure to find it (caveat below). The point of testing these hypotheses is to find that something, or raise your confidence level that it doesn't exist to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt (this implies constrained circumstances; e.g. you can test whether a dragon exists in your garage, but not in general).

I gave you two good "reasons", and no hypothetical entity has a "clear explanation".

If one reason was people's beliefs in spiritual experiences, I've explained that there are far better explanations; I don't recall the other. I was after a clear explanation of how you came to your 'cosmic brain' idea.

What doesn't that same logic apply to Alan Guth's mythical 'inflation' thingy? According to Penrose it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that we'd end up with a flat universe *with* inflation than without it.

Guth's inflation was proposed to explain and integrate a number of unexplained and seemingly unrelated observations, which it did (and more) successfully. There are a number of potential explanations that are consistent with fundamental physical laws, including the Higgs field, if it couples to gravity (e.g. Inflation & Higgs, Inflation and the Higgs scalar, etc.). Whether Penrose is right remains to be seen, but as Guth proposed inflation partly to account for the flatness problem, their ideas are clearly in conflict.

Collectively they can't name a single source of dark energy, and they cant explain how and why it maintains constant density during expansion. They can't explain why the whole 'smaller than a proton" thing didn't implode instantly either. Your concept of "scientific competence" seems dubious at best all things considered.

My concept of scientific competence is informed by the work of people who've spent their education and careers working in the field, rather than some bloke on the internet who is favours fringe theories, display little understanding of basic physics or science in general, and thinks he knows better than the experts. YMMV.

What exactly does it take to kill off the idea during your lifetime?

It's impossible to say - they may find a candidate particle, or they may exhaust the accessible candidates, or a better solution may come along, or it may be demonstrated that a particle cannot explain the phenomenon.

How do you know for a fact that it's not just "ordinary matter" that generates those lensing patterns and rotation patterns...?

Gravitational lensing shows dark matter must be relatively small, and that quantity of macro-scale matter would accrete into large objects; gas and dust would fit, but would glow (ie. not be dark); and big bang nucleosynthesis calculations and the CMBR asymmetries indicate that there's far too little dark baryonic matter to account for the observed phenomena. I hear there are plenty more reasons that are less amenable to simple explanation.

If your beliefs can't be falsified, how can it be considered "science" rather than 'unwavering faith in the unseen'?

I have no beliefs about it, falsifiable or otherwise. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. If a scientist says they 'believe' that X or Y is true, what they mean is they think it's the best available or most likely explanation - and they acknowledge that it may be wrong. If that's not what they mean, they're not being scientific about it.

As for falsifiability, Popper's ideal is unachievable; in reality, much of science is inductive, and good science has been falsified - see Popper's Falsification.

 

[Michael]

Do your own research.

I've done my own research and I don't see any tangible evidence to support the idea. I was specifically interested in *your* opinion, not my own.

Falsification is somewhat of a mirage; large parts of science consist of strictly unfalsifiable hypotheses - particularly existential hypotheses; i.e. statements that assert the existence of something cannot be falsified by failure to find it (caveat below). The point of testing these hypotheses is to find that something, or raise your confidence level that it doesn't exist to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt (this implies constrained circumstances; e.g. you can test whether a dragon exists in your garage, but not in general).

Alright, I tend to agree with that assessment. But then how will you know if dark matter does not actually exist in your own lifetime if you simply "assume" it does exist and the outcome of experiments won't/can't change that "belief"? Usually the burden of proof works the other way around, and a lack of evidence equates to a lack of belief.

If one reason was people's beliefs in spiritual experiences, I've explained that there are far better explanations;

That's a subjective belief however and you're also in the minority.

I don't recall the other. I was after a clear explanation of how you came to your 'cosmic brain' idea.

Let's try this approach: Suppose for a second that we both agree on a purely empirical EU/PC based description/definition of the cosmos. The question then arises, "Why do the mass layout patterns and current flow patterns of the universe look so much like the "intelligence" centers of living organisms on Earth?

We could just assert it pure coincide, or we could propose the notion that the universe itself is an intelligent organism. In the later case, we would need to offer a FTL communication mechanism.

Guth's inflation was proposed to explain and integrate a number of unexplained and seemingly unrelated observations, which it did (and more) successfully.

Hmm. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree since his original proposal was intended to explain why monopoles don't exist which is like claiming your theory explains why unicorns do not exist. It was also intended to explain why the universe is homogeneous, but the Planck data shows hemispheric variations that defy that assertion. The last 'reason' he offered was the "flat" thing, and even that seems rather dubious. It's a concept that can literally be traced back to originating in the imagination of a single individual at one point in time.

There are a number of potential explanations that are consistent with fundamental physical laws, including the Higgs field, if it couples to gravity (e.g. Inflation & Higgs, Inflation and the Higgs scalar, etc.).

How would it "couple" to a GR oriented definition of gravity since GR is the theory that defines gravity in LCDM? It sound's like you want your QM cake but you want to eat your GR cake everywhere else.

Whether Penrose is right remains to be seen, but as Guth proposed inflation partly to account for the flatness problem, their ideas are clearly in conflict.

So how do I decide who's right and who's wrong? It's not like I can go to the lab and find out.

My concept of scientific competence is informed by the work of people who've spent their education and careers working in the field,

Be that as it may, even after all those years of studying this stuff they're still ultimately relying upon 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe, they have no idea where dark energy comes from, or how it retains constant density during expansion. It's not like they even profess to have all the answers, in fact they mostly have no answers at all.

rather than some bloke on the internet who is favours fringe theories,

Evolutionary theory was once a "fringe theory" if all we're talking about is 'popularity'. My beliefs are based upon pure empirical lab tested physics and they work in the lab.

display little understanding of basic physics or science in general,

That's just nonsense. I know far more about LCDM that most LCDM proponents know about EU/PC theory. You seem to take the low road in debate at times.

and thinks he knows better than the experts. YMMV.

I know EU/PC better than any LCDM proponent on the planet. I'm not sure what you think they 'know' to begin with since most of their theory is based on things they *don't* profess to know or understand in the first place, and those failed DM "tests" don't suggest they have any actual "knowledge".

It's impossible to say - they may find a candidate particle, or they may exhaust the accessible candidates, or a better solution may come along, or it may be demonstrated that a particle cannot explain the phenomenon.

After finding two "halos" of gas and plasma over the past five years, *exactly* as their DM models predict, I'm inclined to believe that ordinary matter is a 'better solution" to those observations. They've literally found more mass in the past five years than all the mass they knew to exist prior to 2012. How then can I have any confidence in their mass estimates of galaxies based on their "brightness"?

Gravitational lensing shows dark matter must be relatively small,

Actually if you had read that Thunderbolts link I suggested you'd learn that they were underestimating the number of entire stars in that bullet cluster study by between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. Those gas and plasma halos we found in the last five years are also made of smaller particles.

and that quantity of macro-scale matter would accrete into large objects; gas and dust would fit, but would glow (ie. not be dark);

Those underestimated stars weren't "dark". The plasma and gas in those recently discovered halos wasn't "dark" either, but we didn't have a clue they were there in 2006 when that bullet cluster study took place.

and big bang nucleosynthesis calculations and the CMBR asymmetries indicate that there's far too little dark baryonic matter to account for the observed phenomena.

That's only true if you *assume* that photon redshift is related to expansion and you ignore Eddington's predictions about the average temperature of space based on scattering, which he *nailed* to within 1/2 of one degree. It took BB'er 3 or 4 tries to any closer than Eddington.

I hear there are plenty more reasons that are less amenable to simple explanation.

I don't find any of them particular compelling and the lab results speak for themselves.

I have no beliefs about it, falsifiable or otherwise.

Yet you're defending their model which does indicate "belief".

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. If a scientist says they 'believe' that X or Y is true, what they mean is they think it's the best available or most likely explanation - and they acknowledge that it may be wrong. If that's not what they mean, they're not being scientific about it.

But since DM has failed every test, and their mass estimates were shown to be flawed, how can exotic matter still be the 'best' explanation? Define "best". That sounds subjective, not objective.

As for falsifiability, Popper's ideal is unachievable; in reality, much of science is inductive, and good science has been falsified - see Popper's Falsification.

Well then falsification becomes highly problematic for all hypothetical constructs and concepts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've done my own research and I don't see any tangible evidence to support the idea. I was specifically interested in *your* opinion, not my own.

The evidence isn't dependent on my opinion. This will point you to the evidence.

...how will you know if dark matter does not actually exist in your own lifetime if you simply "assume" it does exist and the outcome of experiments won't/can't change that "belief"? Usually the burden of proof works the other way around, and a lack of evidence equates to a lack of belief.

There are unexplained phenomena to be explained that have the effect of extra hidden mass. I don't know what the explanation is; I have no beliefs about that explanation.

That's a subjective belief however and you're also in the minority.

By the objective criteria of abduction (testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism) the evolutionary explanation is far better. Of course there must always be a degree of subjectivity in applying such criteria, but you're welcome to apply the criteria to your claim and we can compare results.

The number of people who endorse a claim has no necessary bearing on its validity.

The question then arises, "Why do the mass layout patterns and current flow patterns of the universe look so much like the "intelligence" centers of living organisms on Earth?

A simulation of the structure of the 'cosmic web' of galaxy superclusters bears a superficial resemblance to the connectivity of a single neuron; and a simulation of neutron star molecular dynamics generates a structure similar to endoplasmic reticulum, an organelle found in all eukaryotic cells (see the published paper for a rational interpretation).

It's fanciful nonsense.

How would it "couple" to a GR oriented definition of gravity since GR is the theory that defines gravity in LCDM? It sound's like you want your QM cake but you want to eat your GR cake everywhere else.

GR and QM are not contradictory over the bulk of their regimes, they're just different ways of modeling the same thing. Most physicists think GR is an approximation to a complete theory of quantum gravity. But I'm not an expert in this, I'm reporting what they say.

So how do I decide who's right and who's wrong? It's not like I can go to the lab and find out.

You wait for the people who know what they're doing to sort it out. As Feynman said, "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

Be that as it may, even after all those years of studying this stuff they're still ultimately relying upon 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe... It's not like they even profess to have all the answers, in fact they mostly have no answers at all.

Welcome back to the real world.

Evolutionary theory was once a "fringe theory" if all we're talking about is 'popularity'.

Well, no. Once Darwin & Wallace published, the TOE was accepted surprisingly quickly in the scientific sphere - especially considering most of the leading scientists believed in the special creation of humans.

That's just nonsense. I know far more about LCDM that most LCDM proponents know about EU/PC theory. You seem to take the low road in debate at times.

Meh - I'm just judging by what you say. It was you that suggested a cosmic scale brain analogous to biological brains, signalling through plasma 'wires' or light - which, to anyone who knows the size of the observable universe in light-years - or even just the local cluster (10 million ly) , is trivially absurd.

I know EU/PC better than any LCDM proponent on the planet.

Lol! Someone probably knows homeopathy better than any doctor, and someone probably knows astrology better than any astronomer.

Yet you're defending their model which does indicate "belief".

Nope; their model is what it is - a rational attempt to explain phenomena; whereas your cosmic brain idea is a made-up fantasy of pseudoscience.

Well then falsification becomes highly problematic for all hypothetical constructs and concepts.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Heissonear]

How does common sense support anything supernatural? My common sense says why invoke no evidenced invisible natural law defying beings that different people say different things about to "explain" things that we already know or none of us know? That is not good sense, not at all. I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no good evidence for any of it as of yet, not because I think it isn't common sense. Common sense is only good sense when we have knowledge behind it. And it still is not the best tool we have.

In STEM fields only math has proof. The rest have evidence and solid applications. If you are speaking in a legal or layman sense than science does produce proofs. I'm pretty sure many people have told you this already. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is one of the most well evidenced theories there has ever been. If you reject it because you think there isn't enough proof for it then you must reject all scientific theories. But you don't, because you know science works and most other scientific theories you don't think affect your biblical interpretation or upset your faith beliefs.

You seem to explain away what Jesus clearly taught that a person must be born again by the (Supernatural encounter) of the Holy Spirit - and that the Kingdom of God is presently in our midst (higher powers and supernatural activity).

Some try to nicely explain these things away by promoting Naturalism and Humanism.

Science has become a glaring idol in many today. What they exalt. What they state as Supreme.

Those born again know science of the physical is secondary to Him on High. Christianity is a vibrant dynamic relationship with Him, not religious doctrines and teachings.

 

[Michael]

The evidence isn't dependent on my opinion. This will point you to the evidence.

It's all dependent up on 'faith' that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates are correct, in spite of all the recent evidence to the contrary. It's actually demonstrably misplaced faith at this point.

There are unexplained phenomena to be explained that have the effect of extra hidden mass. I don't know what the explanation is; I have no beliefs about that explanation.

Its more logical to believe it's composed of ordinary matter, particularly since they just found more mass in the form of plasma and gas around our own galaxy in the last five years than all the mass they knew about prior to 2012.

By the objective criteria of abduction (testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism) the evolutionary explanation is far better. Of course there must always be a degree of subjectivity in applying such criteria, but you're welcome to apply the criteria to your claim and we can compare results.

The number of people who endorse a claim has no necessary bearing on its validity.

I too embrace the concept of evolutionary theory as do the majority of Christians. I was thinking about the topic of God, and more about the existence of an "intelligent creator" that created the first life forms 'consciously' and with intent.

A simulation of the structure of the 'cosmic web' of galaxy superclusters bears a superficial resemblance to the connectivity of a single neuron; and a simulation of neutron star molecular dynamics generates a structure similar to endoplasmic reticulum, an organelle found in all eukaryotic cells (see the published paper for a rational interpretation).

Considering the fact that it's also a current carrying structure, I wouldn't call it a superficial resemblance. It also has a functional resemblance as well.

It's fanciful nonsense.

That's only a subjective opinion and a subjective (and biased) choice that your choose to make.

GR and QM are not contradictory over the bulk of their regimes, they're just different ways of modeling the same thing.

They're essentially incompatible or someone would have figured out how to merge them by now. One is used to mostly describe small particle interactions whereas the other is most a cosmological definition/description of gravity at the largest possible scales.

Most physicists think GR is an approximation to a complete theory of quantum gravity. But I'm not an expert in this, I'm reporting what they say.

I tend to agree.

You wait for the people who know what they're doing to sort it out.

If I had adopted that attitude toward religion, would you accept it too? Had I done that at different points throughout history, I'd have believed that leaches were a cure for all kinds of ailments, and that the Earth was the center of the universe.

As Feynman said, "I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

Which is why I prefer not to claim to know the age of the universe within a few hundred million years and it's "composition" down to a few percent points. I can live with ambiguity and I don't have to believe I have the whole universe figured out in every detail.

Welcome back to the real world.

What "real world"? LCDM is 95 percent metaphysics, not something tangibly 'real'.

Well, no. Once Darwin & Wallace published, the TOE was accepted surprisingly quickly in the scientific sphere - especially considering most of the leading scientists believed in the special creation of humans.

Yet at one point it was still considered a "fringe" concept by most human beings. In fact a lot of humans *still* reject the idea to this day.

Meh - I'm just judging by what you say.

From a highly subjective of point of view, and with a large amount of bias.

It was you that suggested a cosmic scale brain analogous to biological brains, signalling through plasma 'wires' or light - which, to anyone who knows the size of the observable universe in light-years - or even just the local cluster (10 million ly) , is trivially absurd.

It's only trivially absurd to you because while you'll apparently entertain any number of hypothetical constructs in astronomy, anything that implies you might be wrong about the topic of God is simply handwaved away on a personal whim. Part of your bias is undoubtedly related to the fact that your know less about EU/PC theories than I do so the concept of "wires" and such in space seems odd to you.

Lol! Someone probably knows homeopathy better than any doctor, and someone probably knows astrology better than any astronomer.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about a supernatural creation mythology that requires four separate metaphysical constructs.

Nope; their model is what it is - a rational attempt to explain phenomena;

How is it "rational" to propose four hypothetical constructs in *one* cosmology model? I'm only introducing one a worst case, but it would be theoretically possible to 'test" that concept in any lab whereas at least three of the metaphysical constructs of LCDM defy such testing entirely.

whereas your cosmic brain idea is a made-up fantasy of pseudoscience.

Actually, the reverse is true. Hannes Alfven described even the mainstreams use of "magnetic reconnection' theory "pseudoscience' till the day he died and that only applies to the five percent of LCMD that *isn't* metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Pots and kettles.

At worst case all but one concept I'm proposing is purely empirically demonstrated (lab demonstrated) physics. That's far better than LCDM.

Welcome to the real world.

Yet you "assume" one hypothetical construct is "pseudoscience' whereas four of them get you personal blessing. That's not the "real" world, that's just your own subjective biases running amuck.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Considering the fact that it's also a current carrying structure, I wouldn't call it a superficial resemblance. It also has a functional resemblance as well.

Nope. Neurons are not current carrying structures, they function by membrane depolarisation. The only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane.

If I had adopted that attitude toward religion, would you accept it too?

I don't care what attitude you have toward religion.

It's only trivially absurd to you because while you'll apparently entertain any number of hypothetical constructs in astronomy, anything that implies you might be wrong about the topic of God is simply handwaved away on a personal whim.

It's trivially absurd because the proposed physics obviously won't work. God doesn't come into it - unless you want to invoke miraculous intervention, in which case the physics is irrelevant.

Yet you "assume" one hypothetical construct is "pseudoscience' whereas four of them get you personal blessing.

I've blessed nothing; the physics you proposed is obvious pseudoscience.

 

[Michael]

Nope. Neurons are not current carrying structures, they function by membrane depolarisation. The only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane.

Er, I hate to break the bad news to you but the movement of charged particles *is* current. They are therefore "current carrying structures".

I don't care what attitude you have toward religion.

Dodge. You appealed to authority with respect to 'scientists' working out their "issues" with the dark universe over time, whereas you don't apply the same standard to a second cosmology model. You're using two different standards.

It's trivially absurd because the proposed physics obviously won't work.

You're making blanket assertions where none are warranted or likely to be true. We won't know unless we explore the possibility. Again, you aren't apply the same standard to both cosmology models. The proposed physics of LCDM hasn't worked in the lab, and very little of that cosmology model could ever be tested in controlled experimentation.

God doesn't come into it - unless you want to invoke miraculous intervention, in which case the physics is irrelevant.

A) I'm not invoking miraculous intervention, so B) empirical physics remains relevant.

On the other hand, LCDM is invoking miraculous intervention the moment it began, otherwise it would have imploded in an instant since it's event horizon would have been *much* larger than it's physical size. Miracles are invoked at least 4 times in LCMD, even if we *don't* include that opening miracle which defies everything we think we know about GR theory.

I've blessed nothing; the physics you proposed is obvious pseudoscience.

That's simply ridiculous. The physics that I'm proposing works here in the lab, or would be testable in the lab. The only hypothetical I might be trying to add is a single hypothetical FTL communication mechanism. We're *constantly* being surprised by the realm of QM, and we're learning to master its secrets every year.

Scientists just discovered how to track the secret movement of elusive unobserved quantum particles

Things which once seemed "impossible" are already now possible.

In a major scientific breakthrough, researchers at the University of Cambridge have discovered a way to track the "secret movements" of quantum particles when they are not being observed – a concept which was previously thought to be impossible.

You are applying *two completely different* standards of evidence to two different cosmology theories for no logical reason.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Er, I hate to break the bad news to you but the movement of charged particles *is* current. They are therefore "current carrying structures".

As I said, 'the only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane'. No significant current runs along the axons or dendrites. By all means incorporate this into your fantasy cosmic brain.

 

[Michael]

As I said, 'the only current is in the movement of ions across the membrane'. No significant current runs along the axons or dendrites. By all means incorporate this into your fantasy cosmic brain.

In a plasma universe, the moving ions are also a form of current, albeit a harder form of current to move. Probably not coincidentally, The vast majority of cosmic rays are either positively charged ions, or positrons, with only a very small percentage of electrons.