Official Call For Papers

[thaumaturgy]

What I "shared" is the fact that none of the mythical entities being proposed by Lambda-CMD theory show up in controlled experimentation.

I am intrigued by this "controlled experimentation" caveat. I am a chemist so many of the things I need to work with are available to me in the lab. However, when dealing with cosmology it seems that one cannot have a "galaxy" in the lab on which to do "controlled experiments", ergo nothing in cosmology could ever make it to the level of "science" by this determination.

But that is, of course, wrong. In the lab we can assess gravitational effects. In the lab we can view the galaxies (via telescope) and we can run the numbers.

If I, through the use of a telescope, see a toddler a half mile away and I note that light bends around him or her, am I allowed to assume that the child is far more massive than a toddler ought to be? Or will I have to go over and literally weigh the toddler? If I note that buildings are falling over and sliding toward said toddler am I allowed to make an assessment of the mass of the toddler? Or do I literally have to get the toddler to a lab and weigh him or her on an OHaus scale from Fisher Scientific supply?

What "counts" as science in this case?

I don't "get" this controlled experimentation requirement.

Let's take another example. I'm a police investigator at a murder scene. I see a man dead with a knife sticking out of his head. Do I have to resurrect the man and re-kill him with the knife in order to make a determination that he probably died from a knife wound to the head?

That is the point of any forensic use of science. To determine what happened in a case doesn't always mean you can run that specific event over. BUT in the case of gravity and light and energy we have a relatively good knowledge of how these behave. When we run the numbers on things we see off in the distance and the numbers don't add up we need to make some assumptions.

That is, to the best of my understanding of cosmological hypotheses, the very thing the astronomers are doing. They aren't resorting to some weird unheard of mathematics. In the case of dark matter they are literally using mathematics developed, in part, in the 17th century!

They cannot be anything *other than* dogma

This is an abuse of the word "dogma". A repeated abuse. Dogmatic acceptance requires no proof and is not gainsaid. In the case of dark matter and even Lambda CDM the discussion is, as far as I can tell still ongoing! Even standard science works to avoid dogmatic adherence in the most fundamental aspects. In the case of cosmology I don't know if I've ever heard anyone claim that one must simply "accept" BBT, DM, Lambda CDM, or any of it! The fact that these ideas have gained traction is not because they are forced on people but because they appear to explain the data in hand with some degree of thoroughness. Perhaps not perfect, but the only people who claim science "proves anything 100%" are people who don't understand science.

Again, I must ask, what are you kids being taught, specifically that you are so upset about? Is it that they are being taught about the Big Bang? If so, what are the alternatives?

Think about this:

J.J. Thompson "discovered" the electron through a variety of analyses, none of which actually allowed him to "see" an electron. Were scientists fools for believing in electrons from 1897 until a "single electron image" could be captured in 2004 (LINK)? Indeed, no, chemistry and physics utilized the electron despite not seeing one for well over a century.

Look at the deductive reasoning used in assessing a large number of things about the electron despite not seeing it directly. It is an analogue to the cosmological topics

because each one of those three metaphysical bad boys requires "faith" on the part of the believer, including SUSY theory. Also provided you with links to papers on Arxiv that demonstrate that SUSY theory is now the dominant "explanation' for "dark matter", yet no SUSY particle has ever been confirmed to exist in controlled empirical testing. What else could it be but "dogma"?

Dogma would be if people didn't bother to question SUSY particles. To my knowlege people do still question it. If you posit otherwise, then please provide proof that this "behavior" is dominant versus just the occasional person making ex cathedra claims about SUSY matter.

Things like antimatter started off as falling out the equations (LINK) and were later proven.

Neutrinos were "discovered" precisely because when beta decay momenta were summed up there was some missing momentum. Wofgang Pauli suggested there was a little neutral unit generated as well, but at the time no experiments could directly detect them. (LINK)

Was Fermi foolish for utilizing neutrinos in his hypotheses around Beta decay? Well, they were later discovered to be real.

It is the same kind of concept. Indeed it would have been grossly dogmatic if people insisted that "neutrinos exist and don't even bother looking for them." But that didn't happen. People kept looking for them. The momentum had to be summed up.

The same for what we know about galaxies and distant objects. We know the math reasonably well, so we need to account for discrepencies.

That doesn't make it "dogmatic" unless you think we should, when the math doesn't sum up, just jettison all math and sit around staring at each other. No, we have to leverage the information we have and the stuff we do know to expand our reach.

If this is somehow "dogmatic" to you, then perhaps you have an overly sensitive idea of what "dogmatism" is.

I honestly don't see that in the current state of cosmology.

If you have evidence that these things actually exist in nature, let's see it.

Again, the math and observed science shows that something must be invoked to make the calculations work out. It doesn't mean people have proclaimed they know exactly what Dark Matter or Dark Energy exactly are. In fact, as the various links posted seem to show, that matter is still under some amount of discussion.

If not, you simply buy the dogma that's been handed you without empirical justification. That's faith, not science.

And that is precisely what almost no one is doing here. I've personally posted the information I've seen. Of course I didn't run the experiments myself and I don't have the skill to fully understand all the details, but I see a goodly amount of reasonable information that seems to support the proposed hypothesis.

Got a single gram of "dark matter"?

Actually perhaps we do! Perhaps dark matter is little more than cold hydrogen gas clouds, or brown dwarfs. We simply can't see what it is! It doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be something wholly exotic or unheard of! That's the whole point!

Here's a quote from the NASA site I linked to earlier:

Some dark matter may be composed of regular matter (ie., baryonic), but simply not give off much light. Things like brown dwarf stars would be in this catagory. Other non-baryonic dark matter may be tiny, sub-atomic particles which aren't a part of "normal" matter at all. (SOURCE)

This is both non-dogmatic and open-ended. Some might be quite exotic, some might be common everyday material like we experience here on earth.

(What manner of dogmatism do you imagine is in this sort of statement? It doesn't match any version of the term "dogmatic" I've ever seen.)

What makes you think that they didn't just blow their mass calculations big time?

You mean all of the astronomers around the world? Are they all such morons that it takes the word of a random poster on Christian Forums to expose the emperor's clothing?

(BTW: I'm not saying that NASA is above making errors, we've seen that. But the large number of astronomers around the world? Simultaneously failing math?)

 

[plindboe]

Well, it's definitely taught in school, so evidently you're irked about the term "dogma". I've explained to you several times that there is no physical empirical evidence that inflation or DE or SUSY particles exist, so it's impossible for it to be anything other than "dogma" that one must accept on faith.

Teaching something as dogma means teaching it as fact that can not be doubted or questioned. If students of science are taught about the different popular hypotheses out there, so they get a grasp about what ideas are floating around in the scientific community, but are also taught to question, that's the ideal science education. They'll be the ones falsifying or verifying these ideas in a near future.

If your definition of dogma is simply that something is lacking in evidence, then all new hypotheses are dogma. It renders the word entirely useless.

I accept it.

Good to hear.

What else would you call it if not dogma?

Hypotheses.

If I asked you for a gram of ordinary matter, or some physical evidence that it exists, would you have a problem providing it? Why should I put faith in something that fails to show up in a lab 100% of the time?

Can you provide me with a gram of brontosaur flesh? A gram of neutrinos? A gram of the Earth's core? A gram of Djengis Khan? A gram of quasar? A gram of Neptune? A gram of Jimmy Hoffa? Do I need to go on?

Fact is that there are many ways to establish the existance of something, and few of them involve someone placing a gram of material on a lab desk. We'd be back in the dark ages if the only things science would accept were the macroscopic materials we can produce here on the Earth's surface.

No, I simply accept that our galaxy estimates are way off and that we grossly underestimate the mass of galaxies. Period.

I accept that the mass is underestimated too, hence I accept the existence of dark matter. I already explained to you that DM is nothing more than a tentative placeholder name.

I've also been clear that some forms of "missing mass" theories (like MACHO or neutrino forms) are not "unacceptable" to me because they are known to exist and we can't "see" them from here, so there is no "extraordinary" claim being made when using these things to 'explain' matter we can't easily locate in satellite images. If however you intent to use hypothetical SUSY particles to fill in the gaps of your mass estimation theories, I will expect to see evidence that SUSY particles actually exist in nature and have the "properties' you assign to them. I'm not asking for anything unusual here.

Question the hypothesis then. Nothing wrong with that. But to question the existance of dark matter because you don't accept a particular hypothesis makes no sense.

Peter

 

[Michael]

I am intrigued by this "controlled experimentation" caveat.

Before I get to the rest of your response, perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you chose atheism over theism?

 

[uke2se]

No. My argument is that all "creation theories" tend to be based on a "different state past", be it via "inflation" or some other "different state past".

So why are we arguing about your argument in this thread which is dedicated to evidence for DSP? 15 pages of off-topic arguments...

 

[dad]

For someone who *****studied******** for "30 years" he "sure" aint leanred very *************************MUCH*************************

this is from them "ignorant hillbillies' at "NASA"

I have to admit, that they make the flat earthers look smart. They flatten the universe.

Is the Universe Infinite?

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity.

Not at all. It is determined by the Designer. Looking at the pulls and pushes of the universe does not tell us much, actually. Only when we add the imagined ages, and godless self creation of all things would that begin to have any meaning.

The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho,

I question that. Redshift cannot be taken only to mean that what we know here and now makes a redshift was the cause of the red shifting in deep deep space. The changed state of the universe, and effects on light, for example may account for that. Therefore, redshifting in deep space does not need to mean that something is racing away from us. And we could also look at the basis of the other thinngs that are used in cooking up the expansion claims.

[

while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe.

Indeed, and also the time in which gravity existed! If it was not here as we know it in the early uniivverse, we cannot attribute things to it. We also need to know that all the universe always was just physical matter. Otherwise, the spiritual also needs to be taken into account in figuring out what affected what at creation.

If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density.

No, physical objects in a temporal universe cannot possibly dictate the fate of the universe. The whole model here is an excersise in imagining that nothing else but what we on earth now know ever existed. Ridiculous really.

If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever.

If, if if if if if. If in other words, the universe was and is and always will be physical only material, with present laws, then we might see it expand forever. Pure conjecture.

If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch".

False. That assumes it came from itself, or at least came from something all by itself, (little soup) to begin with. There again, is conjecture.


[quoote]However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". [/quote]

Ha!! The mis interpreting of supernova, again, by assuming all things always happened because of and in this temporal universe state, leads to another conclusion. Then, in keeping up with inventing purely present state causes for all things, even wrongly arrived at things, ---they must declare 95% or some such number, of the universe mysterious pixie stuff. Stuff that is invented.

If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

IF, if if if. If dark energy is a same state invention it played no part in anything ever. Neither is there actual evidence for expansion. Or maybe I miss something important???? If you have evidence, please bring it on.

... the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper. That is the result confirmed by the WMAP science.

No. That is the resullt of a belief system that is ridiculous and baseless.

Measurements from WMAP

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.

No. If the universe came from a speck, and if it were more than a temporal state, and if there was no God, then, the spots we would expect would be a certain way. But the spots alone are better interpreted as a remnant from a changed universe.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

No. That is all baselss conjecture, and revolves around a physical only universe and nothing else ever that was at play. It is a what if scenario, and the spots are interpreted only that way. Narrow indeed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Before I get to the rest of your response, perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you chose atheism over theism?

That has already been explained. I fail to see any evidence for theism, ergo I fail to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

That has already been explained. I fail to see any evidence for theism, ergo I fail to reject the null hypothesis.

So how are inflation or dark energy any different in your mind? What evidence is there that inflation does anything to anything? What evidence is there that "dark energy" causes acceleration?

 

[Michael]

Teaching something as dogma means teaching it as fact that can not be doubted or questioned.

Suppose I suggested that we teach everyone YEC in school, but they *are* allowed to question it. Would that be acceptable to you?

If students of science are taught about the different popular hypotheses out there, so they get a grasp about what ideas are floating around in the scientific community, but are also taught to question, that's the ideal science education. They'll be the ones falsifying or verifying these ideas in a near future.

How exactly would you suggest they go about falsifying something like inflation if those dark flows aren't enough to blow that theory out of the water? Dark energy? Where does that come from? Where do I get some?

If your definition of dogma is simply that something is lacking in evidence, then all new hypotheses are dogma. It renders the word entirely useless.

Dogma is something that can't be killed off no matter how much evidence to the contrary might exist. For instance, those holes in the WMAP data and the "dark flows" we observe defy the "predictions" of inflation. Since inflation has never been shown to actually exist in nature, and since all the "predictions" of inflation are constantly being 'revised' to make it fit, how would we ever falsify the idea? When did 'dark energy' cause anything here on Earth to accelerate? Why should I believe "dark energy" isn't a figment of their collective imagination?

Hypotheses.

But these "hypothesis" are absolutely impossible to verify or falsify. You can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, let alone explain how it causes a whole universe to accelerate.

Can you provide me with a gram of brontosaur flesh?

No, but I can provide you with fossilize bone structure. I know they existed on Earth at sometime in the past. There's nothing 'supernatural' about the idea of dead animals leaving fossil records. What other vector or scalar field in nature do you know of that undergoes multiple exponential increases in volume and experience little or no change in density? Where does "dark energy" come from exactly?

A gram of neutrinos?

I have plenty of physical experiments that demonstrate they actually exist in nature and I can tell you where they come from!

A gram of the Earth's core? A gram of Djengis Khan? A gram of quasar? A gram of Neptune? A gram of Jimmy Hoffa? Do I need to go on?

Yes. All of these things were/are real things composed of normal, everyday materials. If you claimed that Jimmy or Neptune wasn't made of elements from the periodic table, but instead was made of "zigglysnort" matter, *THAT* would be an "extraordinary" claim and you would be required to at least demonstrate that zigglesnort matter actually exist in nature.

Fact is that there are many ways to establish the existance of something, and few of them involve someone placing a gram of material on a lab desk.

So how did you establish that 'dark energy' exists and has the effect you claim? Inflation?

I accept that the mass is underestimated too, hence I accept the existence of dark matter. I already explained to you that DM is nothing more than a tentative placeholder name.

Except of course for the fact that astronomers keep trying to "explain" DM with SUSY particles that do not exist in nature.

Question the hypothesis then. Nothing wrong with that. But to question the existance of dark matter because you don't accept a particular hypothesis makes no sense.

Peter

Funny how you accept that "dark matter", "dark energy" and "inflation" could exist, but you reject the notion of God. Why? What's the difference between the dead inflation deity and God again?

 

[thaumaturgy]

So how are inflation or dark energy any different in your mind?

In the same way I've never seen an electron but I believe in their existence because they explain behavior of physical effects.

(Frankly I don't much care one way or the other about Dark matter/Dark Energy precisely because I don't have to use them, and as such I won't worry if something is proven one way or the other about them. That's part of the joy of science in that new things can be discovered and it doesn't destroy everything around us.)

 

[Hespera]

i think what we have here is someone who is convinced / has convinced himself that
science is a (false) religion and that all scientists are part of a conspiracy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

i think what we have here is someone who is convinced / has convinced himself that
science is a (false) religion and that all scientists are part of a conspiracy.

I think what Michael is trying to say is that without observational science (ie controlled experimentation, presumably in a lab?) that we cannot "prove" various events just after the Big Bang ergo we are believing in it based on "faith" which, in Michael's estimation, is indistinguishable from religious faith.

Now I will grant since I am not a cosmologist I have to have some amount of "faith" that the large number of cosmologists and astronomers who feel the Big Bang and subsequent behavior explains the universe as it is now are not lying to me. But indeed in the matter of what I've read the justifications and the math I can grasp for concepts around the Big Bang are quite reasonable.

Clearly many other astronomers feel this way as well.

What I think Michael is guilty of is to conflate these two types of behavior as being purely equivalent, which they are not. I think he is also guilty of a type of strawman argument by insisting this is all somehow "dogmatic". It is an incorrect use of the term "dogmatic" as Plindboe has pointed out.

Unobserved past events often leave a trail of evidence (hence my discussion of "forensic sciences")

Religious faith is dogmatic since there is no way to rely on any single religious belief system to explain the world that results in one belief system being overwhelming better than another in explaining why the world is as it is (otherwise we would have little reason for having so many competing religious beliefs some of which are quite jarringly different in important details)

What Michael seems to be avoiding is the real use of MODELS to explain reality. If a model has factors that effectively explain the system then the model has some merit. If that model is made up of ad hoc explanations then it is weaker.

He appears to feel that the only way to verify the "forensic" nature of unobserved past is to test it in the lab, which obviously cannot be done. However he is ignoring the very real testing that is ongoing in the lab on various forms of matter, gravity, light, etc.

THAT'S what is being tested and the features of these things are used to explore things beyond our physical grasp (ie galaxies).

If I learn how to use spectroscopy and the behavior of light then I can use it to probe distant objects which I cannot test directly in the lab. Same for things like gravity etc.

 

[Michael]

In the same way I've never seen an electron but I believe in their existence because they explain behavior of physical effects.

Electron Gets Film Debut In First-ever Video Of Its Kind

That seems like a poor comparison since electrons show up in controlled experimentation and have in fact been 'seen". Compare and contrast that with inflation which has never done anything to anything in a controlled experiment and never will.

(Frankly I don't much care one way or the other about Dark matter/Dark Energy precisely because I don't have to use them, and as such I won't worry if something is proven one way or the other about them.

You don't have to care much for God for that matter. Why then go to a religious website to debate religion, but allow dark energy and inflation proponents a free pass?

That's part of the joy of science in that new things can be discovered and it doesn't destroy everything around us.)

Except inflation is dead, it can *never* do anything to anything in a controlled experiment.

 

[Michael]

i think what we have here is someone who is convinced / has convinced himself that
science is a (false) religion and that all scientists are part of a conspiracy.

Not me. I love science. I have a great deal of respect for "real" science that shows up in 'real' controlled experimentation. My computer is a great example of a wonderful use of technology. On the other hand all creation mythologies suffer from the same problem. None of them have any empirical support and none of the time frames proposed for a "creation date" can be supported in an empirical manner.

 

[Michael]

I think what Michael is trying to say is that without observational science (ie controlled experimentation, presumably in a lab?) that we cannot "prove" various events just after the Big Bang ergo we are believing in it based on "faith" which, in Michael's estimation, is indistinguishable from religious faith.

As it relates to Lambda-CDM theory and all creation theories, that is certainly the case. A dead inflation deity is certainly no better than any other religion, and in fact it's really far worse than most religions in the sense that one can never even hope to verify the existence of inflation, whereas most folks believe their faith in God will one day be vindicated, up close and personal.

Now I will grant since I am not a cosmologist I have to have some amount of "faith" that the large number of cosmologists and astronomers who feel the Big Bang and subsequent behavior explains the universe as it is now are not lying to me.

But every theist that has reported to have a relationship with God has lied to you?

But indeed in the matter of what I've read the justifications and the math I can grasp for concepts around the Big Bang are quite reasonable.

Math related to invisible elves is hard a "justification" of anything. Would it be ok if I just called it "God energy" and used the same math to support that idea?

Clearly many other astronomers feel this way as well.

Many theists feel they've communed with God too. So?

Unobserved past events often leave a trail of evidence (hence my discussion of "forensic sciences")

So "God did it" is not forensic science, but "inflation did it" is forensic science? What's the empirical difference between these two statements?

Religious faith is dogmatic since there is no way to rely on any single religious belief system to explain the world that results in one belief system being overwhelming better than another in explaining why the world is as it is (otherwise we would have little reason for having so many competing religious beliefs some of which are quite jarringly different in important details)

Have you seen all the different theories about inflation recently? Which *ONE* of them is correct? Hairy inflation? Standard inflation? Some other brand?

What Michael seems to be avoiding is the real use of MODELS to explain reality. If a model has factors that effectively explain the system then the model has some merit. If that model is made up of ad hoc explanations then it is weaker.

How is a "model' of "dark energy" any different than the same model composed of "God energy" and the same math formulas?

He appears to feel that the only way to verify the "forensic" nature of unobserved past is to test it in the lab, which obviously cannot be done. However he is ignoring the very real testing that is ongoing in the lab on various forms of matter, gravity, light, etc.

I'm not ignoring anything that can be shown to have a tangible effect on real things in real controlled experiments. There is however no empirical justification for dark energy or SUSY theory, or inflation mythologies. In fact those "dark flows" blow inflation theory out of the water and you don't even seem to care. Why?

Inflation isn't being "tested" in any sort of controlled experimentation. Folks simply point at the sky, add some math and claim "my new made up thingy did it.", see, here's the math to prove it!

 

[Michael]

FYI, I'll be out of the office for the next few days doing trainings down in Texas. I'll be offline for a few days.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As it relates to Lambda-CDM theory and all creation theories, that is certainly the case. A dead inflation deity is certainly no better than any other religion, and in fact it's really far worse than most religions in the sense that one can never even hope to verify the existence of inflation, whereas most folks believe their faith in God will one day be vindicated, up close and personal.

Can I please ask you to explain what is so repellent about inflation?

Are you against the idea of an early exponential or quasi-exponential expansion followed by the later power-law expansion we see today? Or is it the existence of scalar fields which may have the appropriate features of energy density changes that fit with Inflation?

Again, to my knowledge, this is hardly a topic that is taught "dogmatically". This is stuff I've never dealt with and I have a PhD in the physical sciences! From what I've been able to tell Big Bang theory predates Inflationary hypotheses and inflationary hypotheses weren't introduced until the 1980's.

Considering that physicists themselves have yet to verify a scalar field I find it interesting that you somehow have your kids in a school for which this is "dogmatic".

But every theist that has reported to have a relationship with God has lied to you?

No, I assume they are mistaken. Precisely because there are so many disparate versions of what God is or isn't or is like or wants or doesn't want. Despite literally thousands of years of religious "study".

Math related to invisible elves is hard a "justification" of anything.

Let's take "Dark Matter" as a simpler example. I will reiterate my example of the 895 lb toddler. I know how scales work, I know somewhat about how gravity works, am I to look at the 895lb toddler and assume that all of space-time and all mathematics is broken or do I assume there is some weight which I do not perceive is on the child?

Would it be ok if I just called it "God energy" and used the same math to support that idea?

Sure! But of course that has a somewhat different meaning if you were to then say "God Energy" wants me to go to a building on Sundays, pray to it, tell it I love it, and it will reward me with blessings. And when my child is sick it is because I didn't pray to God Energy or because I failed to believe that God Energy sent his only begotten son who is both him and not-him simultaneously, to die on the cross for my sins, etc.

You can call it anything you like. It's what one does with the concept that makes religion less tenable than most hypothetical science.

So "God did it" is not forensic science

Most assuredly. Because there is no reason to assume a "God" being or state existed at any point. The math works out quite well without it.

As for "inflation"? Well, originally Einstein apparently altered the equations of relativity to make the universe a "static" universe, neither expanding nor collapsing. Hubble found that the universe was expanding so "... Einstein retracted this alteration, calling it the biggest blunder of his life." (SOURCE)

It sounds like inflation is a modification of the Big Bang idea in an attempt to account for homogeneity and flatness of the universe.

But again, I don't see this as being "dogmatic" in any real sense of that word. To my knowledge this is theoretical enough and hypothetical enough that it is little more than a concept still under development.

In other words: I don't get what the complaint is?

How many wars have been fought and people murdered in defense of Inflation? How many under the rubrick of some religious fervor or justification thereby?

There's a difference. This is a model used to understand why we have the universe we have today using physical concepts that carry with them no moral imperative or "will" or "mind" etc.

, but "inflation did it" is forensic science?

Again, you seem to be slamming a "model" based on calculations. I am unsure what your beef is with this.

Here's another salient point: Inflationary Cosmology has been around, what, 29 years now? Religion has been around since mankind first started communicating with each other thousands of years ago.

Religion has yet to provide a workable model that was even marginally "universal" (ie believed by the majority of humans). We have and have had countless "alternatives" for what God is or isn't, and they are all based on people's "guesses" without any real physical input or even necessity for that input.

How is a "model' of "dark energy" any different than the same model composed of "God energy" and the same math formulas?

You are playing a "word game" here because you and I both know that when someone says "God energy" they are not just using a random word. In discussing God they attribute a will, a mind, and usually various moral imperatives, none of which are even "model-able".

If, however, you wish to call dark energy "God energy" and it means the same thing then you have effectively eliminated the meaning of the word "God" at which point this discussion becomes pointless.

those "dark flows" blow inflation theory out of the water and you don't even seem to care. Why?

Well, because I'm not a cosmologist. I'm not the one who complained about kids being taught this stuff dogmatically. To my knowledge almost none of this is taught at anything prior to university which is precisely where it should be taught, discussed and explored.

What is your "end game" here? That we DON'T allow theoretical physicists to run calculations unless they can, within a couple of days run actual lab experiments?

Do you realize how that would hamstring science? That's why I wrote the earlier post about anti-matter and neutrinos (cf HERE)!

Inflation isn't being "tested" in any sort of controlled experimentation. Folks simply point at the sky, add some math and claim "my new made up thingy did it.", see, here's the math to prove it!

I rather assumed you were more familiar with how science and things like atomic, subatomic and quantum theory have evolved over the years.

Again, I will refer you to my earlier post on how theoretical physics "predicted" the need for neutrinos and antimatter long before they were discovered.

But again, you seem to live in some place where children are dogmatically taught stuff that in the universe that I have been living in (and teaching chemistry and geology in, I might add), is usually reserved for college and graduate school discussions.

But since I don't have kids in primary school I can't really say that they aren't being taught that. So few seem capable of reading at an age-appropriate level it is only rational to assume they are being inculcated into some cult of Inflationary Cosmology instead.

 

[Michael]

Can I please ask you to explain what is so repellent about inflation?

Besides the fact it's a pure ad hoc creation and completely unverifiable and unfalsifiable?

Are you against the idea of an early exponential or quasi-exponential expansion followed by the later power-law expansion we see today? Or is it the existence of scalar fields which may have the appropriate features of energy density changes that fit with Inflation?

Power law? What power law? It's like creating a "power law" curve fitting exercise using "elf magic"! How do you fit a power curve with something purely 'made up' in someone's head? How do I verify it actually *does anything to anything* to see if these numbers are viable? Give me a break. The whole thing was a purely ad hoc creation right from the mind of Guth. It became a "meme" and now were all stuck with it.

Again, to my knowledge, this is hardly a topic that is taught "dogmatically". This is stuff I've never dealt with and I have a PhD in the physical sciences! From what I've been able to tell Big Bang theory predates Inflationary hypotheses and inflationary hypotheses weren't introduced until the 1980's.

Exactly! Guth literally made it up in his head. Inflation does not exist outside of the human imagination. It has no effect on anything in nature.

Considering that physicists themselves have yet to verify a scalar field I find it interesting that you somehow have your kids in a school for which this is "dogmatic".

Considering the fact that inflation does not show up in a real experiment, and it's still the 'main theory' of how we all got here, what else can it be except religious dogma? Ever notice what happens to someone who "doubts" inflation or who questions it? They get hassled no end.

No, I assume they are mistaken.

Why? Your own personal experiences (or lack thereof) surely cannot be considered anything other than a "subjective' experience. What makes you think your personal experiences of God or lack thereof are indicative of the *ENTIRE* human population? Ever known anyone who claimed to have a personal relationship with inflation? How come they aren't "mistaken" too?

Precisely because there are so many disparate versions of what God is or isn't or is like or wants or doesn't want. Despite literally thousands of years of religious "study".

Oh for goodness sake, go over to Arxiv and read on all the new forms of "inflation" we've "discovered" since the 80's. That last paper I read was on "hairy inflation". There's nearly as many inflation theories now as major religions.

I've got to get some sleep so I'll stop here for the time being. I must say however that your "disbelief" towards religious theories is anything but congruent with they way you treat inflation theory. Nobody on Earth ever claimed to have communed with inflation, and I can even tell you the individual that invented that particular "religion" in his "imagination". The inflation deity is evidently dead now too, so it's a really stupid religion. It's too bad that you don't apply your skepticism equally toward all non empirically demonstrated entities. All of these "creation theories" still leave open the possibility of a "creator", yet you refuse to even consider that idea, even though your own personal lack of experience is purely subjective at best. Inflation is way worse than any religion because you have no hope at all of ever demonstrating the validity of inflation theory and there are many observations that contradict that theory. While some religious beliefs may in fact be at odds with physical science, many are not. Inflation theory is certainly at odd with those "dark flows" and those "holes" they find in our universe.

 

[Michael]

Most assuredly. Because there is no reason to assume a "God" being or state existed at any point. The math works out quite well without it.

Gah! There is absolutely no reason to believe that inflation existed at any point! The math only "works out" because the whole thing is "made up". I could just as easily pilfer the math, call it "God did it with his breath" and the math for God works out just fine too! The only difference between God's breath and inflation is that human beings *DO* claim to experience the presence of God in their life, but nobody claims to have a personal relationship with a dead inflation deity!

As for "inflation"? Well, originally Einstein apparently altered the equations of relativity to make the universe a "static" universe, neither expanding nor collapsing. Hubble found that the universe was expanding so "... Einstein retracted this alteration, calling it the biggest blunder of his life." (SOURCE)

So really, Lambda-CMD theory is just "blunder theory" that's been resurrected from the dead. And you though resurrection from the dead was limited to religious ideas now didn't you?

It sounds like inflation is a modification of the Big Bang idea in an attempt to account for homogeneity and flatness of the universe.

Yet is it not homogeneous as those dark flows and holes demonstrate, and there is no way you can demonstrate any of these CLAIMED properties of inflation in the first place. There's no evidence that inflation does anything to anything here on Earth, so how do you know it *COULD* lead to a "flat" universe in the first place? Pure faith?

But again, I don't see this as being "dogmatic" in any real sense of that word. To my knowledge this is theoretical enough and hypothetical enough that it is little more than a concept still under development.

The only "development" going on is based upon adding "new and improved properties' to inflation in a purely ad hoc manner to make it fit that power curve and anything else they can come up with. There's no evidence that inflation exists or ever existed, so this is purely a "dogma" that I am supposed to put "faith in", or else (I won't pass the course).

How many wars have been fought and people murdered in defense of Inflation? How many under the rubrick of some religious fervor or justification thereby?

How many good careers have been ruined because the individual refused to "believe the party line"? How many folks like ARP, and Alfven and Bruce are there who's work has been ignored for decades?

There's a difference. This is a model used to understand why we have the universe we have today using physical concepts that carry with them no moral imperative or "will" or "mind" etc.

So what? There's nothing preventing any theist from claiming "God did it with inflation and dark energy" and you're right back to those same moral imperatives.

Again, you seem to be slamming a "model" based on calculations. I am unsure what your beef is with this.

I am slamming the idea of coming up with a term, say "God's breath" and slapping on math to make it fit some observation in the sky. The only thing that seems to prevent you from accepting the fact that "God's breath did it" based upon the same math as "inflation did it" based on exactly the same math formulas, is that you don't seem to like moral imperatives. I don't see the point of slapping math on invisible thing that don't exist in nature.

Here's another salient point: Inflationary Cosmology has been around, what, 29 years now? Religion has been around since mankind first started communicating with each other thousands of years ago.

How does that help your case? I would simply compare inflation theory to something like Scientology. Both dogmas were created by a single individual and it's been around only a short period of time. So what?

Religion has yet to provide a workable model that was even marginally "universal" (ie believed by the majority of humans).

Are you under the impression that astronomers are all in agreement on the notions of dark energy, inflation and dark matter?

We have and have had countless "alternatives" for what God is or isn't, and they are all based on people's "guesses" without any real physical input or even necessity for that input.

And this is different from inflation theory in what way?

You are playing a "word game" here because you and I both know that when someone says "God energy" they are not just using a random word.

Whereas "dark energy" is random?

In discussing God they attribute a will, a mind, and usually various moral imperatives, none of which are even "model-able".

So? It's just one more unsupported claim. There are already three unsupported claims in Lambda-CMD theory so what's one more? The exact same math will let me "model" any term I choose to use.

If, however, you wish to call dark energy "God energy" and it means the same thing then you have effectively eliminated the meaning of the word "God" at which point this discussion becomes pointless.

No, you missed the point entirely. *MY* new "dogma" gives a "reason" for the universe just "Godflating" one day. My new dogma explains the "reason" why the universe decided to change states one day, whereas current theory leaves that process completely unexplained.

Well, because I'm not a cosmologist. I'm not the one who complained about kids being taught this stuff dogmatically. To my knowledge almost none of this is taught at anything prior to university which is precisely where it should be taught, discussed and explored.

So as long as YEC is taught only in college, that's ok by you?

What is your "end game" here? That we DON'T allow theoretical physicists to run calculations unless they can, within a couple of days run actual lab experiments?

My end game is to point out to you that your belief in dead inflation deities is no different than any religious belief. The only thing that is 'different' about it is that someone added a bit of math to the mix and claimed "God's breath" (or inflation if you prefer) did it.

Do you realize how that would hamstring science? That's why I wrote the earlier post about anti-matter and neutrinos (cf HERE)!

Yet you don't feel your own beliefs are "hamstrung" because you refuse to accept the presence of a "creator" in creation? Hmmm. Interesting double standard you have going there don't you think?

Again, I will refer you to my earlier post on how theoretical physics "predicted" the need for neutrinos and antimatter long before they were discovered.

These ideas however came from *controlled experimentation*, not some wild imaginings of one guy one night who had some religious epiphany about dead inflation deities.

But again, you seem to live in some place where children are dogmatically taught stuff that in the universe that I have been living in (and teaching chemistry and geology in, I might add), is usually reserved for college and graduate school discussions.

This is an incredibly lame argument IMO because you would *NOT* agree to allow colleges and universities to teach YEC and use your tax dollars to pay for it would you? What difference does it make *WHEN* the dogma is handed to you in school?

 

[thaumaturgy]

so this is purely a "dogma" that I am supposed to put "faith in", or else (I won't pass the course).

I am beginning to get a feeling this whole argument is some diatribe against the big machine that denies the poor little guy a say. The prophet in the wilds who is ignored by the pharisees in the city. Fine.

I know that in fact science has shunned outsiders and new hypotheses do get shunted aside until they've proven themselves time and again or with such overwhelming power that they become accepted. Kind of like the asteroid collision at the K-T boundary.

But I don't buy it as being a rational critique of all science. Ideas that have more reason to be believed are usually believed until more information comes along.

I will reiterate here for about the umpteenth time I'm not a cosmologist, so I'm not going to blather on about the cosmology. I am satisfied with what I've seen, but I recognize it isn't even close to a full understanding of the topic. But when you get around to YEC later on, that I can talk about in some great amount of depth if you like, since I am a PhD geologist).

I will grant that the reality of the current state of cosmology is in flux and indeed I'm sure if your going hammer and tongs with your college professors (or whatever your back-story is) over these topics, then that's actually a good thing.

I've been in science now for almost 3 decades. I've seen sloppy science enforced by inertia but for the most part when something is a global topic investigated by countless unrelated researchers, the sad fact is, there is likely no grand conspiracy to keep one idea down at the expense of another, lesser hypothesis.

I posted what little information I found to explain why the idea of inflation was hypothesized, but again, I'm not a cosmology undergrad or whatever you are, so it is meaningless for me to mount some strident defense of the topic. It would serve no purpose.

If, however, you want me to accept "god did it" as part and parcel of it, then you must grant that that is a loaded concept that reaches far beyond the mechanisms involved. "God" implies a will (not necessary or evident from the formation of the universe) and simply applies an additional level of unprovenness to the whole system. Now we have to account for an eternal being (an eternal mind, will, whatever) that is not required to be added on top of the already difficult concept of "ultimate origins".

If you think it reasonable to add more unnecessary factors to a model, then you and I have very different approaches to doing science. If you further take that as a counterpoint to negate the idea of "inflation" then I don't see what kind of modeling you are doing. I've never seen a model improve by adding unnecessary factors.

How many good careers have been ruined because the individual refused to "believe the party line"? How many folks like ARP, and Alfven and Bruce are there who's work has been ignored for decades?

And you think this is some grand conspiracy? Did ARP, Alfven and Bruce do something to a large number of astronomers and cosmologists that they would be singled out for such bad universal treatment?

I personally don't have enough time to bother with some grand conspiracies.

I already granted that some good science takes time to make it up to the level of acceptance, and sometimes it's to the detriment of science, but I hardly see that as how science works in the longrun. If an idea is valid, as they say "the truth will out". It always seems to.

So what? There's nothing preventing any theist from claiming "God did it with inflation and dark energy" and you're right back to those same moral imperatives.

That's what Theistic Evolution does. It has no meaning to me as long as it doesn't muck up the science. It's a crutch for those who can't face the universe without a personal god who loves them. That's OK for them. Most of my friends in science are like that. I'm fine with that. As long as they don't try to plug "God" into the equation.

How does that help your case? I would simply compare inflation theory to something like Scientology

It "helps my case" in that I think it is unlikely that this is such a grand "dogma", and religion has had far longer to "prove its point" to no real success than any given scientific concept, especially one that is so relatively "young".

. Both dogmas were created by a single individual and it's been around only a short period of time. So what?

So Inflation is all the work of some single Svengali who has his hands on the puppet strings of the large number of cosmologists and who brutally enforces this dogma across all universities and even into little kids schools? (I can't help but notice you keep dodging the impression that you gave that this is dogmatically taught to children).

Presumably there is some reason for cosmologists to talk about it with the frequency they do. But again, I don't know. I'm not a cosmologist.

If this is the case and astronomy departments are run by some illuminati-type group somewhere in a mountain fortress brutishly enforcing the "party line" across the globe then I'm sorry for that. Maybe you should choose a different major?

Or at least take heart and keep up the revolution you are fomenting. If anything in science is run that badly it should be fought against. I wasn't aware that Astronomy and Cosmology was under the sway of one man.

Are you under the impression that astronomers are all in agreement on the notions of dark energy, inflation and dark matter?

I rather assumed they weren't. I assume that relatively new hypotheses are always under conjecture until proven. At least most of the stuff I've posted on this board has indicated it is still largely theoretical and awaiting further proof.

Did I give the impression that this is somehow "Dogmatic"?

But more importantly whey you indicate that not all astronomers are in agreement with this then it would seem to undercut your own claims that this is dogmatically taught to kids.

Now I have to ask why you don't move your kids to a different school? If it is dogmatically taught to the point that some people have their careers destroyed for not toeing the company line, then why would you later indicate it is not universally accepted? I am growing confused by your rhetoric here.

No, you missed the point entirely. *MY* new "dogma" gives a "reason" for the universe just "Godflating" one day. My new dogma explains the "reason" why the universe decided to change states one day, whereas current theory leaves that process completely unexplained.

What's your new dogma again? Does it involve "God"? So you take a mysterious point in time in which something happened which we can't quite yet understand and you add "God" into it and that somehow makes it a superior hypothesis?

Did I get it right?

I hope not. Because, as I said, in my years of doing statistical design of experiment I've never seen a model improve by adding unnecessary factors.

So as long as YEC is taught only in college, that's ok by you?

Don't be confused, indeed, we did talk about YEC stuff while learning geology. Remember the history of geology started off with YEC as the foundational assumption that was later supplanted by science.

I believe I've already pointed out why YEC is a failure. It isn't science, it isn't even marginally like science. It has no data, it has no hypotheses that are in any way superior to old earth models.

If you would like to take this debate to the field of geology I'd be more than glad to do so.

Further, Creationism can and should be taught in religious studies/mythology classes all the time. Perhaps even in political science classes since it only seems to play out in those fields these days. It has never provided anything but stumbling blocks in science. It is, however a very active mythology, religious studies, and political topic.

My end game is to point out to you that your belief in dead inflation deities

I hope I didn't give you the impression I believe in inflation dogmatically! I really couldn't care less about it. I'll wait until more data comes in, until more science is done around it. It will continue.

I've got more on my plate. I've got some AP chemistry students to tutor and I've got a full-time job as an R&D chemist in industry to take care of. I'm not a cosmologist. I don't care one way or another.

But I'm also under no impression that this is being taught dogmatically to impressionable kiddies. I rather assumed, based on the stuff I've read about it, that it is discussed at length in universities.

Here's a quick challenge to you: go around to the kids in your neighborhood and ask them what the Planck Density is.

is no different than any religious belief.

Well, with the possible exception that I don't care about inflation whether it exists or not. If I were a Christian and I said I didn't care about Jesus I'd have a tough time being a Christian.

If Inflation is real even unbelievers won't be punished. If God is real then we atheists might be punished. Inflation, like any concept in science, doesn't need your worship or love.

The only thing that is 'different' about it is that someone added a bit of math to the mix and claimed "God's breath" (or inflation if you prefer) did it.

I think it's the "added a bit of math to the mix" part that is kind of important there.

Yet you don't feel your own beliefs are "hamstrung" because you refuse to accept the presence of a "creator" in creation?

Please be technically correct, it is not that I refuse to accept the presence of a creator...it is that I fail to see reason to assume there is a creator.

If adding in unnecessary factors to a model improves the model then indeed I am doing something terribly wrong and my "beliefs" are hamstrung.

Hmmm. Interesting double standard you have going there don't you think?

Hardly.

These ideas however came from *controlled experimentation*, not some wild imaginings of one guy one night who had some religious epiphany about dead inflation deities.

Not quite. Antimatter was predicted by Dirac from an equation.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The history of antimatter begins with a young physicist named Paul Dirac and the strange implications of a mathematical equation... (SOURCE)

[/FONT]

It was not "observed" prior to the prediction. It fell out of the math and only then started the "hunt" for antimatter.

What difference does it make *WHEN* the dogma is handed to you in school?

Well, if I recall you were the one who claimed:

My kids are being taught this garbage in school.

Personally I am still quite dubious your kids are being taught this before college, and in college all things can be discussed. As I said at the time, perhaps you need to let your kid complete his or her graduate degree before getting too bent out of shape about this.

If little kids are being indoctrinated in anything it is a shame. It is hard to teach little kids about quantum mechanics and general relativity and still have them be able to grasp all the subtleties. But college kids are another matter. They can usually handle the details better.

 

[Michael]

I am beginning to get a feeling this whole argument is some diatribe against the big machine that denies the poor little guy a say. The prophet in the wilds who is ignored by the pharisees in the city. Fine.

No, I'm complaining that there is no way to distinguish between Lambda-gumby theory and a religion because both idea require "faith" in things that cannot be physically demonstrated. I can easily demonstrate this point simply by renaming your metaphysical friends and calling them "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter".

But I don't buy it as being a rational critique of all science.

FYI, I'm not complaining about "all science", just "creation science". Big difference.

I will reiterate here for about the umpteenth time I'm not a cosmologist, so I'm not going to blather on about the cosmology. I am satisfied with what I've seen,

You haven't "seen" anything. Have you ever see "dark energy"? Have you ever seen inflation do anything to anything else in a controlled experiment?

I've been in science now for almost 3 decades. I've seen sloppy science enforced by inertia

That's exactly what's going on in all branches of creation science too. They are all guilty of "sloppy science" to the point of absurdity. None of them are particularly believable, and all of them seem to require "faster than light" expansion. something that ultimately defies the known laws of physics.

but for the most part when something is a global topic investigated by countless unrelated researchers, the sad fact is, there is likely no grand conspiracy to keep one idea down at the expense of another, lesser hypothesis.

Sorry, but I've been around long enough to know that simply is not true. There is a "herd mentality" that tends to creep in and human being resist the idea of admitting their mistakes. Creation science is always filled with zealots that refuse to embrace scientific fact, and current creation science is not different.

I posted what little information I found to explain why the idea of inflation was hypothesized, but again, I'm not a cosmology undergrad or whatever you are, so it is meaningless for me to mount some strident defense of the topic. It would serve no purpose.

I'm just amazed that you accept the notion of inflation and a creation event on faith, yet you reject the notion of a "creator". Why? Creation sciences today do *NOT* explain why inflation began or why the BB happened. How do you know the creation event involved no creator?

If, however, you want me to accept "god did it" as part and parcel of it, then you must grant that that is a loaded concept that reaches far beyond the mechanisms involved.

But "Inflation did it" is also a heavily "loaded" concept that has far reaching consequences for other competing theories and other branches of science.

"God" implies a will (not necessary or evident from the formation of the universe)

Really? What started the process in motion in the first place and how do you know it wasn't a conscious and willful act?

and simply applies an additional level of unprovenness to the whole system.

What's one more unproven assertion when you've already bought into three unproven assertions already?

Now we have to account for an eternal being (an eternal mind, will, whatever) that is not required to be added on top of the already difficult concept of "ultimate origins".

I fail to see why that particular idea is so hard to swallow. Unlike inflation, consciousness and will is something that *CAN* be demonstrated to exist here on Earth. Dark energy on the other hand does *NOT* show up here on Earth, nor does inflation, nor does any SUSY particle.

If you think it reasonable to add more unnecessary factors to a model,

Who said anything about "unnecessary"? Can you explain why it went "bang" one particular day? If not, how do you know a creator was "unnecessary' again?

then you and I have very different approaches to doing science.

My approach to doing science is all about empiricism and testing things in controlled experiments. Faith does indeed have a role in life, but it should not be a requirement when sitting in the classroom.

If you further take that as a counterpoint to negate the idea of "inflation" then I don't see what kind of modeling you are doing. I've never seen a model improve by adding unnecessary factors.

Inflation was an "unnecessary" factor. It was simply fabricated in Guth's mind and he slapped on some math. It was never "necessary" to have a "creation event" in the first place, and inflation was always "unnecessary'.

And you think this is some grand conspiracy?

Yes, I do. I've seen how astronomers treat the idea of electricity in space. It's the single "taboo" subject of that particular industry. It's the one thing they refuse to consider. I have the distinct feeling that the whole reason for that attitude is that most astronomers are atheists and the notion of an electric universe is scary to them. It implies that the whole universe may operate just like a human brain, with circuits that give rise to intelligence on a cosmic scale.

Did ARP, Alfven and Bruce do something to a large number of astronomers and cosmologists that they would be singled out for such bad universal treatment?

Evidently so. Arp got all his astronomy toys taken away from him, and Alfven's work is being butchered and kludged to the point of absurdity. Alfven rejected "magnetic reconnection" theory as "pseudoscience". He talked about circuits in space. Today astronomers teach us that magnetic reconnection is responsible for solar flares and aurora. Birkeland demonstrated conclusively and empirically that these events are related to "current flow" and "electrical discharges", not unlike the electrical discharges that occur in our own atmosphere.

I personally don't have enough time to bother with some grand conspiracies.

I might believe that statement except for the fact that you're here on a Christian website claiming that God is all some giant conspiracy and woe is you as a result. You've gone so far as to become a "evangelical atheist" on a religious website. Your claim doesn't jive with your actions.

That's what Theistic Evolution does. It has no meaning to me as long as it doesn't muck up the science.

There isn't any "science" to "muck up"! Inflation isn't "science", it's "religion" because it requires "faith" on the part of the "believer". If one has no faith in inflation, slapping math to an invisible friend isn't "science", it's "mathematical myth making".

It's a crutch for those who can't face the universe without a personal god who loves them.

How is inflation theory not your personal crutch so you can attempt to do away with a creator?

That's OK for them. Most of my friends in science are like that. I'm fine with that. As long as they don't try to plug "God" into the equation.

Gah. You'll let them stuff invisible friends galore into an equation as long as it has no consciousness. It's not pseudoscience you reject, it's just the thought of God you reject eh?

So Inflation is all the work of some single Svengali who has his hands on the puppet strings of the large number of cosmologists

No, it's the work of a whole bunch of cosmologists that really resent the notion of a creator, much as you do. Guth talked about the whole thing being a "free lunch" and even violated the laws of thermodynamics in the process. It was one big "something from nothing" ponsi scheme that has not been foisted on my children.

If this is the case and astronomy departments are run by some illuminati-type group somewhere in a mountain fortress brutishly enforcing the "party line" across the globe then I'm sorry for that. Maybe you should choose a different major?

Er, I'm 49 years old now. I was simply making a point, not speaking from experience. I chose computer science and I'm very glad that I did.

Or at least take heart and keep up the revolution you are fomenting. If anything in science is run that badly it should be fought against. I wasn't aware that Astronomy and Cosmology was under the sway of one man.

The dogma is controlled by a tight little network of like minded individuals. It would be naive to believe that it's a large community. It's not.

I'll skip some of the redundant parts of our conversation.....

Now I have to ask why you don't move your kids to a different school?

Which school teaches plasma cosmology as an alternative to creation theory?

What's your new dogma again?

Actually my own belief is that the universe is electric, not unlike our brains and our bodies. My dogma is not dogma at all. It's simply an extension of empirical physics and it's all been lab tested. I have no personal need at all of a "creation myth" of any sort. I'm happy with an eternal and infinite universe, or a less than infinite and less than eternal universe. I simply want to stick to empirical physics in the classroom and leave faith out of the classroom.

Does it involve "God"?

IMO we would not be here were it not for God and for a "creator", but that has nothing to do with my distaste for inflation and dark energy theories.

So you take a mysterious point in time in which something happened which we can't quite yet understand and you add "God" into it and that somehow makes it a superior hypothesis?

How is that better or worse than not understanding something and adding inflation or dark energy to the hypothesis?

I hope not. Because, as I said, in my years of doing statistical design of experiment I've never seen a model improve by adding unnecessary factors.

How is "inflation" a 'necessary' factor? How is "dark energy" a "necessary factor"?

I believe I've already pointed out why YEC is a failure. It isn't science,

Inflation and dark energy isn't "science" either! That's the whole point. All creation myths require "faster than light" expansion. Why? That is simply physically impossible according to Einstein.

it isn't even marginally like science. It has no data,

Inflation has no data. Dark energy has no data. They don't exist. They don't have any tangible or physical effect on matter. They are "make believe" things that are not even marginally like science either. You've simply bought one creation myth and rejected another, only because you don't like the notion of a "creator".

it has no hypotheses that are in any way superior to old earth models.

And likewise, inflation dogma is in no way superior to an "old universe" model. No creation theory holds up to scientific scrutiny, not YEC, not Lambda-mythos either.

If you would like to take this debate to the field of geology I'd be more than glad to do so.

I have no desire to do that. I agree that the Earth is ancient and so is the universe. For all I know the universe is eternal and infinite.

Further, Creationism can and should be taught in religious studies/mythology classes all the time.

Ditto on Lambda-creation mythos.

I hope I didn't give you the impression I believe in inflation dogmatically!

I'm just pointing out to you that your present beliefs are just as irrational as YEC theory, you just refuse to consider the bigger picture. Nothing on Earth even remotely resembles inflation or dark energy. They are figments of human imagination. I find it amusing that the only basis you have for rejecting an idea is whether or not it implies a higher consciousness or a "creator'. You seem to be fine with any mythos as long as it does not involve God.

I really couldn't care less about it. I'll wait until more data comes in, until more science is done around it. It will continue.

Yet I don't see you over on astronomy website complaining about the lack of empirical support for inflation based myths. Why fixate on a religious creation myth when nobody is allowed to even teach such a thing in a classroom in the first place?

I've got more on my plate. I've got some AP chemistry students to tutor and I've got a full-time job as an R&D chemist in industry to take care of. I'm not a cosmologist. I don't care one way or another.

But you care enough to come here and complain about religious creation myths? Hmmm. Sounds rather "selective' to me.

But I'm also under no impression that this is being taught dogmatically to impressionable kiddies.

Turn on the TV some time and watch a show on astronomy. I guarantee you that my "kiddies' (not really kiddies so much anymore) have heard all about lambda-myth.

Well, with the possible exception that I don't care about inflation whether it exists or not.

Really? It's fine by you that your children and grandchildren are being taught pure metaphysical garbage? Why are you here on a religious website again?

If I were a Christian and I said I didn't care about Jesus I'd have a tough time being a Christian.

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. There was a time in my life where I was a Christian and I gave it up and embraced atheism. I didn't care much for Jesus during that timeframe, but here I am, many years later, and I "care" again. You might be surprised how things work out in life.

If Inflation is real even unbelievers won't be punished. If God is real then we atheists might be punished.

Punished for what? Lack of belief? I've seen far worse religiously generated beliefs that were a lot more destructive than atheism. God never went out of his way to punish me as an atheist. Why would I believe God wants to punish *ANYONE*? Jesus said we were to "love our enemies" and be perfect as God is perfect. That hardly sounds like a vindictive sort of creator to me.