sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
*YOU* don't. I'd recommend anyone else to stick with evidence-based medicine.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Physics and the Immortality of the Soul
- Thread starter Norman321
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,120
- 52,646
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So if I get cancer, just ignore it and it will go away?
If it won't, then I'll take this statement:
... with a grain of sand.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,120
- 52,646
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Indeed.
Some parts of the space program? Really now; What do you think science is? A supermarket where you pick and choose what to buy and what to ignore
Absolutely. "Science" contains "tons" of theories, some of which might have merit (like MACHO forms of 'dark matter'), and some might not (like MOND theory). They can't ALL be correct ideas. I can see the tangible value of putting objects and individuals into space based on mathematics and physics. I see no value whatsoever in promoting or studying "dark energy" concepts that make no actual testable predictions, just postdictions, are complete duds in the lab, and have no empirical justification of any sort.
Sure it is. PC theory remains and always will remain a valid alternative to "dark sky' religions/sciences. Assuming the mainstream interpretation of redshift is correct and we do one day figure out exactly what "dark energy' might be, it can just as easily be incorporated into standard plasma physics as it can be incorporated into any other theory. Until then, the whole idea of 'dark energy' serves no actual useful purpose IMO other than to save ONE theory from certain destruction.
Me? No. I love (well appreciate) my house, my computer, my cell phone, my car, antibiotics when my body needs them, indoor plumbing, and all the tangible benefits that science has to offer.I don't however have any need for, nor any fear of, anything "supernatural". I don't need such a thing to explain "God", and I don't need it to explain the working of the universe either. I simply tend to reject ALL supernatural/metaphysical concepts whether they are wrapped in religion or wrapped in "science".
You don't hear me crusading against particle physics theory, or EM theory, or really any other scientific theory that is unrelated to Lambda-CDM theory. It's ultimate just ONE single cosmology theory that I reject, not the whole of science! I certainly don't FEAR science.
I also reject 'supernatural" concepts of God, or at least I don't put much "faith" in such ideas. I don't feel threatened in any way by "supernatural" God theories, or Lambda-metaphysics, I just think Lambda-CDM theory is a dumb theory because it is 96 percent metaphysical in nature, and only 4 percent actual empirical physics. That's TERRIBLE from my perspective.
That's definitely not true. Lots of "scientists' very much care which ideas I choose to promote publicly and which ideas I lambast publicly. They care so much they've actually banned me for my heresy on more than one occasion. They definitely care and they act on their feelings too.
Unless of course you're an astronomer and that refutation comes in the form of PC/EU theory, and then it's a complete disaster.
That is probably because I can see my concept of God every single day of my life.
Science is not based on faith but why do I even bother.............
Sure it is. What actual empirical EVIDENCE do you have that "dark energy" even exists, let alone that it has any ability to accelerate anything? It's purely an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer/proponent". Dark energy is a total dud in the lab. Dark energy has never been shown to exist. It's never been shown to accelerate even a single atom in a controlled experiment let alone demonstrate that it has the potential to accelerate an entire universe. EM fields and gravity however are THE most likely causes of plasma acceleration. Nothing else even comes close to explaining massive acceleration of a mostly plasma universe, certainly not in the lab.
Upvote
0
Likewise I don't need any alternatives to dark energy, exotic brands of dark matter and/or inflation because I do not believe in such "supernatural' constructs.
Change the term 'science' in your sentence to "empirical physics' and I'd actually agree with you. The term "science" is too vague IMO. Inflation was just as much of ad hoc and supernatural construct as any "religion" ever created. Inflation and dark energy are apparently more impotent on Earth today than any non-deistic concept of "God".Our only path to understanding the physical world is through Science!
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Well... we are observing what looks like an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. So, I'm afraid this is a case where you do need an alternate explanation for an observed phenomenon.
Upvote
0
We're observing photons and specifically redshifted photons which you subjectively INTERPRET as evidence of 'expansion' and 'acceleration'.
Tired light theories have ALWAYS been a valid alternative to such concepts. I've posted a link to ONE such theory that attempts to explain all the very same redshift observations that are used to promote an expanding/accelerating universe.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
I'm no physicist but I thought that tired light hypotheses had been falsified.
Upvote
0
A theory already falsified. Lori Lubin at Caltech did most of the work on that, it failed simple surface brightness corroboration by 10 standard deviations - now you can probably wave that way by saying that Tolman tests rely on redshift, which they do partly - but even the best tired light theories differ from the observations with far-infrared spectrophotometry by thousands of standard deviations (between 13,000 and 100,000 depending on which study and which method). It doesn't just not fit the data - it's completely, wildly, massively wrong.
The best explanation that proponents come up with for this is basically 'the CMB data is wrong' but this fails to take into account that that data has now been corroborated from multiple sources...
Upvote
0
This one doesn't:
[astro-ph/0605599] Surface brightness in plasma-redshift cosmology
What now? Do you think that because one individual was able to falsify ONE specific tired light theory, that somehow demonstrates that you've eliminated EVERY tired light theory under the sun? Really?
Really? Which line in that paper I cited demonstrates your claim?
Then you should have no problem pointing out his error to me.
All the CMB actually demonstrates is that suns emit those wavelengths, scattering happens, and the universe radiates at an average temperature. That temperature was actually 'better' predicted by starlight calculations and their effect on matter in space than it was predicted by early BB theories. Any and all other "observations' can and/or have already been related to tired light.
Upvote
0
I'm sure that is what they would like you to think.
Menu
How was that particular one falsified exactly?
I don't think it was published peer-reviewed for starters. Let's pick just one claim from Brynjolfsson's original paper:
"The photons are gravitationally redshifted when emitted in the Sun; but during their travel from the Sun to the Earth, they lose their gravitational redshift, and are not gravitationally redshifted when they arrive on the Earth"
There's absolutely no evidence for this. None. Zero. Why should photons lose energy or "gravitational redshift", given they are traveling along null geodesics with tangent vectors of norm 0?
Anyhow, it all violates thermodynamics, because a charged particle could easily have higher energy than a low energy photon, thereby necessitating blueshifts to be possible as well as redshifts. Unfortunately his theory does not allow this, so it violates the second law, and is therefore false.
Upvote
0
(incidentally, the reason that his theory doesn't really allow blue shifting is he's requiring all photons to be losing energy at a constant rate, which blue shifting would necessarily alter, because if a photon interacts with a charged particle of greater energy, then it necessarily gains energy (because of the 2nd law of TD)...and the constant rate idea is upset)
Upvote
0
If you're interested in published material, would you prefer THIS explanation of the CMB?
Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data
I'll take up your criticisms of Ari's presentation in a bit. Right now I really need to eat a lunch.
Upvote
0
Sure - let's actually look at the original paper and bang one more nail in this coffin:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420.pdf
His very first equation is wrong (page 4).
This is given to show the distribution of frequencies in a photon. It's actually the response of an atom to an electric field. The Poynting vector is only defined for large scale electromagnetic fields and it cannot be applied to single photons.
The rest is basically garbage because of this mistake.
Upvote
0
If you're interested in published material, would you prefer THIS explanation of the CMB?
Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data
I'll take up your criticisms of Ari's presentation in a bit. Right now I really need to eat a lunch.
Nope.
Leaving aside the fact that guy thinks the Big Bang theory predicts the universe was once a super, super, super-massive black hole (he doesn't even understand the basic ideas behind a singularity and the differences between that and a black hole) - the absence of citations for his paper pretty much shows what the rest of the community thinks of his work. It's junk.
But since you'll play the underdog card, the David vs the Goliath...well...let's look at it.
Nope, it's junk. It's a 'preliminary' paper on a theory overturning the scientific mainstream...but two decades later...nothing more? Anything to map against the considerably higher resolutions of WMAP, ACBAR and so on and so forth? No? Case closed.
If he'd truly been on to something, he should be publishing like a madman right now, but....nothing.
The CMB data collected after COBE (the colossal mass of data, in fact) simply nails that particular coffin shut.
The simple fact is...if you don't like dark matter and energy, you're probably going to have to replace general relativity to get rid of it, and that's going to be a problem.
Upvote
0
And incidentally, you still haven't suggested a mechanism by which photons could lose momentum/energy whilst traveling along null geodesics, and not be scattered or deflected - which would cause distant objects to appear blurry, an easy thing to test by observation (for example, the HUDF). Looks pretty sharp to me...
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
so is a photon a particle or a wave? It can't be both at the same time.
answer this question and you have the reason why they are eternal.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
