Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

mkatzwork · Jun 26, 2012

His cheap points are pretty much invalid, irrespective of how many $100 textbooks he has bought. That's pretty cheap as textbooks in advanced fields go, by the way.

Michael - you persist in this 'dark energy is religion' thing. Let's just get a few points really clear, please.

Proposing something that is so far unobserved to explain an unexplained observed effect is entirely reasonable. It's called 'making a hypothesis'.

Nobody's setting "dark energy" up as the creator of the universe, bowing down to it or praying to it to save them from cancer or whatever, so quit it. Just quit it. We don't know what it is, it's just a name for a concept, a hypothesis that tries to explain the evidence that we think we have. It's equally valid in that sense to any other hypothesis that tries to explain that evidence.

Talk respectfully about other people's hypotheses or don't bother showing up to the argument. If you'd been to an establishment of higher education to study physics you'd probably have learned why this is important. If you don't like the idea, falsify it. Look through the work and find an actual hole.

"Dark Energy" is just a label, a name - for a mathematical idea that tries to explain the evidence. We have not figured out what it is, and you can't play with 'it' in a lab. We don't know WHAT it is, we're trying to figure out the properties it has, if it exists to determine that. If someone comes across something that falsifies the idea of something like this causing the expansion of space-time, it will be discarded.

The name "dark energy" has problematic connotations in the real world that you simply enjoy exploiting, despite the fact that you know it's a cheap shot designed to bamboozle those with less study under their belt in this field.

We observe what appears to the be the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Using extensions of the well-founded mathematics of General Relativity and Special Relativity - we can very easily propose a mathematical model for the acceleration, if indeed that is what it is.

It appears from the nature of the observations, that the fabric of space-time itself has some kind of property of expansion, given that the expansion is constant in all directions we look, and doesn't favor certain directions over others. This is a reasonable hypothesis to which you can reasonably object, but you haven't yet falsified it. We propose models by which this might be happening, and you're welcome to point out holes or errors to falsify them. Nobody knows what it is, whether it is - we are just fitting ideas to the hole in the puzzle to try and see what might fit.

You and some others propose that the acceleration is not indeed happening, due to redshift being caused by another process other than the expansion of the universe. This is a perfectly valid hypothesis at present.

Models have then been proposed that try to explain that hypothesis - notably "tired light" among others. At that point, we can look for holes or errors in those models, justifiably - since logical extensions of them lead to things that have not been observed (blurring of distant objects etc.).

People can then (and it seems have tried to) modify those hypotheses to correct for the known evidence, and potentially elements of what you've presented are so far unfalsified - I don't know (I haven't yet read all of the plasma cosmological ideas - but I know there is much that I have read that has dubious science in it).

That so many tired light ideas have been falsified does not falsify the hypothesis that redshift might be being interpreted wrongly as expansion; and anybody who claims that is does falsify it is equally wrong. However, the weight of evidence is leaning towards redshift pointing towards the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and therefore, so is the consensus. That doesn't mean the consensus can't be wrong and evidence can't be found to potentially demonstrate that.

This is all fine. This is all science, this is all a reasonable process. Hopping up and down on your side of the idea, with CAPITAL letters in EVERY post trying to REINFORCE your OPINION and BEFUDDLE those WITH less study is unreasonable, and insulting to that process, as is invoking the opposition to your side having 'a religion' just because you don't like their ideas. Appealing to the price of your textbooks is pretty ridiculous also, since most college educations to get you to an advanced degree in physics cost many times of magnitude more. But the cost doesn't matter, it's the process that matters.

Please engage in it respectfully, you'll find your arguments rewarded with listeners. You engage in science like you're engaging in politics, and that's an awful shame.

Michael · Jun 26, 2012

Elendur said:
I am not arguing this with you, those better educated than me has tried to explain it to you but you either refuse to get it or can't get it.

FYI, it's not so much an issue of "not getting" the idea, it's a matter of "not believing" it. Lot's of Christians explain their beliefs to you, but that doesn't mean you automatically agree with them does it? Likewise, I "get' the ideas, I just don't "buy" them.

Monumental changes requires monumental evidence.
I refer to what I've written above.

Birkeland's ideas about electricity in space weren't really a "monumental" claim to begin with. It was actually "'tested laboratory physics", and it INCLUDED in situ measurements as well. It certainly shouldn't have required MORE empirical validation than preferred mainstream theories of the time, like Chapman's ideas. It should not have taken the mainstream 60+ years before SATELLITES had to confirm the Birkeland's theories about currents in aurora before they even 'seriously considered it'. Likewise his solar concepts should be explored in full as well, but they've never done so and they aren't motivated to do so even now.

The mainstream handed Hannes Alfven the Nobel Prize for his work on plasma physics, but to this very day they ignore his work. The mainstream is still fixated on what Alfven' called "pseudoscience' in relationship to flares and solar physics, to the complete exclusion of exploring and accepting the ELECTRICAL theories that Alfven did actually believe in and publish. Go figure. I can't make heads of tails of mainstream motivation. It seems to fixate EXCLUSIVELY on math, to the exclusion of actual physics.

Evidently you put a lot more 'faith' in the mainstream methods than I do.

You mean except that the dark matter/energy concept was invented to explain some observed curiosities?

So what doesn't that concept work for 'soul'? Out of body experience would be considered a pretty curious observation for anyone who actually experience it.

I'm biased because the concept of a soul has existed for a very, very long time. All that time and no clear indication of something like it.

Wow. You actually think that the length of time that the idea has been sitting in the public consciousness is somehow a 'weakness' compared to Guth just "making up" his own inflation diety out of thin air with NO scientific or religious precedent of any sort? Really? I'm not even "making up" anything that hasn't already been postulated in the past, and also stated as a "cause" by the NDE participants themselves in some cases. Guth literally "invented" his sky entity in his own head WITHOUT external corroboration or precedent of any sort.

Also, a lot of testing, but no clear results.

There's a lot of 'testing' of dark matter too, but clear results and that concept has been around for AT LEAST 70+ years.

I don't argue with the dark matter/energy because there is A LOT of studying within that field, with less questionable origin, both historical and ongoing.

Less questionable origin? How so? It's sole purpose seems to be as "gap filler' to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. Other than that the 'tests' have nothing to do with events on Earth, or things that show up in the lab. In 15 years of 'studying' not one astronomer on the planet can name any actual 'source' for 'dark energy'. Talk about questionable origins!

The only reason I keep bringing this stuff up is because you've got two completely different standards going. You have one standard for anything with the term "science" attached to it where apparently "anything goes" in terms of lack of cause/effect demonstrations of claims being made. On the other hand, you have a completely DIFFERENT set of standards and expectations related to anything with a "religious' or afterlife connotation. In this case "soul" requires a cause/effect justification BEFORE you'll consider it, "dark energy" needs nothing but a few math formulas and you're fine with it.

Also, the concept of a soul is pushed by people who has a lot to gain from it, people who won't argue with preliminary and possibly erroneous results.

Astronomers can 'gain' financially and professional by writing about "dark energy" or inflation and having such research funded out of public monies. How is the money motive any different?

And stop it with the dark energy, you know I have no knowledge nor interest in the field, why push it? Other than to gain cheap points that I can't tell if they're valid or not?

I'm only "pushing it" as you call it to demonstrate that you're using TWO DIFFERENT standards. One standard shouldn't be different from any other. If you're going to toss out soul theory over some perceived lack of a cause/effect link, you surely should toss out at least half of all "science" for exactly the same reason. You aren't doing that. You're applying one (very loose) standard for 'scientific' topics like (fill in scientific target of choice like a graviton in this case) and a completely DIFFERENT standard toward the concept of "soul". That's the only reason I'm harping on it.

mkatzwork · Jun 26, 2012

Michael said:
I'm only "pushing it" as you call it to demonstrate that you're using TWO DIFFERENT standards. One standard shouldn't be different from any other. If you're going to toss out soul theory over some perceived lack of a cause/effect link, you surely should toss out at least half of all "science" for exactly the same reason. You aren't doing that. You're applying one (very loose) standard for 'scientific' topics like (fill in scientific target of choice like a graviton in this case) and a completely DIFFERENT standard toward the concept of "soul". That's the only reason I'm harping on it.

OK, let's hold them to exactly the same standards, shall we?

We have an observation, a measurement - that of redshift - that we're using to hypothesize "dark energy". That observation has been repeated, to a great degree of accuracy, many times, and I know you don't dispute it.

What observation or measurement are you using to hypothesize "soul", and how does it stack up against the observations of redshift in empirical terms?

Elendur · Jun 26, 2012

Michael said:
FYI, it's not so much an issue of "not getting" the idea, it's a matter of "not believing" it. Lot's of Christians explain their beliefs to you, but that doesn't mean you automatically agree with them does it? Likewise, I "get' the ideas, I just don't "buy" them.

Fine. No skin of my nose.

Michael said:
Birkeland's ideas about electricity in space weren't really a "monumental" claim to begin with. It was actually "'tested laboratory physics", and it INCLUDED in situ measurements as well. It certainly shouldn't have required MORE empirical validation than preferred mainstream theories of the time, like Chapman's ideas. It should not have taken the mainstream 60+ years before SATELLITES had to confirm the Birkeland's theories about currents in aurora before they even 'seriously considered it'. Likewise his solar concepts should be explored in full as well, but they've never done so and they aren't motivated to do so even now.

DON'T CARE. You've effectively killed all my interest in the subject.

Michael said:
The mainstream handed Hannes Alfven the Nobel Prize for his work on plasma physics, but to this very day they ignore his work. The mainstream is still fixated on what Alfven' called "pseudoscience' in relationship to flares and solar physics, to the complete exclusion of exploring and accepting the ELECTRICAL theories that Alfven did actually believe in and publish. Go figure. I can't make heads of tails of mainstream motivation. It seems to fixate EXCLUSIVELY on math, to the exclusion of actual physics.

DON'T CARE.

Michael said:
Evidently you put a lot more 'faith' in the mainstream methods than I do.

Sure, since sometimes one has to trust people. You think you can conquer each and every scientific field by yourself?

Michael said:
So what doesn't that concept work for 'soul'? Out of body experience would be considered a pretty curious observation for anyone who actually experience it.

And so far, I believe more in the brain overcompensating, creating the illusion that you're outside your body.
It doesn't take much effort to map people around you using your senses. And to map something entirely else isn't problematic.
If it is a result due to a soul, fine. But I don't run into a spiritual solution, due to a rather poor track record.

Michael said:
Wow. You actually think that the length of time that the idea has been sitting in the public consciousness is somehow a 'weakness' compared to Guth just "making up" his own inflation diety out of thin air with NO scientific or religious precedent of any sort? Really? I'm not even "making up" anything that hasn't already been postulated in the past, and also stated as a "cause" by the NDE participants themselves in some cases. Guth literally "invented" his sky entity in his own head WITHOUT external corroboration or precedent of any sort.

I've whited out some parts, because I DON'T CARE.
People trying to explain their own experiences doesn't matter.
As for the age, I referred to the age as an argument since... It seemed a good idea at the time.
What I had a loose connection to was the heavy interest in the concept, I mentioned it later in the same post.
It has a lot of interest and it has had a lot of time, why haven't it produced neither of a good definition nor results?

Michael said:
There's a lot of 'testing' of dark matter too, but clear results and that concept has been around for AT LEAST 70+ years.

DON'T CARE.

Michael said:
Less questionable origin? How so? It's sole purpose seems to be as "gap filler' to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. Other than that the 'tests' have nothing to do with events on Earth, or things that show up in the lab. In 15 years of 'studying' not one astronomer on the planet can name any actual 'source' for 'dark energy'. Talk about questionable origins!

DON'T CARE.

Michael said:
The only reason I keep bringing this stuff up is because you've got two completely different standards going. You have one standard for anything with the term "science" attached to it where apparently "anything goes" in terms of lack of cause/effect demonstrations of claims being made. On the other hand, you have a completely DIFFERENT set of standards and expectations related to anything with a "religious' or afterlife connotation. In this case "soul" requires a cause/effect justification BEFORE you'll consider it, "dark energy" needs nothing but a few math formulas and you're fine with it.

No. I use the same standard, but as soon as I delve deeper in science I hit something called *Lack of understanding*.
That shows that the creators of those theories/hypotheses have at least thought things through.
I can keep up with less complicated arguments with a lot less effort and guess what falls into that category?
Want me to discuss on a dummy level about things I don't understand half of? I've done that, I don't like it.
Also, spiritual studies tend to lack a lot. In many areas, flaws easy to spot, flaws I can discuss.

Michael said:
Astronomers can 'gain' financially and professional by writing about "dark energy" or inflation and having such research funded out of public monies. How is the money motive any different?

You mean the difference between a part of a career and an entire life? The money isn't the only thing.
Oh, forgot, DON'T CARE.

Michael said:
I'm only "pushing it" as you call it to demonstrate that you're using TWO DIFFERENT standards. One standard shouldn't be different from any other. If you're going to toss out soul theory over some perceived lack of a cause/effect link, you surely should toss out at least half of all "science" for exactly the same reason. You aren't doing that. You're applying one (very loose) standard for 'scientific' topics like (fill in scientific target of choice like a graviton in this case) and a completely DIFFERENT standard toward the concept of "soul". That's the only reason I'm harping on it.

The standard I apply is that if I can wrap my head around it, I either ask or argue. Preferably the latter, since that's way faster.

Elendur · Jun 26, 2012

mkatzwork said:
OK, let's hold them to exactly the same standards, shall we?

We have an observation, a measurement - that of redshift - that we're using to hypothesize "dark energy". That observation has been repeated, to a great degree of accuracy, many times, and I know you don't dispute it.

What observation or measurement are you using to hypothesize "soul", and how does it stack up against the observations of redshift in empirical terms?

Zing!

Edit: Maybe I should point out that this is also a bit of a reference to AV

Michael · Jun 26, 2012

mkatzwork said:
His cheap points are pretty much invalid, irrespective of how many $100 textbooks he has bought. That's pretty cheap as textbooks in advanced fields go, by the way.

Even a cheap book on MHD theory explains electrical discharges in plasma. Unfortunately however, even that concept seems to be quite the revelation to the mainstream.

Michael - you persist in this 'dark energy is religion' thing. Let's just get a few points really clear, please.

Proposing something that is so far unobserved to explain an unexplained observed effect is entirely reasonable. It's called 'making a hypothesis'.

It might just as well be a "God did it" claim since you've got absolutely no logical or physical reason for positing 'dark energy did it" as the "cause" of anything. It's literally a claim you're just 'making up' and then your slapping the term 'theory' to it just to give it some air of credibility.

Nobody's setting "dark energy" up as the creator of the universe,

No that seems to be the job of the now dead inflation genie who magically and mysteriously gave it's life for us today, lest all matter/energy be stuck in a clump.

bowing down to it or praying to it to save them from cancer or whatever, so quit it.

So what? Who cares if you claim something cures cancer or you claim it accelerates plasma if you can't demonstrate either claim?

Just quit it. We don't know what it is, it's just a name for a concept, a hypothesis that tries to explain the evidence that we think we have.

But that's just it. You don't actually even have any observational "evidence" of acceleration or even expansion, you just have evidence of "redshift". There's not even any actual direct evidence that redshift is related to acceleration or expansion in the first place!

It's equally valid in that sense to any other hypothesis that tries to explain that evidence.

Not really. As I mentioned to you earlier in this conversation, Ari's redshift ideas have always had SOME HOPE of actual confirmation in a standard empirical test of concept in an ordinary lab test. Much to my recent surprise actually, just such a confirmation HAS been observed in current carrying plasma.

On the other than, I can't find a source to even get any "dark energy" to play with in the lab, let alone begin to "control" anything related to any experiments on "dark energy". The worst part is that not one single human being on planet Earth even knows where to get some! Two totally different claims, therefore two totally different lab results over the past 10 years too.

Talk respectfully about other people's hypotheses or don't bother showing up to the argument. If you'd been to an establishment of higher education to study physics you'd probably have learned why this is important.

FYI, I tried that "respectful" approach with astronomers the first time over at BAUT. What I got for my 'respect' and my scientific efforts were a bunch of personal attacks, followed by a healthy dose of denial of scientific fact, followed by a quick public virtual execution for my EU/PC heresies. So much for 'respect' and tolerance toward alternative ideas among astronomers. Don't even think about lecturing me about my disrespectful attitude toward mainstream astronomy today until you walked in my shoes as a skeptic and an EU/PC proponent for awhile. I assure you that I turned the other cheek DOZENS of times before finally getting sick and tired of the personal attacks. That behavior soured me after awhile toward mainstream beliefs and attitudes. It's their irrational lack of respect for pure empirical physics that causes me to disrespect their beliefs.

If you don't like the idea, falsify it. Look through the work and find an actual hole.

I already did that! I've found that gaping qualification hole in your theory and I've pointed it out a hundred times now (well, maybe not a 100 time here yet, but on the internet). Astronomers in general just resent the fact that the gaping hole in their theory isn't an mathematical (quantification) flaw that they can easily fix, it's a lack of cause/effect justification (qualification) and a lack of falsification capacity that is the REAL HOLE in mainstream theory. I also handed you Lerner's work to dispel your belief that the CBM in any way falsifies EU theory, or exclusively supports any one cosmology theory. I also handed you EMPIRICAL SUPPORT to verify that plasma redshift in current carrying plasma is a REAL process that has been DOCUMENTED now in labs on Earth. What exactly is it going to take to get you to give up your belief in dark sky entities anyway?

"Dark Energy" is just a label, a name - for a mathematical idea that tries to explain the evidence. We have not figured out what it is, and you can't play with 'it' in a lab. We don't know WHAT it is, we're trying to figure out the properties it has, if it exists to determine that.

In other words it's "gap filler" to save one otherwise falsified redshift interpretation and one cosmology theory, and you don't really know anything else useful about it that might be useful in testing the idea.

If someone comes across something that falsifies the idea of something like this causing the expansion of space-time, it will be discarded.

Do you mean evidence like those laboratory confirmations of plasma redshift that I just handed you today that were actually "successful predictions" of EU theory? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to reconsider your position.

The name "dark energy" has problematic connotations in the real world that you simply enjoy exploiting, despite the fact that you know it's a cheap shot designed to bamboozle those with less study under their belt in this field.

That accusation of "bamboozling the ignorant" works both ways by the way. I personally believe that astronomers keep trying to "bamboozle' anyone and everyone that doesn't have as much math and/or physics experience as they do. They typically never even bother to mention for instance that both the concept of "expansion' and "acceleration" are subjective INTERPRETATIONS of the redshift phenomenon, the are not OBSERVATIONS. They keep intermixing terms in inappropriate ways too. They make claims about their theory being a "GR" theory when in fact it's actually a variation of "blunder" theory, not pure GR theory. It's definitely a "buyer beware" process every time I watch a video on TV related to mainstream theory. Half the truth is hidden (like the difference between redshift OBSERVATION and redshift INTERPRETATION), half the truth isn't mentioned (like every failure of past BB theories), and no OTHER theories even get any airplay at all. I think you should be careful about throwing stones.

We observe what appears to the be the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

No. You see redshifted photons which you subjectively INTERPRET to be related to accelerated expansion process. You consciously (or at least effectively) ignore other options like plasma redshift to explain those very same observations of redshifted photons. Even the difference between OBSERVATION and INTERPRETATION isn't clear in your comments. It's entirely possible in my experience that the distinction between observation and interpretation never even gets considered when making such claims.

Using extensions of the well-founded mathematics of General Relativity and Special Relativity

You don't mean GR per se. You mean it's a variation of 'blunder theory" with extensions to GR that include metaphysical ad ons like "dark energy". You're not talking about standard GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students, with the constant set to zero. Nice try riding the coattails of GR theory to attempt to give "dark energy' some false sense of credibility, but GR theory isn't dependent upon 'dark energy' and you and I both know that.

- we can very easily propose a mathematical model for the acceleration, if indeed that is what it is.

It's still just a mathematical model that is utterly and completely devoid of empirical laboratory support, UNLIKE Ari's plasma redshift concepts which apparently now (to my surprise actually) enjoy at least SOME empirical support in the lab.

It appears from the nature of the observations, that the fabric of space-time itself has some kind of property of expansion, given that the expansion is constant in all directions we look, and doesn't favor certain directions over others. This is a reasonable hypothesis to which you can reasonably object, but you haven't yet falsified it. We propose models by which this might be happening, and you're welcome to point out holes or errors to falsify them. Nobody knows what it is, whether it is - we are just fitting ideas to the hole in the puzzle to try and see what might fit.

And plasma redshift has also been "shown to fit" that same physical evidence without expansion and without acceleration and that process actually occurs in the lab and has been documented in the lab.

You and some others propose that the acceleration is not indeed happening, due to redshift being caused by another process other than the expansion of the universe. This is a perfectly valid hypothesis at present.

The clear difference however is the empirical difference. One idea has already (evidently) been verified in the lab. One idea cannot EVER be verified in the lab because nobody can name a source, let alone explain how to "control" it.

Models have then been proposed that try to explain that hypothesis - notably "tired light" among others. At that point, we can look for holes or errors in those models, justifiably - since logical extensions of them lead to things that have not been observed (blurring of distant objects etc.).

That whole claim about it necessarily 'blurring distant objects' is a ruse IMO. We do observe SOME blurring. Any deflection of photons near the source aren't likely to result in much blurring at all, and it's not altogether clear yet how much "blurring" those lab tests actually demonstrate.

People can then (and it seems have tried to) modify those hypotheses to correct for the known evidence, and potentially elements of what you've presented are so far unfalsified - I don't know (I haven't yet read all of the plasma cosmological ideas - but I know there is much that I have read that has dubious science in it).

You seemed to think Ari's first equation was dubious too, but I see no evidence of that claim now that I've done some further research. In fact I just found/discovered laboratory confirmation of his ideas AFTER going searching on Google to read other critiques of his work to see if your objection had ever even been cited in the past. AFAIK, you're the only one to ever complain about it.

That so many tired light ideas have been falsified does not falsify the hypothesis that redshift might be being interpreted wrongly as expansion; and anybody who claims that is does falsify it is equally wrong. However, the weight of evidence is leaning towards redshift pointing towards the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and therefore, so is the consensus.

The weight of WHAT evidence? Certainly not the weight of LABORATORY evidence. That evidence happens to favor plasma redshift, not expansion, not acceleration, and certainly not 'dark energy'. Only the "consensus" favors one position or another. That's where any WEIGHT might come from apparently, certainly not from the lab.

That doesn't mean the consensus can't be wrong and evidence can't be found to potentially demonstrate that.

So what are you intending to do with those two new papers on plasma redshift that I just handed you today? Did you read them yet? Assuming that plasma redshift is confirmed in OTHER experiments besides just those two examples, is that additional confirmation likely to sway your opinion? If not, what's it going to take exactly?

This is all fine. This is all science, this is all a reasonable process. Hopping up and down on your side of the idea, with CAPITAL letters in EVERY post trying to REINFORCE your OPINION and BEFUDDLE those WITH less study is unreasonable, and insulting to that process,

I've explained many timse now that my use of caps is much like I would use my voice inflection during any face to face conversation. I'm just emphasizing certain words, that's it. That particular behavior is not meant to bug you or to be disrespectful in any way.

as is invoking the opposition to your side having 'a religion' just because you don't like their ideas.

Sorry, but in my opinion there is in fact a clear physical difference between an idea that enjoys empirical physical support in the lab, and one that doesn't. Plasma redshift has been demonstrated in the lab whereas space expansion claims only happen in cosmological mythologies, certainly not in the lab.

Appealing to the price of your textbooks is pretty ridiculous also, since most college educations to get you to an advanced degree in physics cost many times of magnitude more. But the cost doesn't matter, it's the process that matters.

You evidently missed the whole point of that comment. While ignorance is bliss, free and easy, a real education requires effort and money. I'm not anyone free physics mommy. It they're too damn cheap to invest a whopping $3.00 in their education, it's not worth my time or effort to worry about someone's self imposed ignorance. That's all I meant by that comment.

Please engage in it respectfully, you'll find your arguments rewarded with listeners. You engage in science like you're engaging in politics, and that's an awful shame.

In the sense that I have moral values that I 'claim' to honor, and two wrongs do not make a right, you might be right that I could show more 'respect' for the IDEAS than I do, but unlike the mainstream, I fixate on and discuss the flaws that are found in various IDEAS, not the people presenting them. That's head and shoulders more than I can say for most of the astronomers that I've met in cyberspace. You're actually the RARE exception, not the rule unfortunately. I probably wouldn't have such a huge chip on my shoulder toward mainstream ideas had my conversations with astronomer always been as direct and honest and as focused on the topic as this one. I do hear you on this point however and I will try to 'tone it down' a bit.

createdtoworship · Jun 26, 2012

Guy1 said:
Disclaimer: This is being written at 2:40AM. The coherence and accuracy of this post cannot be guaranteed.

I came for a definition, not a sales pitch. Either present it or find a free document that does..

Define "informational representation."

But we're not talking about them, are we now?

I leave this to the astrophysicists. I'm a mere molecular bio undergrad.

I take issue with this wording. You need a physical medium to represent the information. "Hold" implies that the info actually exists in any concrete way.

Scientific theories, or mere layman's theories? If it's the former, name one; if it's the latter, I could care less.

It's far too late for me to be reading these things, so I'll throw in a personal question for you to answer in the meantime. What are your credentials?

I'm not one to research the claims and materials presented by willfully ignorant laymen unless I really have to.

I have no preconceived notions regarding this issue.Actually, unlike a certain someone in this exchange, I likebeing refuted. There's nothing more exhilarating than being refuted in the heat of an argument and broadening your horizons as a result.

This is the first post that actually has any kind of material on the subject; and 50% of it is a book written by some guy whose credentials I'm having trouble verifying.

I'll read it tomorrow. Thanks for the link by the way.

I mean I don't know what you mean by "empirical theory."

Woah, woah, woah. Cool it there. I never said I was well versed in anything. I try keeping up- but there's only so much a 17 year old, 2nd year molecular bio undergrad can comprehend. If you want to get to the really interesting points in science, I suggest you talk to the actual scientists on here.

So many ways I could call you out on this. I'll stick with a simple "This coming from the guy who outright denied that "he" inhabits his brain when hit with a cold, hard, straightforward fact" and be done with it.

To be honest, I only read the first sentence and am basing this on just that. You sire, are a pantheist. You mistakenly assume the universe is alive and I have no urge to argue with you about that.

No. That's what happens when my patience is tried. My replies become increasingly caustic until you either back out, I back out, or I'm disciplined for flaming. There really is nothing more that can be said though. When the person you're arguing with outright denies such a simple fact, the most productive thing you can do is tell them to shove their opinion so deep it'll never again see the light of day.

I gave you a cold, hard fact. You didn't like it.

Note how I stick to the Creation V Evolution forums. Here, what you believe doesn't matter. I can argue the facts as best I can without really having to worry as much about what you believe regarding the issue.

I might buy this book, sounds interesting.

Michael · Jun 26, 2012

mkatzwork said:
OK, let's hold them to exactly the same standards, shall we?

We or just me? Did I personally *INVENT* the concept of "soul" like Guth personally invented the concept of inflation? At least I'm starting with an idea that predates me and came from OUTSIDE of myself, unlike Guth who literally 'made up' the concept of inflation right in his own imagination without any precedent (religious, scientific or otherwise). I'm ALREADY on less shaky ground than Guth simply by virtue of starting with an idea that originated outside of me personally.

We have an observation, a measurement - that of redshift - that we're using to hypothesize "dark energy". That observation has been repeated, to a great degree of accuracy, many times, and I know you don't dispute it.

I don't dispute the observation of redshift anymore than you deny the CLAIM of an 'out of body experience' is common during NDE's. I don't ASSUME that redshift is related to 'dark energy' anymore than you ASSUME such an out of body experience/claim is directly related to soul.

What observation or measurement are you using to hypothesize "soul",

Specifically the out of body reports and the reports of reincarnation.

and how does it stack up against the observations of redshift in empirical terms?

Redshift is observed scientifically, just as out of body reports are observed and recorded statistically and scientifically. The theorized causes of such observations can be debated. That seems to be where the similarities end. Soul would NECESSARILY need to exist here and now on Earth. It's therefore NOTHING like an 'inflation' theory that lacks any ability to 'find it' in the lab today or EVER. It's more like the 'dark matter' aspect of your theory that MIGHT enjoy empirical support, if not today, maybe someday. As I've said before, "dark matter" is the least objectionable part of the trilogy of metaphysical component of mainstream astronomy theory. It's AT LEAST an idea that can or might enjoy empirical support or empirical falsification. That's WAY better than "Guthianity' today where there are dozen "religion" to chose from and no empirical way to verify even one of them in lab, or falsify them all based on pure observation.

sandwiches · Jun 26, 2012

Michael said:
We or just me? Did I personally *INVENT* the concept of "soul" like Guth personally invented the concept of inflation? At least I'm starting with an idea that predates me and came from OUTSIDE of myself, unlike Guth who literally 'made up' the concept of inflation right in his own imagination without any precedent (religious, scientific or otherwise). I'm ALREADY on less shaky ground than Guth simply by virtue of starting with an idea that originated outside of me personally.

Michael... seriously. No you're not any better. You've been told over and over that all scientific hypotheses start in someone's mind and come from previous understanding of science and imagination. Again, I know you really despise inflation but can you please get over this little PRATT? I know you've got to be smarter than this, which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you're purposefully ignoring refutations to your points. That's not only dishonest but it's pretty stupid, to be honest.

And please don't respond with more stupidity like "Well, are you going to get over your religious dark energy god PRATTs?" or any other nonsense like that. This isn't about inflation. This is about where ideas come from. So, regardless of whether it was YOU who invented a concept or someone else, it's irrelevant. In the end, someone thought it up.

Michael · Jun 26, 2012

sandwiches said:
Michael... seriously. No you're not any better.

First of all, I don't need to demonstrate that the concept of soul is "better" than any other theoretical form of science INCLUDING inflation, dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, huge portions of particle physics theory, etc. All I have to demonstrate is EQUALITY not superiority. Religion is simply a subset of science, it's not "better than" science, not even in my opinion.

You've been told over and over that all scientific hypotheses start in someone's mind and come from previous understanding of science and imagination.

That isn't the issue. It's whether or not there is a validation and a falsification mechanism here on Earth. Even my personal religion 'predicts' things on Earth that are unique not only to theism (vs. atheism), but unique and related to EU/PC theory. There are tangible cause/effect aspects that have already been demonstrated. All we're really talking about is PROVING that the universe is aware, aware of us, and interacting with us.

All you have to demonstrate is that dark energy exists, that it's capable of accelerating anything, and that it's got any of the "properties" that were assigned to it in a purely ad-hoc manner. Other than that, it's a "fine" scientific theory. Simply labeling something 'scientific" or "religious" does nothing in terms of demonstrating the point EMPIRICALLY Here on Earth. Not all religious ideas are unfalsifiable, and some "scientific" ones have become unfalsifiable over time simply because there are so many metaphysical brands to choose from these days.

Again, I know you really despise inflation but can you please get over this little PRATT? I know you've got to be smarter than this, which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you're purposefully ignoring refutations to your points. That's not only dishonest but it's pretty stupid, to be honest.

I've simply never heard a logical refutation of my point quite frankly. I didn't 'make up' the concept of soul. That 'idea' has been around inside of "religion/science" since the dawn of recorded human civilization as far as I can tell. There is plenty of PRECEDENT for that idea that exists OUTSIDE of one single human imagination. Not so with Guthianity.

I don't even despise the idea so much as I prefer a different cosmology theory, and frankly mainstream nonsense is in the way of empirical scientific progress IMO.

This is about where ideas come from. So, regardless of whether it was YOU who invented a concept or someone else, it's irrelevant. In the end, someone thought it up.

It's not ONLY about who "thought it up", it's about what properties they assigned to it, what they tried to claim it did, how they killed it off in Guth's case, etc. The whole thing was one giant personal ad hoc construct from start to finish, without precedent. It was nothing but Guth's wild overactive imagination run a muck. Nobody in the whole of human history ever claimed to have any 'experiences' of Guth's magic inflation, and he killed it dead so it cannot ever be validated or falsified in the lab today. How ridiculous of an idea can you get? If THAT metaphysical monster of a theory can be considered to be a subset of 'science' then no concept of "soul" or 'God' could ever be excluded as "valid science", and no lack of any 'cause/effect" qualification in a lab could be used as a justification of atheism. As I said, I'm just interested in 'equality", not superiority.

I suppose your point is that all ideas are equal at their inception within the human mind, but not all of them are equal in terms of their ability to be verified or falsified here on Earth, right now, or even in the future. That's my point.

mkatzwork · Jun 27, 2012

Michael said:
First of all, I don't need to demonstrate that the concept of soul is "better" than any other theoretical form of science INCLUDING inflation, dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, huge portions of particle physics theory, etc. All I have to demonstrate is EQUALITY not superiority. Religion is simply a subset of science, it's not "better than" science, not even in my opinion.

Unfortunately, we do have empirical evidence that 'souls' do not exist. The fact that you can damage one portion of someone's brain and remove their ability to empathize whilst still being able to function, or another portion and be able to remove their ability to recognize faces for example, is evidence that consciousness and the elements of it are effectively modular, which is strong argument against a disconnected 'mind' with full mental faculties. 150 years of reasonably advanced neurobiology has failed to come up with any evidence for the 'soul'.

There is no empirical measurement that would demonstrate that inflation did not happen, and there are many possible measurements that would indeed do that, so your claim of equality is false. In addition, inflation theory has had several predictions that have proved correct - particularly, those of Harrison and Zel'dovich, proposed well before the measurements were taken, which then proved to be extremely accurate.

Moreover, your soul hypothesis makes no testable predictions, and is therefore unfalsifiable, unless of course you'd like to report or make some now?

Michael said:
That isn't the issue. It's whether or not there is a validation and a falsification mechanism here on Earth. Even my personal religion 'predicts' things on Earth that are unique not only to theism (vs. atheism), but unique and related to EU/PC theory. There are tangible cause/effect aspects that have already been demonstrated. All we're really talking about is PROVING that the universe is aware, aware of us, and interacting with us.

And here we wander off from "cause/effect" to "the universe is aware", whatever that means. Please list some of the cause/effect aspects that are demonstrated or the predictions that are falsifiable that show the universe is "aware" of itself and us, and please define 'aware'.

Michael said:
All you have to demonstrate is that dark energy exists, that it's capable of accelerating anything, and that it's got any of the "properties" that were assigned to it in a purely ad-hoc manner. Other than that, it's a "fine" scientific theory.

Yes - thank you. This is exactly what I'm saying. The properties weren't assigned 'ad hoc', unless the 'hoc' you refer to is the observation of the acceleration of cosmological expansion. The property this thing so far has is it gives rise to that in a constant manner throughout space-time. We're not sure what it is yet, but if the redshift observation is correct, something, or some property of space time IS doing this.

Michael said:
Simply labeling something 'scientific" or "religious" does nothing in terms of demonstrating the point EMPIRICALLY Here on Earth. Not all religious ideas are unfalsifiable, and some "scientific" ones have become unfalsifiable over time simply because there are so many metaphysical brands to choose from these days.

Can you name me some empirically falsifiable religious ideas, please, to confirm your point?

Michael said:
I've simply never heard a logical refutation of my point quite frankly. I didn't 'make up' the concept of soul. That 'idea' has been around inside of "religion/science" since the dawn of recorded human civilization as far as I can tell. There is plenty of PRECEDENT for that idea that exists OUTSIDE of one single human imagination. Not so with Guthianity.

Actually, Starobinsky had a broad version of the idea before, independently, but whether Guth could have known about this is debatable. You dismiss every unprecedented idea though, do you?

Michael said:
I don't even despise the idea so much as I prefer a different cosmology theory, and frankly mainstream nonsense is in the way of empirical scientific progress IMO.

You're almost religiously anti-mainstream, Michael. It's like you look at what the consensus says, and then try and find an alternative to support...if you refer to theoretical physics as 'nonsense' that's where you show your real colors - wandering back into your political discourse with no real physics to back up your arguments.

Michael said:
It's not ONLY about who "thought it up", it's about what properties they assigned to it, what they tried to claim it did, how they killed it off in Guth's case, etc. The whole thing was one giant personal ad hoc construct from start to finish, without precedent. It was nothing but Guth's wild overactive imagination run a muck. Nobody in the whole of human history ever claimed to have any 'experiences' of Guth's magic inflation, and he killed it dead so it cannot ever be validated or falsified in the lab today.

More emotive words, so little content. The word is 'amok', by the way. Once again, you dive headlong into your political language - 'magic'. Inflation can easily be falsified - bring one confirmed measurement that shows that redshift is incorrect in being explained by the expansion of the universe and you'll be done, for example.

Michael said:
I suppose your point is that all ideas are equal at their inception within the human mind, but not all of them are equal in terms of their ability to be verified or falsified here on Earth, right now, or even in the future. That's my point.

That's true, but of course then it is ridiculous to dismiss them when they have an observed effect (i.e. they are a postulated cause for an existing 'effect' that is unexplained). The problem is, you're asking equality for an idea for which we do have empirical evidence that points against it, and then dismissing a reasonable hypothesis as 'magic', 'religion', 'a pig', and so on and so forth. You're not even beginning to engage with the physics of the alternative hypothesis, you're just a politician backing a weak candidate, and your language and RHETORIC does not help even WHEN CapItaliZEd seemingly RAndOMly...

Can you even explain to me Guth's own mathematical problem with his first paper on inflation?

mkatzwork · Jun 27, 2012

Michael said:
We or just me? Did I personally *INVENT* the concept of "soul" like Guth personally invented the concept of inflation? At least I'm starting with an idea that predates me and came from OUTSIDE of myself, unlike Guth who literally 'made up' the concept of inflation right in his own imagination without any precedent (religious, scientific or otherwise). I'm ALREADY on less shaky ground than Guth simply by virtue of starting with an idea that originated outside of me personally.

We. The rest is your usual irrelevant political discourse. Bring a scientific argument, I'm ignoring the rest generally (since I can usually SPOT it BECAUSE it LOOKS like THIS).

Guth hypothesised inflation based off of several former ideas - principally the density of the universe as it relates to the flatness problem. The actual idea of the universe expanding was not entirely new, it was known that if there was not enough matter density in the universe, the mathematics of GR and SR would require the universe to expand. The idea that the notion just popped into his head as a 'cool idea' is simply false, although there was a big guess taken from the previous ideas. You portray it as if Guth was working for USPS and suddenly had the idea in the shower one morning with absolutely no work or study in advanced physics previously done....not quite right.

Michael said:
I don't dispute the observation of redshift

Good

Michael said:
anymore than you deny the CLAIM of an 'out of body experience' is common during NDE's.

Ehhhhh....no. Sorry. Since "NDE" and 'out of body experiences' are vague undefined terms, I can't agree. How 'near' to death qualifies? You need something better than a few vague pseudo-scientific terms. If you want to use clinical death as a benchmark, that's fine, and an out of body experience defined as apparent consciousness - these claims seem to be not be as common as you might like, but there's more than one out there. None have been verified - none. It's not my problem that they'd be hard to verify, they would not be impossible to verify.

Michael said:
I don't ASSUME that redshift is related to 'dark energy' anymore than you ASSUME such an out of body experience/claim is directly related to soul.

Confusingly worded...not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I don't "assume" that any claim of out of body experience is related to soul because a) we have many examples of the brain playing tricks on us and b) there's empirical evidence against the existence of a soul.

Michael said:
Specifically the out of body reports and the reports of reincarnation.

"Reports". Thanks for finally answering the question. So empirically speaking, you have nothing but anecdote.

Michael said:
Redshift is observed scientifically, just as out of body reports are observed and recorded statistically and scientifically.

So are reports of Bigfoot and Nessie, by that standard. How can you report an out of body experience scientifically in any way to support the validation of that claim? Simply writing down "Mr Biggs says he had an out of body experience" doesn't verify anything. It's not evidence of truth, it's a claim that is unsubstantiated. 1 million unsubstantiated claim doesn't add up to an ounce of truth.

Michael said:
The theorized causes of such observations can be debated. That seems to be where the similarities end. Soul would NECESSARILY need to exist here and now on Earth.

Why? I don't see any reason why it's necessary at all.

Michael said:
It's therefore NOTHING like an 'inflation' theory that lacks any ability to 'find it' in the lab today or EVER.

Why do you have this obsession with labs?

Michael said:
It's more like the 'dark matter' aspect of your theory that MIGHT enjoy empirical support, if not today, maybe someday.

Seems likely, yes.

Michael said:
As I've said before, "dark matter" is the least objectionable part of the trilogy of metaphysical component of mainstream astronomy theory.

Michael said:
It's AT LEAST an idea that can or might enjoy empirical support or empirical falsification. That's WAY better than "Guthianity' today where there are dozen "religion" to chose from and no empirical way to verify even one of them in lab, or falsify them all based on pure observation.

One new observation confirming something that 'plasma' cosmology predicts and didn't know prior, or refuting inflation by showing redshift isn't caused by the expansion of the universe - either will do you just fine and falsify your opponents entirely. So quit pretending that its unfalsifiable.

Michael · Jun 27, 2012

mkatzwork said:
We. The rest is your usual irrelevant political discourse. Bring a scientific argument, I'm ignoring the rest generally (since I can usually SPOT it BECAUSE it LOOKS like THIS).

It's hard to tell which is worse, my use of caps in the first place, or the fact you can't get over it.

Guth hypothesised inflation based off of several former ideas - principally the density of the universe as it relates to the flatness problem.

We covered that "flatness" problem. Inflation makes it far less likely that we'd end up with a flat universe, not more likely. It's therefore not much of a "solution" or much of an argument to begin with. His other "big" justification for inflation is that it supposedly "explained' the absence of monopoles, as though the absence of monopoles somehow "needs" to be explained?!?!? It's like claiming my soul theory "predicts" the absence of unicorns, therefore it's a "successful prediction" of the model. Talk about ridiculous rationalizations.

The actual idea of the universe expanding was not entirely new, it was known that if there was not enough matter density in the universe, the mathematics of GR and SR would require the universe to expand. The idea that the notion just popped into his head as a 'cool idea' is simply false, although there was a big guess taken from the previous ideas. You portray it as if Guth was working for USPS and suddenly had the idea in the shower one morning with absolutely no work or study in advanced physics previously done....not quite right.

I'm simply pointing out that Guth's little RELIGION began in his head as a THOUGHT. He had no empirical justification whatsoever for any of his claims. His 'solutions" to 'problems' weren't even actual 'solutions' in the first place. The absence of monopoles doesn't need to be "explained", nor does the observation of a flat universe in any way actually support ONLY the idea of inflation. In fact, if flatness is really oh so important, inflation is actually far LESS likely to generate a flat universe than a universe without it! His own argument is his own worst enemy!

Unlike my use of the concept of soul, where the is ample evidence of the concept existing in the human consciousness long before my personal arrival on the planet, Guth literally made up his own religion in his own head! It's not as though he really 'explained' anything and most of his claims were either falsified by later analysis, or they were pure baloney to start with. He prattled on and on in the early 80's about a 'free lunch' that never happened, a monopole problem he supposedly 'solved', and a "flatness' problem that his model actually created when he first created inflation because it actually made it LESS LIKELY to be flat with inflation than without it. In short, he didn't "solve' anything, nor actually "predict" anything new with his religion. It's a religion that can be traced to ONE PERSON, much like Scientology. It's just about that goofy of a religion too: "All hail the Inflation god, the great monopole destroyer that gave it's life to give us life".

Ehhhhh....no. Sorry. Since "NDE" and 'out of body experiences' are vague undefined terms, I can't agree. How 'near' to death qualifies? You need something better than a few vague pseudo-scientific terms.

In that Lancet study that I cited it is defined as clinical death. There was nothing 'pseudoscientific" about that study.

If you want to use clinical death as a benchmark, that's fine, and an out of body experience defined as apparent consciousness - these claims seem to be not be as common as you might like, but there's more than one out there. None have been verified - none. It's not my problem that they'd be hard to verify, they would not be impossible to verify.

Define "verify"? Lots of people report these events, including atheists in exactly the same percentage of theists. According to the study, they occur approximately 18 percent of the time, approximately 4 to 5 times more frequently that atheism occurs in a typical population.

The various categories listed in the Lancet study are 'typical common denominators', or common experiences that are often reported in such events. There are in fact ways to 'verify' the out of body aspects, including signs that have been installed that can only be seen from above the operating table. Thus far nobody has read the messages, but there are valid verification mechanisms to test the idea.

Confusingly worded...not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I don't "assume" that any claim of out of body experience is related to soul because a) we have many examples of the brain playing tricks on us and b) there's empirical evidence against the existence of a soul.

That's a bit like me claiming that I don't 'assume' that redshift is related to expansion/acceleration because we have examples of the brain playing tricks on us. I don't really see that as much of a valid argument. It's probably true that it's a false belief, but just calling a 'brain trick' isn't really addressing the issue.

"Reports". Thanks for finally answering the question. So empirically speaking, you have nothing but anecdote.

That's more than Guth had.

So are reports of Bigfoot and Nessie, by that standard. How can you report an out of body experience scientifically in any way to support the validation of that claim? Simply writing down "Mr Biggs says he had an out of body experience" doesn't verify anything. It's not evidence of truth, it's a claim that is unsubstantiated. 1 million unsubstantiated claim doesn't add up to an ounce of truth.

It requires verification in some way, kinda like that false teeth story in the Lancet study. There are reports of out of body experiences that supposedly take place FAR from their dead body. As I mentioned there are also sign erected in the several operating rooms that could also be used to 'verify' the experience.

Why? I don't see any reason why it's necessary at all.

The reports all seem to suggest that their soul, or at least their consciousness is located NEAR the body, not somewhere far away from it. Most out of body experiences begin with them reporting that they are floating above their dead body but are close enough to "see" it. It's not far away from their form in most accounts, or at least it doesn't "start" far away from their form.

Why do you have this obsession with labs?

It's an obsession with empirical physics and stuff that actually "works" in real life. I'm quite appreciative of the 'science' that went into my computer. I have no use for, nor do I derive any tangible benefit from the 'science' of metaphysical dark stuff. Some theories produce tangible results. Some don't.

One new observation confirming something that 'plasma' cosmology predicts and didn't know prior, or refuting inflation by showing redshift isn't caused by the expansion of the universe - either will do you just fine and falsify your opponents entirely. So quit pretending that its unfalsifiable.

If that were actually true, those last two papers on plasma redshift in the lab that I handed you yesterday should have falsified inflation, expansion theories and dark energy for you. Are all those mainstream ideas finally falsified once and for all now in your mind?

Michael · Jun 27, 2012

mkatzwork said:
Unfortunately, we do have empirical evidence that 'souls' do not exist. The fact that you can damage one portion of someone's brain and remove their ability to empathize whilst still being able to function, or another portion and be able to remove their ability to recognize faces for example, is evidence that consciousness and the elements of it are effectively modular, which is strong argument against a disconnected 'mind' with full mental faculties. 150 years of reasonably advanced neurobiology has failed to come up with any evidence for the 'soul'.

Er, no.

All you've actually demonstrated is that a brain does exist, and it's a necessary organ in order to be able to process information correctly here on Earth while in physical form. Nobody suggested that feeling circuits and thought circuits in the human brain weren't necessary while incarnated in flesh. Nobody suggested that a "soul" could run a physical body WITHOUT a brain either.

There is no empirical measurement that would demonstrate that inflation did not happen,

Let me throw that one right back at ya: There's no empirical measurement that would demonstrate that souls and God do not exist. Does that argument work for you? You didn't provide any empirical measurements that soul doesn't exist. All you did is a wee bit of handwaving while you ignored the fact that nobody made any claims about a brain being 'optional' in the first place!

and there are many possible measurements that would indeed do that, so your claim of equality is false.

Huh? Note that Guth's ORIGINAL brand of inflation was actually falsified. It's the RELIGION of infinite metaphysical brands of inflation that now lives on, not the ORIGINAL brand.

In addition, inflation theory has had several predictions that have proved correct - particularly, those of Harrison and Zel'dovich, proposed well before the measurements were taken, which then proved to be extremely accurate.

Got a reference on that one?

Moreover, your soul hypothesis makes no testable predictions, and is therefore unfalsifiable, unless of course you'd like to report or make some now?

Sure. I can predict that people will experience out of body experiences during NDE's for starters. I can predict that their awareness and conscious thoughts will not necessarily end at clinical death too.

And here we wander off from "cause/effect" to "the universe is aware", whatever that means. Please list some of the cause/effect aspects that are demonstrated or the predictions that are falsifiable that show the universe is "aware" of itself and us, and please define 'aware'.

I think I'll save that conversation for the appropriate thread.

Yes - thank you. This is exactly what I'm saying. The properties weren't assigned 'ad hoc', unless the 'hoc' you refer to is the observation of the acceleration of cosmological expansion.

The "ad hoc" part isn't related to the observation of redshift. The ad hoc nature of the beast is related to the interpretation of that redshift phenomenon, and how 'dark energy' was used to plug the gaps of one otherwise FALSIFIED INTERPRETATION of that phenomenon. The properties described and assigned to dark energy are required in only ONE specific cosmology theory, and those properties are directly related to SAVING THE ONE THEORY, they are not related to anything you actually learned in "controlled experimentation' with dark energy.

The property this thing so far has is it gives rise to that in a constant manner throughout space-time. We're not sure what it is yet, but if the redshift observation is correct, something, or some property of space time IS doing this.

Ya, it's called plasma redshift and it's now been verified in the lab.

Can you name me some empirically falsifiable religious ideas, please, to confirm your point?

Sure, take a gander at my Empirical theory of God thread. It, along with PC/EU theory in general is 100 percent 'falsifiable'. It's got no impotent on Earth sky deities in it, and everything posited to exist in that 'religion' is found on Earth is great abundance, including sentience, electrical circuitry, electrical current, etc. There nothing "dark" in it, nothing metaphysical in any way.

Actually, Starobinsky had a broad version of the idea before, independently, but whether Guth could have known about this is debatable. You dismiss every unprecedented idea though, do you?

Yep. I can't say I'm familiar with Starobinsky's work. Got a link to a paper that supports that claim?

You're almost religiously anti-mainstream, Michael.

I'm definitely an "atheist" in my approach toward mainstream cosmology theory, that's certainly true. So what? Astronomers tend to be equally "religiously zealous" about their beliefs too. Most of my negative "attitude" towards mainstream theory is a direct result of the personal treatment I received at the hands of astronomers when I began discussing PC/EU theory with them. I'm certainly no more "anti-mainstream' than the mainstream is "anti-empirical physics".

It's like you look at what the consensus says, and then try and find an alternative to support...if you refer to theoretical physics as 'nonsense' that's where you show your real colors - wandering back into your political discourse with no real physics to back up your arguments.

What? How about those plasma redshift papers I handed you? What PHYSICS would you accept if that won't suffice? The denial thing runs really deep in astronomy. That notion that you've seen no PHYSICS to support EU theory is pure BS.

I gotta stop here for a bit. I'll check later to see if I missed anything important.

Michael · Jun 27, 2012

mkatzwork said:
That's true, but of course then it is ridiculous to dismiss them when they have an observed effect (i.e. they are a postulated cause for an existing 'effect' that is unexplained).

It's nothing but an 'inflation god of the gaps did it" "explanation"! The "flatness' problem wasn't solved. The "monopole problem' never existed, and his 'free lunch' claims defied the laws of physics! There no "explanation" found in any of his claims, merely handwaves that do NOTHING to actually "explain' anything physically. Essentially what he couldn't 'explain', he simply 'made up'.

The problem is, you're asking equality for an idea for which we do have empirical evidence that points against it,

No. You handwaved something at some strawman version of "soul" apparently. Nobody but you ever suggested that a physical brain was 'optional', nor that a soul could somehow compensate for brain damage. Those are YOUR claims, not mine.

and then dismissing a reasonable hypothesis as 'magic', 'religion', 'a pig', and so on and so forth.

It's not as though I didn't provide you with a plasma redshift alternative that apparently (to my surprise) enjoys real empirical support as of the last few years. What else can I call your metaphysical pig of a "explanation' given the fact that it enjoy NO laboratory support whereas it's ALTERNATIVES DO ENJOY SUCH SUPPORT?

You're not even beginning to engage with the physics of the alternative hypothesis,

What? I went out of my way to round up two supporting laboratory studies on plasma redshift for you just this week alone. Have you even read them yet? If so, what's wrong with them?

you're just a politician backing a weak candidate, and your language and RHETORIC does not help even WHEN CapItaliZEd seemingly RAndOMly...

Pfft. Plasma redshift (the obvious alternative) has been fully mathematically quantified, and plasma redshift has already been confirmed (qualified) in the lab. Plasma redshift theory enjoys qualified laboratory support. That's about as "strong" as it gets.

Dark energy is actually the weakling replacement candidate, one that is based on a weak, highly subjective interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. It's such a bizarre ad-hoc construct that it is impossible to verify the claim in a lab. It's source is undefined. Nobody knows how to control it. Therefore active experimentation isn't even an option. Talk about weak candidates......

Can you even explain to me Guth's own mathematical problem with his first paper on inflation?

You mean BESIDES the fact that Guth claimed that his magical vacuum holds "negative pressure"? That was the real WHOPPER of a problem in his claims. There is absolutely no such thing as a vacuum that holds "negative pressure'. His vacuum was a totally mythical magical kind of vacuum. It apparently operates on pure magic because no vacuum is physically capable of holding "negative pressure" or negative kinetic energy.

The best vacuums in the universe have all sorts of kinetic energy flowing through them at all times, and they therefore ALL contain POSITIVE pressure. His negative pressure vacuum was the actual 'magic trick' of his paper, and it's still the most ridiculous aspect of inflation theory. The rest of the problems were minor problems and PALE in comparison IMO.

mkatzwork · Jun 28, 2012

Michael said:
You mean BESIDES the fact that Guth claimed that his magical vacuum holds "negative pressure"? That was the real WHOPPER of a problem in his claims. There is absolutely no such thing as a vacuum that holds "negative pressure'.

The best vacuums in the universe have all sorts of kinetic energy flowing through them at all times, and they therefore ALL contain POSITIVE pressure. His negative pressure vacuum was the actual 'magic trick' of his paper, and it's still the most ridiculous aspect of inflation theory. The rest of the problems were minor problems and PALE in comparison IMO.

I don't think you really know much about the subject at all, since you ask questions and pose points in entirely the wrong way, kind of like the way creationists fling questions they think are 'clever' at evolutionists, whilst missing the fact that the very way they ask the question illustrates their knowledge.

I think you dismissed it without reading it...or can you explain to me what a false vacuum is proposed to be, and explain in a few lines (this is basic stuff) why it would implicitly have strong negative pressure, with an upper boundary of p/c2 = -p?

Do you know anything about the mathematics of scalar fields?

We don't know if it exists in reality or not - hence it still being a hypothesis, but the mathematical model works out extremely well; so the question is the ways of testing elements of it, of which are there are quite a few and will undoubtedly be more.

Dismissiveness, your usual modus operandi, is pointless. You're worse than AV in that you take an unproven (either way!) but well-supported hypothesis - and substitute it with another, whilst calling the first a 'religion'...without noticing that the substitution has no evidence and faulty mathematics, and fails to explain observations the way inflation still manages to. You don't even pick the plausible alternatives.

I'm not presupposing that we won't come across an observation that might disprove it, but it's not come yet. You've taken faulty work, bad assumptions, and then to boot, you stand on the opposing side flinging insults, calling people liars, cheats, frauds and the like. Do you think they really sat there and thought "I know! I'll invent a whole bunch of stuff, I won't prove it and they'll pay me lots of money anyhow". Do you really think nobody would have noticed amongst the august institutions, particularly those in Europe?

Since you've not been to a university to study physics, I'm assuming that you don't know, so let me let you in on a secret...we're all plotting against you. No, really. There was a course at Imperial entitled "What to do about those silly plasma naysayers and how to debunk their truths as if they are lies - 101". I think there was an advanced option too but that consisted of fabricating as many papers on arxiv and making death threats to reviewers who didn't tow the line. We also had an inflaton worship service every Monday morning where we blew up balloons in reverential awe whilst others chanted "Guth is great" for an hour or two.....

Greg1234 · Jun 28, 2012

mkatzwork said:
Unfortunately, we do have empirical evidence that 'souls' do not exist.

Um... sorry, but no you don't. We have biblical evidence that mind isnt reducible to matter, there is the fact that a mind and mental behavior runs the physical universe and determines the events, we have the effect of faith, prayer, the transcendence of time, evidence that cells are conscious (no brain required), and so forth. The latest attempt is to enslave electrons and pretend that consciousness does not already extend into and past that level. It's as if when one enslaves an ant and uses chemtrails as circuitry, conscious behavior originated with the field's circuit.

Michael · Jun 29, 2012

mkatzwork said:
I don't think you really know much about the subject at all, since you ask questions and pose points in entirely the wrong way, kind of like the way creationists fling questions they think are 'clever' at evolutionists, whilst missing the fact that the very way they ask the question illustrates their knowledge.

FYI, I personally find that particular comment to be highly ironic in light of the fact that plasma redshift has now been observed in the lab. It's really the last piece of information that was necessary to put together a fully empirically demonstrable explanation for our universe, including those redshifted photons, without any need whatsoever for inflation, dark energy, and probably 'dark matter' as well. To eliminate the need for dark matter will probably require more sophisticated models that include both EM fields and GR (not included in Peratt's PIC simulations), but say goodbye to all those impotent on Earth sky deities of mainstream theory, they won't be needed much longer.

The 'religion' of Lambda-CDM theory isn't ultimately going to survive those empirical redshift observations from the lab. It was easy enough for astronomers to hide behind the fact that tired light theories had yet to be demonstrated empirically, but now that they have been demonstrated empirically, it's a whole new world and and a whole new universe. Plasma Cosmology theory is about to take over. It's only a matter of time now. Every empirical piece of the puzzle fits now. Redshift is simply a tired light process. It's caused by an interaction between the magnetic field of the photon and the magnetic field of the electrons. The photons simply pass a little of their kinetic energy to the electrons as they pass through the plasma. As Ari's theory predicts (and several other tired light theories by the way), the number of free electrons in the plasma is directly related to the amount of redshift.

Astronomers can whine and moan all they like, but PC theory has now found and confirmed it's predicted answer to the redshift problem in the lab. It's now simply a matter of matching the correct mathematical model of tired light to the lab results. The second paper I handed you has already taken their tired light model and applied it to the cosmological redshift issue and shown how it is supported by the lab results. Not only is there no need now for 'dark energy', there's no guarantee that the universe even "expands" in the first place! Both of those 'subjective interpretations' of the redshift phenomenon just got falsified in the lab!

[I think you dismissed it without reading it...or can you explain to me what a false vacuum is proposed to be,

A "false" vacuum is a "non empty" vacuum that contains all kinds of quantum mechanical kinetic energy. For instance, any vacuum you might build on Earth will not be "empty". Even were it possible to remove every single atom from the vacuum (technically impossible), it will still contain BILLIONS of neutrinos as they pass through the entire Earth and that "vacuum". It will contain quantum kinetic energy galore inside that "false vacuum".

Apparently Guth doesn't understand a vacuum or kinetic energy. He doesn't seem to realize that kinetic energy doesn't come in any "negative pressure flavors". It's simply particle kinetic energy. Even adding antimatter to a vacuum adds POSITIVE PRESSURE to the vacuum because it contains PARTICLE KINETIC energy. Guth doesn't even begin to grasp the concept of kinetic energy in a vacuum. The limit of the pressure in any 'vacuum' is ZERO, not negative infinity. BZZT.

and explain in a few lines (this is basic stuff) why it would implicitly have strong negative pressure, with an upper boundary of p/c2 = -p?

No, that's a MYTHOLOGY you folks invented in your head. It absolutely will NOT contain "negative pressure" because there is no such thing as negative particle kinetic energy! The very BEST vacuum you could ever hope for would have an absolute ZERO pressure. A pure vacuum could NEVER contain a 'negative' pressure.

Do you know anything about the mathematics of scalar fields?

Sure, but Guth's problem isn't related to his math, it's related to his CLAIM about a vacuum holding negative pressure.

We don't know if it exists in reality or not - hence it still being a hypothesis, but the mathematical model works out extremely well; so the question is the ways of testing elements of it, of which are there are quite a few and will undoubtedly be more.

The problem for mainstream theory is that plasma redshift removes the certainty that the universe even expands, let alone accelerates. A static universe fits very nicely with EU/PC theory, as would any expansion theory that doesn't make any "faster than the speed of light" claims. That empirical lab observation just killed even the need for mainstream mythology.

Dismissiveness, your usual modus operandi, is pointless. You're worse than AV in that you take an unproven (either way!) but well-supported hypothesis - and substitute it with another, whilst calling the first a 'religion'...without noticing that the substitution has no evidence

That "no evidence" claim is ENTIRELY bogus. Even the plasma redshift PREDICTION of EU/PC theory has been confirmed in the lab. Your theory predicted nothing of the sort! If 'predictions' matter, your favorite theory just took the biggest hit in cosmological history with the observation of plasma redshift in the lab. There's no evidence that the universe even "expands" in the first place anymore.

and faulty mathematics,

I haven't actually seen you poke any serious holes in Ari's mathematics. One typo in one paper hardly falsifies his entire body of work. Holy cow!

and fails to explain observations the way inflation still manages to. You don't even pick the plausible alternatives.

Neither of those statements is true. Inflation is useless in a static universe. I did pick the most plausible alternative, and the one that successfully predicted plasma redshift. You're like one of the last flat Earther's at this point. That particular observation is like observing that the Earth is round from space! The fact we observe redshift in the lab now pretty much blows away your 'faster than light speed expansion' interpretations of redshift. "Space' doesn't expand, photons simply lose kinetic energy to the plasma they traverse.

I'm not presupposing that we won't come across an observation that might disprove it, but it's not come yet.

Yes it has. You may not acknowledge it yet, but that plasma redshift observation in the lab is the observation that killed BB theory once and for all. Not only is there no need to believe in any impotent on Earth sky entities, there's no evidence such things exist in the first place! Mainstream mathematical models were MEANINGLESS in terms of any laboratory predictions, whereas EU/PC theory correctly predicted those plasma redshift results. Lambda-CDM theory is a 'sky religion' that is about to be replaced with pure empirical physics, every piece of which can be demonstrated in the lab, including that plasma redshift process it predicted.

You've taken faulty work, bad assumptions,

The only thing I actually "assumed' is that plasma redshift would occur in the lab, and it would eventually be confirmed in the lab. That 'assumption' I made about a decade or more ago got confirmed in a lab in 2009. That's not a 'bad assumption' at all. One 'typo' in about 130 pages of presentation hardly constitutes "faulty work".

and then to boot, you stand on the opposing side flinging insults,

I've been insulting toward the IDEA, not individuals. Any emotional damage that may have been done to you personally would be a result of your emotional attachment to an IDEA.

calling people liars, cheats, frauds and the like.

I think I've only applied those three terms to a total of three individuals in the whole of cyberspace over the past 10 years to my recollection. All three deserved it. I'll admit that I've lost my cool occasionally and let a few individuals have it, but two of the three folks I'm thinking of weren't even astronomers. One was magician and one was a mathematician. I don't recall ever calling YOU any of those things.

Were you actually under the illusion that I haven't been PERSONALLY called a liar, a cheat and a fraud by MANY members of our beloved astronomy community? If so, think again. I've even been virtually crucified on a number of occasions now. Why is "ok" for a violent astronomy cult to engage in personal attacks galore, virtual lynchings, and character assassination, and yet I'm supposed to be 'squeaky clean"?

Do you think they really sat there and thought "I know! I'll invent a whole bunch of stuff, I won't prove it and they'll pay me lots of money anyhow". Do you really think nobody would have noticed amongst the august institutions, particularly those in Europe?

No, of course not. What happened however is they all became smug, complacent, and ARROGANT to the point of absurdity. Now even the mere mention of PC/EU theory sends them into a tizzy and they start attacking the INDIVIDUAL. You don't see any EU/PC haters from Russia or China, or Dubai. They all come from the west with their arrogant attitudes and their denial based behaviors. You don't hear any Chinese scientists claiming that there is "NO EVIDENCE' to support PC theory. You only hear that kind of unadulterated denial from scientists in the west.

Since you've not been to a university to study physics,

Really?

createdtoworship · Jul 3, 2012

good job michael posting about the immortality of the soul, do you recommend "the physics of immortality" by fjtipler? Or any other books?

mzungu · Jul 3, 2012

gradyll said:
good job michael posting about the immortality of the soul, do you recommend "the physics of immortality" by fjtipler? Or any other books?

First of all; Nothing is immortal, not even black holes nor the universe. Secondly you have yet to show us any evidence of this thing you call a "SOUL".

All hades will freeze over before the supernatural acquires empirical evidence proving its existence!

Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Gamer and mathematician

Gamer and mathematician

Contributor

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

In the beginning was El

Contributor

In the grip of grace

INVICTUS

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency