Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

Show where SR applies to inflation theory.

Inflation does not actually exist in nature, not now or ever Davian. It's a creation oriented, mythological sky entity that was made up in Alan Guth's head on a whim *without* any sort of scientific precedent whatsoever. Since it's a make-believe entity, and it doesn't actually exist in nature (now or ever), it doesn't actually/really "apply" to anything, not to SR, QM, GR, particle physics or anything at all! Guthianity/inflation is a faith based religion that is related to *one* and only one cosmology theory that is based upon a "blunder" (that's what Einstein called it) variation of GR theory. You're essentially taking metaphysical constructs, and wrapping them up into a blunder variation of a GR formula to make them look legitimate. You might as well have claimed inflation God did it. Inflation doesn't exist. It doesn't empirically or physically *apply* to anything. Your "belief" that inflation "applies" to GR theory is a pure "act of faith" for which you have no empirical support from any lab on Earth, nor will you ever have such support.

My mistake then; I assumed you were familiar with GR and inflation theory.

The problem is not that I am unfamiliar with GR and inflation, just the opposite. I know the difference between a GR formula with a constant set to zero, vs. a blunder theory stuffed with metaphysics. The problem for the mainstream is that I'm also familiar with *other* theories to explain cosmological redshift which just so happen to work in a lab. I don't even think that the mainstream is aware of the fact that plasma redshift has been demonstrated in the lab yet, let alone understand how plasma redshift *better* explains the redshift and delay processes, including the different delay times seen in various wavelengths. IMO the mainstream is utterly and entirely ignorant of the other options that exist to explain these redshift processes. That's the real problem.

There is also a strong emotional, professional and mathematical attachment by the mainstream to one and only one subjective "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon, to the utter exclusion of all other alternatives, and their various strengths and weaknesses. They don't keep up with current events and they don't even do any research into the past for that matter. Most of them have little or no knowledge of Birkeland's work or Alfven's work for that matter.

The mainstream might as well start to give up their blind faith in Guthianity and dark energy because the empirical handwriting is already on the wall. Plasma redshift is real and it works in the lab as has been demonstrated by Chen et all. Plasma redshift also empirically explains and better explains all the redshift and wavelength delay features that we observe from the universe, without any metaphysical constructs of any sort. Until I see you two deal with that plasma redshift issue, I'm simply going to assume that you can't deal with it and you won't deal with it.

If a now 'deceased', theoretical form of density defying energy can be considered "science", then you have no right whatsoever to criticize any empirical theory of God, nor any concept of 'soul'.

 

[Davian]

Inflation does not actually exist in nature, not now or ever Davian.<snip rant>

In your opinion. The theist-criticizing-science-as-religion approach is so bizarre.

The problem is not that I am unfamiliar with GR and inflation, just the opposite.

So why do you insist on the irrelevant 'in the lab' requirement? Where does GR say that inflation should show up in the lab?

I know the difference between a GR formula with a constant set to zero, vs. a blunder theory stuffed with metaphysics. The problem for the mainstream is that I'm also familiar with *other* theories to explain cosmological redshift which just so happen to work in a lab. I don't even think that the mainstream is aware of the fact that plasma redshift has been demonstrated in the lab yet, let alone understand how plasma redshift *better* explains the redshift and delay processes, including the different delay times seen in various wavelengths. IMO the mainstream is utterly and entirely ignorant of the other options that exist to explain these redshift processes. That's the real problem.

As you say, in your opinion.

There is also a strong emotional, professional and mathematical attachment by the mainstream to one and only one subjective "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon, to the utter exclusion of all other alternatives, and their various strengths and weaknesses. They don't keep up with current events and they don't even do any research into the past for that matter. Most of them have little or no knowledge of Birkeland's work or Alfven's work for that matter.

The mainstream might as well start to give up their blind faith in Guthianity and dark energy because the empirical handwriting is already on the wall. Plasma redshift is real and it works in the lab as has been demonstrated by Chen et all. Plasma redshift also empirically explains and better explains all the redshift and wavelength delay features that we observe from the universe, without any metaphysical constructs of any sort. Until I see you two deal with that plasma redshift issue, I'm simply going to assume that you can't deal with it and you won't deal with it.

Others have addressed the plasma redshift issue, so I don't see the need to address it, particularly while you shake the 'metaphysical construct' stick at the standard model while calling your own metaphysical construct "God".

If a now 'deceased', theoretical form of density defying energy can be considered "science", then you have no right whatsoever to criticize any empirical theory of God, nor any concept of 'soul'.

If you were to falsify the standard model, it would not then validate your theory, which is more hypothesis, and you have not presented a concept of 'soul' that would lead me to believe that there is a possibility that such as thing exists.

 

[Michael]

In your opinion. The theist-criticizing-science-as-religion approach is so bizarre.

FYI, I'm simply noting where empirical physics ends, and "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) begins. Most theists don't see religion as a bad thing, but they do tend to acknowledge that it's an 'act of faith'. Inflation is an "act of faith" on the part of believer. Whether the comparison of inflation to religion irks you personally or not, it's a valid comparison.

So why do you insist on the irrelevant 'in the lab' requirement? Where does GR say that inflation should show up in the lab?

Gravity shows up in the lab. If you're going to stuff magic into a GR formula, the onus of responsibility is upon you to demonstrate that magic actually exists, and has some tangible effect on objects with mass since that is what GR theory is all about.

Others have addressed the plasma redshift issue, so I don't see the need to address it, particularly while you shake the 'metaphysical construct' stick at the standard model while calling your own metaphysical construct "God".

Um, no. I think you're wrong on all counts. You might be able to accuse me of having a metaphysical construct of "soul", but the God theory I put forth is entirely empirical in nature and requires nothing new to exist that doesn't exist here on Earth in great abundance, including awareness.

Nobody really "addressed" the redshift issue in this thread other than me. I've handed you published lab work that shows that plasma redshift is a real phenomenon in plasma and demonstrates that the number of free electrons has an effect on the amount of redshift. I've pointed out that plasma redshift better explains the time delays between various wavelengths too. None of that was "dealt with". About all I got were a few bogus websites that started off with erroneous claims about loss of momentum equating to 'blurriness'. That's not 'dealing' with anything, let alone dealing with that observation from UC Davis that shows that gamma rays arrive later than white light.

If you were to falsify the standard model, it would not then validate your theory, which is more hypothesis, and you have not presented a concept of 'soul' that would lead me to believe that there is a possibility that such as thing exists.

I have presented a couple of mathematical models to choose from. What has inflation ever done? I don't have to falsify anything. All I have to point out is that any hypothesis related to "soul" is at least as "scientific" as mainstream cosmology theory, or quantum mechanics. You can't hand me empirical evidence of gravitons either, but neither one of us knows for a fact that gravitons do not exist.

I learned a long time ago that "belief/faith in the unseen" is purely a subjective judgement call. There's no rhyme nor reason why atheists might put "faith' in inflation yet 'lack belief' in God.

I'd be wiling to admit that I'm out on a bit of a metaphysical limb on the issue of empirically demonstrating the existence of soul, but in terms of "God", I've actually offered you a purely empirical explanation of God that requires no faith in any unseen entities.

 

[Davian]

...
Gravity shows up in the lab.

Do you have some gravitons in a bottle?

If you're going to stuff magic into a GR formula, the onus of responsibility is upon you to demonstrate that magic actually exists, and has some tangible effect on objects with mass since that is what GR theory is all about.

You still have not answered this question: Where does GR/inflation theory state that it should be demonstrable in a lab? A scientific paper will be sufficient.

 

[KimberlyAA]

Everyone has different views on the soul. It depends on what denomination you're from or what you interpret from Scripture. I don't believe Physics can cover the realm of the supernatural or unseen world as it only studies the physical and what is readily tangible and observable in the natural world. Those who hold a naturalistic worldview hold on to only what they can see in front of them. I think the concept of the soul is something difficult for us mortals to grasp as it isn't visible to us. My belief is that when one dies the soul is asleep and awaiting final judgement. When Jesus was resurrected he had a mortal body ... he wasn't a spirit. This was a way of signifying that those who die in Christ would gain a new body in God's kingdom after judgment. The dead would be raised incorruptible with a new body because obviously the old body decays and returns to dust. Ephesians 6:12 says "For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places."

 

[mkatzwork]

Hey Michael - you're dead wrong on the relevance of that paper to the (still falsified) cosmological idea of plasma redshift. Dead wrong.

The paper you cited is about the alteration of spectral lines in a particular plasma (with a strong likelihood of concomitant electric fields) due to the Stark effect. The Stark effect is always dependent upon the energy levels involved in the transition, amongst other things; the observed Stark shift will always vary dependent on the particular energy level transition that occurred.

The observed redshift that we see from astronomical data is always frequency and transition independent, the amount of redshifting observed always being the same for all frequencies.

The kind of "redshift" being discussed in the Chen paper is not relevant to your tired light hypothesis, which still stands falsified.

Incidentally - as I suspected, even if it had been relevant, it still doesn't explain how photons can have interactions with "free" electrons and not have major alterations in momentum. If a photon interacts with a "free" electron in plasma, the effect is Compton scattering. There cannot be a change in energy for the photon in an interaction with a 'free' electron without a change in momentum for the photon, and therefore its direction must change, which would blur the images of more distant galaxies beyond recognition. The images of more distant galaxies are not blurred.

So you're still wrong.

Keep looking.

ps. I like how Ashmore misspells "stark effect" and calls it the 'starky effect'. Ringo would be proud.

 

[Michael]

Do you have some gravitons in a bottle?

No. That's why I tend to prefer GR (non blunderized version) when trying to explain gravity over QM solutions, at least for the time being. I'm open to the possibility of finding carrier particles of gravity, just as I am open to the possibility of finding a 'soul' particle, but I currently prefer GR over QM when trying to explain gravity.

You still have not answered this question: Where does GR/inflation theory state that it should be demonstrable in a lab? A scientific paper will be sufficient.

Your question is akin to me asking you: When does a deistic religion predict God will show up in a lab? The answer is clearly 'never', but that certainly doesn't add anything of value to the discussion in terms of pure empirical physics, or empirical experimentation here and now.

The fact inflation is thought to now be dead (like a dead deistic god) only makes it more of a "religion" than a "science". It's currently dead status certainly adds nothing to the empirical 'science' side of the discussion, and it pretty much eliminates any real experimentation. It would be like me telling you "Oh you can't actually test for soul because soul doesn't even exist in this dimension." Would you buy that line from me?

 

[Michael]

Hey Michael - you're dead wrong on the relevance of that paper to the (still falsified) cosmological idea of plasma redshift. Dead wrong.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

Now whom shall I believe, you or Ashmore, and why should I believe you?

The paper you cited is about the alteration of spectral lines in a particular plasma (with a strong likelihood of concomitant electric fields) due to the Stark effect. The Stark effect is always dependent upon the energy levels involved in the transition, amongst other things; the observed Stark shift will always vary dependent on the particular energy level transition that occurred.

I'm pretty sure that's how Ashmore's tired light concept works too. I think you're confusing distance effects (overall amount of redshift) with single interaction effects.

The observed redshift that we see from astronomical data is always frequency and transition independent, the amount of redshifting observed always being the same for all frequencies.

You'll have to demonstrate that claim in light of more recent evidence. The time the light arrives varies, depending on the wavelength. That variation in propagation speed is is a deathblow to your expansion theory and an important prediction of tired light theories (plural), and there are many of them to choose from. Did you ever read that paper by Herman Holushko? He cites quite a number of authors of tired light proposals and I believe a number of those proposals are based upon the Stark effect in current carrying plasmas.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

The kind of "redshift" being discussed in the Chen paper is not relevant to your tired light hypothesis, which still stands falsified.

Baloney! That's nothing but a pure handwave! You're utterly and completely ignoring the key prediction of your interpretation that just bit the dust. The gamma rays do not arrive at the same time as white light. Your theory was just falsified. Not only that, the Chen paper demonstrates an observed redshift effect that your theory doesn't account for. Your metaphysical Titanic just hit a huge empirical iceberg.

UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'

The researchers sorted high- and low-energy gamma-ray photons coming from the object with each flare. Joined by a group of theoretical physicists led by John Ellis from CERN, the MAGIC team showed that the high- and low-energy photons appeared to have been emitted at the same time. But the high-energy photons arrived four minutes late after traveling through space for about 500 million years.

Epic fail for expansion theory predictions. As long as you keep ignoring that gamma ray delay, you will *not* have dealt with the issue, you will have avoided it intentionally in fact.

Incidentally - as I suspected, even if it had been relevant, it still doesn't explain how photons can have interactions with "free" electrons and not have major alterations in momentum.

Grrrr. The loss of momentum in the photon is called 'redshift'. It's due to the fact that the photon is *always* traveling faster than the electron it's interacting with and therefore it's always transferring momentum to the slower moving particle. Loss of momentum isn't the same thing as 'blurriness'. Loss of moment and gain in moment are related to redshift and blueshift respectively. Your handwaving web author doesn't even know the difference between loss of momentum (redshift) and change in direction of the photon (blurriness). Come on!

If a photon interacts with a "free" electron in plasma, the effect is Compton scattering.

There are *several* types of interactions going on, including Thompson scattering, Compton scattering, Stark effects, etc.

There cannot be a change in energy for the photon in an interaction with a 'free' electron without a change in momentum for the photon,

So what? That loss of momentum is called "tired light/plasma redshift". That's what all tired light theory *count on* and 'predict'!

and therefore its direction must change,

No. Those are two entirely separate issues. The direction path of the photon *might* change, but it can lose momentum and redshift without directional change.

which would blur the images of more distant galaxies beyond recognition. The images of more distant galaxies are not blurred.

First of all, define "not blurred" for me. Your notion of "not blurry" is a bit peculiar IMO, down right fishy actually, particularly when looking at the most distant galaxies we can see in Hubble deep field images.

So you're still wrong.

Keep looking.

You're still in denial of those tired light proposals, and Chen's laboratory observations. Keep reading. I suggest you take a gander at Holushko's work. He seems to know more about the history of tired light theories than most authors combined. He cited references that I had never heard of before reviewing his work. He even wrote C# code based on their work and everything. Have you even read his work yet?

ps. I like how Ashmore misspells "stark effect" and calls it the 'starky effect'. Ringo would be proud.

If such an insignificant typo is his worst offense, 'oh well', I can live with it.

 

[Michael]

I don't believe Physics can cover the realm of the supernatural or unseen world as it only studies the physical and what is readily tangible and observable in the natural world.

FYI, one of the points that I've been trying to make in this thread is that physics actually proposes a variety of "unseen world" type entities. Science does seek to study such unseen items.

For instance QM proposes gravitons as a carrier particle for gravity. Nothing like a graviton has ever been seen in the 'natural' world. Some non standard brands of particle physics theory include theoretical SUSY particles, again such theoretical particles are completely "unseen" in any lab. LHC has already looked for and eliminated several SUSY particle models. The cosmology side of physics proposes inflation, dark energy and dark matter, none of which enjoy empirical laboratory support. These things are all "unseen" (in the lab), and some folks might therefore call them "supernatural" constructs. Physics might in fact lead us to an empirical solution to "soul" that isn't ultimately "supernatural", it is just 'unseen' (in the lab) at the present moment. That fact that something hasn't been seen in the lab (yet) doesn't make it a "supernatural" thing.

 

[Davian]

No.

So gravity does not exist?

Your question is akin to me asking you: When does a deistic religion predict God will show up in a lab? ...

No, it is not. Turn off the rant mode for a minute.

If I asked you for the length of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), you could answer "it is a fictional craft", or you could look it up. Even if you think inflation is not happening, when I ask, "where does inflation theory state that it should be demonstrable in a lab?" you could look it up. If you cannot find it, say so.

The fact inflation is thought to now be dead (like a dead deistic god) only makes it more of a "religion" than a "science". It's currently dead status certainly adds nothing to the empirical 'science' side of the discussion, and it pretty much eliminates any real experimentation.

Please provide a link to where this "fact" was published.

It would be like me telling you "Oh you can't actually test for soul because soul doesn't even exist in this dimension." Would you buy that line from me?

I'm not buying anything from you at this moment.

 

[Michael]

So gravity does not exist?

I thought I already clearly explained that gravity shows up in a lab and I prefer GR (constant set to zero) over QM in terms of explaining gravity? Was I somehow unclear about that?

No, it is not. Turn off the rant mode for a minute.

If I asked you for the length of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), you could answer "it is a fictional craft", or you could look it up. Even if you think inflation is not happening, when I ask, "where does inflation theory state that it should be demonstrable in a lab?" you could look it up. If you cannot find it, say so.

I already answered your question in the previous post. Guth's original brand of inflation theory makes no predictions about measurable conditions on Earth today, much like Deism makes no predictions about God having any effect on Earth today. That's not a "plus" in terms of empirical physics.

From my perspective you keep avoiding the key issue. The fact your theory makes no testable predictions in any sort of empirical experimentation, complete with control mechanisms is what makes it a "religion" based upon 'faith in the unseen (in the lab)". More importantly it will necessarily remain so forever and ever, or not, depending on which metaphysical brand you choose!

A GR theory that is devoid of magic and devoid of dark stuff, and devoid of inflation and devoid of any non zero constant where dark energy is now stuffed into Lambda-CDM theory, is actually a purely "empirical" theory. It makes testable empirical predictions here on Earth, and I experience gravity as it is expressed (zero constant).

If however you insist on "mucking it up" with magical forms of energy, it's a "blunder theory" that is no longer a brand of empirical physics. It's a "religion". It doesn't help your case from my perspective that Guth did not not expect inflation to have any effect on Earth today anymore that it matters to me that deism makes no predictions about God showing up on Earth. That isn't a "consumer bonus" from my perspective, it's a "buyer beware" feature at best.

Please provide a link to where this "fact" was published.

http://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/tim1publication/cosmo2007/literature/inflationary.universe.guth.physrevd-1981.pdf

Now keep in mind that while the original brand of inflation (the kind that peters out over time) was ultimately falsified, the "religion" called inflation lives on. There are now an almost infinite number of various metaphysical brands of inflation to choose from, including one called "eternal inflation". Anything goes in inflation theory these days apparently.

I'm not buying anything from you at this moment.

You weren't supposed to accept that line from me in the first place.

 

[mzungu]

FYI, I'm simply noting where empirical physics ends, and "faith in the unseen" (in the lab) begins. Most theists don't see religion as a bad thing, but they do tend to acknowledge that it's an 'act of faith'. Inflation is an "act of faith" on the part of believer. Whether the comparison of inflation to religion irks you personally or not, it's a valid comparison.

Gravity shows up in the lab. If you're going to stuff magic into a GR formula, the onus of responsibility is upon you to demonstrate that magic actually exists, and has some tangible effect on objects with mass since that is what GR theory is all about.

Um, no. I think you're wrong on all counts. You might be able to accuse me of having a metaphysical construct of "soul", but the God theory I put forth is entirely empirical in nature and requires nothing new to exist that doesn't exist here on Earth in great abundance, including awareness.

Nobody really "addressed" the redshift issue in this thread other than me. I've handed you published lab work that shows that plasma redshift is a real phenomenon in plasma and demonstrates that the number of free electrons has an effect on the amount of redshift. I've pointed out that plasma redshift better explains the time delays between various wavelengths too. None of that was "dealt with". About all I got were a few bogus websites that started off with erroneous claims about loss of momentum equating to 'blurriness'. That's not 'dealing' with anything, let alone dealing with that observation from UC Davis that shows that gamma rays arrive later than white light.

I have presented a couple of mathematical models to choose from. What has inflation ever done? I don't have to falsify anything. All I have to point out is that any hypothesis related to "soul" is at least as "scientific" as mainstream cosmology theory, or quantum mechanics. You can't hand me empirical evidence of gravitons either, but neither one of us knows for a fact that gravitons do not exist.

I learned a long time ago that "belief/faith in the unseen" is purely a subjective judgement call. There's no rhyme nor reason why atheists might put "faith' in inflation yet 'lack belief' in God.

I'd be wiling to admit that I'm out on a bit of a metaphysical limb on the issue of empirically demonstrating the existence of soul, but in terms of "God", I've actually offered you a purely empirical explanation of God that requires no faith in any unseen entities.

OK! can you show us any Lab experiment that proves amongst other creationist claims; Talking snakes, flat earth, geocentrism, global flood, etc. ad infinitum

 

[Michael]

OK! can you show us any Lab experiment that proves amongst other creationist claims; Talking snakes, flat earth, geocentrism, global flood, etc. ad infinitum

I would have sworn that you and I already had the discussion about the fact that Jesus is my personal Lord and savior and I consider him, and him alone to be the 'living word' of God.

 

[mzungu]

I would have sworn that you and I already had the discussion about the fact that Jesus is my personal Lord and savior and I consider him, and him alone to be the 'living word' of God.

Irrelevant. You have tried to use science to disprove scientific theories and yet you balk when I ask you to use science to prove your supernatural beliefs. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Now either you keep your faith within the spiritual confines or you will have to play according to the strict rules that govern science and the physical world. Your call.........

 

[Michael]

Irrelevant.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's *entirely* relevant.

You have tried to use science to disprove scientific theories and yet you balk when I ask you to use science to prove your supernatural beliefs.

What "supernatural" beliefs might those be?

You can't have your cake and eat it too! Now either you keep your faith within the spiritual confines or you will have to play according to the strict rules that govern science and the physical world. Your call.........

Once you demonstrate which supernatural belief I hold, maybe I might be able to comment. I didn't recall personally claiming that any snakes spoke English or Hebrew or any other human language? You do realize that I'm not a 'biblical infallibility' proponent, right?

 

[mkatzwork]

He cites quite a number of authors ... they don't seem to have done much follow-up.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is also the time dilation effects seen in the supernova data which tired light scenarios can not explain, but is explained by actual velocities between observer and light source.

This site has a good run down of the evidence that falsifies tired light cosmologies.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD

 

[mkatzwork]

You're utterly and completely ignoring the key prediction of your interpretation that just bit the dust. The gamma rays do not arrive at the same time as white light. Your theory was just falsified. Not only that, the Chen paper demonstrates an observed redshift effect that your theory doesn't account for. Your metaphysical Titanic just hit a huge empirical iceberg.

UC Davis News & Information :: Gamma Ray Delay May Be Sign of 'New Physics'

Epic fail for expansion theory predictions.

Oh of course, so that would naturally imply that this delay is seen constantly throughout the night sky. Except......it's not.

GRB 090510: a test for special relativity : Nature

Epic fail? No, not so much.

Of course you didn't mention various quantum gravity theorists and string theorists leapt on this paper - nor did you mention the 20-odd follow up papers from other teams which show there is no Lorentz violations and speculate on other more likely causes for the delayed observation. But that's not how cherry picking works, is it...

 

[mzungu]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's *entirely* relevant.



What "supernatural" beliefs might those be?



Once you demonstrate which supernatural belief I hold, maybe I might be able to comment. I didn't recall personally claiming that any snakes spoke English or Hebrew or any other human language? You do realize that I'm not a 'biblical infallibility' proponent, right?

Ever heard of the phrase "Wolf in sheep's clothing"?

 

[createdtoworship]

FYI, one of the points that I've been trying to make in this thread is that physics actually proposes a variety of "unseen world" type entities. Science does seek to study such unseen items.

For instance QM proposes gravitons as a carrier particle for gravity. Nothing like a graviton has ever been seen in the 'natural' world. Some non standard brands of particle physics theory include theoretical SUSY particles, again such theoretical particles are completely "unseen" in any lab. LHC has already looked for and eliminated several SUSY particle models. The cosmology side of physics proposes inflation, dark energy and dark matter, none of which enjoy empirical laboratory support. These things are all "unseen" (in the lab), and some folks might therefore call them "supernatural" constructs. Physics might in fact lead us to an empirical solution to "soul" that isn't ultimately "supernatural", it is just 'unseen' (in the lab) at the present moment. That fact that something hasn't been seen in the lab (yet) doesn't make it a "supernatural" thing.

very good reply, do you have any examples of valid SUSY particles? I was just wondering, someone was questioning me.