The Naturalist

[Michael]

so basically this is speculation to support your pet pseudo-science.

Er, no. EU/PC theory is based entirely upon *lab tested physics*, including all of Birkeland's work with cathode sun theory. According to Hannes Alfven (the guy that wrote MHD theory), it's the mainstream that is peddling 'psuedoscience'.

I've simply proposed a *physical form* to describe God, I can show evidence that the physical form in question *is* electrical in nature, and I can show evidence that it generates EM fields galore. I can also demonstrate that external EM fields can and do have a direct effect on humans. It's simply a chain of physical evidence.

the "living electric universe is nothing but postmodern animism,

In terms of pure physics, it would be more akin to a Boltzmann brain theory than anything else.

how is this even evidence?

Define the term "evidence" for me. What evidence do you have for "awareness" for instance?

no story has anything like EM effects in it.

God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so?

So we can't even start to discuss the physics of spirituality without first physically describing awareness.

the mind is evolved to find patterns in nature, and the mind is pretty easy to trick without appealing to ideas that have no support.

You mean like inflation theory, or string theory, or black hole theory?

drugs, sickness, starvation, death. those are more likely than EM fields to cause beliefs in god.

How do you know? Your brain can't be 'tricked'?

it's not logical,

It's absolutely physically possible and there is already some documented evidence of the effects of EM fields on the human brain.

its an assumption

I didn't *assume* anything, I simply proposed a possible mechanism that allows us to do some actual experimental investigation.

based on wishful thinking.

What hypothetical entity in science isn't based upon "wishful thinking" in your opinion?

i'm pointing out that even if the EM field did cause such things to happen, it doesn't mean god.

True, but it does offer us some research options, and you can't rule it out yet!

i'd think god wouldn't need to do it that way.

Reading God's mind now are you?

"but the fact humans (more than one) claim to 'experience' God would suggest that God *does* interact with humans"
you said this, and i say, millions of people claim that they have experienced bigfoot, so by your logic that must mean bigfoot is real.

Nope. Most humans reject bigfoot, flat earth theory, etc. Most however are theists.

because invoking gods makes science pointless,

Only in your opinion apparently.

there is no reason to think nature would work one way verses another while adding in a being that can change anything it wants.

So far all I've discussed is a perfectly *natural* being that works within the laws of nature. I have no idea what you're talking about.

only if you want to distort both, if you think science needs to support any theological idea then you are missing the point of theology. you are contorting and destroying cosmology by misapplying it.

I didn't say science *needs* to do anything. I simply intend to use science as a tool to explore the question of whether or not God exists as the physical universe in which we live. EU/PC theory stands on it's own empirical merits, with or without any panentheistic overtones. What passes for 'cosmology' today was already 'destroyed' by the Planck data. I'm simply offering you some rational options. Even without panentheistic overtones, EU/PC theory blows the doors off off 'standard theory' at the moment.

no it doesn't all it shows is that EM fields mess with human perception.

You simply rephrased what I said.

anything else is speculation and poor speculation at that.

What exactly is "poor' about it, and what makes it "poor'?

there is not a single experience of god that isn't through the senses. if you have one please share it.

How about all those NDE experiences for starters?

because it's illogical to go straight to gods first,

*I* didn't. *They* said it first! It's illogical to ignore their direct claims as you *insist* that we do!

completely irrational.

The completely irrational part would be to simply ignore the personal testimonies of millions if not billions of human beings. That would be irrational.

there has never been a case of god doing it being the answer.

You don't even know that! You haven't even started to account for anyone's "personal experiences". Your answer amounts to "they are all crazy". Since you are in such a tiny minority, I could just be you that's the problem you know.

oh joy, postmoderistic drivel.
if you are right about anything you say, i couldn't disagree because it would be factual enough that arguing with it would be silly, funny that your electric universe junk is so poorly supported.

Well, that statement is patently false, starting with Birkeland's empirical lab work, Alfven's development of MHD theory. and his application of plasma physics theory to objects in space, not to mention all the SDO findings to date.

Apparently your only means of "debate" is to ridicule something you don't even start to understand. I don't suppose you've actually read even a single book on plasma physics?

it doesn't help the theist because his answer is the least probable and the least supported by evidence or logic.

Even if we assumed that statement was true today, how do you know for a fact that it is going to remain true for all time? Probability is purely subjective choice, particularly as it relates to cosmology theories. How would you put a 'probability' factor on the existence of 'dark energy' or david's new mythical curvatons?

 

[Loudmouth]

Er, no. EU/PC theory is based entirely upon *lab tested physics*,

Yes, lab experiments that demonstrate that plasma can not be the cause of redshift.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work. "
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Hess, I am still hoping to see why I should take you at your word as to the credentials you claim to have for calling yourself a stratigrapher and a geochemist. Please, enlighten me.

 

[Michael]

Yes, lab experiments that demonstrate that plasma can not be the cause of redshift.

That's absolutely false since redshift absolutely *does* occur in plasma. Chen's work demonstrated that quite nicely in fact. He even found a link between the amount of redshift and the amount of free electrons present in the plasma.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work. "
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

We've been over that. Your beloved astronomers are basing their beliefs not upon extensive laboratory testing of various conditions in plasma, but upon a single paper written by Zwicky in 1929 in which he *proposes his own* tired light theory.

All you can even rule out so far is the belief that Compton scattering *alone* probably isn't responsible for all that redshift. That's all you can demonstrate.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's absolutely false since redshift absolutely *does* occur in plasma.

Yes, and it is wavelength dependent and occurs through scattering which disqualify it as a mechanism for redshift in distant planets.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work. "
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

 

[Loudmouth]

"The "tired light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch. Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding."
"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired - ScienceNOW

 

[Michael]

"The "tired light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch. Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding."
"Tired-Light" Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired - ScienceNOW

The mainstream's denial of the importance of plasmas in spacetime is probably best exemplified by the fact that they can't even tell the difference between very ordinary signal broadening in *any* medium (in this case plasma), and "time dilation". The mainstream evidently believes in magic photons that dodge and weave their way around all the plasmas and EM fields of spacetime and are completely unaffected by them.

 

[Michael]

Yes, and it is wavelength dependent

Which inelastic scattering mechanisms are wavelength dependent?

and occurs through scattering which disqualify it as a mechanism for redshift in distant planets.

If the highest redshifted objects weren't the most blurry, your argument might have merit. Too bad they're blurry.

"There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work. "
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Apparently everything the mainstream knows about inelastic scattering comes from exactly one published paper that was written in 1929.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which inelastic scattering mechanisms are wavelength dependent?

Yes, different wavelengths are more strongly redshifted than others.

If the highest redshifted objects weren't the most blurry, your argument might have merit. Too bad they're blurry.

If PC is correct, we should even be able to see them. The universe should be opaque, but it isn't. Even the picture you showed before was very sharp given the pixel structure. You think showing an image 20 pixels across means that it is blurry. If you understood imaging at all you would not be making those simple mistakes.

Apparently everything the mainstream knows about inelastic scattering comes from exactly one published paper that was written in 1929.

No, it comes from experiments done since then. In all of them, plasma scatters light.

 

[Loudmouth]

The mainstream's denial . . .

The only denial is your denial of the evidence that falsifies tired light hypotheses.

 

[Michael]

The only denial is your denial of the evidence that falsifies tired light hypotheses.

Ya, just keep telling yourself that as you stuff in another brand new ad hoc entity to try to explain all those falsified inflation predictions in the Planck data sets. Talk about pure denial. When your theories fail, you simply add more metaphysical garbage to your metaphysical epicycle maths and away you go......

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya, just keep telling yourself that as you stuff in another brand new ad hoc entity to try to explain all those falsified inflation predictions in the Planck data sets.

And there is the famous deflection to cover up the falsification of plasma cosmology.

 

[Michael]

And there is the famous deflection to cover up the falsification of plasma cosmology.

Bah. You can't falsify PC theory with a single published paper from 1929 from a guy trying to *sell his own tired light theory* no less!

Apparently everything that astronomers know about inelastic scattering is based entirely upon almost 100 year old information.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bah. You can't falsify PC theory with a single published paper from 1929 from a guy trying to *sell his own tired light theory* no less!

Apparently everything that astronomers know about inelastic scattering is based entirely upon almost 100 year old information.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/