Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why I am not an atheist
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 66588710" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>Yes it is. It's a *repeatable* cause, a *cause* that isn't shy around the lab. If you doubt previous lab results you're welcome to recreate them youself, including standard control mechanisms. Chen even explains which mechansims might be useful to you.</p><p></p><p>Nope. With respect to emirical cause/effect demonstrations, it's *empirical physics*. No "faith" is required.</p><p></p><p>No. They can *demonstrate* it by varying the flow of electrons through the plasma as Chen did and observe the changes in the photon redshift that result from the increase or decrease of electrons.</p><p></p><p>No, I have cause/effect evidence of a connection between redshift and *several* forms of inelastic scattering.</p><p></p><p>You must be in a hurting place to try to ignore the difference between an empirical demonstration in a lab, complete with control mechanisms, and a handwave about cause/effect relationships that has not, and *cannot* be demonstrated in a real lab with *real* control mechanisms.</p><p></p><p>Nope. Scattering happens. Many lab tests demonstrate the cause/effect relationships. Moving particles also produce redshift. I have two *empirical* options to choose from. I don't need your *supernatural* claims in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Correction: Some scientists have *alledged* a cause/effect relationship, one that *defies* any empirical support in any lab on Earth. With respect to cause, they have "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab.</p><p></p><p>Actually I claim it's not even an *option* since several other *empirical* options are already viable. Your supernatural friend loses the first Ockham's razor argument applied to it.</p><p></p><p>Pure denial. Both *moving objects*, and several forms of inelastic scattering have a *tangible/empirical* effect on photon redshift. In blunt contrast, your "space expansion" claims are completely impotent in the lab. </p><p></p><p>No I didn't. The connection has been empirically demonstrated in *multiple experiments on Earth*. </p><p></p><p>Man, you're sounding desparate at this point. You can't simply ignore the empirical differences with respect to lab demonstrated cause/effect relationships, and relationships based on pure faith. All my relationships can and have been demonstrated in a lab. Your claims *cannot* be demonstrated in a lab since there is no defined "control mechanism" for "space expansions", "inflation" or "dark energy".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 66588710, member: 627"] Yes it is. It's a *repeatable* cause, a *cause* that isn't shy around the lab. If you doubt previous lab results you're welcome to recreate them youself, including standard control mechanisms. Chen even explains which mechansims might be useful to you. Nope. With respect to emirical cause/effect demonstrations, it's *empirical physics*. No "faith" is required. No. They can *demonstrate* it by varying the flow of electrons through the plasma as Chen did and observe the changes in the photon redshift that result from the increase or decrease of electrons. No, I have cause/effect evidence of a connection between redshift and *several* forms of inelastic scattering. You must be in a hurting place to try to ignore the difference between an empirical demonstration in a lab, complete with control mechanisms, and a handwave about cause/effect relationships that has not, and *cannot* be demonstrated in a real lab with *real* control mechanisms. Nope. Scattering happens. Many lab tests demonstrate the cause/effect relationships. Moving particles also produce redshift. I have two *empirical* options to choose from. I don't need your *supernatural* claims in the first place. Correction: Some scientists have *alledged* a cause/effect relationship, one that *defies* any empirical support in any lab on Earth. With respect to cause, they have "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab. Actually I claim it's not even an *option* since several other *empirical* options are already viable. Your supernatural friend loses the first Ockham's razor argument applied to it. Pure denial. Both *moving objects*, and several forms of inelastic scattering have a *tangible/empirical* effect on photon redshift. In blunt contrast, your "space expansion" claims are completely impotent in the lab. No I didn't. The connection has been empirically demonstrated in *multiple experiments on Earth*. Man, you're sounding desparate at this point. You can't simply ignore the empirical differences with respect to lab demonstrated cause/effect relationships, and relationships based on pure faith. All my relationships can and have been demonstrated in a lab. Your claims *cannot* be demonstrated in a lab since there is no defined "control mechanism" for "space expansions", "inflation" or "dark energy". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why I am not an atheist
Top
Bottom