Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[Tubbythin]

So, do you think the Universe was designed for humans? If not, why do you believe all physical phenomena should be observable in a lab?

Still waiting Michael.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again, and for the last time. You said:
Evolution was a viable scientific theory well before the discovery of DNA.

So what? The control mechanism can be something like a chemical introduction into the environment. We could *ALWAYS* run empirical test, *WITH* control mechanisms.

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2...ency-in-evolution-is-demonstrated-in-the-lab/

First notable result: one population out of the twelve, after more than 31,000 generations, evolved the completely new ability to use citrate as food.

The control mechanism in this case is a chemical. Why do you believe that the control mechanism of an empirical experiment *MUST* be directly related to DNA and only DNA? I don't get it. If you could explain why you insist that the control mechanism *MUST* be related to DNA, perhaps I would better understand your argument?

FYI, you are ten times the man (and scientist) than GM will ever be. Comparing yourself to him or to any of his beliefs isn't the least bit helpful to your argument from my perspective.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still waiting Michael.

So why can't any theist use your exact same argument, brazenly pilfer your math and point at the sky and claim "God did it"? What is the *EMPIRICAL* difference between "science" and any standard religion that requires faith in the unseen (in the lab) when you cannot show any effect of your invisible entity in the lab right here, right now?

 

[Tubbythin]

So why can't any theist use your exact same argument, brazenly pilfer your math and point at the sky and claim "God did it"? What is the *EMPIRICAL* difference between "science" and any standard religion that requires faith in the unseen (in the lab) when you cannot show any effect of your invisible entity in the lab right here, right now?

Because the theory provides 0 evidence for God did it. Unless one defines God as the cosmological constant, or the complete collection of supersymmetric particles from the MSSM or whatever. But they would be extremely stupid definitions of God.

 

[GeeMack]

All you really have to do is just "show me". If some guy came to my door claiming his fancy new vacuum cleaner ran on "dark energy", I'd certainly like to see him demonstrate that claim on my carpet before I bought it, and I'd probably want to take it apart before I bought it. Wouldn't you? Seeing is believing. I believe that your invisible entities are figments of your overactive imagination. Demonstrate your cause/effect claim empirically, here and now on Earth before you start waving at the sky and creating invisible friends to stuff into an otherwise wonderful GR formula.

You can't do that of course, so you'll just go on with your incredibly lame personal attacks and you'll hope nobody sees what an impotent set gods you believe in.

Your qualifications to communicate in a sane and intelligent manner on the subject of physics has been challenged, and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. But given that you claim to be willing to learn a little bit about science, I'll try this again...

Did you understand my explanation about how dark energy is a nickname for the cause, which we agree exists, for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, an effect which we observe and measure, empirically, in labs right here on Earth? It's in this posting right after I pointed out several times that you were lying.

If you didn't get it, I can make it simpler, take it down to about the level of an eight year old child. So, did you understand? Yes or no? No tantrum necessary. No crying, whining, or cowering in fear. The question isn't about what is or is not dark energy or what does or does not cause the expansion of the Universe. The question is whether you understood my explanation about the term dark energy being a nickname for the cause. Did you get it?

Oh, and about your implied claim that I believe in any gods? It's another of your lies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your qualifications to communicate in a sane and intelligent manner on the subject of physics has been challenged, and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. But given that you claim to be willing to learn a little bit about science, I'll try this again...

Translation: "My magic dark energy vacuum doesn't actually "work" so I'll just continue to berate and belittle you as a human being because that technique has obviously worked so well for me in the past." Holy cow.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html

 

[Tubbythin]

Translation: "My magic dark energy vacuum doesn't actually "work" so I'll just continue to berate and belittle you as a human being because that technique has obviously worked so well for me in the past." Holy cow.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html

Newsflash:
Michael Mozina wins the Nobel prize in physics 2011 for showing that if you call dark energy "magic dark energy" it sounds a bit stupid.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because the theory provides 0 evidence for God did it.

That is exactly the same problem with "inflation did it". You've got evidence of expansion and acceleration and no evidence that "inflation did it" or new forms of energy are involved.

Unless one defines God as the cosmological constant, or the complete collection of supersymmetric particles from the MSSM or whatever. But they would be extremely stupid definitions of God.

FYI, I find your definition of "dark energy" to be just as stupid frankly. You aren't even sure it's actually "energy" (rather than a GR problem) or that it's actually "dark" at all. The terms "Godflation" and "Inflation" are equally stupid terms IMO and equally impotent at the level of laboratory physics.

 

[Reality Check]

So why can't any theist use your exact same argument, brazenly pilfer your math and point at the sky and claim "God did it"? What is the *EMPIRICAL* difference between "science" and any standard religion that requires faith in the unseen (in the lab) when you cannot show any effect of your invisible entity in the lab right here, right now?

I see you are back to your ridiculous rename stuff as "Godxxx" fallacy again, Michael Mozina.

For the umpteenth time - the name does not matter !
For example, we can call dark matter anything we want. The term will still mean "the cause of the empirical observations that there is stuff in the universe that interacts weakly electromagnetcially (is dark) and has mass".
Your obsession with "the lab right here, right now" is doubly ridiculous. The fact that something is unseen in the lab (yet) is not significant in science because

• it may be detected in the lab in the future (dark matter).
• it may be unable to be detected in the lab because it is too weak (dark energy)
  In that case we have to test its existence by looking at is effects in the lab that is the universe.
• it may not exist anymore to be detected in the lab (inflation).
  In that case we have to test its existence by looking at is effects in the lab that is the universe.

Intelligent people expect to detect something in a lab "right here, right now" when the experimental techniques allow it to be detected and it exists to be detected.
Dumb people demand the impossible such as detecting inflation or dark energy in a lab.

 

[Tubbythin]

That is exactly the same problem with "inflation did it". You've got evidence of expansion and acceleration and no evidence that "inflation did it" or new forms of energy are involved.

Err, yes we do. Like various properties of the CMBR.

FYI, I find your definition of "dark energy" to be just as stupid frankly. You aren't even sure it's actually "energy" (rather than a GR problem) or that it's actually "dark" at all. The terms "Godflation" and "Inflation" are equally stupid terms IMO and equally impotent at the level of laboratory physics.

I couldn't care less what you think of the names. It is of no concern to me and has nothing whatsoever to do with science. If all you have is semantic arguments then that really is pathetic. I suggest you join a language forum. Science certainly isn't the place for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Newsflash:
Michael Mozina wins the Nobel prize in physics 2011 for showing that if you call dark energy "magic dark energy" it sounds a bit stupid.

From a skeptics perspective the term "dark energy" is a pointless and stupid term to start with. You aren't sure it's actually energy or that it's dark, but otherwise it's a great choice of labels.

 

[Tubbythin]

From a skeptics perspective the term "dark energy" is a pointless and stupid term to start with. You aren't sure it's actually energy or that it's dark, but otherwise it's a great choice of labels.

Err. That does not display any skepticism. I guess skepticism is another word you use without understanding. The argument above is 100% semantics and 0% science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Err, yes we do. Like various properties of the CMBR.

Er, no you don't. When did you provide any kind of empirical cause/effect demonstration between the behaviors of light and your invisible entities?

 

[GeeMack]

That is exactly the same problem with "inflation did it". You've got evidence of expansion and acceleration and no evidence that "inflation did it" or new forms of energy are involved.

[...]

FYI, I find your definition of "dark energy" to be just as stupid frankly. You aren't even sure it's actually "energy" (rather than a GR problem) or that it's actually "dark" at all. The terms "Godflation" and "Inflation" are equally stupid terms IMO and equally impotent at the level of laboratory physics.

Okay, so you do agree that dark energy exists. Maybe it's just that something about the nickname itself gets you all pissed off. Just for a moment consider everyone involved in the study of cosmology and related branches of physics, probably thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands given all the researchers, instructors, and students. How would you suggest we go about having every last one of them start using a different term for something which all of them, and you, are pretty sure exists?

 

[Michael Mozina]

okay, so you do agree that dark energy exists.

bzzzzzzzt!

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the umpteenth time - the name does not matter !

The fact you cannot empirically demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between acceleration and "dark energy" matters. Erroneously labeling an EM field "dark energy" matters. Erroneously labeling induction "magnetic reconnection" matters.

 

[Tubbythin]

Er, no you don't. When did you provide any kind of empirical cause/effect demonstration between the behaviors of light and your invisible entities?

Well I don't personally. But if you bothered to do any of your own research rather than expecting everyone else to do it for you you would have read about the evidence for inflation.
And why do you keep using the word invisible? It sounds like its meant to be derogatory. But lots of perfectly normal things in physics are invisible. So in reality it just makes you look really stupid.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well I don't personally. But if you bothered to do any of your own research rather than expecting everyone else to do it for you you would have read about the evidence for inflation.

I did. It sucks. The whole concept was postdicted to fit and Guth's original brand of inflation was falsified but the concept simply won't be allowed to die a natural empirical death. *NOBODY* demonstrated a cause/effect link, it was entirely *ASSUMED* starting with Guth's original magic brand of inflation that requires "negative pressure" inside of a "vacuum". That's physically impossible.

And why do you keep using the word invisible?

Why do you call them "dark"?

It sounds like its meant to be derogatory. But lots of perfectly normal things in physics are invisible. So in reality it just makes you look really stupid.

Since you aren't even sure if it's even energy driving acceleration or that the energy is actually "dark", who are you to judge me about a choice of words.

 

[GeeMack]

Okay, so you do agree that dark energy exists.

bzzzzzzzt!

So were you lying again when you said this?...

I certainly believe that everything has a physical cause.

You seemed to agree that there is a physical cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. You change your mind so soon?

 

[Tubbythin]

I did. It sucks. The whole concept was postdicted to fit and Guth's original brand of inflation was falsified but the concept simply won't be allowed to die a natural empirical death.

Why should it? It explains a lot. You still use Newtonian gravity even though it gets stuff wrong. The theory of evolution looks somewhat different to Darwin's theory these days but you still use it. The three quark standard model doesn't work. But nobody gave up on quarks, they just added another 3. Etc etc etc...

*NOBODY* demonstrated a cause/effect link, it was entirely *ASSUMED* starting with Guth's original magic brand of inflation that requires "negative pressure" inside of a "vacuum". That's physically impossible.

Michael, what is the cause of the gravitational constant, G?
And no, a negative pressure is perfectly possible so long as the energy decreases with decreasing volume. This is true by definition.

Why do you call them "dark"?

Because thats the commonly accepted scientific term. It'd be a bit stupid if I called it Jimminybobbobsplat and RC called it qwertyuiopium and DRD called it flabberdangdingdongdoodle. We'd never know what the others were talking about.

Since you aren't even sure if it's even energy driving acceleration or that the energy is actually "dark", who are you to judge me about a choice of words.

You can call it what the hell you like. But civilization has been progressed greatly through the use of common languages. I can go to a fruit and veg shop and ask for an apple and I'm likely to get exactly what I want (assuming they haven't sold out). I'm unlikely to get a cucumber. The problem with inventing your own language is that nobody else is likely to know what you mean. For example, if I decided apple was a stupid name and I'd much prefer to call them flubles, my trip to the fruit and veg store is likely to be much less successful.