Evidences against Standard Cosmology

[Native]

The Higgs boson was predicted by theory, but there was no observable evidence for it until CERN was built at non-trivial cost.
It's not relevant that it succeeded, you say, that experiment should never have been tried?

I think the Higgs Boson assumption is a bad example as it´s purpose was to find the smallest particle which assumingly should give an attractive force at all particles.

Such an assumption is derived only from the fundamental assumed gravity force and completely disconnected from all other fundamental forces, hence its nothing worth at all.

You have a problem, your best brains form an hypothesis, they test the hypothesis. It succeeds, they learn something. It fails, they learn something.

At least I´m having no troubles focusing in the failures in modern cosmology and in several cases I even wouldn´t described some scientists as "best brains" at all as they simply are parroting old and outdated dogmas.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Are you an expert on ancient religions and their Creation Stories?

I'm an expert enough to know that part of how we define religion is a belief in something supernatural, and that science does not consider, give weight to, or take into account any such unfalsifiable claims that lack any basis in reality.

Well, if this is your general take on Religion and ancient Creation Stories, I don´t give much for your expertise.

Historically, all religions that have done this have been disproven, and so the remaining religions have evolved to avoid concrete claims about reality and favor unscientific things like interpretive metaphor, personal feelings, and attributing unexplainable mysteries to magic forces.

Of course religion "are disproven" by scholars who don´t understand what its all about, including the telling of creation. And in their ignorance, they determine it to be "superstitious" because they can´t find the natural explanations, which to a large extend contains both astronomical and cosmological contents and natural explanations.

In fact, it is these scholars who themselves behave superstitiously by not understanding the ancient Stories of Creation.

 

[blü 2]

I think the Higgs Boson assumption is a bad example as it´s purpose was to find the smallest particle which assumingly should give an attractive force at all particles.

No, it perfectly fits the claim you made. There was no evidence for it, only theory, but at last an experiment found it.

You however would have ruled that experiment out.

 

[Native]

No, it perfectly fits the claim you made. There was no evidence for it, only theory, but at last an experiment found it.

This don´t fool me at all as these scientists can invent all kinds of matter in order to fit their consensus biased group thinking.

You however would have ruled that experiment out.

Of course I have. What gives binding forces to all kinds of matters are electromagnetic charges in general - this has nothing to do with Newtons occult agency at all or with the invented Higgs Bosons for that matter.

 

[blü 2]

What gives binding forces to all kinds of matters are electromagnetic charges in general

So having studied the evidence and the science, you reject the existence of the strong force and the weak force in the Standard Model?

What exactly was the clincher? The point you observed that demonstrated their non-existence? The thing that convinced you that they'd got the science wrong and you'd got it right?

 

[Native]

So having studied the evidence and the science, you reject the existence of the strong force and the weak force in the Standard Model?

Not at all. I rather combine the scientific divided fundamental EM forces into one which governs all atoms by different charges, frequencies, ranges and polarities.

 

[AlexanderG]

Native said: ↑
Are you an expert on ancient religions and their Creation Stories?

Well, if this is your general take on Religion and ancient Creation Stories, I don´t give much for your expertise.

Of course religion "are disproven" by scholars who don´t understand what its all about, including the telling of creation. And in their ignorance, they determine it to be "superstitious" because they can´t find the natural explanations, which to a large extend contains both astronomical and cosmological contents and natural explanations.

In fact, it is these scholars who themselves behave superstitiously by not understanding the ancient Stories of Creation.

You seem very hung up on denying that religions incorporate supernatural claims. I didn't think that was controversial at all. In particular, if the subject matter of a claim has no empirical basis in observable reality, then it is "supernatural" and most likely imaginary.

If I see a hoofprint in the snow, and I tentatively conclude it was created by a horse and you claim it is from a unicorn, then only one of us is using sound reasoning. You can claim it is from a unicorn, and that I'm "in my ignorance determining your claim to be superstitious because I can't find the natural explanation," but we know about horses and their prints and it's probably a horse print. Can I rule out unicorns? No, but that's just the problem of underdetermination.

In an identical fashion, we have a pretty good understanding of how reality operates, and there is no indication that gods are a part of that reality, or rainbow snakes that create continents, or giants who throw moccasins down to make islands, or talking donkeys, or tree spirits, etc. Such beliefs are unwarranted by the evidence of observable reality, and are irrational.

 

[blü 2]

Not at all. I rather combine the scientific divided fundamental EM forces into one which governs all atoms by different charges, frequencies, ranges and polarities.

Why do you do that?

Knowledge or faith?

 

[ecco]

Uh huh. Then please explain why you posted her video.

If you can´t discern this for yourself by watching the video, I don´t bother trying to explain anything else for you.

Well, actually I did discern it for myself.

You found a video with the intriguing title: "huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology" posted by a reputable theoretical physicist.

You have been touting the concept that "soon" science will throw out the concept of Gravity and come to accept the EM theories that you believe.

That would indeed require a huge paradigm change of the Standard Cosmology.

The problem is that the video does nothing to further your hopes that EM will soon be accepted by science as the driving force in the universe.

That's why I asked why you posted it. Your response ducked the question.

So, what should I discern? I think you posted it to lend credibility to your beliefs, at least to those who don't bother to watch the video.

Your duck-around...

Which I never claimed either so no need to bring this up at all.

Is just that - a duck around.

In any case, you would not answer. Therefore, I'm left with my discernment that the reason you posted the video was to lend credence to your beliefs. You hoped no one would actually watch the video, but some of us did.

But, I'm open to change my views. If I'm wrong, just say why you posted the video.

 

[ecco]

. And in their ignorance, they determine it to be "superstitious" because they can´t find the natural explanations,

If you assert religious myths are determined to be superstitious/supernatural because of ignorance on the part of scientific researchers, then it is you who is showing ignorance.

Take the Great Flood as an example. Science didn't determine the Great Flood was a superstitious/supernatural event because they were ignorant. They determined it was a superstitious/supernatural mythological event because geologists proved that the earth was never covered in water 4000 years ago.

Another example is the parting of the Red Sea and the subsequent Exodus. Researchers have now deemed this "event" as a superstitious/supernatural mythological event because there has been no trace uncovered of thousands of people traversing an area for hundreds of years. They came to this conclusion, not because they were ignorant, as you claim, but because they looked and looked and realized there was nothing there.

 

[Native]

You seem very hung up on denying that religions incorporate supernatural claims. I didn't think that was controversial at all. In particular, if the subject matter of a claim has no empirical basis in observable reality, then it is "supernatural" and most likely imaginary.

I´m "hung up" in the fact that our ancestors didn´t/don´t differ between physical and spiritual realms. When scholars forget this, they denotes the spiritual realm as "supernatural" which simply is "a realm beyond the physical one".

In an identical fashion, we have a pretty good understanding of how reality operates, and there is no indication that gods are a part of that reality, or rainbow snakes that create continents, or giants who throw moccasins down to make islands, or talking donkeys, or tree spirits, etc. Such beliefs are unwarranted by the evidence of observable reality, and are irrational.

I agree in if you take "deities" as personal entities, some persons will reject this, and so do I. But if you take the ancient mythical symbolism to describe natural forces in general, you would come up with both an astronomical and cosmological story which is some cases are more logical compared to modern cosmology and astrophysics.

For instants: If you understand the astronomical and cosmological implications of the mythical Rainbow Serpent. you would know that this myths belongs to the mythical/cultural story of the Milky Way and in the Norse Mythology, the encircling Milky Way band around the Earth is called the Midgaard Serpent, a symbolized snake laying around Midgaard, the home of the humans = The Earth.

Such ancient observations of cause isn´t supernational at all, they´re just described by natural symbols.

 

[Native]

Why do you do that?

Knowledge or faith?

By logical considerations: The law of EM cannot logically be split up in three different areas.

 

[Native]

Well, actually I did discern it for myself.

Why then did you asked into the connection at all?

The problem is that the video does nothing to further your hopes that EM will soon be accepted by science as the driving force in the universe.

Why is it that you´re having huge troubles connecting the thoughts of Sabine and my following up on such thoughts?

In any case, you would not answer. Therefore, I'm left with my discernment that the reason you posted the video was to lend credence to your beliefs. You hoped no one would actually watch the video, but some of us did.

NONSENSE! Why on Earth would I post a video if it wasn´t for being watched?

 

[blü 2]

By logical considerations: The law of EM cannot logically be split up in three different areas.

First, what three areas?

Second, what logic, exactly?

 

[Native]

If you assert religious myths are determined to be superstitious/supernatural because of ignorance on the part of scientific researchers, then it is you who is showing ignorance.

You´re completely twisting my argument!

I said if scholars are unaware of the mythical symbolism and language, they´re projecting there own ignorance and describing ancient knowledge to be of superstitious matters.

Take the Great Flood as an example. Science didn't determine the Great Flood was a superstitious/supernatural event because they were ignorant. They determined it was a superstitious/supernatural mythological event because geologists proved that the earth was never covered in water 4000 years ago.

Fine example!

When science/educated scholars have no clues of the ancient mythological descriptions of what our ancestors observed around them, they simply reject the mythical telling as superstitious nonsense.

The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

The Great Flood myth is a celestial mythical telling of the Milky Way and that´s the reason it is told all over the World as the Milky Way are observable all over the world.

Simple mythical logics all over the places.

 

[AlexanderG]

I´m "hung up" in the fact that our ancestors didn´t/don´t differ between physical and spiritual realms. When scholars forget this, they denotes the spiritual realm as "supernatural" which simply is "a realm beyond the physical one".

I agree in if you take "deities" as personal entities, some persons will reject this, and so do I. But if you take the ancient mythical symbolism to describe natural forces in general, you would come up with both an astronomical and cosmological story which is some cases are more logical compared to modern cosmology and astrophysics.

For instants: If you understand the astronomical and cosmological implications of the mythical Rainbow Serpent. you would know that this myths belongs to the mythical/cultural story of the Milky Way and in the Norse Mythology, the encircling Milky Way band around the Earth is called the Midgaard Serpent, a symbolized snake laying around Midgaard, the home of the humans = The Earth.

Such ancient observations of cause isn´t supernational at all, they´re just described by natural symbols.

So, you're just arbitrarily reinterpreting old false beliefs as metaphorical symbols for other mundane things that we know today are actually real? I mean, you're free to do that, but you do realize the vast majority of people who still follow these religious traditions do believe in the literal myths, in contradiction to demonstrable reality? So then what, in your view have the old beliefs been corrupted by the people who still follow them today, who believe that the scriptures simply mean what the words say? Maybe take it up with them, and start your own new denomination and add it to the other tens of thousands of mutually contradictory interpretations.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to modern scientific evidence, theory, or methods. Science promotes clarity; it doesn't use metaphors, poetry, mystical appeals, or ambiguous semantics. In fact, we've shown that engaging in that sort of epistemology is a reliable way to be wrong.

What even is your claim in this thread? Are you just arguing that modern scientific findings can be used to post hoc reinterpret old mythology as metaphors/symbols for what we know to be true today? Ok. That doesn't mean the old beliefs were actually true as people believed them at the time, just that you can reinterpret vague language. So what?

 

[Native]

So, you're just arbitrarily reinterpreting old false beliefs as metaphorical symbols for other mundane things that we know today are actually real?

Obviously my specific explanation of ancient myth-making is wasted on you, so there is no need to continue our conversation.

 

[ecco]

By logical considerations: The law of EM cannot logically be split up in three different areas.

Hmm...

Electromagnetism: Faraday's law, Ampere's law, Lenz' law, & Lorentz force

Four laws of electromagnetism that you should know

1. Faraday’s law of induction
2. Lenz’ law
3. Lorentz force
4. Ampère’s circuital law

 

[ecco]

In any case, you would not answer. Therefore, I'm left with my discernment that the reason you posted the video was to lend credence to your beliefs. You hoped no one would actually watch the video, but some of us did.

NONSENSE! Why on Earth would I post a video if it wasn´t for being watched?

Because the title of the video, taken out of context of the contents of the video, would seem to bolster your ongoing assertions about EM revolutionizing man's knowledge of the universe.


But, as I said, I'm open to change my views. If I'm wrong, just say why you posted the video.

 

[ecco]

You´re completely twisting my argument!

I said if scholars are unaware of the mythical symbolism and language, they´re projecting there own ignorance and describing ancient knowledge to be of superstitious matters.

No, you said...

And in their ignorance, they determine it to be "superstitious" because they can´t find the natural explanations, which to a large extend contains both astronomical and cosmological contents and natural explanations.

In either case, you are asserting that the scientists who assert that "ancient knowledge" is woo, do so because they are ignorant. They are not. They have researched your "ancient knowledge" and found there is nothing to substantiate the reality of it. Hence, my term - woo.