Creationist model

tesla OK, but since energy is an abstract concept whose only known property is its conservation you really have not clarified much here. To be precise matter is somewhat more than energy. I believe you are meaning to say that mass is energy which would be correct. Matter is mass occupying space {mass volume} so it also includes that in its definition. Indeed ,empty space is a turmoil of virtual energy that is quite enormous. A cubic meter of which could boil the oceans of earth.
However it is empty is the sense that it interacts with our world in a rather ethereal manner, that is to say that energy fluctuations must occur as a paired condition with time and whose product{energy-time} must amount to no more than the Planck constant. We have no real way of knowing this since we have no understanding of a mechanism for energy and only are aware of its property of conservation. Does existence obey a conservation law?

tesla Well that is the nature of the problem. You assume that the "nothing" of nature is beholding to your assumption of it. The truth is that nothing as nature reveals it is far more subtle and involved than the shallow understanding you adhere to.
Imagine a beach of sand and you wish to define nothingness in philosophical versus scientific terms. Again you would possibly assert that nothing means no thing at all{philosophy} and yet in terms of sand which we can measure and define{scientific} in terms of a minimum size { same as we do with the quantum aspect of the real world} then "nothingness" need only be defined as that which is below the minimum size we have specified to define sand itself. Anything smaller is indeed philosophically possible but useless when we are defining sand.

tesla Science need not concern itself with "proving" things since it is not necessary to do so. What it excels at doing is being able to express what can be said about the world that is consistent with what we observe.Since we can say something about a given observed phenomena , we can construct models to explain those phenomena and see if they hold up under further observation and experimentation. In making a model to explain a phenomena we gain insight that allows us to make statements about other aspects of the world that should occur if the model is a good approximation to what is observed. We then test the model by checking on those other aspects to determine if the models prediction of their behavior is accurate.Thereby we further refine the models until such time as they explain the vast majority of phenomena that we observe and this is what amounts to proof. Not an absolute rigid definition, but an accurate, ever refined, better approximation.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

tesla You asked what good is science if it cannot prove anything is real and I succinctly explained why it need not prove reality. As I said then and I say now science only describes what we can say about what we observe. Reality is a word we assume to have meaning that we cannot ,in fact, back up with any confidence.
We can feel confident that "reality" is what we are observing and investigating but only in so far as the accuracy of our models explains what we observe.We observe that the world has color yet we cannot articulate the means by which such sensation arises. In observing the spectrum of visible light we learn that there are only differing wavelengths in our measurements that correspond to those sensations that we assign color names to.
SO what is the reality? Is it that the wavelength differentiation is a complete description of the phenomena or is there something missing? Is it that the brain cells that are tasked with the combining of nerve impulses generate color as a matter of interpretation or is it that there is a new phenomena that is explained by what we already know but have not had the time and imagination to delve properly into to resolve with any accuracy?
In light of what is unknown{ an awful lot} how then can you define reality? Hence, I stipulate that the point of science is not to resolve reality but to improve clarity in ever increasing amounts.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."Albert Einstein

tesla That is just it tesla. Reality is about as useful a definition as God since everyone has their own concept of this. As a scientific term it is rather useless.

tesla Of course science is useless for answering questions that have no meaning. When you learn to ask a proper question though you will find that science excels at helping to resolve it.

tesla Of course it is not based on objective reality but on objective investigation.Tell me tesla. Is it or is it not reality that time moves faster at an elevation of 15,000 feet than at sea level? If not then perhaps you can explain why gravitational time dilation is wrong.
If you agree that this is the reality then please inform us what the reality of time actually is. If it is 3:00 pm at sea level but 2:59.999935 pm at 15000 feet then what is the "real" time?
In looking at the sun, due to the limit on the speed of light, we see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. What is the "real" state of the sun right now then?

tesla Then present your case establishing what reality means will you? Do not think that you can just come in here and demand that your assertions be accepted as gospel and beyond argument if you please.Make your case and answer the criticisms as though they were a source of learning {they are} and defend what you are trying to establish.
You may find that these arguments have long since been demolished or you may{rarely}find that you have a new line of thinking that has not been considered. Demonstrate how this is so. And acceptance is gained through having the better argument not through demanding. Nature is under no obligation to give her secrets to you whole cloth and you should expect to have your ego humbled quite handily if you try. Not in the least. To come to this forum and debate by force of argument and well reasoned logic is necessary if you wish to make your point of view the one that prevails. However do not come in here,full of pride, and expect that you have the answers and that the rest of the world is deluded. I feel that you are only withdrawing because you have come up against opposition that is questioning the assumptions you have made.This is not like being a priest where the congregation hangs on your words and never questions your authority nor your reasoning. See! Here you are playing the child who whines because the other kids won't let him play by his own rules. Perhaps you have accepted things without properly thinking them through. Perhaps not. But if you are going to walk away,sniveling, without presenting the model so be it.I remind you of your first post in this thread You now have a chance to debate but not once have you brought forth evidence. Perhaps you should bring it forth and we can see if it can withstand scrutiny and questioning. I think it is time to begin.

---

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."Albert Einstein

tesla Yes but I have explained why reality is tentative by the standards of science investigation. All knowledge is tentative. Please take the time to answer the questions I gave you some posts back. If you are correct and reality is definite then answer the questions so that we may understand.

tesla Goddamit, but you are a hardass. You claim that reality exists and yet you refuse time and again to demonstrate the validity of your statement. If you know what reality is then answer my bloody questions already.Here they are one final time. Tell us what the reality is here and you can make your case.
I bet,however, that you will weasel out of it yet again.

IamJoseph This is doubtless off topic ,but I will risk suspension just to find out. WTF is the Abrahamic MC2 code?

IamJoseph You have escaped down some dull tunnel of mindless drivel here.Just what the hell is this supposed to mean? Try to speak in less profound realms and maybe we can get a glimpse of what it is you are trying to say.

IamJoseph Monotheism is a philosophical not a scientific premise. And their are certainly alternatives just in the realm of Montheism IaJ. Lead to ONE what IaJ?

IamJoseph Since there was no light in the beginnings of the universe as revealed by science then this assertion is incorrect on its face.

IamJoseph Light {electromagnetic waves} were not a part of the universe immediately upon its formation and it was not until approximately 380,000 years of age when the temperatures had cooled enough electrons and nuclei to combine and radiation to escape. This point is what is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Stars produce all forms of electromagnetic waves from gamma through radio and include that thin slice of the electromagnetic spectrum we know as visible light.Fire produces light through the change in energy levels in the electrons of the combustible material as it burns. Light itself is not like fire in any other way and stars themselves do not produce light as fire does.