Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 9:35 PM
353 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,730 Year: 27,336/21,208 Month: 1,249/1,714 Week: 92/365 Day: 48/44 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   gravity
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 46 of 81 (688581)
01-23-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by shadow71
01-23-2013 12:06 PM


So Oser, in my opinion does not make a good case in his criticisms as he assumes anyone who does not believe as he does in wrong.

The irony is that you reject Oser's claims because they conflict with your beliefs, and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 12:06 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 7:11 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 47 of 81 (688591)
01-23-2013 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
01-23-2013 6:00 PM


Paulk writes:

To predate a thing it is necessary to exist at an earlier point in time. There can be no point in time earlier than the earliest point in time by definition. Oser's point seems entirely reasonable. Can you come up with a real objection rather than just assuming that it is wrong

Time exists at the earliest point in time by your definition. by human definition. Oser's point is reasonable only if you believe there is no other option than naturalism. Naturalism necessitates there is no supernatual being. If there is a supernatural being beyond time as we know it, then it is obvious that a supernatural being that created this universe, was before the time of this universe. "I AM" means God was before there was you, before our universe, before anything we can ever try to learn.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2013 6:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 01-23-2013 11:57 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2013 1:37 AM shadow71 has responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 48 of 81 (688593)
01-23-2013 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
01-23-2013 6:22 PM


Taq writes:


The irony is that you reject Oser's claims because they conflict with your beliefs, and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong.

And you reject Schroeder's claims because you disagree with his beliefs, and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong. Perhaps you should read Paul Davies, "the Goldilocks Enigma", written subsequent to Schroeder that supports the same postion. Davies is a Physicist with outstanding credientials.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 01-23-2013 6:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 01-23-2013 7:24 PM shadow71 has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 8.5


Message 49 of 81 (688596)
01-23-2013 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by shadow71
01-23-2013 7:11 PM


You need actually understand what people write
Perhaps you should read Paul Davies, "the Goldilocks Enigma", written subsequent to Schroeder that supports the same postion.

Perhaps you should understand the things you post about. Davies does not in any way support a "supernatural" answer for anything.

From Davies himself.

quote:
Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.

Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Care to try again?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 7:11 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2013 4:37 PM Theodoric has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(2)
Message 50 of 81 (688600)
01-23-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by shadow71
01-23-2013 12:06 PM


quote:
On page 38 of his book Schroeder suggested the following equation:

hf=mc2.......................(1)

where h is Planck's constant, f is the frequency of deBroglie's wave for a particle, m is the particle's mass and c is speed of light.

Whereas equation (1) is absurd, it is easy to figure out how Schroeder derived it. He read somewhere about the following correct equations [4]:

1) E=hf.........................(2)

and 2) E=mc2.......................(3)

Equation (2) was originally suggested by Planck (in 1900) for the quantum of energy emitted by a black body. In 1905, Einstein applied that equation to the energy of photons regardless of whether they are emitted, traveling or absorbed by a material. In 1923 de Broglie suggested to expand the application of that equation to all particles, either massless as a photon or having a rest mass m. As to equation (3), it is probably the most widely known equation of science derived by Einstein in 1905 as a part of his special theory of relativity.

In both equations (2) and (3) E denotes energy of a particle. Obviously lacking proper understanding of these two equations, and seeing the same letter E on the left side of both, Schroeder mechanically combined the equations (2) and (3) into one equation (1).

Unfortunately for Schroeder, he obviously did not know that E in equation (2) and E in equation (3), while both denoting the energy of a particle, actually denote two different energies. E in equation (2) denotes the variable energy of a moving particle, related to that particle's momentum. E in equation (3) is a constant for a given particle, which denotes the so-called rest energy. These two types of particle's energy have little to do with each other. The absurdity of Schroeder's equation (1) is immediately obvious when we notice that it equalizes a variable quantity to a constant. Indeed, the frequency f of de Broglie wave for a particle is not a fixed constant but depends on the particle's momentum, i.e. on its velocity.

.
.
.

The equation (1) is not the only error in Schroeder's new book. However, it seems sufficient to limit the demonstration of the inaccuracies in Schroeder's literary production to the above examples.

Since Schroeder's insufficient competence in physics, which is his professional field, is obvious, what credibility can be given to his lengthy discourse on molecular biology which is not his professional field?


You didn't read the reviews, did you.

This is not some difference in philosophy or world view. This is a glaring error of fact in known physics; an absurdity that a competent physicist could not possibly make.

Don't give me any of this "errors are not black or white or accepted by all physicists" bullshit. This is just flat out incompetent. Period.

Schroeder is not a resource you want to use. There must be a competent physicist on your side of the street somewhere. I suggest you drop Schroeder and go find him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 12:06 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:50 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 71 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 2:59 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10062
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 51 of 81 (688623)
01-23-2013 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by shadow71
01-23-2013 11:51 AM


But don't lay people have the responsibility to read what qualifed experts opinions are and then make a rationale decision as to who is correct?

If they have such a responsibility it is a responsibility more often breached than observed. Do you believe that people shoulder that responsibility outside of a courtroom? What per cent of people have an informed scientific opinion on global warming or any other scientific question? I suspect that most people have not done any kind of weighing of evidence to form their opinions.

Lay people form opinions because that's we people do. Often those opinions are uninformed, contrary to the evidence, irrational and wrong. Sometimes the opinions are correct for illogical reasons.

In fact, lay people get things wrong often enough that we don't leave certain questions, (for example patent claim constructions) to juries, because injustice results.

I as a person who believes in the God of the Roman Catholic church take umbage when a scientists writes in a review that only 20% of physicists are theists. What revelance does that have to a scientific issue?

Was that Oser's most significant criticism? I don't think so. In my opinion Oser pointed to a number of substantial logical flaws in Schroeder's arguments. Of course those flaws don't prove that Schroeder is wrong, but they do dismiss the claim that his conclusions are inevitable.

What revelance does that have to a scientific issue?

Ultimately, Shroeder's argument is not scientific. The question of how many physicists are theists is relevant to whether Schroeder's arguments are compelling to other scientists. If we were actually having a jury decide this issue, a mechanism that I think is inappropriate, then the weight of scientific opinion is relevant.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 11:51 AM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10062
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 52 of 81 (688624)
01-23-2013 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by shadow71
01-23-2013 7:01 PM


Time exists at the earliest point in time by your definition. by human definition. Oser's point is reasonable only if you believe there is no other option than naturalism.

In other words, you reach Schroeder's result by assuming the answer to the question at hand. You might well be right, but your thought process is not logical. You are reaching your result because of your religious belief. That's fine, but that is not what Schroeder is purporting to do.

Further, Oser does not argue that time must have been created with the universe only that Schroeder completely dismisses this possibility without giving any reason.

Added by Edit:

If there is a supernatural being beyond time as we know it, then it is obvious that a supernatural being that created this universe, was before the time of this universe.

Is this really the only possibility? I don't think your conclusion follows from the premise that there is a supernatural being beyond time, but perhaps you've simply skipped a few steps in the syllogism. How about filling those in for me?

I actually do believe that God created the universe. What I do not believe is that you can prove or disprove such a thing scientifically. Further, you don't appear to be making any attempt to do so, or to defend Schroeder's attempt at doing so. So what exactly are you arguing here?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 7:01 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13309
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 53 of 81 (688638)
01-24-2013 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by shadow71
01-23-2013 7:01 PM


quote:

Time exists at the earliest point in time by your definition. by human definition

If you consider yourself to be non-human and assign different meanings to words that doesn't make Oser wrong, that just makes you incapable of understanding Oser's point.

Or are you claiming that Oser isn't human, uses a different language, and therefore doesn't mean what he seems to say ?

quote:

Oser's point is reasonable only if you believe there is no other option than naturalism

No, it doesn't assume naturalism at all.

quote:

Naturalism necessitates there is no supernatual being. If there is a supernatural being beyond time as we know it, then it is obvious that a supernatural being that created this universe, was before the time of this universe.

And that is only possibly true if there was a TIME before this universe.
Oser's point stands.

quote:

"I AM" means God was before there was you, before our universe, before anything we can ever try to learn.

It might do in your made-up "non-human" language. However, as an English phrase it has an English meaning and that isn't what you say.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by shadow71, posted 01-23-2013 7:01 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 3:08 PM PaulK has responded

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 1210 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 54 of 81 (688779)
01-25-2013 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by AZPaul3
01-20-2013 7:39 PM


Scot Osser' s opinion in his Shroeder's critique, that energy could be the result of matter or that matter and energy are equivalent as regards sequence, seems to me wrong.As we go from biggest to smallest, e.g from peripheral to central, from the end result to the beggining,we see matter ending to quantons e.g energy.Sroeder's view seems more propable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2013 7:39 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 01-25-2013 11:28 AM zi ko has responded
 Message 59 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2013 6:07 PM zi ko has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10062
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 55 of 81 (688780)
01-25-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by zi ko
01-25-2013 11:21 AM


Scot Osser' s opinion in his Shroeder's critique, that energy could be the result of matter or that matter and energy are equivalent as regards sequence, seems to me wrong.

What form would energy without matter take?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by zi ko, posted 01-25-2013 11:21 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 01-25-2013 11:53 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2013 5:59 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 63 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2013 5:18 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2725
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 56 of 81 (688785)
01-25-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
01-25-2013 11:28 AM


mushroom?


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 01-25-2013 11:28 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2725
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 57 of 81 (688790)
01-25-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
01-18-2013 7:08 PM


gravity leaks
shadow71 writes:

My question is, are there any theories as to How Gravity come into existence?

One other postulation is that our universe is like a bubble bumping along the membrane of another universe's membrane.
Gravity is leaking into our universe from the other universe. Which could explain why gravity is such a weak force compared to the other fundamental interactive forces.

All the other fundamental forces have a mediator associated with it, but such a mediator has yet to be discovered for gravity ie: the graviton.

It is still a mystery to be sure, but to lable it supernatural or metaphysical just because we do not yet have a explanation is a antiquated way of explaining things. imo.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2013 7:08 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 58 of 81 (688820)
01-25-2013 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
01-25-2013 11:28 AM


horta?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 01-25-2013 11:28 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2013 10:04 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 59 of 81 (688821)
01-25-2013 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by zi ko
01-25-2013 11:21 AM


Scot Osser' s opinion in his Shroeder's critique, that energy could be the result of matter or that matter and energy are equivalent as regards sequence, seems to me wrong.As we go from biggest to smallest, e.g from peripheral to central, from the end result to the beggining,we see matter ending to quantons e.g energy.Sroeder's view seems more propable.

Emotional distaste and what "seems" right or wrong to you or me make no difference. This is one reason why actual competent physicists determine these things, not amateurs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by zi ko, posted 01-25-2013 11:21 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10062
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 60 of 81 (688897)
01-26-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
01-25-2013 5:59 PM


horta?

I don't understand your answer.

There are answers to my question. Energy can be propagated in fields without propagating matter. The idea was to start a discussion that would shed light on zi ko's errors.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2013 5:59 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2013 12:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017