Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 2:09 AM
406 online now:
Dawn Bertot, Dr Adequate, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), XJTA (6 members, 400 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,831 Year: 6,437/21,208 Month: 2,198/2,634 Week: 386/572 Day: 3/99 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   gravity
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 61 of 81 (688910)
01-26-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NoNukes
01-26-2013 10:04 AM


It was a play off of golden number's "mushroom". My nuke looked more like the horta, a creature from Star Trek. It really had no impact and added nothing to the discussion. My bad.

So as to make amends and redeem myself allow me to contribute this:

What form would energy without matter take?

You mentioned energy fields. Photons would be an excellent example. All wavelengths of the EM spectrum.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2013 10:04 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2013 5:29 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 62 of 81 (688918)
01-26-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
01-23-2013 7:24 PM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
Theodoric, forgive me for taking so long to reply, but I had to reread portions of Davie's book, since I was suprised by his statments you cited. He made these statements in 2007, the book was published in 2006.
His position has changed since the book, maybe because of pressure from the majority of scienctists.

If you will read his Afterword: Ultilmate Explanation of the Question of Existence pp.261-269, you will understand my suprise.

Summarizing the main positions of the book he explained and commented on each position.

A. The Absurd Universe.
The Universe is mysterious and just happened to permit life. There is no purpose to it.
There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle.
This position he says is probably held by the majority of scientists.

B. the Unique Universe.
A unified theory of everything. It is mostly unchangeable. If there is a God this God has nothing to do with the theory or universe.

C. The Multiverse.
A theory of multiple cosmic entities and our universe one of many just happened to be just right for life.

D. Intelligent Design.
Monotheistic religious view that God created & designed universe to be suitable for life.

E. The life Principle.
The unverse arose from laws or principles that constrained it to evolve toward life and mind. It is Teleological in nature. He says this theory is regarded by atheistic scientists as really asserting the guiding hand of God.

F. The sefl explaining Universe.
The universe explains itself, is self contained and creates itself.

G. The fake universe.
We are living in a simulation, and what we take to be the real world is a virtual reality show.

PP267-268
'My own inclinations, it will be clear, lie in the directions of E and F, although there are many details to be worked out. I do take life, mind, and purpose seriously, and I concede that the universe at least appears to be designed with a high level of ingenuity. I cannot accept these features as a package of marvels that just happen to be, that exist reasonlessly. It seems to me that there is a genuine scheme of things--the universe is "about" somethng. But I am equally uneasy about dumping the whole set of problems in the lap of an arbitrary god or abandoning all further thought and declaring existence ultimately to be a mystery."

Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 01-23-2013 7:24 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:56 AM shadow71 has responded
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2013 9:23 AM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 967 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 63 of 81 (688993)
01-27-2013 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
01-25-2013 11:28 AM


What form would energy without matter take?


I don't think it woult take any form we could observe. We then we are in the realm of supernatural or whatever.


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

    
zi ko
Member (Idle past 967 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 64 of 81 (688995)
01-27-2013 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by AZPaul3
01-26-2013 12:51 PM


Photons would be an excellent example. All wavelengths of the EM spectrum.


These are coming from disindigrating matter. They are just results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2013 12:51 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2013 2:21 PM zi ko has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 990 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 65 of 81 (688996)
01-27-2013 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
01-23-2013 7:49 PM


Sorry to say, but this critique of Schroeder is as much bullshit as some of the stuff that Schroeder expels. There is nothing wrong with the given equation, and suitably re-written gives the Compton wavelength for a particle, assuming m is the rest-mass. I haven't read the relevant Schroeder work, so I cannot say in what context he was using this, but Perakh's complaint appears completely unjustified. Perakh also appears very juvenile in various other areas - such as his complaints about the use of centrifugal force and the rest-frame of a photon.

This is the problem when real physicists are too busy and too jaded to be bothered countering mumbo-jumbo - the job gets picked up by those insufficeintly qualified/experienced to do the job.

Now Oser does a reasonable job, as one would hope given his background, but even here his critique is a little off perfect in a few areas...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 5:40 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 990 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 66 of 81 (688997)
01-27-2013 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by shadow71
01-26-2013 4:37 PM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.

I can assure you, from both a personal and professional perspective, that Paul Davies sounds nothing like Schroeder and would support very few of Schroeder's positions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2013 4:37 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 2:53 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5698
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 67 of 81 (689001)
01-27-2013 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by shadow71
01-26-2013 4:37 PM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.

What you believe means nothing, as we have his own words that dispute this. If you want to misinterpret him fine, but don't pass off your misinterpretations as his meaning.


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 62 by shadow71, posted 01-26-2013 4:37 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 68 of 81 (689016)
01-27-2013 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by zi ko
01-27-2013 5:29 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

Photons would be an excellent example. All wavelengths of the EM spectrum.

zi ko writes:

These are coming from disindigrating matter. They are just results.

So the energy comes from matter? Isn't this the opposite of what you were trying to say originally?

Besides that, your response is nonsense. It is not necessary to disintegrate matter to produce EM radiation. Accelerating a charged particle is sufficient.


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 64 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2013 5:29 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 2:34 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 80 by zi ko, posted 01-31-2013 9:19 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 990 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 69 of 81 (689017)
01-27-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
01-27-2013 2:21 PM


It is not necessary to disintegrate matter to produce EM radiation. Accelerating a charged particle is sufficient.

Which is actually the same process, with just a flip of space and time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2013 2:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 70 of 81 (689022)
01-27-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by cavediver
01-27-2013 6:56 AM


Re: You need actually understand what people write
cavedriver writes:


I can assure you, from both a personal and professional perspective, that Paul Davies sounds nothing like Schroeder and would support very few of Schroeder's positions.

What I mean by "he sounds like Schroeder" is that his view of the universe is that it is Teleological, with purpose, and he does not agree with the majority of scientists that there is no design or purpose or point to it all.

He chooses natural causes, Schroeder and I believe in God as the cause and at this point in time neither of us can be proven wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 71 of 81 (689024)
01-27-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
01-23-2013 7:49 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


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.

I will accept cavedrivers rebuttal in re the equation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2013 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 72 of 81 (689026)
01-27-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
01-24-2013 1:37 AM


Paulk writes:


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

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 ?

I am discussing God, a supernatural being, omnipotent, and therefore God does exist before human time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2013 1:37 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2013 3:22 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 01-27-2013 4:42 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12426
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 73 of 81 (689028)
01-27-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by shadow71
01-27-2013 3:08 PM


quote:

I am discussing God, a supernatural being, omnipotent, and therefore God does exist before human time.

What on earth is "human time" and why is it relevant ?

Quite frankly you seem to be arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense and only the deluded could believe it. I wouldn't go that far myself, but it's the clear message I'm getting from your posts.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 3:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 4:45 PM PaulK has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 74 of 81 (689034)
01-27-2013 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by shadow71
01-27-2013 3:08 PM


I am discussing God, a supernatural being, omnipotent, and therefore God does exist before human time.

How does "therefore" get into that sentence?


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 3:08 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 75 of 81 (689035)
01-27-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
01-27-2013 3:22 PM


Paulk writes:

In message 45 your wrote: 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. Time exists at 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 ?

Let me try to clear this up one last time. In reply to your point above, I was trying to clarify that Oser was assuming there was no time prior to the BB.
My position is, That a supernatural being, God, exists before the time of the BB and thus could have created the universe before the time started by the BB.
Paulk writes:


Quite frankly you seem to be arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense and only the deluded could believe it. I wouldn't go that far myself, but it's the clear message I'm getting from your posts.


Quite the contrary I have stated several times on this board that my God is the God of the Roman Catholic Church. That God is Omnipotent and was a supernatural being before the BB. So I am not arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense. Hope this clears up my position.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2013 3:22 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2013 5:00 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017