|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 1/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
First Caroline Crocker was censored. Except she wasn't.
Then Dawkins was in denial. Except he wasn't. Then Eugenie Scott claimed science was "limited to direct observations of events occurring in nature or under controlled laboratory conditions." Except she didn't. DT, could you please stop making new misstatements before correcting the old? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
designtheorist writes: Yes, if the RTB creation model predictions do not pan out, the model can be proven inferior to other models whose predictions do pan out. Is this as specific as you're going to get, or are you going to tell us what predictions? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi DesignTheorist,
Let me begin where you ended:
Could you please stop making false assertions about me? I have not as yet made any false assertions about you, only true ones. I have called to your attention three occasions on which you made false assertions. The reason we can know that my assertions are true and yours are false are that mine are corroborated by facts from reality while yours are contradicted by them. Addressing your false assertions one at a time:
So let's sum up:
Congratulations for consistency regarding false assertions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
designtheorist writes: Roger Penrose has mathematically shown any naturalistic cause for the Big Bang to be beyond any realm of chance. As far as I know, no one has even attempted to defeat or contradict his proof. Paul Davies quotes his conclusion approvingly. Listen to Sir Roger here. Your link to the Roger Penrose video doesn't work. Please fix. I assume you're referring to this Penrose quote about the low entropy condition of the early universe:
Roger Penrose writes: "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010123." But he said this back in 1981. Given that as recently as 2010 he was proposing that the Big Bang may have been preceded by an earlier universe, have you considered the possibility that he doesn't today and never did view has work from 30 years ago as precluding natural causes? There's a couple things I don't understand, one specific and one general. Specific to fine tuning, given that we don't know everything and never will, how can we know that the value of a universal constant isn't demanded by other natural laws of which we're not yet aware. And general to this thread, how come the five minor tests that you claimed would play a key role in actual discussion of the evidence (see Testing Theories of Origins) have seen no mention here? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
JonF writes: I don't know when, if ever, he changed his mind. I doubt Penrose ever changed his mind. As is his wont, DesignTheorist has claimed something that has no support in fact. He has claimed that Roger Penrose proved that the Big Bang could not have had a naturalistic cause when it is very, very much in doubt that Penrose believed he ever proved any such thing. Penrose probably thought, and still thinks, "What incredibly low entropy! How on earth could that have happened?" He never thought, "My God, what incredibly low entropy! This could not possibly have had a natural cause." No doubt most scientists, Penrose certainly among them, view the cause of the Big Bang as yet another puzzle for which we don't yet have firm answers, only hypotheses. I'm sure very, very few scientists have concluded that the cause was non-natural. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe, including the nearly empty expanse of space between galaxies and at the time of the Big Bang. The Casimir effect is just the most easily detectable example of this phenomenon.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Just being real writes: So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist? You're reading too much into my choice of words. It's a scientific belief based upon evidence, otherwise known as an accepted theory. Supporting evidence is what differentiates virtual particles from creationist ideas. You seem to have a strong skepticism of what is now a well studied and well known phenomenon, so I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on Virtual Particles. It should be easier to have a discussion about your other questions once you're convinced that virtual particles and quantum fluctuations that happen everywhere and every time are not something we're making up. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
designtheorist writes: I'm asking the people here to do their own thinking because I believe it is the only way you will grasp it. It is very easy to try to poke holes in someone else's argument, especially if you don't understand the argument. But if you see the point and attempt to do the work yourself, then the evidence will make sense to you. How do you tell the difference between a single universe with physical constants specifically chosen for life on Earth, and a zillion universes each with random constants of which the one we occupy happens to have physical constants just perfect for life on Earth? This is the same point people keep making to you, but you have to think about it before you can grasp it. It's easy to think you've found fault with arguments you don't understand. If you do the work yourself you'll see the point, and then this argument will make sense to you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Just being real writes: Again we don't know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere. Except that, yes, we do know that the phenomenon is happening everywhere all the time. You still have a very strong skepticism toward what is a well known and well established phenomenon. That's why I pointed you at the Wikipedia Article on Virtual Particles, because it will be a lot easier to answer your other questions once you understand that we're not making it up. But obviously you didn't even glance at the Wikipedia article, because if you had you would have seen the list, under Manifestations, of many ways virtual particles manifest themselves in addition to the Casimir effect. So in order that your doubts about virtual particles don't get in the way of our attempts to answer your questions, why don't you just give the Wikipedia article a read. We could discuss virtual particles here in this thread, but "Why Virtual Particles are Real" isn't the topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
designtheorist writes: This is a common thought among many people. The problem, of course, is that the multiverse is not, in the normal sense, a scientific hypothesis. In order for an hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable. The multiverse can never be observed and it cannot be falsified. If you check out the Wikipedia article on the Multiverse in the section under Criticism you'll see several ways described in which the multiverse might be detected, and it even addresses the Paul Davies quote. Will your discussion of the scientific merits of the RTB hypothesis ever include a description of it along with a presentation of its scientific support? You know, like evidence or something? Because I think the lack of scientific discussion you complain about derives from the fact that you haven't really introduced anything scientific to discuss. For instance, in Message 190 you say:
I'm not sensing any intellectual integrity or willingness to confront evidence that may be uncomfortable. But what evidence would that be? All you do is keep quoting scientists, which isn't evidence and for the most part these scientists don't seem to agree with you that the appearance of design constitutes evidence of design. So is there some telltale evidence hidden in the CBR? Does pi have a message for us after the gazillionth decimal place? Or is your only "evidence" that if the universe were different we wouldn't be here. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
designtheorist writes: It appears researchers are building on Hoyle's observations of about 60 years ago. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a paywall but the abstract is here. Here's a link to the paper: Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
designtheorist writes: The gravitational force between two particles, each with the Planck mass and unit electric charge, is 137 time stronger than the electric force! Again, this is not true. Actually, it is the strong force that is 137 times stronger than the electric force. Your link is comparing the strong force to the electric force. In section 7.2 Stenger is comparing the gravitational force to the electric force, and only for the specific situation of two particles with Planck mass and unit electric change. Stenger may have chosen that particular situation for effect because it produces the same ratio as between the strong and electric forces. He's making the point that gravity is not the weakest force in all situations, that where it is weaker and where it is not varies from situation to situation. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: And Barnes is not correct (or at least your summary here is not a correct statement of physics. I attempted to look at Barnes paper, but your link did not work) Gravity in general relativity is always a fictitious force. There is no action at a distance. The problem Barnes describes surrounds a naive application of the equivalence principle. That is, we can distinguish between gravitational fields (generated from spherical or point sources) and motion in accelerated frames because of the gravitational tidal forces which would not be generated using any kind of accelerated frame. Accordingly we cannot replace a gravitational field with an accelerated frame. In other words, Barnes is discussing the limitations of applying the equivalence principle. Here's a link to Barnes paper: The Fine-Tuing of the Universe for Intelligent Life Here's the relevant passage in more complete form, you were right, he was talking about tidal forces:
Barnes writes: Now, how far are we from Einstein’s field equation? The most common next step in the derivation is to turn our attention to the aspects of gravity which cannot be transformed away, which are not fictitious. Two observers falling toward the centre of the Earth inside a lift will be able to distinguish their state of motion from that in an empty universe by the fact that their paths are converging. Something appears to be pushing them together a tidal field. It follows that the presence of a genuine gravitation field, as opposed to an inertial field, can be verified by the variation of the field. From this starting point, via a generalisation of the equation of geodesic deviation from Newtonian gravity, we link the real, non-fictitious properties of the gravitational field to Riemann tensor and its contractions. In this respect, gravity is not a fictional force in the same sense that the centrifugal force is. We can always remove the centrifugal force everywhere by transforming to an inertial frame. This cannot be done for gravity. You respond that Barnes is correct that "gravity is not fictitious exactly as in centrifugal force", but isn't it? Isn't Barnes stretching Einstein's elevator analogy by assigning it a second observer who he claims is inside the same inertial frame when in reality two independent observers can never be in the same inertial frame? Isn't the observer in Einstein's elevator really a point observer? And determination of one's presence in a gravity field by observation of other inertial reference frames doesn't mean gravity is not a fictitious force? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: An observer in an accelerating elevator is in a non-inertial frame. And a single observer looking at two objects in a gravitational field around a spherical body can indeed conduct experiments that distinguish between an accelerating elevator in free space, and an elevator in an inertial frame under the influence of gravity. In the later case, a single well-instrumented observer would see two dropped objects move towards each other as they fell. But by definition, isn't an inertial reference frame restricted to a region of space small enough to have a negligible curvature? Wasn't that the intent of the Einstein thought experiment, that the person in the closed room couldn't tell whether he was in a gravity field or experiencing acceleration? That if you start giving him the means to detect the difference by extending his room (his frame) in size so that he can measure variance in acceleration then wouldn't that be a different thought experiment? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
NoNukes writes: But I think Einstein's thought experiment instead considered a uniform gravitational region... You appear to be right. I couldn't find Einstein's original wording, but I think I found a fair description of it in a chapter in book by John Norton titled Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy (Thought Experiments in Einstein's Work). On page 137 he has Einstein referring to a "homogenous gravitational field." So doesn't that render Barnes comments about tidal forces moot? Anyway, according to Norton (if you read on from page 137), Barnes' objections are not original. They were raised way back when Einstein first proposed the general theory almost a hundred years ago. But aren't these objections also beside the point? What does it matter if gravity manifests itself in the real (rather than ideal) world in a way that allows us to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration. When you simplify the issue down to the core, the two types of forces cannot be distinguished. That is what is important for a mathematical theory, and that is why gravity is legitimately indistinguishable from a fictitious force. That relativity has passed so many tests gives us great confidence in this interpretation. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024