Summations Only

What papers did you cite? I must have missed that comment. I have been the only one citing papers and authoritative websites.

Yes, they do. But here's the problem. I show you evidence of Stenger's ridiculous comments that contradict GR and people still want to defend him. It's ludicrous. How can I show you evidence for other things when you won't admit gravity is real????

quote:

---

How can I show you evidence for other things when you won't admit gravity is real????

---

You haven't stated this correctly. Which is a tiny part of your problem. Read a lot more carefully.I have to thank you. From the replies you've gotten I got a new insight. What Stenger said and what you have been told by actually practicing physicists is that within GR there is no force of gravity. It is the force that is being discussed not gravity.I hope the italics and underlining will help you read more carefully.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

You still did not answer the question. Did you read the link I posted to NASA? Wrong again. Religious people, rightly or wrongly, tend to believe the planet they live on has a special place in the universe. It is true that Jesus said he has sheep in places we don't know about and that statement could mean he has creatures on other planets, but most Christians do not understand it that way.As we look out on the universe, it is typically hostile to life. So far, astronomers have been unable to find any planets suitable for advanced life forms. I believe Hugh Ross has prediction on future research in this area.Your assumption that God has fine-tuned the entire universe for life is unwarranted. The fact advanced life is rare shows how important the fine-tuning is. If advanced life was all over the universe, then one would naturally assume that life was result of the big bang - a purely natural process. That is not the view of most scientists because it does not match the evidence.

Within GR, there is no attraction. This is not the same as saying there is no force. But pay attention to the statement Stenger makes. He does not just deny gravity's attraction, he denies the gravitational field. The gravitational field does represent a force.Take this definition from Wikipedia:"In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influence that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Newton, Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century explanations for gravity have usually been sought in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction."The force created by this gravitational field is not fictional. It cannot be changed by my whim. We cannot make it whatever we want it to be - as Stenger says.Good gravy, I cannot even believe I am having this discussion.

I've quoted a number of physicists saying that there is no gravitational force in GR.Hmm, who to believe about physics, physicists or you?

Of course.I note that this is not a reply to my post.

quote:

---

You still did not answer the question. Did you read the link I posted to NASA?

---

Why should I read a paper about the possibility of silicon-based life when I'm not talking about silicon-based life?

quote:

---

Wrong again. Religious people, rightly or wrongly, tend to believe the planet they live on has a special place in the universe. It is true that Jesus said he has sheep in places we don't know about and that statement could mean he has creatures on other planets, but most Christians do not understand it that way.

---

How does that show that what I actually said was wrong? I didn't even say anything about religious people in general.

quote:

---

Your assumption that God has fine-tuned the entire universe for life is unwarranted

---

That is certainly not MY assumption. I guess you're thinking of the idea that the "fine-tuned" constants apply to all of our universe. But I don't see why you'd want to disagree with that.

Quite.To expand on my quotations from physicists:Back in the Middle Ages, people would have told you that the natural state of a body was to be at rest. If it moved, some force must be moving it.Following Newton (whose own terminology was somewhat confused, but had the right idea) people came to realize that this was false. The natural state of a body was to move in a straight line at a constant velocity and it took the application of force to make it do something else. Its natural state was to move in a straight line (in Euclidian space).But then along came Einstein and said that the natural state of a body was to move along a geodesic (the equivalent of a straight line) in Einstein's space, (which was not Euclidian but was bent by the presence of mass) and it would take an external force to make it do something else. Newton's "force" of gravity explaining why things didn't move in straight lines was, from this perspective, like the medieval concept of the "force" that explained why things didn't remain at rest. It would take a force to prevent the Earth from orbiting round the Sun; without a force acting on it that is what it would do.

Those two statements express the identical concept. No attraction means no attractive force. But thanks for making clear that you are denying that GR says that the gravitational force is fictitious. After all, it is the gravitational force and not the field that Stenger compares to the coulombic force in making his point.So let's address the notion, explicitly denied by you several times, that the gravitational force is fictitious. When you were performing your research on wikipedia, how did you avoid reading this sentence which was on the same page. (Emphasis added by me.)

quote:

---

In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[1] and that there is either no gravitational force,[2] or that gravity is a fictitious force.[3]

---

Wikipedia gives the following references for the above statement:[2]Grn, ‘yvind; Hervik, Sigbjrn (2007). Einstein's general theory of relativity: with modern applications in cosmology[3] J. Foster, J. D. Nightingale, J. Foster, J. D. Nightingale; J. Foster, J. D. Nightingale, J. Foster, J. D. Nightingale (2006). A short course in general relativity (3 ed.). What is the mechamism Stenger gives for changing the value of the fictitious force? Was it perchance a change of units akin to the method for setting values of h and C to unity? Why don't you present Stenger's argument rather than sound biting it as you do here?My proposition is that you will not do this because it will reinforce the fact that your attacks on Stenger are not credible. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

From Message 344: What's the difference? I don't need to have context for a scientific paper. They stand on their own. I spend most of my day in front of a computer screen. I can sit here at work and read all kinds of stuff on the internet. But I'm not about to be sitting at my desk just reading a book, then people will know for sure that I'm not working.And I figure the fact that I'm pushing almost 8000 posts here would show that I'm not particularly lazy. Actually I did. It talked about the Hoyle state needing to be at a specific value in order for both carbon and oxygen to exist in the quanitites needed for life as we know it. If its too high then there won't be enough carbon and if its too low then there will be too much cabon for there to be enough oxygen.It skated by the audience because we don't debate by link here; your arguments are expected to be written by yourself. Its even in the rules you agreed to when you signed up:

quote:

---

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

---

But anyways, here you have it:The Hoyle state needs to be at a specific value in order for both carbon and oxygen to exist in the quanitites needed for life as we know it. If its too high then there won't be enough carbon and if its too low then there will be too much cabon for there to be enough oxygen.Can you turn that into a scientific argument for a Creator God?From Message 347: In the exact same way that others here do it: You explain what the evidence is in your own words to the audience and then you provide a link to back up what you are claiming.What people are willing to admit is irrelevant to your abilities to provide evidence. If fact, we are unable to prevent you from posting the evidence. You're wrong about what Stenger said and you're wrong about what GR says, but that's beside the topic.From Message 346: Check Message 315.

Don't you think it would have reasonable to perform even the tiniest bit of verification before calling me a liar?

Here's a link to the paper: Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass--Percy

Nope. You still dance around it.The fact is that scientific minds will change as new evidence come in.Unlike religion.That's why the scientific method works.Fortunately for humanitinty, you are not a scientist. That's why you can't even distinguish between religion and science.Imagine everyone thinking that changing one's mind is a bad thing. We'd still be travelling around on talking donkeys.Changing one's mind as new evidence come around is a virtue, DT. A virtue.Not changing one's mind as new evidence is found is a vice, DT. A vice.I know that it's very hard for you to understand.

Thank you, Percy! You saved me a trip to the library!