Limits of Science

simple writes:

quote:

---

When the spiritual is seperated from the physical, the physical only part looks just like this!

​

Same goes for when the Star Wars part was separated from the mundane part. The X-Wings, Super Star Destroyers, Galactic Empire, and Jedi all went bye-bye. All that was left was this universe, which is boring in comparison.

---

No, fiction of a movie, or a claim that the past was physical only doesn't go far without reality and evidence. Your attempts to sillify all but your own baseless assumptions, however are noted.

quote:

---

What you're doing can be expressed by a pretty simple formula:
X+Y-Y=X
You arbitrarily add a Y to the universe, then arbitrarily remove it.

---

I do not remove ant real Y's. Only the ones you try to sneak in there cloaked as science, yet as feeble a fable as one could forge. Here is a real simple formula for you. If you claim the past was PO, and that it is science, put your evidence where your mouth is.

quote:

---

So it is fair to say that your initial assumption for variance in physical laws come from a text written either, in a time when the physical laws operated differently or after said times.

---

My initial reaction was to look to science, but they can not go there save by belief and assumption. Therefore it must remain an unknown until such a time as they can.Meanwhile, I have the advantage of the ancient documentation that records the history of the universe, and it's future, and so I use that rather than your nothing. I welcome all to go ahead, and use nothing if they wish, and leave it unknown. It's up to you what you use where science is left behind. The good news is that it does fit the evidence we do have.

quote:

---

If they were written in the time of non standard physical laws they're relevance to today would be small. If written afterwards how could they accurately reflect what once was?

---

OK, they are not science, so unless one has an interest in the writings, they can't help you there.
I accept that the record was there before the written record. That was like a time when God made a copy from the heavenly hard drive, and faxed it down to us. The record represents the only connection man has with that past pre split!

quote:

---

This all hinges on the assumption that the bible is factual evidence. This is a Science Forum thread: please provide evidence tha the bible can be used in this way on this forum.

---

It can't, you must remain in darkness, and admit you simply do not know. You are welcome to use any belief you wish to try to explain it, as many use old age beliefs, just don't call it science, please!

quote:

---

You seem to be missing the point here.
If you accept that the evidence we can directly measure from distant stars (today) shows that the light that we see (today) was generated under identical conditions to those we observe (today)

---

No, the light we have was not generated under identical conditions. We see that the same conditions now apply far away as they do here, like being in a state of decay, as we notice in 1987a. The merged univese state of the past had a different fabric of time/space, and light relationship, and composition. All we see is the present state. Light that was also spiritual in nature could not be limited by mere physical speeds and properties. That is why light from far stars could be seen here almost right away. As the seperation process finished, leaving us in this temporary physical only state, the light coming in was left as is.
It was not 'generated' from the far away source as such, but was left that way still coming in on that old highway of light. The assumption it was generated as is comes purely in assuming that it also used to be in a PO state.

quote:

---

) and you also accept that the speed of light is constant (today) and has been so for at least a few thousand years then how did the light from these distant stars (millions of light years away) reach us?

---

It has been what it is since it came to be at the split. It used to get here in days, or hours, or some such little time. After the split, it got in the way it now does, as this different light. If we want to get fancy, with supernovae , and how it exploded as expected, showing it operates as we do, I can explain that as well.

quote:

---

If the universe changed to the way it is now only a few thousand years ago then that light could not possibly be here yet. That means that the light started its journey longer ago than a few thousand years right?

---

Think about it, you assume it was the same light. This light was not here, it is what was left after the split. The former light being also spiritual, and different, got here almost right away. It left our light that is what it is and does what it now does, which is move slow as molasses in comparison!

quote:

---

Since we can directly measure the physical conditions in the star at the time the light was originated, this means that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years

---

No. In the split process, the spiritual was seperated, leaving just the physical, which is what we see, -as expected, as operating as physical objects ought to operate! The fact that we can see it means just that the light with the info in it got here very fast. If the space between the star, and earth was slightly slower in transforming from spiritual to physical only, it means that it was still merged long enough for the light to either get here, or, in some cases, get well on the way here, I would think. As we see in the Cosmic background radiation, it is not perfectly smooth. perhaps this is a trace of something other than the claimed big bang.So, unless it could be shown that the universe from creation was just physical, the past merged universe also explains things. Too bad old agers can't do that eh?

The thing that makes it hard to understand is we always looked at things as if we were in the natural created state. Assuming things came to be as a result of the -what we thought were 'natural' processes. Since the PO is only a temporary state, and the coming, and past merged state is the true natural, everything must be looked at again, and the assumptions checked. If we realize it used to be different, then it is no deception.
As for the thread you mentioned, here is a quick take on it. My comments in {}..........................................----"8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location){Trees grew in days in the past, this is irelevant}45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location){[Hyper growth of bacteria, algea, and other things as well as hyper deposition rates, routine flooding and almost daily drying from subteranean water, and other big differences render the present way it is formed as irelevant also}... corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life){Carbon levels in the past not subject to present based assumptions}110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether){Present assumptions again not applicable}567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)With water above the earth, and below, there were many possibilities of mass amounts of this forming. I think chemically, as well as the hyper growth rates applying to the same material produced organically]... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes){The daughter materials in the rocks were already there, engaged in a different process that was not a decay process at all. After the seperation, the 'switch flipped' and the process became one of decay. Observers in the present see that the decay process is now in effect, producing the daughter material, and assume it was all produced by the decay process, over great time, since theoretically if the process always were the same, it would take great time. Now, the same question, was the past the same, and the process? How can we know? Certainly not by just assuming the present was always the same as the far past!}Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)"{Same deal, the present simply IS NOT THE KEY TO THE PAST after all, and no proof exists to say it can!}This message has been edited by simple, 04-13-2006 04:21 PM

quote:

---

Testing something works along these lines.

​

1. Assumption: The earth is old.

---

Thanks for admitting that! What the hec kind of starting assumption is that?

quote:

---

2. Evidence: radiometric dating
3: Testing: Find an alternative dating method and perform tests against radiometrically dated things. If this dating method agrees with radiometric dating our confidence is increased that the dates are accurate.
4: Repeat testing for as many alternative methods as you can

---

So, first assume it is old, then treat all evidence as such, I see. The only thing you'd test there is the patience of anyone who actually paid attention to what you were doing, and didn't share your religion, or beliefs.

quote:

---

5: Result: So far many many many many dating methods have been employed and they come back with results that agree with radiometric dating (and by extension each other).

---

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the belief based assumption was faulty for the one, the rest of the ducks following all are heading to the same pond. No doubt convinced they might find the first lifeform there!
It isn't how many ducks are heading to the wrong pond that counts. Now let's not duck the evidence here.

quote:

---

This is science. You don't have to agree with science, but disagreeing about whether it is science or not based on some alternate philosophy doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

---

If the underlying assumption is not solidly supported, it is not science, more like stand up comedy. Evidence is more important than the number or wrong conclusions one can collect.

quote:

---

We can't prove gravity exists, we are just massively massively sure it does. After all - are you forgetting the Intelligent Pushers?

---

No, not forgetting, just never heard of them. Tell you what, all I ask is the kind of prood we have for gravity, then I will accept your old age past fantasies as fact. I don't need absolute, so called 'proof'. Just real solid reasoning, and hard evidence, not just spinning interpretation on the evidence. Let's see you claim the evidence for your old age side, as exclusively where it must go. As is, there is nothing at all but some unsupportable assumptions you aren't used to having questioned.

quote:

---

"Magnetism, electricity"

​

Intelligent pusher I'm afraid. Alternatively they are all the deluded illusions of a coma victim, and they don't exist at all.

---

Let me see here, I guess you actually want us to swallow your claim that the past was physical only, as well as your claims there is no gravity, magnetism, or electricity!!!!!!? Think about it. Does that sound like a solid case to you?

quote:

---

This is the problem. You might consider it beyond reasonable doubt. I consider the age of the earth/universe etc as being beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Well, we can turn on a light, and see electricity, or observe and test a magnet, ot the magnetic field of the earth, or gravity. No contest, these beat unsupported assumptions the past and future doesn't involve more than the present PO state any time. Your hunches are only of so much value.

quote:

---

We can both agree such an argument is weak. The evidence that demonstrates an old earth/universe is massive, you don't think it is. ..

---

That is in box evidence, applicible to the present. It's fine in the fishbowl, you can't take it out though! Otherwise you might crash our galaxy in the future, and have our universe in a speck in the past! Sorry, dark dreams need more than just the fact you like them.

quote:

---

We use science to test the recent past, but that is not scientific either - after all if I test something that happened 1,000 years ago, how can I be sure that the universe wasn't spiritual then and our history has become muddled and wrong...or were forged?

---

Yes it is, we can teast things about the recent past. I think they pickled Einstein's brain, we could test that. We can teast all kinds of things from the recent past, that is science! We know that past was just as PO as the present, all our assumption hold water. Beyond that is where you crash and burn.

quote:

---

1)An unevidencable past, based solely on assumption

​

Actually, that's your hypothesis. What I was putting forward was a universe that has a past which leaves evidence. So we're still in our 4-d universe model.

---

Not unless your present Po fishbowl has 4 dimensions. The past does leave evidence, that is not in question. But show us where this evidence shows the universe was PO, and will be? That is the stuff you lack, the rest is assumptive fluff.

quote:

---

2) A mechanism/agent where it was in a speck hot soup for no apparent reason

​

That sounds like a theistic evolutionists position more than my own. I propose no agents but a 4-d universe, this 'speck hot soup' represents but one region of coordinates within this entity.

---

So, you agree it was in the soup speck, but don't like to talk about it that way, fine. I'll respect your religion.

quote:

---

.. Fortunately science doesn't try to explain all things that have happened. It tries to develop the best explanations based on what evidence exists.

---

The spiritual exists, ask almost anyone. As you say, it offers explanations based on what is under it's little nose. That is fine, unless they claim that that is all that also ever was or will be! And do so without support to boot! I don't quaetion what they see under their nose at the moment.

quote:

---

. The future, the past and the present are all part of the 4-d object I propose.

---

No, you can't cram the universe in your box you dream up. All you can do is inform us all you see is the 4 d bit in your fishbowl. Whoopee do.

quote:

---

One of the cornerstones of science is the ability to predict. If the universe's rules change our prediction will of course be wrong.

---

You bet. Remember that one.

quote:

---

We have no reason to suspect the rules will change, and if they were to change then we would not bee able to make predictions. As such we have a choice of producing tentative predictions based on what we know now, or makin no predictions.

---

Since you predict things like our galaxy crashing, and sun burning out, and that the decaying, dying universe is all there ever will be, I vote you ought to pipe down, since you admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about! Give the kids a break. Stick to what you know. Teach them all about the fishbowl.

quote:

---

..Nor is the spiritual factor 'known'.

---

Not only known, WEKK known! The majority of the planet recognize it in one form or another, always have, do you think we are all nuts?

quote:

---

Peculiarly I am not alone. Scientists, the people who practice science, agree with me that science does not end at some arbitrary time and there is an abundance of evidence from independent lines converging to the same history.

---

Of course not, all they know is the PO present universe, and ASSUME it was all there was or will ever be! They are not capable of detecting where it will change. They speak of the box, only the box, and in the box. I don't mind that, it is a big PO universe we have. Where the rub comes is predicting for no reason it is the same forever before and after.

quote:

---

I've provided the evidence, the massively accurate convergence of many indpendent lines of evidence that suggest the same thing.

---

That is old age assumptive spin. You need to show not 'what if it were always the same, then this and this would be like that and that' . But ' We KNOW it had to be PO in the past and must be in the future because...... this and that and the other' Otherwise it is pure circular reasoning, in box beliefs, and self fulfilling prophesy!

quote:

---

So, they grew pre split. No problem. I assume they grew at some other 'rate', which just happened (coincidentally) to give them same dates as some other process. ..

---

The rate they grow does not affect the fact tree rings are present does it? So, how in the world can you begin to tell us how fast they grew? Now, since this is science, consider your position in need of evidence. We need to know some test that we can perform that would seperate a tree growing through all the laws as we currently from a tree growing in this spirit realm? Can you do that? No. So don't pretend you can. You can't talk to us of pre split growth rates! The evidence is on my side as well. All you do is repeatedly predict in a plethora of ways, that the past must operate like the present. The science lies in the present, the past and future bit is nothing but speculations it was the same!

quote:

---

Are you suggesting now that the processes behind ice core build up and radioactive decay and corals and trees were all the same processes in this spirity world? This inverts your problem. Now we have sudden physical processes springing into existence that happen to agree with one another about how old they are.

---

I have no problem. You do. There was no decay universally pre split, and all assumptions about evidences you make are nothing more that repeated assumptions it used to be the same. Put some meat on the plate here.

quote:

---

I think this might be a useful time to repeat the line I started on here. There is an abundance of evidence for an old universe beyond whatever arbitrary time you choose within the last 10,000 years or so.

---

None. You overvalue your beliefs. Take an example. Tree rings. They grew in days, science has nothing to say about it, except that is not how they now grow. I agree it isn't. Now if science grows an opinion actually about why the rates must have been the same then precisely, I would like to hear it. Meanwhile, the echo of your baseless assumptive opinions on the future and past are all that is bouncing around the room.

quote:

---

What evidence is there that any of this happened, or is it ad hoc reasoning?

---

What evidence is there it didn't? If you claim there is some science to apply here let's get on with it. Assumptions alone, unsupported just don't cut it. [quote] As it stands though, our assumptions have been tested in a variety of creative ways and the results are consistently supportive of the concept that our assumption is valid. ... [quote] Like what? Name one. Creative indeed!

quote:

---

If the light left during the spiritual age, then why does it contain information on a purely physical stellar state.

---

The space between there and here I would think was still merged long enough to get the light here. The seperation process may have had areas that became PO first. For example, matter may have taken more time than light, or space, etc? The result being that the physical explosion, or reaction, or whatnot, was conveyed to earth in the still merged light! It realluy was a physical reation.

quote:

---

For example, given:
"There was physical/spiritual split thousands of years ago"
Show me why we observe the Cosmic Microwave Background as it is.

---

A result of either creatiomn or the split. Since as I just pointed out the seperation process was not unifrom perfectly, it seems to make sense the CMB isn't either!

quote:

---

I'm afraid you are simply wrong here. It was generated under the same conditions we have here right now. We can tell that because the way stars work at a quantum level is intimately related to the speed of light. Specific frequencies in the light tells us the exact conditions under which the light was (not is right now) generated.

---

I understand you think you have a point. But I am saying the light was the same since it came to be, after the seperation. So, what you would be seeing was only since the light came to be. If, as I say, it was on the way here, with the info in it at the seperation process we would expect to see the info! Now, this means that the merged light carried the info of the physical only changed matter we see out there to us. Now, all light is simply our light.

quote:

---

No we can't! It is impossible to say any such thing. For all we know the localized physics where the star is right now could have changed completely

---

Of course. What I meant was that the whole universe is physical only now. Whether that star is still there, at the rate light now travels we don't know. What we know is that the star (or supernova)
was physical enough to give expected normal reactions, apparently.

quote:

---

When measuring the conditions in a star, we are not assuming anything. We are in actual fact taking a direct measurement of conditions in the distant past.
If the speed of light had changed in any way during the trip, we would detect dopler shifts in the frequencies.

---

Of course you are assuming plenty. It didn't change on the trip it IS the change. No one says our light changed. It is the change. Of course we would know if 'light' as we know it had changed.

quote:

---

The light we see from stars of every distance show very very clearly that nothing has changed for many millions of years. In fact it is remarkably consistent right back to the very first stars that formed, billions of years ago.

---

No. The light we see is our light. The light that Adam saw was not. Our light came to be as a result of the split, we were left with it. The reason it carries info from far away, is because it used to get here quick. That is the former light, in the merged universe. The split happens, and it is now not what it was, but just our light coming in still. Since the stars first were affected by the process, the still merged light carried the info of the now physical star on it's way to earth. The light still carried the info as it was left in a PO state. It comes in with that info. It comes in at it's speed that did not cahnage since our light came to be after the split. Using assumptions that the light and universe was always the same, they assume it took a long time. It did not. Again, the present is NOT the key to the past. It is jsut the culmative echo of unsupportable assumptions about the future and past being PO!
That all you got?

OK, so you are beat, and can't provide evidence the past was PO, fine. I understand the foul words, I was frustrated once when my arguements were weaker too.

Actually, I was pointing out that is YOUR arguements, since you can't support the claim upon which all old ages ideas are based! You may be a little dictator bully on this forum, that is fine, ta ta. There was no physical only past, you can't show there was, your tooth fairy so called science is a joke.

quote:

---

First you take one piece of evidence, it suggests the earth is old. ..

---

No, circular reasoning. You assume it is old, assume the past was PO, then inyterpret things that way

"Sorry, I'm just describing the universe as Einstein saw it, simplified slightly. The universe simply exists as a single entity with 4 dimensional coordinates. Time is one of those coordinates"He saw it using the same phyiscal present natural only assumptions, so relativity is relative only to the temporary PO universe.

"Are you suggesting then, that we cannot test anything to see if it might be true using a different line of evidence? "No, but if PO tests are all that are run, PO conclusions are what you will get, similar ones, no doubt. If you could first show the future and past had to be the same they would have some bearing.

"That's not how testing works. Testing works by saying 'if our concept is true, then we should see evidence from an independent source indicating the same thing. ' That's how we test our hypothesis that the earth is old. "True up to a point. True in the box. But in missing the true past, the conclusions rapidly fizzle the further from the present that you base everything on you go! And you can't show the past was the same, you you might as well appeal to magic.

"I've only seen ad hoc explanations. I've not actually seen the evidence explained as a whole. There is no unifying principle to explain the whole sequence of coincidences. All you are saying is 'yeah, but logically it could have happened and we'd never know, all sciences evidences about it would be wrong'. "...... No, I am not saying any such thing. The unifying principle is the spiritual added past and future. It is greater than an in box unifying principle they seek but cannot find The reason is that it can't be found in the temporary physical only fishbowl!

This post rendered invisible by AdminModulous - user was suspended and tried to use a different registration to get around this. If the user is allowed back, the thread will be reopened and the posts made visible again.This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 16-April-2006 10:46 PM