Clarifying The Buzsaw Position

Out of curiousity, does rand have access to this thread for his response to your response?

I am bringing this thread back because it is an example of tolerance of creationist misbehaviour - just one of many - and because Buz says he can defend his use of the two web references.These are the hyperflight quote from Message 15

quote:

---

HyperFlight writes:

​

QM Gravitation, Concept Three, Angular Momentum
Angular momentum (spin) is conserved at creation, too
Angular momentum works at all scales

​

Spinning is about rotation and/or orbit of a body. In either case, the spin is a movement around a point. Gravitational spin is easy to understand but difficult to implement. Because the spin (angular momentum) is conserved, the conservation holds during the spin creation, too. To get something spinning, you must also spin something else in the opposite direction to keep the net (total) spin at zero -- for if the spin starts with zero and the spin is conserved, it then must end with zero as well. In the case of the planetary spin, the particular planet may have its axis of spin pointing "out to space," but now you know that in that direction there must be another planet or a spinning system that "zeroes out" the planet's spin. A good guess is that the gravitational wavefunction is (1) non-local, (2) has an angular component, and (3) requires a two body system.

http://www.hyperflight.com/conceptthree.htm

---

What reasons are there to accept this as valid science ?The second is in Message 35

quote:

---

I found some more support for my QM position and learned more about QM in the process but since it would be off topic and unnecessary now I'll drop it except for one quote from a Maggie in another forum who was discussing QM.

​

Maggie writes:

​

QM works for our solar system because quantum physics, in the "large" limit, turns into newtonian physics. General relativity, in the "small" limit, also turns into newtonian physics. They just don't turn into each other...and so we search for a unified theory (note to the world: I know this is simplified, but please tell me if it's wrong). In any case, they're both consistent with our relatively medium-sized solar system.

http://community.seedmagazine.com/comments.php?Discussion...

​

She wonders if it's correct. I'm inclined to think it is quite cool from what I've read on the subject. Any thoughts on that?

---

How does this support the claim that scientists are appealing to QM to explain the "low entropy" on Earth ? Doesn't Maggie say that QM "turns into" Newtonian physics at "large" scales ? And we know that "large" scales would be all the objects of the everyday world. So doesn't it say that scientists DON'T appeal to QM to deal with objects on that scale ?

Or perhaps these points aren't debatable after all.

Third time's the charm ?

Paul, I have never ever been able to dialog or debate with you without getting irritated with your caustic attitude and arrogancy. You had to bring up this old thread which was full of unpleasant exchanges and criticism etc as to how I handled clarifying my position. I choose to let bygones be bygones. If I was mistaken, I wasn't the only mistaken one in that not so pleasant thread, so I suggest you leave off needling me about it. If someone else cares to persue it with you, that's their perrogative. I've got enough positive things to do at this time.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

In other words you're back to your attitude that even truthful criticism of creationists should be forbidden. My reason for reviving this thread is clear. YOU asserted that the points in question were debateable. and that isn't true.If you're willing to admit that you were wrong, and that you intend to try to do better that's one thing. If on the other hand you wish to continue with the attitude that all mention of your errors should be censored - while carrying on in exactly the same way, making all the same errors than I have no sympathy.It IS legitimate to point out that we can't trust anything you say because your claims are often misrepresentations or based on obviously untrustworthy sources or even outright inventions. It is legitimate to use past examples to support this point - indeed without such support it would NOT be legitimate to make such claims (although it must be admitted that you feel no need to have actual evidence when you wish to criticise other people). It is NOT legitimate for you to say that the facts are "debateable" and then refuse to debate them.

Why should Buzsaw even bother answering your Atheist rant, complete with silly and gross and brazen misrepresentations?You revived this thread because you are festering in anger. Who cares what an Atheist-evolutionist clown like you thinks of a Christian-Creationist-Designist? If you have anything intellectual to say then we will engage you, but until that time you are a clown and will be treated like one.Ray

When you and I are next online I will give you a short suspension to get your attention (or ask other admins to do the same).The next post that is anything like this will get you a few days.