Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 61 of 159 (489345)
11-26-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 7:33 AM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
A first principle, a priori - as Kant called it - is a basic, elementary assumption. The definitions, systems of measuring, methods, mathematics, laws and principles of science were all historically constructed on this foundational assumption. An arche - first principle - cannot be examined using the system that was built upon it - because that is begging the question - circular reasoning and circular measuring.
How did this little elementary idea become the basis for modern science? The pagan Greeks debated for generations seeking for an arche, a first principle, to serve as the foundation for a naturalistic science. The problem they struggled with was - how can we invent science if matter is itself changing? Each school of philosophy tried to interpret nature with their own unique solution to this problem. Aristotle’s solution was that we must just assume that the properties of matter are not emergent. He commanded his disciples to build all knowledge on changelessness, even though none is observed. His arche did not fly in antiquity, probably because it violated the earth-histories of all ancient people. Fifteen hundred years later, friar Thomas Aquinas convinced the popes and universities of Europe (which were all catholic in that era) to build their structure of knowledge on Aristotle’s metaphysics - that matter does not change its essence - its being. The rest is history. Eventually Aristotle’s physics failed, but his metaphysics became the basis of the modern empirical system.
The idea that the properties of matter are not emergent is now the foundation of almost everything a scientist measures, lawyers and mathematicates. The assumption is visibly false. The properties of matter are observed, visibly, to change relationally throughout the history of the universe. To preserve their dogma that matter is not always changing itself, scientists fill the universe up with myths about invisible things. Their greatest myth is the ridiculous notion that a tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created everything out of nothing.
The sad truth is that modern scientists never examine their first principle. Most of them are not even aware of its historical importance. They are not even aware that their empirical system can work locally if its first principle is false - but it would not work in the distant past. Why? Because the entire structure of scientific rationality was built on a single assumption. If matter is changing itself, their units, definitions, formulas would all track with the local changes in matter. However, they could not mathematically model he long ago past without filling the universe up with mythical things to try and force it to fit their creed.
Yet Peter, a disciple of Jesus, predicted this idea. He even said it was the first, the most important thing to know about the end time false teachers. He even explained how they will obfuscate geology and astronomy with this idea. Think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:33 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 11-26-2008 1:16 PM godsriddle has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 62 of 159 (489347)
11-26-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 7:33 AM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
What is a "perpetual motion atom"? Please explain, as I am not familiar with that term. My understanding is that the concept of perpetual motion contradicts the laws of thermodynamics in that it is saying that in a closed system the law of the conservation of energy is not preserved. You will need to explain how this applies to individual atoms? Please expound. Please stay scientific and not get all metaphysical with your explanation.
That is my term. Scientists do not verbally state that atoms are perpetual motion machines. Yet they assume it. By international agreement, the primary unit in science it the second. A second is operationally defined. By definition 9,192,631,770 microwave pulses from cesium 133 is a "fixed-length" second. Yet no clock can compare previous seconds with current ones. Scientists use seconds to operationally define other symbolical units for length, force, acceleration, mass, energy and gravity. Yet every single atomic clock in the distant universe clocked a different frequency than modern atoms and the differences generally increase with distance.
To preserve their system that was built on the assumption - that the properties of matter do not change relationally with age - scientists fill the universe up with invisible things. By their own admission, their universe is 99% invisible. Their greatest myth is the big bang. The big bang is a myth designed to protect their creed that all matter is not changing relationally.
Edited by godsriddle, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:33 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by rueh, posted 11-26-2008 1:25 PM godsriddle has replied
 Message 75 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 4:29 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 159 (489350)
11-26-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
So you are suggesting that, since science is based on a flawed assumption, we turn to religion? Most likely your particular brand of religion?
Don't you realize that all religion resolves back to "Trust me!" at some point? I am not willing to trust the word of shamans, whether contemporary or having lived several thousand years ago. They have not been shown to be a very trustworthy lot on the whole.
I'll stick with science, and if there are truly problems with our methods we'll see if we can't work them out.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:56 PM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 7:23 PM Coyote has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 64 of 159 (489351)
11-26-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Hello godriddle,
gr writes:
To preserve their system that was built on the assumption - that the properties of matter do not change relationally with age
Could you provide a propery of matter that has been shown to change with age?
gr writes:
Yet every single atomic clock in the distant universe clocked a different frequency than modern atoms and the differences generally increase with distance.
In what ways is this not effectivly delt with by general/special relativity?

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:12 PM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 2:45 PM rueh has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 65 of 159 (489352)
11-26-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 7:52 AM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Please provide evidence for your assertion.
BTW, science does not claim to know all the answers. The mission of science is to find the questions and the answers. Just because science cannot explain why the universe came into existence does not negate all the evidence of how it functions.
According to Thomas Kuhn, science is a collection of beliefs. He called this collection a paradigm, a system of faith about physical reality.
quote:
Kuhn: No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism.
The scientific paradigm informs scientists about what it means to do science. Kuhn claimed that scientists are conservative thinkers. They are in the business of solving problems in the manner they were taught. Their training informs them about what is a problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gather evidence and how to solve the problem using the techniques and definitions supplied to them by their scientific paradigm.
quote:
Kuhn: The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly.
Biblical physics is not like scientific physics. It is simple. It does not use mathematical formulas or symbolical ways of measuring. It has only one basic idea - stated in Greek by the Apostle Paul: the whole creation is in bondage to phthora - fundamental change. Biblical physics is confirmed with sight. We see the past all the way back to the creation of the universe. The visible history of the universe fits biblical physics and biblical description of how God created the heavens - visibly.
The most powerful evidence for biblical physics is how the galaxies formed. Primordial galaxies were tiny, packed with stars. The earliest ones did not have extensions - arms or diffuse structures. They were naked. They are often seen in equally spaced strings - evidently the beginning of galaxy clusters as they moved out, spread out. When we compare billions of spiral galaxies at many ranges - we see how they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of all matter keep on changing relationally. Biblical cosmic history has visible support - unlike the myths of scientific cosmologies that all supported by invisible matter, vacuous processes and the explosion of a tiny bit of vacuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:52 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 1:54 PM godsriddle has replied
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2008 2:43 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 66 of 159 (489353)
11-26-2008 1:51 PM


Maths.
The mathematics that prove my hupothesis is in its infancy, I started this more than 10 years ago and I have a new maths, I struggled for a while with the existing maths but it isn't suitable, it was like doing algebra using only the numbers 0-9.
Even on its completion it will be greeted with derision, the same sort of derision Feynman received when he presented his diagrams, he at least had existing maths to work on to show proofs, my maths doesn't have that luxury, almost every term would be unfamiliar to any living scientist/mathematician.
Infinity for example does not exist in this maths, what appears in conventional maths as infinity is a variable number as a factor of energy, but even energy is not anything to do with 'work' it is part of a quantifiable gravitational force, which is itself the co-efficient of the finite number given for what was previously infinity.
In simple terms I doubt if you would understand even the basics of this maths because it would need a paradigm shift from the given maths of the sub-light world. It has to be so, the FTL world just touches our lives through one medium and that is gravity and gravitation which is the bridge to the FTL world or maths.
I could write down the symbols I have [for all the FTL elements] to explain events, but every one and more importantly their compounds and resultants would be entirely alien to you.
It is literally another language in maths.
Edited by V-Bird, : bad english last paragraph.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 5:56 PM V-Bird has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 67 of 159 (489354)
11-26-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 1:39 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Biblical physics is not like scientific physics. It is simple. It does not use mathematical formulas or symbolical ways of measuring. It has only one basic idea - stated in Greek by the Apostle Paul: the whole creation is in bondage to phthora - fundamental change. Biblical physics is confirmed with sight. We see the past all the way back to the creation of the universe. The visible history of the universe fits biblical physics and biblical description of how God created the heavens - visibly.
For fucks' sake - just when I thought V-Bird and Buzsaw were as mad as it gets, we get this lunacy. Tell me, how does biblical physics compare to Quaranic phsyics and... no, on second thoughts, don't bother. There's only so much idiocy I can tolerate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:39 PM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 6:58 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 68 of 159 (489356)
11-26-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
We don't just 'differ' we are polar opposites!
Let's just be clear - the whole collective world of mathematically and scientifically trained cosmologists are at one pole, and you are at the other.
Your cosmos is so aloof that it can't explain an electron cloud as the maths fall apart, mine does not, the same FTL phenomena that keeps the stars rotating about other bodies of equal or greater mass, explains the electron cloud'
When I calculate (to one loop) the electron g-factor using our standard mathematics of the "electron cloud", I get 2.0023228. What do you get using your theory?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 10:42 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 4:27 PM cavediver has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 69 of 159 (489362)
11-26-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 1:39 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Hello Godsriddle, welcome to EvC.
godsriddle writes:
Kuhn claimed that scientists are conservative thinkers.
First off, this is an argument from authority. Second, what is the evidence that this is true?
They are in the business of solving problems in the manner they were taught.
If you mean they are using the scientific method, you are correct. Do you know of another method equally adapt at solving problems of the natural world?
Their training informs them about what is a problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gather evidence and how to solve the problem using the techniques and definitions supplied to them by their scientific paradigm.
Replace paradigm with method and I think you're right. What's the problem here?
Biblical physics is not like scientific physics.
What physics? Could you provide am example?
It is simple.
Ah good, no difficult equations to wrap my head around.
It does not use mathematical formulas or symbolical ways of measuring.
No equations at all? I'm beginning to doubt this is physics....
It has only one basic idea
One idea? And you think you can explain the entire natural world with this? Impressive if you can pull it off.
stated in Greek by the Apostle Paul: the whole creation is in bondage to phthora - fundamental change.
Pthora? What's pthora? Is that the fundamental change you're relating to? Could you please give examples that show this to be true?
Biblical physics is confirmed with sight.
Should be easy enough to give examples then.
We see the past all the way back to the creation of the universe.
I certainly don't. Would you mind telling me how you're doing that? And what do you see exactly?
The visible history of the universe fits biblical physics and biblical description of how God created the heavens - visibly.
And your evidence for this would be?
The most powerful evidence for biblical physics is how the galaxies formed.
Really? Well, ok, let's see then.
The earliest ones did not have extensions - arms or diffuse structures. They were naked.
A galaxy can't be naked now can it? It's just a bunch of stars put together, I fail to see how this can ever be considered naked.
They are often seen in equally spaced strings - evidently the beginning of galaxy clusters as they moved out, spread out. When we compare billions of spiral galaxies at many ranges - we see how they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of all matter keep on changing relationally.
Properties of matter changing? Would you mind showing this?
Biblical cosmic history has visible support
I haven't seen any.
unlike the myths of scientific cosmologies that all supported by invisible matter, vacuous processes and the explosion of a tiny bit of vacuum.
Nice straw man, luckily, that's not how it works.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:39 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 70 of 159 (489363)
11-26-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by rueh
11-26-2008 1:25 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Could you provide a property of matter that has been shown to change with age?
Scientist define the properties of matter with their historical first principle - their assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent. For example, atoms have spectral signatures that are used to define linear time, which in turn is used for mass, velocities, gravity etc. What if matter is changing relationally? Relational changes are where the properties change in unison - together.
1. Relational changes cannot be defined with precision.
2. They cannot even be measured with precision because even the instruments, the formulas and the units and the “constants” would track with the changes. For example, if all matter is changing relationally, both sides of a balance scale would change equally.
We see the past with sight. The properties of all matter are observed to change relationally as billions of galaxies spread out - grow into huge growth spirals - in defiance of every law and principle of science. It is because of this visible evidence that scientists must invent myths about exploding vacuums, vacuums that move galaxies, vacuums that are filled with invisible matter, vacuums that adjust the frequencies of distant atomic clocks. They even claim that invisible matter adjusts distant vistas so the what is visible is not real. That is a most powerful blind dogma indeed.
In what ways is this not effectively dwelt with by general/special relativity?
General and special relativity are at their heart Aristotlean ideas. They are based on the assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent - that atoms do not normally and continually change with age. In Einstein’s system, clocks can change speed due to proximity to massive objects etc. How do we know what is the real time if clocks can change speed? Einstein substitutes invariant clock time with invariant equation time. Yet countless atomic clocks throughout the vast universe keep on accelerating with age. No perpetual motion atoms are visible. We even sent Pioneer 10 and 11 out of the solar system with calibrated clocks in opposite directions. Their clock signals generated two different radio frequencies. The received frequencies continued to decrease as referenced by the Deep Space Networks precision clocks WITH DISTANCE - not speed (Doppler). The farther from the past the signal came, the slower it was compared to local clocks. Apparently all clocks in the universe are accelerating - local clocks are generally the fastest. Primordial atomic clocks clocked minuscule frequencies compared to local atoms. How can scientists explain this without inventing myths about invisible things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by rueh, posted 11-26-2008 1:25 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by bluescat48, posted 11-26-2008 3:05 PM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 3:08 PM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 73 by rueh, posted 11-26-2008 3:10 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 71 of 159 (489364)
11-26-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
What if matter is changing relationally? Relational changes are where the properties change in unison - together.
The fact is there is no evidence that matter is changing, has changed or will change either rationally, irrationally or transcendentally.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 2:45 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 72 of 159 (489367)
11-26-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
2. They cannot even be measured with precision because even the instruments, the formulas and the units and the “constants” would track with the changes. For example, if all matter is changing relationally, both sides of a balance scale would change equally.
So this "change" is unmeasurable. Fine.
We see the past with sight. The properties of all matter are observed to change relationally as billions of galaxies spread out
So this "change" is measurable.
Do you possibly get the tiniest hint that this may be contradictory
as billions of galaxies spread out - grow into huge growth spirals - in defiance of every law and principle of science.
Yep, we haven't a clue. But at least we know that fire, thunder and lightning come from our gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 2:45 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 73 of 159 (489368)
11-26-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
GR writes:
1. Relational changes cannot be defined with precision.
2. They cannot even be measured with precision because even the instruments, the formulas and the units and the “constants” would track with the changes. For example, if all matter is changing relationally, both sides of a balance scale would change equally.
So a relational change is an idea that you have no way of showing that it has occured or is occuring and no way to falsify the idea? Yeah that sounds like creation science. If you have no way to know that it happened then how can you claim that it in fact occured?
gr writes:
We see the past with sight. The properties of all matter are observed to change relationally as billions of galaxies spread out - grow into huge growth spirals - in defiance of every law and principle of science
First off we do not see the past with sight. Most everything we have learned about our universe has come with the advance of technology that lets us view the universe in a spectrum that is invisible to the eye. Secondly on what grounds are you stating that the growth of spiral galaxies conflicts with the laws of science? As Rhrain likes to say please be specific.
gr writes:
General and special relativity are at their heart Aristotlean ideas. They are based on the assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent - that atoms do not normally and continually change with age
I don't know where you are getting your info but there are plenty of examples of emergent properties in science. I don't believe you when you talk about how science does this or does that. I seriously doubt that you study any of the physics behind any of the ideas that you are incredulous about. Be specific what emergent property exactly do you believe is not realized by science. If it is only your relational change property than maybe you could explain how you alone have been able to see this property of the universe where every other scientist and instrument can not.
gr writes:
In Einstein’s system, clocks can change speed due to proximity to massive objects etc. How do we know what is the real time if clocks can change speed?
This property has been observed and has been put to use. Most notably in our GPS systems. The time dialation has to factored in, since the satellites are further away from the Earth's gravitional field. Also it is important to keep in mind that relativity does awy with the concept of universal time. Time is in fact relative to the observer.
Yet countless atomic clocks throughout the vast universe keep on accelerating with age
Which clocks? You have been to other parts of the universe and have seen these clocks?
No perpetual motion atoms are visible.
You have already admitted that this idea of perpetual motion atoms are you concoction. Please stop using made up terms inorder to say how the universe does not behave the way you want it to.
Their clock signals generated two different radio frequencies. The received frequencies continued to decrease as referenced by the Deep Space Networks precision clocks WITH DISTANCE - not speed (Doppler). The farther from the past the signal came, the slower it was compared to local clocks. Apparently all clocks in the universe are accelerating - local clocks are generally the fastest. Primordial atomic clocks clocked minuscule frequencies compared to local atoms. How can scientists explain this without inventing myths about invisible things?
Like I said this is perfectly explained by relativity. Time is relative to the observer.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 2:45 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 74 of 159 (489375)
11-26-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
11-26-2008 2:10 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
CD I joined this site for good reason, it is about evolution and you will know that evolution has many dead-ends, the mathematical route you describe in your post is a dead-end, liken it to a creature that has evolved an eye, an eye that requires no cross-over for of nerves to compensate for a reflected image that is a finer grade of internal interface [rods etc] that is wired with no blind spot and has a superb lens far superior to anything else around, but this poor creature just puffs out jets of water to move, has no arms and legs and has almost its entire brain devoted to this fabulous eye, but it is an eye that is in a creature that is at a dead-end evolutionarily speaking.
Your eye is much the same, in your case though it is not an eye it is your maths that is at a dead-end, you see great intricacies and the more you look the more intricacies you see.
You look at the electron cloud and you see detail in the hope that if you keep looking you'll understand, you won't.
My maths is not even vaguely interested in electron g-factors, such knowledge has been about for a while now and yet with this intricate knowledge you cannot explain the instantaneous blinking out in one place with the same moment appearance elsewhere, my maths does, I know exactly why it does this, my maths confirms the energy that is left over after the interaction that causes the instantaneous blinking out and on and how this forms mass and why it appears to have 'weight' when then interaction is less intense and we witness gravity.
Evolution has many dead-ends and maths and science suffers them too, I believe, no, I KNOW that you are stranded on one of those peaks in the evolutionary hinterland that Dawkins describes in one of his books.
You are not alone, but then the Nautilus isn't alone either!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 2:10 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 5:09 PM V-Bird has replied
 Message 77 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 5:37 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 75 of 159 (489376)
11-26-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
GR writes:
Myself writes:
What is a "perpetual motion atom"? Please explain, as I am not familiar with that term. My understanding is that the concept of perpetual motion contradicts the laws of thermodynamics in that it is saying that in a closed system the law of the conservation of energy is not preserved. You will need to explain how this applies to individual atoms? Please expound. Please stay scientific and not get all metaphysical with your explanation
That is my term. Scientists do not verbally state that atoms are perpetual motion machines. Yet they assume it.
They do? Where?
By international agreement, the primary unit in science it the second. A second is operationally defined. By definition 9,192,631,770 microwave pulses from cesium 133 is a "fixed-length" second. Yet no clock can compare previous seconds with current ones.
Sure they can. They can measure the length of time by using other references other than cesium-133 i.e. hydrogen maser atomic clocks, rubidium-87 atomic clocks, solar time, sidereal time, etc. They can also keep a history and comparison between these time references.
Scientists use seconds to operationally define other symbolical units for length, force, acceleration, mass, energy and gravity. Yet every single atomic clock in the distant universe clocked a different frequency than modern atoms and the differences generally increase with distance.
What atomic clocks in what distant universe? What the heck are you talking about?
To preserve their system that was built on the assumption - that the properties of matter do not change relationally with age - scientists fill the universe up with invisible things.
Einstein's theory of relativity both general and special indicate that time and space are intricately linked and that a change in one affects the other.
By their own admission, their universe is 99% invisible. Their greatest myth is the big bang. The big bang is a myth designed to protect their creed that all matter is not changing relationally.
What does this have to do with perpetual motion??? I am confused. To me this is pseudoscience gobbly gook with a little bit of religion thrown end. Can you make a coherent cosmological hypothesis out of this?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:12 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024