|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi JonF,
JonF writes: Nope, you will observe the clock on the ground to be running slower than yours. By the exact amount that the observer on Earth thinks your clock is running faster than his. All observers in all possible states of motion agree. I don't think so. My clock was the only one that was not adjusted. Now since I think the ground clock is running slower than mine and the ground clock thinks mine is running faster: Which clock has the correct time? From msg 459:
JonF writes: Oh, come on. Get real. Go read a book. Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers If I could put myself in the same point in spacetime where I was yesterday at noon, would it still be yesterday at noon? Yes...but it would involve time travel and Nature doesn't seem to want to play that game with us. All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program. Source JonF writes: Who says, and why are they right? Source of the who.
Perhaps readers who are not familiar with the current impossibility of reconciling relativity and quantum theory, may be visiting this site expecting to find an answer to the question "what is space-time?". Alas, there is no answer, at least not for now, and maybe never. At the University of Michigan's Strings 2000 seminar the participants proposed a list of the ten most important unsolved problems in fundamental physics. Number 5 was - "Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?" In other words, what are space and time, and what is the strange combination of Space and Time that is the Spacetime Continuum?
Who got the Pulitzer Prize for answering that question? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Which clock has the correct time? Both and neither. The "correct" time depends on your reference point, and is relative. For the reference point on the satellite, the satellite clock is correct, from the Earth based reference point, the Earth based clock is correct. There is no Galactic Mean Time, it's all relative...just like length and width and every other dimensional property of the universe. Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I don't think I'll be continuing this conversation with you.
Not having arrived at your conclusions by means of evidence, no amount of evidence will serve to alter those conclusions. A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes: We're also operating in conditions very different from those in which life originated and have the added difficulty of making sure current life doesn't contaminate our experiment. To actually prove abiogenesis happened as put forth it would be necessary to recreate the conditions on earth at the time life appeared and then without any intervention by man life appear. That would be indisputable scientific evidence. At 70 I don't think I will be around for that event. I will already have all the answers. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Complete bullshit - it is not "in other words" in any way or form. I can't begin to imagine how anyone who thinks that they are sufficiently informed to report on the annual Strings conference, can draw such an inept conclusion. Yes, we do know what space-time is. No, we don't have the answer as to why it is 3+1, but we have many good ideas. And no, we don't have firm answers as to what lies behind space-time, but there are many clues to the next layer of the onion skin. But to claim that we don't know what space-time is, is simply wrong, untrue, lies, bullshit...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
ICANT,
icant writes:
When you add over 150 years of trying to produce life from non life by some pretty good scientist it gains weight. When you consider the last 60 years of that with the best technology available to mankind, science has accomplished a lot. You add all that together and it paints a pretty solid picture that you are not going to get life from non life.
Bravo! Still don't prove it.
icant writes:
All that is necessary is to prove non life can produce life.
Impossible to prove either way.
icant writes:
A natural law being something that just exists. Why does it exist?
Why wouldn't it exist? It just does and the fact that it does is evidence that life came from non life. Evidence can be used many different ways. Try to look at it like you don't know and how many possible stories can you create with a piece of evidence and then as you gather more evidence that is related you can paint a more plausible idea that is not contrary to the whole of evidence. But no matter what you do there is always potential evidence that is missing that could cause a Uturn back to one of the other ideas. It can't be proven and as such it is only plausible or not plausible with varying degrees.
ICANT writes:
My indian blood say you speak with forked tongue. You say: I will agree non life can't produce life. Then you say it seems non life can produce life. Which is it?
That is the question and it can't be proven either way. I think either is plausible. I dont care enough to adopt one or the other I just reason that either is possible. Granted one is a little more plausible than the other, still both are plausible. OPEN YOUR MIND! Sasuke!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Sasuke,
Sasuke writes: Bravo! Still don't prove it. Maybe not, but it sure raises reasonable doubt. And in my case that is in the 99.999 range. ICANT'S position on abiogenesis (life from non life) It didn't happen.
Sasuke writes: Impossible to prove either way. Why?
Sasuke writes: Why wouldn't it exist? It just does and the fact that it does is evidence that life came from non life. The fact that a law exists requires that there be a law giver.
Sasuke writes: I think either is plausible. I can accept that you believe that. Just don't expect me to believe it. Everybody keeps talking about following the evidence. It is a proven fact life produces life and is confirmed 264 times a minute in the world by human births alone. After 150 years and the best equiptment available man can not produce life in the best of conditions. But I am expected to believe it just happened in the wild all by itself. Therefore non life can not produce life. Evidence: Fact #1 Life produces life. Fact #2 Non life produces no life. Fact #3 Life exists on earth. For life to exist on earth life had to produce that life. I would call whatever lifeform produced that life God. Following the evidence: Therefore ICANT'S position is that God created life. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Fact #2 Non life produces no life.
When did you complete your exhaustive survey of the universe to determine this "Fact"?
After 150 years and the best equiptment available man can not produce life in the best of conditions.
Yes we're not there yet. But your arguement that because we haven't done it yet therefore it is impossible doesn't hold up. It is equivalent to saying that because man did not travel to the moon in 1492 that it is impossible
I would call whatever lifeform produced that life God.
And what lifeform produced that lifeform? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
ICANT'S position on abiogenesis (life from non life) It didn't happen. I have no problem in accepting that there was a transition from nonlife to slightly protolife to protolife to life via a purely natural (non-God involved) process. Scientific experimentation might someday show how it MIGHT of happened, but I don't think there will ever be found any solid evidence of how it did happen - It's too tiny of a detail that happened too long ago. BUT, another possibility is that this nonlife to life transition happened and was guided by God. Again, evidence to support such is never going to be found. The question is, do you deny that an abiogenesis process could have been God's way of starting off life on Earth? The Godly alternatives seem to be that or a creation ex-nilo (life from nothing). Are you to say you're certain of God's methodology? Besides, others have pointed out Biblical scripture that God created man "from the dust of the Earth". There you have it - life from nonlife. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: I can't begin to imagine how anyone who thinks that they are sufficiently informed to report on the annual Strings conference, can draw such an inept conclusion. You can find the information Here.These are the 10 questions and presenters. Here are the problems: 1. Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable?David Gross, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara 2. How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?Edward Witten, California Institute of Technology and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton 3. What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?Steve Gubser, Princeton University and California Institute of Technology 4. Is Nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?Sergio Ferrara, CERN (European Laboratory of Particle Physics) Gordon Kane, University of Michigan 5. Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?Shamit Kachru, University of California, Berkeley Sunil Mukhi, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Hiroshi Ooguri, California Institute of Technology 6. Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has, is it zero and is it really constant?Andrew Chamblin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Renata Kallosh, Stanford University 7. What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and which subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the theory describe Nature?Louise Dolan, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Annamaria Sinkovics, Spinoza Institute Billy & Linda Rose, San Antonio College 8. What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?Tibra Ali, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge Samir Mathur, Ohio State University 9. What physics explains the enormous disparity between the gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary particles?Matt Strassler, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton 10 Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?Igor Klebanov, Princeton University Oyvind Tafjord, McGill University God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Moose,
Minnemooseus writes: Besides, others have pointed out Biblical scripture that God created man "from the dust of the Earth". There you have it - life from nonlife. Slight correction is needed there Moose.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Man was formed from the dust of the ground but God breathed the breath of life into him. Life was breathed by life into man.
Moose writes: Are you to say you're certain of God's methodology? Nothing is certain where man has been involved. God could have done anything, anyway He desired He is God. The record we have is that He formed them and then gave them life. The details are not complete. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Nope, you will observe the clock on the ground to be running slower than yours. By the exact amount that the observer on Earth thinks your clock is running faster than his. All observers in all possible states of motion agree. I don't think so. You think wrong. It's been experimentally demonstrated over and over again in lot of varied, clever, and independent ways. For example, if you were right GPS would not work. But GPS works. Therefore&hellips;
Which clock has the correct time? Both. What time is correct depends on the circumstances. Physicists do not refer to "correct" time" but instead refer to "proper" time; time as measured by an observer in moving along with the clock that is being considered.
JonF writes: Oh, come on. Get real. Go read a book. Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers If I could put myself in the same point in spacetime where I was yesterday at noon, would it still be yesterday at noon? Yes...but it would involve time travel and Nature doesn't seem to want to play that game with us. All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program. You asked what happens to time when you travel faster than light. I tried to hint that you may have heard "you can't go faster than light" at some time in your life. Your response is irrelevant. If your original question, which was:
What happens to time when you exceed the speed of light? was meant seriously, then you need far more background information than you're going to get in a discussion group thread; you should start with a very simple and basic book. If it was not meant seriously, then stop wasting my time.
JonF writes: Who says, and why are they right? You forgot the "why are they right" part. I guess you think that the support of the physicists at the U of M seminar lends authority? Think again.
quote: You need a remedial reading comprehension course. I'm not sure about what's going on with the author of that page. "Why is…" is not equivalent to "what is…". In other words, the author's "In other words…" is used as an introduction to a question that is totally different from the one listed by the physicists. And without the support of the physicists, he's just another guy on the Internet. I agree that nobody knows why spacetime is as it is. But we do know what spacetime is. And the question you asked was:
You want to tell me what spacetime is? I told you what it is. Of course, I'm just another guy on the Internet… except I can back up my claims. See Space-time Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com and Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions. You got any credible references that say that physicists don't know what spacetime is?
Who got the Pulitzer Prize for answering that question? I don't know. Certainly not Paul Stewart Snyder, the author of that page. Who did? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
These are the 10 questions and presenters. Do you really, really think that "why" and "what" are synonyms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi JonF,
JonF writes: You think wrong. It's been experimentally demonstrated over and over again in lot of varied, clever, and independent ways. For example, if you were right GPS would not work. But GPS works. Therefore&hellips; You will have to be a little more specific for me to understand how they can work. The clocks that are flying have been set to the ground clock. All those clocks are in sync. I said my clock had not been adjusted to run with the ground clock. In fact it is the same as the ground clock. Therefore the ground clock will see it running faster as will all the other satellite clocks. My clock will see all those clocks runninc slower. My clock has not been altered from ground conditions therefore the pulse rate has been changed by velocity and gravity. Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second. So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct. One of them is wrong.
JonF writes: You asked what happens to time when you travel faster than light. I tried to hint that you may have heard "you can't go faster than light" at some time in your life. Your response is irrelevant. If I understand what I read relativity says time stops when you reach the speed of light. If you can exceed the speed of light time will then run backwards and you will be traveling in time. That is how you would go back to where you were yesterday at noon. All kinds of proposals have been put forth to accomplish that goal. But then we come to Godels postulate that if time did not pass it would be no time at all.
JonF writes: I don't know. Certainly not Paul Stewart Snyder, the author of that page. Who did? It hasn't been awarded as the question has not been answered yet. It seems when the quantum gravity theory is worked out time will disappear. Then we would be back to existence with time a concept of man to measure duration. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
ICANT,
icant writes: Why? History can't be proven.
ICANT writes:
The fact that a law exists requires that there be a law giver. Not true. Laws are discovered and identified in Science.
ICANT writes:
Fact #2 Non life produces no life.
That is not a fact. It is a assumption. Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given. Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given. Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given. OPEN YOUR MIND! Sasuke!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024