Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT, xongsmith (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 50/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1437 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 61 of 297 (622446)
07-03-2011 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Butterflytyrant
07-02-2011 11:33 AM


Hello Butterflytyrant,

Butterflytyrant writes:

I dont think any question, if honestly asked is invalid

What if I were to ask for a testable scientific theory to describe how Jesus ascended into the sky, or how he walked on water, or healed the man born blind so that he could see?

Firstly, they are one off historical events that cannot be repeated or tested by any scientific method.

Secondly, they were supernatural events, which means that we cannot demonstrate or test them by natural means.

Thirdly, these are not believed to be true because we can scientifically validate them. They are believed true because of the eyewittness testimony of those who saw them occur. In the same way, creation week is also believed to be true based on the testimony of God himself. Can these actual events be scientifically verified? No, because they are outside the ability of science. So asking for a scientifically testable theory for a supernatural historical event, in my books, is not a valid request.

Stephen Hawking, paul Davies and others may theorise all they like about time before the big bang, but is any of it testable? Are any of them repeatable? Can they be falsified? My understanding of what separates science from philosophy, is physical demonstation.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation scientists are actually claiming.

You stated

Creation science groups have declared that they are attempting to provide scientific theories and evidence to support the Genesis Creation narrative

and then you state
Yes, I am saying that creation scientists should have theories regarding the acts of the creation week. Or at least a workable hypothesis

You seem to be implying from these and other statements, that creation scientists claim to have scientific support for the actual creative acts of God. This is false. This is not what they mean, or even what they are attempting to do. (I somehow get the feeling from this, that english is not your first language). I am not aware of any creation scientists who make claims such as this. If there are could you please supply a qoute with references.

The following is from Lita Cosner, who is the information officer for Creation Ministries International.(taken from www.creation.com/school-assignment-genesis-1-and-2)

We agree that Genesis is not a scientific book. But it is a historical book, and it makes historical claims. One of the historical claims that it makes is that around 6,000 years ago, God created the universe in 6 ordinary-length days. This is opposed to the secular historical claim that the universe exploded into existence several billion years ago. Science can test some of the evidence which is interpreted one way or the other, but science is powerless to test the claims themselves.

What creation scientists mean, when they claim to have support for creation as described in genesis, is that there is evidence of that creation remaining within this natural world as it exists today. For example, as already listed, there is Design theory, which is based on the argument that complex things such as computors are only ever 'observed' to be made by humans. They do not form naturally as a result of lightening, wind, rain, chemical processes etc. Objects of even greater complexity such as us, have never been 'observed' to form by natural processes, and all complex things have only ever been 'observed' to come about by intentional design. Therefore that clearly suggests that we were designed and made. This theory can be tested, observed, and falsified.

Also related to design theory, is information theory, and yes there is a connection between Gitt's theory & biology. Information theory's basic premise is that information, like complexity, has only ever been observed to originate from an intelligent being, namely us. Gitt has further constrained & defined information by forming ten laws of information. Now it has been discoved that our DNA contains an incredible amount of complex coded information. Therefore this suggests that we were intentionally designed by a very intelligent being. This theory can be tested, observed, and falsified. By the way, in any of those web sites you visited criticizing Gitt, did any of them provide observable testable evidence which refutes any of Gitt's ten Laws of information, or were they just philosophical objections?

Are you confident enough in this answer to answer for all of the creation science world?

Of course not. There are many deluded individuals out there who claim all sorts of things. I personally side with Creation Ministries International, and I have never seen them claim to have scientific evidence for God's actual creative acts in creation week, as clearly stated by their information officer. Nor have I ever seen it claimed by any other reputable organisations associated with them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-02-2011 11:33 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 07-03-2011 9:22 AM Minority Report has responded
 Message 66 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 9:49 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 62 of 297 (622451)
07-03-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Minority Report
07-03-2011 5:59 AM


Minority Report writes:

Information theory's basic premise is that information, like complexity, has only ever been observed to originate from an intelligent being, namely us.

Actually, information theory doesn't say this. That information can only be created by an intelligence is one of Gitt's unsupported claims and is not part of information theory.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Minority Report, posted 07-03-2011 5:59 AM Minority Report has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Minority Report, posted 07-04-2011 5:50 AM Percy has responded

    
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 1437 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 63 of 297 (622491)
07-04-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
07-03-2011 9:22 AM


Hello Percy,

Thanks for highlighting that 'Information theory' is a bit different from Gitt's theory of information. Gitt does draw from the original theory though, or perhaps adds to it, or constrains it, depending on your point of view. I perhaps should have clarified that I was only talking about Gitt's version.

That information can only be created by an intelligence is one of Gitt's unsupported claims

Well that also depends on ones point of veiw. I think that it is self evident that information only comes from intelligence. I believe it is supported by such things as books, computer programs, languages etc. When Gitt applies what is known about information, to a code of unknown origin such as DNA and concluded that it must have an intelligent creator, he is just using a standard form of inference.

If you claim that Gitt is wrong, then all you need to do is demonstrate information forming without an intelligence source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 07-03-2011 9:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 07-04-2011 6:01 AM Minority Report has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 07-04-2011 6:28 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 297 (622492)
07-04-2011 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Minority Report
07-04-2011 5:50 AM


I think that it is self evident that information only comes from intelligence.

Well there are plenty of computer models that mimic Evolution in the sence random mutation and selection and these moddels produce different variations of a simulated life form.

Those simulated lifeforms evolve they have new "information" added deleted changed whiteout any intelligence doing that.

So how do you explain that if information can only come from intelligence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Minority Report, posted 07-04-2011 5:50 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 65 of 297 (622493)
07-04-2011 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Minority Report
07-04-2011 5:50 AM


Minority Report writes:

If you claim that Gitt is wrong, then all you need to do is demonstrate information forming without an intelligence source.

Gitt's primary mistake is to confuse information with meaning. Here's the link to the seminal paper on information theory by Claude Shannon. On page 1 he says:

Claude Shannon writes:

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.

Shannon introduced a solid mathematical foundation to information theory where the amount of information, measured in bits, is equal to the log2 of the number of states. For example, if you wish to encode one of 16 different colors then you would need log2(16) bits, which is 4 bits.

If you wish to know more about the technical side of information theory then you could peruse the paper, or alternatively read the Wikipedia article on information theory, or look up information theory at any number of websites. We can get into actual information theory at any level of detail you like.

In information theory everything is a source of information. For example, there is no fundamental difference in the information given off by a supernova of its luminosity in the form of light and an astronomer's record of his observations of the supernova in his notebook. Information is merely being translated from one form (intensity of starlight) to another (observational notations). The information about the supernova was created not by the astronomer but by the supernova itself. If you doubt that the information comes from the supernova then ask yourself how the astronomer could take accurate notes without observing it. If he can't see the supernova then he can't transcribe the information from the supernova into his notebook. The astronomer is not the originator of the information.

Discussions of information theory often bog down in refusals to accept that in information theory, information has a very formal definition. In everyday use words like information, meaning and knowledge are used almost interchangeably, but in information theory, information has a clear and concisely mathematical definition.

To avoid confusion with the actual definition of information provided by information theory, Gitt should instead claim that only intelligence can create knowledge or meaning, but even then he'd be on shaky ground. I can't see anyone successfully arguing that, for example, laboratory mice don't gradually acquire knowledge about a maze.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add missing word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Minority Report, posted 07-04-2011 5:50 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 66 of 297 (622507)
07-04-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Minority Report
07-03-2011 5:59 AM


Hello Minority report,

To begin I want to respond to your comment that you believe that English is my second language. Not only is English my first language, but I have a degree in Secondary Education with English being my primary subject area. I somehow get the feeling from this comment that you are arrogant.

Your arrogance is supported by your final statement.

"There are many deluded individuals out there who claim all sorts of things. I personally side with Creation Ministries International, and I have never seen them claim to have scientific evidence for God's actual creative acts in creation week, as clearly stated by their information officer. Nor have I ever seen it claimed by any other reputable organisations associated with them."

You have your one source and you believe it to be correct. You believe that any other individuals in the creation science world who do not agree with your point of view are deluded. That is pretty damn arrogant.

To deal with your statements individually...

"What if I were to ask for a testable scientific theory to describe how Jesus ascended into the sky, or how he walked on water, or healed the man born blind so that he could see?"

I would say that no theory exists for any of these events. I would follow up with a reason why. I would say that they are one off historical events that cannot be repeated or tested by any scientific method. I would also add that they were supernatural events, which means that we cannot demonstrate or test them by natural means. I would follow up with advice that the events may be mythical and may have never actually occurred.

You questioned work on the theories of events before the Big Bang. You asked some questions about whether they were testable, repeatable, falsifiable. The you assumed they were not. How about you have a read about the research and see if they are before jumping to conclusions. I am not going to go into it for you as that is not the direction of my post.

Your quotes:
"I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation scientists are actually claiming."
and
"You seem to be implying from these and other statements, that creation scientists claim to have scientific support for the actual creative acts of God. This is false. This is not what they mean, or even what they are attempting to do. "
and
"I am not aware of any creation scientists who make claims such as this. If there are could you please supply a quote with references."

Ok, I will start with you selected source, Creation Ministries International.

In the Creation Ministries Statement of Faith.
" The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. "

http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

This would lead me to believe that they are doing " for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe ". I would include the Genesis creation week in the "Genesis" they describe?

In the Creation Ministries 'What we are' section.

"Our role is to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible and thus its gospel message. We provide real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis."

http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

This would lead me to believe that Creation Ministries are providing " real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis ". I asked for a real world answer to a question in the vital area of creation - Genesis.

The 'Who We Are' section of the Creation Ministries page lists a large number of scientists including their scientific qualifications.

Another statement on the page states : " Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. "

http://creation.com/about-us#who_we_are

These things combined would suggest to me that Creation Ministries are doing scientific research to help prove the events in Genesis. I started at the start of Genesis. It would appear that they are not. They are working on some specific parts of Genesis and leaving out some very important sections. Like the Creation bit.

Here are some more references from other Creation Science pages and books that lead me to believe that they were performing scientific study on Genesis.

I will start with many standard definitions of 'creation science'

" The effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. " Yourdictionary.com

" an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis " The freedictionary.com

" An effort to give scientific evidence for the literal truth of the account of Creation in the Bible. " Dictionary.com

" Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. " Wikipedia

Notice how these standard definitions advise that creation science is attempting to provide some scientific support for the creation account in the bible? I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, but the creation narrative, the week including the phrase 'let there be light' is part of the account of creation and is titled Genesis. Is that incorrect?
here are some more...

Def of creation science used in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.
" " 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3. Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.""
http://www.antievolution.org/...n/new_site/legal/act_590.htm

Notice how creation is in there, that the creation week from genesis right?

The creation research society has this to say...

" The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. "

http://www.creationresearch.org/about_crs.htm

although from what I understand, special creation is supernatural, but they advise they are looking into scientific special creation.

The website Genesis-creation proof has this to say...

" This website has one main purpose: To help Christians and others with an honest desire to get to the bottom of what the truth really is. We show that not all faith is “blind” and that there really IS Genesis Creation Proof. "

That same website does on to say...

" And additional good news is that whether you are a Christian or not, this site includes truth that proves the creation story of the Book of Genesis. "

http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/creationism.html

They mention proof several times in relation to the Book of genesis. Just to clarify, the Book of Genesis includes the creation week that include the phrase "let there be light" right? That is a pretty important part is it not? The creation?
The Answers in Creation website advises they are "bringing the bible and science together".

They also advise...

" Answers In Creation has two main purposes. First, we provide a Christian witness to the scientific community."

http://www.answersincreation.org/

Creationresearch.net advises: " Creation Research exists to seek evidence for the biblical account of creation, to investigate and to promote such evidence, as we glorify Christ and build His church.".

http://www.creationresearch.net/

The biblical account of creation is Genesis right? The bit that I got the "let there be light" line from right?

The creation science association has this to say : " Our mission is to compile scientific as well as Biblical evidence which supports creation"

http://www.creationbc.org/

The Biblical Creation Society has this to say: " BCS is a Christian society that advances and defends the Biblical teaching on creation. Founded in 1976, we seek to think through issues related to origins from a coherent Biblical and scientific standpoint. "

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Just to be clear, creation is the bit in Genesis?

Creation Science Evangelism says this

" Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) is a leading Christian-apologetics ministry, defending the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account from the theory of evolution (see our Statement of Faith). CSE was founded in 1989 by Dr. Kent Hovind, from a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the science of God’s creation."

http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/at-a-glance/

The Genesis creation account includes the creation week I have mentioned does it not?

The Institute for Creation Research says this :

"For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. "

They go on to make this statement of fact :

" All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous ."

http://www.icr.org/discover/

Look at the first statement, then look at the second one. Do you see how they say they are equipping believers with evidence of the bibles accuracy. The second paragraph is one of the things that they are claiming to be fact.

I have looked at creation claims advising that they were doing scientific research on the Genesis story. I started with the start of the story. If Creation scientists only had research for some select parts of Genesis, perhaps they should not make broad sweeping claims.

The centre for scientific creation webpage says this :

" scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation and a global flood." and discusses a book called " In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood"

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

See how the web page is called "creation science" and discusses how they have compelling evidence for creation?

The creation museum advises they have a section on the six day creation story, The Six Days of Creation Theatre. This museum states that they supporting are a scientifically researched information.

http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/theater-presentations/

The meaning of creation: Genesis and modern science
By M. Conrad Hyers
has a chapter on scientific creationism. I could not view it as it was a limited preview only.

Secrets of the Biblical Story of Creation
By Rudolf Steiner discusses the creation story in detail. he does say that no valid theories can be supplied as it was special creation. He did not think the question was invalid.

New Scientist 12 Mar 1981
has an article discussing how a guy tried to sue because the state would not teach the creation week narrative in biology classes.

The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future
By John Morris makes some attempts to use scientific theory to discuss elements of the creation narrative. Just not the bit I was asking about.

the list goes on but I am sure you get the picture.

My claim - Creation Scientists have clearly stated that they are conducting scientific research into the creation story. This include the first section of Genesis. This includes the line "let there be light"

Are there sufficient quotes to support my claim? They cover most of the largest creation science organisation including your source. They may well have sections (like the one you quoted) where they state something a bit contradictory. This is fairly standard across all of the creation science pages. I believe it is pretty misleading. They claim to be doing the research, I ask about it and then I get told by people like you that they are only doing research on specific sections of the Genesis story, and not on the whole creation section of the genesis story. Seems a bit odd to call it Creation Science then does it not?

I won't critique Gitt's information theory, someone well versed in this area is already doing so.

I also won't be trying to prove to you that my question was valid anymore. It is irrelevant as you have given me an answer. The answer you have given me is clear enough.

Creation Science does not have (for reasons you and others have supplied) any theory of any kind related to the creation week narrative section regarding the creation of light (let there be light).

Thank you for answering my question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Minority Report, posted 07-03-2011 5:59 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminPD, posted 07-05-2011 7:11 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 67 of 297 (622508)
07-04-2011 9:51 AM


TO ALL...
Cheers for your input.

I believe that my question has been answered.

Thank you


    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 68 of 297 (622570)
07-05-2011 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Butterflytyrant
07-04-2011 9:49 AM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome Butterflytyrant,
Please take the time to learn how to use the quote boxes. They make it easier to separate your words from those you are quoting.

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

Other resources for new members are listed below.

Thanks
AdminPD

(Please do not respond to this administrative message.)


Helpful links for New Members:
Forum Guidelines, Practice Makes Perfect, Style Guides for EvC, Posting Tips

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 9:49 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 69 of 297 (622573)
07-05-2011 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minority Report
07-02-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
No, Minority report.

When scientists communicate in peer-reviewed scientific publications, words do have a very specific significance. This is all done for the simple reason that the thousands of scientists in, for example China, should also be able grasp the implication of the word "evolutionist" when it is translated into Mandarin. The scientific meaning of the word "evolutionist", in science, is "a person who studies evolutionary biology". Nothing else.

Creationists call geologists who date rocks, for example, "evolutionists". It is completely wrong in a scientific sense. The creationists only do it to mislead people.

I know creationists don't have the foggiest about anything scientific, but words do have very specific implications in science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by caffeine, posted 07-05-2011 7:44 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 70 of 297 (622575)
07-05-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Pressie
07-05-2011 7:22 AM


Evolutionist
Scientists who study evolution are 'evolutionary biologists'. 'Evolutionist' is defined as:

1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
- Dictionary.com

1. a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species
- Collins English Dictionary

a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution
- Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary

The term dates back to early debates about evolution in the 19th century. Minority Report was using the word perfectly correctly, and his meaning was obvious. Let's move on, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2011 7:22 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 71 of 297 (623694)
07-12-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minority Report
07-02-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Moderator on Duty
How do mean you before the Universe started? Is the Universe a concept denoting anything startable? You must define your terms properly first, methinks, otherwise you may keep indulging into logical howlers like that with the most serious face. Either the Universe is all that exists making it incompatible with the verb to start or you are talking only about a part of what exists. If that is the case you should not use the term Universe. Using the term Universe together with verbs like start or begin implies that existence could be started from non-existence which is absurd. Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Minority Report, posted 07-02-2011 8:51 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 07-12-2011 6:31 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 72 of 297 (623708)
07-12-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-12-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Using the term Universe together with verbs like start or begin implies that existence could be started from non-existence which is absurd. Simple.

Are you approaching it from the perspective of 4 dimensionality.

The Universe exists as space/time. Length, Width, Depth and Persistence.

But M-Theory works off 11 dimensions.

If this one Universe, like any of the others in the multiverse, stems from interactions in high dimensions, then it can quite easily have a start and a finish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 3:46 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 7:27 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 73 of 297 (623715)
07-12-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Nuggin
07-12-2011 6:31 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
No, I am approaching from the perspective of existence whatever the number of dimension that might imply as the necessary aspect.
So far I do not see what all the extra ones postulated by the string and its M version are in aid of.
I observe the existence not to be at absolute rest. The dimensions I observe being the mode of existence in relative motion and rest are all the necessary condition of that motion and rest. I don't see how any motion at all may be possible without all the known dimensions being present at once.
Now those theories are talking about vibrations which is a type of motion served by the familiar dimensions well enough already. Other actions proposed by those theories include gravity leaking or its transfer from one universe to another, splitting of universes, starting the new ones and finishing old ones while those verbs used in the description are again all types of verbs denoting actions already satisfied with the known dimensions.
Therefore until shown otherwise, I have to consider those extra dimensions to be redundant and in need of being shaved with the Occam's razor off the face of physics and I'll continue to stick to the simple definition of the Universe as the sum of all that exists.
In this shape the notion of the Universe does not take plural and is perfectly incompatible with the ideas of starting and finishing. Talking about the Universe starting makes no better sense than discussing the relative moisture of momentum. These two ideas simply do not combine to make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 07-12-2011 6:31 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 07-12-2011 8:03 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 77 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-12-2011 9:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 74 of 297 (623716)
07-12-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-12-2011 7:27 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
Therefore until shown otherwise, I have to consider those extra dimensions to be redundant and in need of being shaved with the Occam's razor off the face of physics and I'll continue to stick to the simple definition of the Universe as the sum of all that exists.

Okay, how many years of advance physics have you studied?

Demanding to be "shown otherwise" is going to require you to do some work.

Right now you sound like someone who understands only one language and claims that everyone else is merely muttering gibberish unless he can be shown otherwise.

Well, you need to learn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 7:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 8:30 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 75 of 297 (623717)
07-12-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Nuggin
07-12-2011 8:03 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
Thank you for your suggestion to learn. I will provided with some substance which I suggest your replies should contain. Otherwise, they may remain an empty declaration.
The post you were replying to in its title contained the question what were those dimensions in aid of. Further it expressed my reasons for doubting the extra dimensions were in aid of anything at all really. Instead of answering the question and trying to dissipate my strong doubts you just tell me I need to learn what judging by your tone you supposedly know very well already.
So tell me then what is it exactly that you know so well and I am so ignorant of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 07-12-2011 8:03 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Nuggin, posted 07-12-2011 9:06 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019