Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
39 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,487 Year: 20,523/19,786 Month: 920/2,023 Week: 428/392 Day: 44/74 Hour: 5/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5407
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 46 of 309 (662457)
05-15-2012 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 10:38 PM


Re: first assumption
We never observe any property of matter apart from light.

Really? I can hit you over the head with a black whifflebat at night in a dark basement, and you will observe nothing?


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 10:38 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 12:40 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 309 (662458)
05-15-2012 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 10:38 PM


Re: first assumption
Scientists seem mathematics as empiricism,

As best as I can tell, this statement is nonsensical and untrue. Nobody considers mathematics to be empirical. Mathematics is used to model, to encapsulate the logic of an argument or the description of a theory, and to make predictions from a hypothesis, among other things. Accordingly, scientists rightly find mathematics useful as an aid to communication and thinking.

But nobody [make than nobody credible] believes that mathematics is a substitute for actual observation.

If you believe that there is an improper use of mathematics in science, I'd appreciate reading your citation of an example of such a misuse. Perhaps then I will understand why your original statement is not pure nonsense.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 10:38 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31625
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 48 of 309 (662459)
05-15-2012 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
05-15-2012 10:33 PM


Re: change leaves evidence.
Are there any current examples here on Earth of the kind of evidence accelerated radioactive decay might make? Wasn't there some such evidence somewhere in Nevada, also on some atoll in the South Pacific; maybe in other places as well?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:33 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by dwise1, posted 05-15-2012 11:24 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 309 (662460)
05-15-2012 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 10:38 PM


Re: first assumption
We confirm this in billions of ancient galaxies whose atoms shone at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms.

Really? Which galaxies have atoms that emit light at tiny fractions of the frequencies of their modern counterparts? My understanding is that the largest red shifts ever measured cannot be characterized as shifting visible light by this amount.

See below for some example observations and calculations:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redshf.html

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 10:38 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 50 of 309 (662461)
05-15-2012 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
05-15-2012 11:07 PM


Re: change leaves evidence.
A couple cities in Japan in the summer of '45, as I recall. Seem to recall that they got a lot of press coverage for it.

As I advised, foreveryoung, you need to follow through and work out all the consequences. Unless you try to call for a string of miracles to keep those consequences from having happened, in which case you'd be right back at poof-magic. Remember, you aren't the first one to ever attempt this, but the others all failed because they did not follow through, work out all the consequences, and do the math. If you also fail to do due dilligence and apply rigor, then you will also fail in your attempt. Hand-waving won't do the job ... besides, we've already seen that kind of hand-waving before and are quite familiar with its problems.

Which brings us right back to my question: why do creationists and other Christians work so hard to come up with naturalistic explanations for miracles? By trying to deny God's miracles, aren't they also trying to deny God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:07 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 51 of 309 (662464)
05-16-2012 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
05-15-2012 7:32 PM


Re: first assumption
Thus you would agree that the light from SN1987A shows that the speed of light was the same when the supernova occurred as it is today, yes? Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the light having traveled 167,000 light years to get here at that speed means that the universe is at least that old, yes?

I agree that the ANGLE and the DELAY in days from the reflected light from the ring around the star shows how many MODERN DAYS the light was in transit. It says nothing about how long ancient days were or how fast the speed of light is.

(1) The speed of light is DEFINED as a constant. Scientists use the notion that cesium atoms keep on ticking at the same rate to DEFINE the length of a meter and then circle back to claim they measured a constant speed of light. All that they confirmed was their assumption. Even if atoms are changing relationally (their dimensions and their dithering light frequencies together) the speed of light would still seem to be a constant because light is fundamental, and also it is included in the definition for the length of a meter.
(2) We observe how orbits accelerate along with the accelerating atomic clocks as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew - the visible properties of matter always changing. The fastest (normal) atomic clocks are local.

If you want to believe that objective empirical evidence is not a representation of reality then you can believe anything you like, even that your comments about science and scientists are actually valid instead of the purest fantasy.

I have no problem with evidence that is real. Empirical evidence is
(1) based on a dogmatic assumption - that atoms are immutable and dither with perpetual motion with which they defined their measuring units. If atoms are changing relationally - as we observe in the light from billions of galaxies - the measuring units and the mathematical "constants" would shift with the changing atoms as we observe.

The only history that is visible as it happened is galactic history. No scientists, creationist or evolutionist, can accept the visible history of the universe. Scientists have filled the universe up with undetectable magic to protect their basic creed. Even creation scientists claim the earth is young and perhaps the light changes speed, not because of what the Bible states, but because they were trained to believe in immutable matter.

What we see is fundamental change, orbits moving in the opposite direction of the laws of physics, atoms continuing to change throughout cosmic history.

The universe that light reveals is unscientific because it violates the basic creed of all scientists, their historical first principle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2012 5:28 AM godsriddle has responded
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2012 11:23 PM godsriddle has responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 52 of 309 (662468)
05-16-2012 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coragyps
05-15-2012 10:53 PM


Re: first assumption
We never observe any property of matter apart from light.

from Coragyps: Really?

Light is fundamental. We detect no particle, no energy, no space, nothing apart from light. Indeed, the properties of all matter are always associated with light. Shatter a "particle" and it turns into a multitude of light like things. At the Sanford's SLAC, two beams of light were collided and it produced electrons. Indeed, there is no way to prove that particles are stuff or light-like, since they seemingly shift depending on the instrument we use.

First Elohim finished creating all the plural heavens and earth. The earth at this stage was without form and empty and darkeness covered the primordial state. Then Elohim continued to command light to continue to be. It was then that the god particles finished on the first day began to have extension in space and matter began to form.

That is what we observe at all ranges, point sources shooting out vast streams of matter. Often the matter has a jumbled up spectrum as it emerges. Later the matter gleams in the far infrared. and even later it often shifts to blue. Quasars that gleam at infrared are even found inside local galaxies at the end of a jet. The visible frequencies of light continue to change throughout cosmic history as galaxies intrinsically grew in defiance of every law of physics. What is visible is such a violent offense to the scientific first principle that scientists have invented a universe that is 99% invisible and magical. They even claim that a tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created everything out of nothing. What nonsensical speculation.

Only a biblical version of creation is supported with light, rather than magical invisible things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2012 2:07 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 53 of 309 (662478)
05-16-2012 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by godsriddle
05-16-2012 12:40 AM


Re: first assumption
Light is fundamental. We detect no particle, no energy, no space, nothing apart from light. Indeed, the properties of all matter are always associated with light.

And this, children, is why blind people don't know anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 12:40 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 309 (662492)
05-16-2012 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by godsriddle
05-16-2012 12:22 AM


Re: first assumption
I agree that the ANGLE and the DELAY in days from the reflected light from the ring around the star shows how many MODERN DAYS the light was in transit. It says nothing about how long ancient days were or how fast the speed of light is.

It is interesting enough to know that the speed of light in as measured using modern days is a constant. That means that when we measure the distance to objects in modern units, we can know that the distance to those objects is enough to prove that light from those objects could not have reached us in only 6000 years.

Note that the distance to distant objects is NOT measured using the speed of light at all, but is determined independently of the speed of light. With few exceptions, we cannot obtain any direct measure of the flight time of photons from distant astronomical objects. So your purported linkage is simply wrong.

1) The speed of light is DEFINED as a constant. Scientists use the notion that cesium atoms keep on ticking at the same rate to DEFINE the length of a meter and then circle back to claim they measured a constant speed of light.

There is a sense in which the above statement is correct, and another in which it is completely wrong and off-base.

While it is true that the current definition of the meter is based on a a distance light travels, that current definition is not the definition that was in use when the constancy of the speed of light was observed experimentally back in the late 19th century. So we know that your conclusion that constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum is only an artifact of our current method of defining the meter is completely wrong. We know from history that constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum was established first, and only then used to define the meter.

We also know that making the assumption that the speed of light is constant and that the laws of physics are invariant in form, with no other assumptions, leads directly to the predictions of special relativity which have been verified in countless experiments. So we are not simply guessing and making assumptions regarding the constancy of the speed of light. We know.

As for your observation of local clocks nonsense. We have observed that even local clocks (meaning clocks at relatively short distances) vary in rate as predicted by special and general relativity. That is, we know from observation that that clock frequencies do vary both because of the velocity of the source relative to us, and because of difference in gravitational field potential for distances of only a few hundred feet. So we know that the variation in the speed of clocks as observed from our reference frame is not simply a function of distance. We also have observed that for those clocks which appear to run slow in our inertial reference frame, do not seem to run slow from reference frames in which they are at rest.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 12:22 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 1:38 PM NoNukes has responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 55 of 309 (662532)
05-16-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
05-16-2012 5:28 AM


Re: first assumption
It is interesting enough to know that the speed of light in as measured using modern days is a constant. That means that when we measure the distance to objects in modern units, we can know that the distance to those objects is enough to prove that light from those objects could not have reached us in only 6000 years.

The ancients claimed that the earliest people lived in the great time. Jacob stated that the days and years of the children are shorter and worse than than the days and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9). Job, in chapter 14, listed the geological ages that transpired in the few days of his life. He listed water wearing away rocks and the dried up sea (Hebrew west) as markers for the geological ages people lived a few thousand years ago. Indeed, we find layers of salt, gypsum, and stromatolites (somethings thousands of meters thick) sandwiched between thick layers of marine oozes in the deep Med. Evidently the Med dried and refilled through Gibraltar. A great underwater waterfall and trench hundreds of kilometers long shows how the sea refilled. We find drowned canyons filled with round pebbles running thousands of meters below the modern level of the sea. At Cairo, cores show that the Nile was a canyon more than a mile deep cut into granite. Job ended his poem about the brevity of life by claiming their faces deformed (shanah paniym) before they died. Indeed, the bones of the skull are the only part of our skeleton that keeps growing as we age. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would grow great Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not have the thick brows, as the fossil record shows. In some case Neanderthal children with primary teeth with worn enamel evidently from great age. Hesiod wrote - a child played at his mother's knee for a hundred years among the silver race of men. He claimed this degeneration would continue until children were born with grey temples. No one today lives for geological ages which is why the ancients look back with longing to the age of their fathers. Hesiod moaned that he lived in the iron age when people never stopped laboring by day and dying by night.

Lets go back to the SN1987a evidence. The Magellanic clouds are linked back to the Milky Way by a river of neutral hydrogen, the wake of their ejection - that orbits accelerate. In countless early galaxies we observe equally spaced beads around the redder cores. We observe at many ranges how the stars streams accelerated out, spread out as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew into huge growth spirals. The atomic clocks evidently accelerate along with the accelerating orbits as the space matter takes up increases RELATIONALLY.

Indeed, generations of astronomers measured a decreasing solar parallax which has even continued after radar established the distance to the Sun with clocks. There is even a simple, causal reason why all the planet orbits continue to spiral out. Gravity is not a perpetual motion force as Newton and Einstein imagined. It emerges from the visible way atoms keep on changing themselves relationally throughout cosmic history. Since it evidently propagates at light-speed, it MUST accelerate days and years together, because it pulls more on the trailing hemisphere of earth. Maurice Allais' paraconical pendulum shows that the gravitational forces on Earth vary with the position of the Sun, Moon and evidently even the planets. It is gravity that continually accelerates the earth and gravity does not propagate from perpetual motion atoms, but from atoms that are continually changing relationally (the space they take up, their inertial, electrical properties and atomic frequencies change together).

It is important when analyzing scientific stories about beginnings to examine how the scientific first principle allows scientists to speculate about things that violate the visible history of the cosmos and the earth histories of all ancient people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2012 5:28 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2012 7:26 PM godsriddle has responded
 Message 57 by Panda, posted 05-16-2012 7:44 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 309 (662560)
05-16-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by godsriddle
05-16-2012 1:38 PM


Re: first assumption
The atomic clocks evidently accelerate along with the accelerating orbits as the space matter takes up increases RELATIONALLY.

Well no. You are making this stuff up.

Gravity is not a perpetual motion force as Newton and Einstein imagined.

Einstein did not imagine that gravity was a force at all. Where are you getting this nonsense?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 1:38 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by godsriddle, posted 05-17-2012 4:57 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2027 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 57 of 309 (662561)
05-16-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by godsriddle
05-16-2012 1:38 PM


Re: first assumption
godsriddle writes:

Indeed, the bones of the skull are the only part of our skeleton that keeps growing as we age.


I agree with NoNukes.
Where are you getting this nonsense?

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 1:38 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 58 of 309 (662573)
05-17-2012 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
05-16-2012 7:26 PM


Re: first assumption
The atomic clocks evidently accelerate along with the accelerating orbits as the space matter takes up increases RELATIONALLY.

NoNukes: Well no. You are making this stuff up.

Why would I want to make up things that are supported by simple, visible evidence? The light from billions of galaxies shows that atoms are always changing themselves relationally. Not a single ancient galaxies shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms and the differences are often associated with distance (the past).

Lets be brutally frank about Einstein's theory. He imagined that the vacuum of space time is bent by the Sun and the earth follows the local bent rails in the vacuum. No one has ever detected a shred of visible evidence for space time nor has anyone isolated or directly detected any gravity. Both Einstein and Newton believed that static matter does enormous amounts of work bending the path of the Earth without changing anything about itself. This is nothing but a mathematical version of perpetual motion.

It is much simpler to observe that atoms are always changing their light frequencies and the orbits in countless galaxies continue to accelerate out, billions of galaxies intrinsically growing into huge growth spirals, as the properties of all matter visibly change. What causes gravity has never been isolated but the fact that atoms keep on accelerating their light clocks as orbits also accelerate in defiance of every law of physics should tell us at least that gravity is not a perpetual motion effect.

The scientific emperor is naked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2012 7:26 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 9:21 AM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 05-18-2012 5:44 PM godsriddle has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31625
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 59 of 309 (662578)
05-17-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:27 PM


So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
foreveryoung writes:

If that physical universe has been so distorted by a changing of the physical laws that there is no way to physically detect it as such today, we would be assuming that the present physical reality is the only reality that has ever existed and we would be wrong.

But no one is saying that the present reality that has ever existed, in fact the Singularity which is a period when the current laws do NOT seem to operate is widely recognized by cosmologists.

What Science tells us is that our current reality is the reality that has existed for many billions of years.

How can we say that with any confidence?

We observe the evidence that is the universe within our approximately 14 billion year horizon. We look to see if we can find examples of things moving faster than the current speed of light, of mass being different than today, of accelerated radioactive decay; but so far the basic laws all seem to be the same no matter how far back in time we look until we reach the Singularity where we find something unrecognizable, something totally devoid of life, planets, stars, galaxies, elements, matter...

It may well be possible to have a functioning universe that has different basic laws but it is not possible to have "THIS" universe if the basic laws were different.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:27 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 9:25 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 60 of 309 (662579)
05-17-2012 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by godsriddle
05-17-2012 4:57 AM


Re: first assumption
Why would I want to make up things that are supported by simple, visible evidence? The light from billions of galaxies shows that atoms are always changing themselves relationally. Not a single ancient galaxies shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms and the differences are often associated with distance (the past).

I don't know your motivation, but your nonsense is not supported by observation or evidence.

As a matter of fact, galaxies, as viewed from earth, may show either red shift or blue shift. And in fact there are galaxies which present both red shift and blue shift (and of course no shift at all) from different portions.

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.6 million light years away from earth and yet exhibits a blue shift. That alone ought to cause you to do some re-thinking.

The redshift and blueshift of distance galaxies is well understood, and predicted by real cosmology including general relativity. On the other hand, by your own admission, your nonsense posturings do not explain ancient blue-shifted galaxies. You are spouting nonsense.

He imagined that the vacuum of space time is bent by the Sun and the earth follows the local bent rails in the vacuum.

No Einstein did not imagine that vacuum was bent. What would that even mean?

No one has ever ... directly detected any gravity.

So what? Have you ever fallen while skating and hurt your boom-boom? Did you really mean to talk about gravity waves?

Both Einstein and Newton believed that static matter does enormous amounts of work bending the path of the Earth without changing anything about itself. This is nothing but a mathematical version of perpetual motion.

You are clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Have you ever calculated the net work involved in causing a body to travel in a Newtonian circular orbit? As a hint, the body returns each orbit to positions having exactly the same gravitational potential with the body having the same kinetic energy on each orbit. The calculation should not take you too long. Answer in ergs, please.

Lets be brutally frank about Einstein's theory.

Let's be brutally frank about godsriddle. People with goofy, but hard to disprove crank physics formulations can be found all over the internet. You have not yet managed to attain the loft status as certified internet crank, despite having your own crank's page. Your nonsense is easily identified as nonsense.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by godsriddle, posted 05-17-2012 4:57 AM godsriddle has not yet 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