Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
43 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,300 Year: 20,336/19,786 Month: 733/2,023 Week: 241/392 Day: 101/53 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 309 (662580)
05-17-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
05-17-2012 9:05 AM


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

You have got a bit over-zealous here. We cannot "see" this far back using any known means.


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 59 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 9:05 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 9:35 AM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31607
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 62 of 309 (662581)
05-17-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
05-17-2012 9:25 AM


Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
We can get pretty close. Just how close to the singularity is the CMBR?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 9:25 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:27 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 309 (662589)
05-17-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
05-17-2012 9:35 AM


Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
We can get pretty close. Just how close to the singularity is the CMBR?

Time wise, I'd suggest that the CMBR dates from several hundred thousand years after the period of huge expansion from whatever was present initially. Prior to that time the universe would have been opaque.

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 62 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 9:35 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 11:44 AM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31607
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 64 of 309 (662594)
05-17-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
05-17-2012 11:27 AM


Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
And IIRC we recently got some Hubble images of actual galaxies from about 13 billion years ago, so we can see pretty far back even today.

Is that correct?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:27 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:50 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 309 (662595)
05-17-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
05-17-2012 11:44 AM


Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
Your claim was that we can see the singularity. Even 13 billion years ago is hundreds of millions of years after the big bang.

I'm not even willing to commit to there ever having been a singularity. The universe was once hotter and littler, but who knows what existed at T=0? I surely don't.

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 64 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 11:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 11:59 AM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31607
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 66 of 309 (662597)
05-17-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes
05-17-2012 11:50 AM


Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
I am using the term singularity as that point where the current laws simply don't work, a universe quite unlike what we see today.

And yup, it is hundreds of millions of years after the initial expansion and was a universe unlike what we see currently.

I did not claim we could see any singularity, or at least certainly never intended to imply that we have.

What I said was:

jar writes:

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...

As we look back in time to the early universe, what we can see is always a universe that is following the same laws that we see today.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 11:50 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2012 2:25 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 309 (662634)
05-17-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
05-17-2012 11:59 AM


Re: So let's see if we can make any statements with confidence
I am using the term singularity as that point where the current laws simply don't work, a universe quite unlike what we see today.

Uh, say what??

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

Can we, in fact, look back to find something devoid of matter? Does a plasma of ionized particles not count as matter? Because we cannot look back past the point when matter became largely un-ionized and transparent to light.

That would have been well after any singularity, as the term might be understood by anyone who was not reading the face saving redefinition of the term you are using, would have existed.


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 66 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 11:59 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 68 of 309 (662791)
05-18-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by godsriddle
05-17-2012 4:57 AM


Re: first assumption
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).

Once the frequencies are adjusted for the differences in velocity, they do match up.

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.

I guess you never heard of gravitational lensing?

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/...rses/astro201/g_lens_sun.htm

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.

They aren't changing their light frequencies. You are making this up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by godsriddle, posted 05-17-2012 4:57 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by godsriddle, posted 05-18-2012 6:12 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 69 of 309 (662796)
05-18-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
05-18-2012 5:44 PM


Re: first assumption
Once the frequencies are adjusted for the differences in velocity, they do match up.

Of course they match. You deliberately adjusted them to match. Yet in order to do so you had to believe in magic. You invented the notion that the vacuum of empty space is stretching itself, something never observed which is by definition unobservable. That is like believing in angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I guess you never heard of gravitational lensing?

Gravitational lensing is another example of scientific mythology at work. Allegedly galaxy clusters have 20 times as much invisible matter as visible matter, in order to discount what is visible, that small spiral galaxies were ejected from large elliptical galaxies as they changed their quantum frequencies and left treams of gas in their wake.

We observe hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies crammed with stars and none of them (near or far) shine with the clock rates of lab atoms. The farthest galaxies we have analyzed to date shone at less than 1/10th the frequencies of modern atoms. Even locally calibrated clocks, when they transmitted their clocks signals yesterday, do not track with today's clocks. The radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11 changed frequencies in a manner that correlated with distance (that is the past) relative to NASA's hydrogen maser clocks of the moment. The ratio of distance to clock differences from the Pioneers approximated the Hubble ratio that scientists use to estimate the distance to galaxies using their observed light frequencies.
Scientists are trained to reason using a first principle, a fundamental assumption that is the basis for their empirical definitions, measuring units, mathematical methods and "constants". What assumption is this? The one the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same. Indeed the Bible predicted they would obfuscate the age and history of the plural heavens with this idea, the very thing modern scientists do. No wonder we observe a biblical creation exactly as the Bible states - happening long ago in the distant sky. Scientists, to protect their basic creed, have filled the whole universe up with magical things like vacuums that stretch and drag the frequencies of passing light with them. The whole structure was built on a single assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 05-18-2012 5:44 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 05-18-2012 6:54 PM godsriddle has responded
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2012 9:28 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 70 of 309 (662798)
05-18-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by godsriddle
05-18-2012 6:12 PM


Re: first assumption
godsriddle writes:

Scientists are trained to reason using a first principle, a fundamental assumption that is the basis for their empirical definitions, measuring units, mathematical methods and "constants". What assumption is this? The one the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same.


You're misusing 2 Peter.
quote:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.



The emphasis is that there is no sign of his coming. Everything has been the same since the beginning. There's no suggestion that there can be no change, only that none has been observed.

Scientists are taught that if something does change, it should be possible to observe signs of that change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by godsriddle, posted 05-18-2012 6:12 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 12:32 AM ringo has responded

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


(1)
Message 71 of 309 (662806)
05-18-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by godsriddle
05-18-2012 6:12 PM


Re: first assumption
You invented the notion that the vacuum of empty space is stretching itself ...

A phrase which gets zero google hits, and is therefore probably not exactly what anyone believes.

... something never observed which is by definition unobservable. That is like believing in angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Nah, that's more like believing in gravity, something which is unobservable, but the effects of which have been observed.

Gravitational lensing is another example of scientific mythology at work. Allegedly galaxy clusters have 20 times as much invisible matter as visible matter, in order to discount what is visible, that small spiral galaxies were ejected from large elliptical galaxies as they changed their quantum frequencies and left treams of gas in their wake.

Again, you're making a very, very strange use of the word visible. It is not visible "that small spiral galaxies were ejected from large elliptical galaxies as they changed their quantum frequencies and left treams of gas in their wake."

We observe hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies crammed with stars and none of them (near or far) shine with the clock rates of lab atoms.

That doesn't mean anything.

Scientists are trained to reason using a first principle, a fundamental assumption that is the basis for their empirical definitions, measuring units, mathematical methods and "constants".

And apparently it's this "first principle" and "fundamental assumption" that allows them to heal lepers, make the blind see, and make the lame walk. Which makes me think that there might be something to it. Meanwhile your first principle allows you to write meaningless crap on the internet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by godsriddle, posted 05-18-2012 6:12 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2012 12:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20232
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 72 of 309 (662817)
05-18-2012 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by godsriddle
05-16-2012 12:22 AM


SN1987A part 1
Hi godriddle,

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.

We are going to play a little board game:

    START   B   B   B   B   RING

      A                      B

      A                     B

      A                    B

      A                   B

      A                  B

      A                 B

      A                B

      A               B

      A              B

      A             B

      A            B

      A           B

      A          B

      A         B

      A        B

      A       B

      A      B

      A     B

      A    B

      A   B

      A  B

      A B

      AB

     EARTH

Now you throw a di and move one marker along the A path by the number shown AND you move a second marker along the B path by the number shown.

The number on the di represents an hypothetically changing speed of light.

The B marker will always be 5 places behind the A marker, and it will be 5 places away from earth when the A marker reaches the earth. Feel free to play this as many times as you like, the results will always be the same.

Now the difference in time measured between the arrival of light from the nova star and from the ring is measured in days, and we know the speed of light has not varied by any measurable amount in that time.

Thus we knowwhen the light reaches the earth from the nova star and the ring, the time delay at the current known speed of light gives you the actual physical distance from the nova star to the ring.

This now known distance and the actual measured angle of the star to the ring can then be used to measure the actual distance to the star through basic elementary trigonometry.

This distance is calculated at 168,000 light-years.

Do you agree thus far?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : formating of 'game'

Edited by RAZD, : distance added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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 77 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20232
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 73 of 309 (662818)
05-18-2012 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 10:38 PM


Re: first assumption
Hi again godsriddle,

Interestingly, for me the initial assumption is that what we perceive as objective empirical evidence is a measure of reality, thus concepts about reality can be tested against objective empirical evidence to ascertain their validity. What I see as a rock, you would see as a rock, and we would agree that it was a rock when we compare notes.

That is not the historical first principle of western science. ....

Curiously, it does not matter a noticeable fraction of the amount of ant frass on antarctica what you consider to be "historical first principle of western science" as science is not based on dogma nor tied to ancient beliefs.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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 76 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 309 (662819)
05-19-2012 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2012 9:28 PM


Re: first assumption
A phrase which gets zero google hits, and is therefore probably not exactly what anyone believes.

You didn't encounter Mr. riiddle's crank page? This tripe is all over it.


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 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2012 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 75 of 309 (662820)
05-19-2012 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by ringo
05-18-2012 6:54 PM


Re: first assumption
Ringo wrote:
The emphasis is that there is no sign of his coming. Everything has been the same since the beginning. There's no suggestion that there can be no change, only that none has been observed.

You stopped the quotation a early. What do they do with this idea of their's (panta houtos diamenei - that all things remain the same)? The Greek uses the word lantahno - they diliberately ignore the evidence that the plural heavens (oranoi esan ekpalai). Ekpalai is a compound word. Ek means to come out, the point of origin, that something came out from somewhere. Palai is a word related to vibration, wrestling. It is related to the word pale. Homer spoke of Pale Athena - the planet goddess. Scientist ignore the evidence that galaxies spread out from point sources, tiny globs of primordial matter as the stars came out and accelerated out as the light vibrations also increased. The orbits and teh ato9mic vibrations both accelerate. Galaxies intrinsically grew into huge local growth spirals in defiance of every law of physics. I wonder why they ignore that the heavens are ekapali?

Scientists are taught that if something does change, it should be possible to observe signs of that change.

On the contrary, scientists are trained to reason, measure and mathematicate with an assumption - that atoms are perpetual motion engines.

Thomas Kuhn wrote: "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; what is a problem; what constitutes evidence; how to gather evidence and how to solve the problem using the techniques and definitions supplied by the paradigm. "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."

The first paradigm has resulted in a magical universe because cosmic history violates every law and method of science - except for observation. They obfuscate cosmic history just like Peter predicted because they believe that all things remain the same - that the essence of substance is changeless and this notion is the foundational assumption for their physics.

Only the simplicity of biblical physics (which is non mathematical) is supported by cosmic history from creation to the present.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 05-18-2012 6:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 12:24 PM godsriddle 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