Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
404 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 400 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,199 Year: 20,235/19,786 Month: 632/2,023 Week: 140/392 Day: 0/53 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 76 of 309 (662822)
05-19-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
05-18-2012 11:28 PM


Re: first assumption
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.

It is not for us to chose our first principle. It came down to us beginning with the pagan Greek, was modified by the medieval friars and later adjust by landed gentry from Europe. You can easily prove what your first principle is. Try really hard accepting the visible fact that every atom is observed to change. You will have great trouble doing so, not because of the evidence, but because you were trained to think with a creed, that atoms are perpetual motion engines and use this assumption in your physics definitions and empiricism. None are so blind as those who think with a blind creed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2012 11:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2012 2:58 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

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


Message 77 of 309 (662823)
05-19-2012 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
05-18-2012 11:23 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1
Did you notice that the Magellanic galaxies (the home of SN1987a) were ejected from the core of the Milky Way? A river of neutral hydrogen links them back to the south end of our galaxy. How can miniature galaxies be ejected without acceleration? If miniature galaxies ejected, what about the arms of the Milky Way? We observe galactic history that little globs packed with stars came out in equally spaced chains, rotated out, accelerated out as countless galaxies intrinsically grew into huge growth spirals. If stars streams continue to accelerate, how about planets? Do they also accelerate?

The Bible plainly states that they do. Elohim continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the raqiya. Raqiya is the noun form of the Hebrew verb to spread out.

Indeed generations of astronomers measured with angles a decreasing solar parallax. All ancient people admitted that the earliest people lived in the great time and that the planet used to pass close to earth. The Bible mentions both and also mentions the shattering of a planet at close range to Earth.

What could cause clocks and orbits to both accelerate? The simple answer is the gravitational phenomena. Whatever cause you might ascribe to gravity, you must admit that it does NOT propagate at infinite speed. If that be so it MUST accelerate days and years equally since it would pull on the trailing side of the Earth more than the leading hemisphere. We observe with sight how atomic clocks and orbits continue to accelerate outward in countless galaxies at many ranges. The gravitational phenomena seems to be associated with the visible way matter keeps on changing throughout cosmic history. Gravity clearly is not related to atomic perpetual motion phenomena as Einstein imagined

So where do you find a fixed reference system for determining how long ago SN1987a exploded? All atomic clocks, all orbits, all atoms are all violating the laws of physics. I wonder why? Modern physics has a dogma - the very idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same. Only a biblical version of physics is confirmed with sight. We observe that the creation is enslaved to change - exactly like the Scriptures state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2012 11:23 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2012 12:59 PM godsriddle has responded
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2012 3:06 PM godsriddle has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 78 of 309 (662826)
05-19-2012 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:21 PM


Re: Another reality?
foreveryoung writes:


How is commanding matter into existence not magic simply by nature of who does the commanding or when the commanding was done? I think you are trying hard to make a difference where none exists.

It is magic to you because commanding matter into existence in the PHYSICAL reality is MAGIC. Commanding matter into existence in the supernatural reality is simply the way things are done there. They don't have the same rules to abide by as we have here.

As opposed to the set of physical laws which govern this universe, what (if any) are the rules which "they" abide by?

In other words, could you give us a few examples of the "metaphysical laws" that govern supernatural reality? Or is it a lawless "anything goes" there?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17510
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 79 of 309 (662833)
05-19-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 12:32 AM


Re: first assumption
godsriddle writes:

What do they do with this idea of their's (panta houtos diamenei - that all things remain the same)?


Again, the idea is that things have remained the same throughout history. There is no suggestion that things cannot change but the expectation is that any changes that do occur will produce observable effects.

godsriddle writes:

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


It sn't an assumption; it's Newton's First Law. It's - once again - based on every observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 12:32 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:13 PM ringo has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5407
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 80 of 309 (662834)
05-19-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:45 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1
Did you notice that the Magellanic galaxies (the home of SN1987a) were ejected from the core of the Milky Way?

I never noticed that, and neither has anyone in the astronomical community. That's primarily because it isn't so. The LMC and SMC are in orbit around the Milky Way, but they, just like the couple of dozen other sattelite galaxies, formed seperately and have different chemical compositions than the Milky Way. The "river" is a trail from a recent* orbit that brought the clouds a tad too close to our galaxy.

*"recent" including numbers of years up to the hundreds of millions


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:45 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 2:37 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

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


Message 81 of 309 (662835)
05-19-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
05-19-2012 12:24 PM


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

Ringo writes:
It sn't an assumption; it's Newton's First Law. It's - once again - based on every observation.

No observation from billions of galaxies supports the notion that atoms do perpetual motion.

Newton did NOT begin his book Principia Mathematica with first principles. He simply assumed his principles and went on to define matter space and time as a measurement OPERATIONALLY. He rejected the common sense notion of time (crowing roosters and twilight) and defined time as a mathematical entity that is unaffected by anything exterior. Yet no one has ever detected any time or measured any of its properties. There is not a shred of evidence that time has an actuality. It exists in our minds, as Solomon explained 3,000 years ago. Yet scientists actually use it as the independent variable in many of their formulas and laws.

The death of modern physics will come about because of the visible history of the cosmos. Not a single ancient galaxy shines with the light of modern atoms. When we compare the morphology of galaxies at many ranges, we observe how clumps packed with stars accelerated out from formerly naked cores. We observe how galaxies intrinsically grew as the properties of all matter kept on changing in defiance of every law of modern physics.

Because scientist were trained to think with a single assumption, a first principle, they have filled the universe with magical things like invisible matter and vacuums that stretch themselves as they stretch all the light passing through the vacuum. No pagan could invent such absurd myths as scientific mythology / cosmology. Why? None of their laws of physics is being followed anywhere in the past. None of their definitions are supported by visible evidence. So they obfuscate - exactly as the Bible predicted they would do - because they think that all things remain the same. Even the Earth follows the simplicity of biblical physics. The continents only fit together on a tiny globe without major seas. The Bible states three times that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity and this happens above the waters.

The scientific first principle is visibly false which is why none of their laws of physics, which were contrived with an assumption, work in hundreds of billions of galaxies. But they work locally, says the scientists! They only work in the world of mathematical symbols. The symbols do not represent reality. If clocks are accelerating - as we observe - then the symbolical world of mathematical reality will crumble. Only a biblical cosmic history and biblical creation are supported by the only history that is visible as it happened, galactic history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 12:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2012 1:32 PM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 2:09 PM godsriddle has responded
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2012 9:10 PM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Panda, posted 05-19-2012 9:36 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5407
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 82 of 309 (662836)
05-19-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:13 PM


Re: first assumption
The death of modern physics will come about.....

bullshit.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:13 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17510
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 83 of 309 (662837)
05-19-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:13 PM


Re: first assumption
godsriddle writes:

No observation from billions of galaxies supports the notion that atoms do perpetual motion.


All observations of all moving objects have confirmed Newton Laws (with allowances being made for relativistic effects and quantum effects). Every motion is perpetual - until some force changes it.

godsriddle writes:

Because scientist were trained to think with a single assumption, a first principle...


That still isn't true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Scientists are not trained to assume that nothing can change. They are trained to look for evidence of change.

Edited by ringo, : Speling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:13 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 2:53 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 84 of 309 (662838)
05-19-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
05-19-2012 12:59 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1
I never noticed that, and neither has anyone in the astronomical community. That's primarily because it isn't so. The LMC and SMC are in orbit around the Milky Way, but they, just like the couple of dozen other sattelite galaxies, formed seperately and have different chemical compositions than the Milky Way. The "river" is a trail from a recent* orbit that brought the clouds a tad too close to our galaxy.

Yet the Magellanic stream does not orbit the MW, it links back to the southern end of our galaxy. The evidence that miniature galaxies were ejected from larger active galaxies is visible, since we observe the past exactly as it happened long ago.

The chains of star globs spreading out is visible in the Hubble Deep Field and at many ranges throughout cosmic history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2012 12:59 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2012 9:03 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

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


Message 85 of 309 (662839)
05-19-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ringo
05-19-2012 2:09 PM


Re: first assumption

All observations of all moving objects have confirmed Newton Laws (with allowances being made for relativistic effects and quantum effects). Every motion is perpetual - until some force changes it.

On the contrary, we observe in all parts of the spectrum how star globs accelerated outward as galaxies intrinsically grew - taking up more space concurrently with the accelerating atomic clocks. Many galaxies are spirals and they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of matter continued to change in defiance of every law of modern physics.

That still isn't true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Scientists are not trained to assume that nothing can change. They are trained to look for evidence of change.

You are right that scientific training does not explicitly focus on the first principle. The first principle is inferred in almost everything scientists do, think and measure. Indeed it is the foundational assumption with which they define their symbolical versions of reality - things like mass, energy and time. They even operationally define methods of measuring these invisible entities by circularly using their assumption. They had to assume that today's atoms are identical to yesterdays in order to invent the modern empirical system.

Proclus, the last of the pagan philosophers, lived in an age when there were several competing versions of science. He wrote: "No science demonstrates it own first principles or presents a reason for them; rather each holds them as self-evident, that is more evident than their consequences. The science knows them through themselves, and the later propositions through them. This is the way the natural scientist proceeds, positing the existence of motion and producing his ideas from a definite first principle. The same is true of the physician and of the expert in any other science or art. Whoever throws into the same pot his principles and their consequences disarranges his understanding completely by mixing up things that do not belong together. For a principle and what follows from it are by nature different from each other."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 2:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 3:09 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 86 of 309 (662840)
05-19-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:06 AM


another false assertion at odds with reality
Hi godsriddle, still making unfounded assertions to no effect.

... You can easily prove what your first principle is. Try really hard accepting the visible fact that every atom is observed to change. ...

Amusingly I have no problem with the knowledge that atoms are constantly changing or that this has in fact been observed and documented.

From 14N being converted to 14C or the fact that atoms are made of particles that are made of sub-atomic particles that jump in and out in a constant dance.

... but because you were trained to think with a creed, ...

Sadly, for you, this is quite a false assertion. To think you know more about me than I do is ludicrous and your need to assert this is more your problem with dealing with reality than mine.

None are so blind as those who think with a blind creed.

You should know eh?

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 76 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:06 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20226
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 87 of 309 (662841)
05-19-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:45 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Hi again godsriddle,

Did you notice that ...

... you did not answer the question? Yes I did. Here it is again:

Message 72: 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?

So where do you find a fixed reference system for determining how long ago SN1987a exploded? ...

All other nonsense aside, we can deal with this issue when you answer the question regarding the calculation of the actual distance between earth and sn1987a.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added distance in quoted section here as well


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:26 AM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17510
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 88 of 309 (662842)
05-19-2012 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 2:53 PM


Re: first assumption
godsriddle writes:

On the contrary, we observe in all parts of the spectrum how star globs accelerated outward as galaxies intrinsically grew - taking up more space concurrently with the accelerating atomic clocks. Many galaxies are spirals and they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of matter continued to change in defiance of every law of modern physics.


That is in no way "contrary" to what I said. All you're doing is pasting in random snippets from some blog.

godsriddle writes:

You are right that scientific training does not explicitly focus on the first principle.


Then it isn't a first principle.

godsriddle writes:

Proclus, the last of the pagan philosophers....


Maybe it's time for you to move ahead to the nineteenth century when at least scientists knew what science was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 2:53 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2012 4:24 PM ringo has responded
 Message 172 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:40 AM ringo has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 417 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 309 (662846)
05-19-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ringo
05-19-2012 3:09 PM


Cuts and pastes from a blog...
He might be getting a lot of his material from here:

http://www.godsriddle.info/2012_02_01_archive.html

Sounds like it is his own blog, too.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 3:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 4:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17510
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 90 of 309 (662847)
05-19-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
05-19-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Cuts and pastes from a blog...
Or here: http://godsriddle.com/ (crank warning).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2012 4:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2012 6:12 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019