Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
44 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric, vimesey (10 members, 34 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: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1011
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 7.1


(8)
Message 196 of 309 (664405)
05-31-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 2:41 PM


Re: One Enormous And Superfluous Lie
I am sorry that he didn't create it in such a simplistic manner that men born of the enlightenment could not understand how it was actually created.

This for me is the real tragedy of creationist thinking. The universe which science is slowly discovering, and refining its understanding of is mind-bogglingly, spectacularly amazing - from the insane behaviour of the quantum world, to the incomprehensible vastness of the expanding hypershere of space-time, to the mundane wonder of reproduction and (yes) evolution. These are truly, truly amazing things.

If, (as I know you are), you are a person of faith, then a God who has created something like the universe as we are coming to know it, would be something so much more spectacular than a God who waved a wand and created a talking serpent in a magic garden. The universe is genuinely something of which to be in awe. (Not that we don't try to lift up the bonnet (hood) and have a look at the engine to try to figure it out - but, hell, I'm still in awe of it). I wouldn't be in awe of a magic garden - I would feel so cheated by one, compared to the true majesty of what actually happened to create the universe.

In your quotation above, you berate science for not being able to understand a creationist universe, because it is not simple enough for science to understand. It is not possible to get something more the wrong way round than that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 2:41 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(8)
Message 197 of 309 (664449)
06-01-2012 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:58 AM


Science And Antiscience
I do not state they were as if I were stating a fact. All I am saying is that it is possible.

So do we all say that it is possible. But this is the sort of possibility that we ignore until we find any evidence for it, otherwise we have to abandon science for epistemological nihilism.

Let me show you what I mean. Here's someone being scientific. It's you.

Igneous dikes that cut through layers of sedimentary strata, sedimentary strata that was tilted and then had other sedimentary strata layered on top of it, convinced me that one year long global flood could not possibly have caused such all of those formations in the span of one year. There are many problems with it , but one of them is that an igneous intrusion would not go partially through layers of soggy wet mud and then suddenly stop and then form a horizontal sill. It would burst all the way to the top and form a flood basalt. (not flood as in water).

Sound reasoning, I think. Except ... what if the sill marks the point at which, without leaving any other evidence, the laws of nature temporarily and locally changed so that soggy wet mud became impermeable to igneous intrusion?

You tacitly discount this. You have to in order to draw your conclusion. You have to in order to draw any conclusion about anything from any evidence whatsoever. If you allow for the possibility that the laws of nature changed without leaving any evidence that this happened ... well, in that case the phrase "if you'll believe that, you'll believe anything" becomes more than a jibe, because if you believe that, you can believe anything.

So we provisionally rule out unevidenced changes in the laws of nature. Or rather, you and I rule it out when we consider the popular creationist dogma of flood geology. And I, but not you, also rule it out when considering the popular creationist dogma of a young universe.

If you don't join me in this, then you are simply being arbitrary; if you get to pick and choose when you're going to be an actualist and when you're not, then again you can believe anything. You can begin by arbitrarily deciding that you'll believe X but not Y. Then you can say: "All the evidence supports X, so it's true. And all the evidence supports Y, but maybe the laws of nature were different in the particular time and place when the evidence was formed, so Y can still be untrue, the evidence proves nothing."

Well, would a little consistency be to much to ask? Either follow the scientific method, or become a complete Pyrrhonian skeptic. But an epistemological system which allows everyone to pick and choose what to believe according to his or her taste lacks dignity, integrity --- and usefulness, unless flattering one's own preconceptions be considered a use.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:58 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17531
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 198 of 309 (664588)
06-02-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by godsriddle
05-31-2012 12:15 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
godsriddle writes:

Moses did not mention time.


Sure he did. He said that the sun and the moon would indicate the days and the years and the seasons.

godsriddle writes:

The sequence and duration are recorded - but there is no reference to time, per se.


Sequence and duration are time.

godsrddle writes:

The fact that durations are not linear is clearly stated....


Whether or not it is clearly stated in the Bible is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that it is a fact. The fundamental question remains: If time was not linear,how would you know? How would you detect the change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by godsriddle, posted 05-31-2012 12:15 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 1:04 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17531
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 199 of 309 (664589)
06-02-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:40 AM


Re: first assumption
foreveryoung writes:

Science used to be called philosophy. It was the search for certain knowledge. Just because science has bastardized itself from the nineteeth century onward from its honest beginnings, does not mean it is more correct than its original state.


An attainable goal is usually better than an ideal ivory tower goal. The Wright brothers didn't set out to build a perfect aircraft, just one that worked.

The lack of certainty is what makes science science. By constantly improving our knowledge, we can come to a close approximation of reality. By sitting in a tower philosophizing, all we get is seven hundred varieties of certainty - most of it claptrap.

Edited by ringo, : Spleling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:40 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(3)
Message 200 of 309 (664607)
06-02-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by foreveryoung
05-31-2012 1:40 AM


Honesty
Science used to be called philosophy. It was the search for certain knowledge. Just because science has bastardized itself from the nineteeth century onward from its honest beginnings, does not mean it is more correct than its original state.

Actually, from the earliest days much of philosophy has consisted of pointing out, with unnecessary smugness, the rather obvious fact that certain knowledge is not to be attained.

Among the reasons why this is so is the existence of people like you, who can always come up with some sort of mighta-coulda-if-and-maybe scenario under which what appears to be plainly true isn't. Since you can always do this about any scientific proposition, no such proposition can be considered absolutely certain.

Honesty would consist of admitting that this uncertainty rather than pretending to an absolute authority which no-one in fact possesses. Would you think me honest if I declared that it was absolutely certain that the laws of physics have never changed, or would you think me either dishonest or a fool?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by foreveryoung, posted 05-31-2012 1:40 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


Message 201 of 309 (664763)
06-05-2012 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
05-19-2012 3:06 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
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.

Parallax is useful for measuring the distance to nearby objects. For example, the distance to Venus during the 2004 transit was much larger than the canonical value measured using atomic clocks.
However, in the case of SN-1987a I have not read of a parallax measurement.

1. They counted the number of modern days between the first light and the reflected light of the explosion.
2. The angular size of the inner ring, which does not appear spherical (different parts of it lit up years apart on the arrival of the shock wave).

No one measured any time. In fact no one has ever measured any time.

Time is an operationally defined entity that has no correspondence in the world of real reality (the world of visible things).

Despite this scientists measure thousand of empirical things - scaled from a concept of time - such as meters and light years.

An atomic clock is really two clocks that tune each other in a feedback loop. The first clock irradiates cesium. The second counts the emissions from the relaxing cesium and tunes the first clock for maximum emission amplitude. If cesium atoms are changing RELATIONALLY (as all atoms are observed to change RELATIONALLY throughout cosmic history), then the atomic clocks would keep tuning themselves and scientists would continue to blindly measure things that only exist in their minds.

Most scientific measuring units exist in a world of mathematical reality that has no correspondence to the real visible world. This is certainly whey all scientists deny the visible history of the universe, since it violates almost all of their definitions and consequently all of their laws of physics.

Edited by godsriddle, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2012 3:06 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 1:55 AM godsriddle has responded
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 06-05-2012 11:00 AM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2012 9:48 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

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


Message 202 of 309 (664767)
06-05-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
05-29-2012 4:38 PM


Re: ... and more questions unanswered ...
In other words, either the variable speed of light is falsified, or additional things need to be changed in consort with the speed of light in a carefully managed manner.

Each of these will result in other aspects of reality that need to be changed.

I am arguing against your first principle. You are expecting me to counter your arguments BASED ON your assumption. It is impossible to measure the speed of light without using an assumption. What assumption - the one the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same.

Playing the god-did-it card also means acknowledging that god/s have faked the evidence, that all is a hoax, an illusion, and that anyone's concept of reality is as valid as the next. That way lies delusion.

The proof that God did it without using any deception is in the history of how galaxies formed. We observe that the plural heavens (shamaiym) were created first but they had no extension. All matter evidently originally was formless, just like the Creator stated.

We observe how galaxies spread out from point sources, as the stars continued to spread out and accelerate out as billions of galaxies grew into huge, local growth spirals. This is precisely what the Biblical God said He did and continues to do. Look and glory the God of truth who can make fools out of all scientists for His great glory. Look at galactic history not with mathematical dogmas - but with light from every part of the spectrum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2012 4:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 06-05-2012 11:04 AM godsriddle has responded
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2012 10:01 PM godsriddle has responded

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


Message 203 of 309 (664770)
06-05-2012 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
06-02-2012 11:54 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
The fundamental question remains: If time was not linear,how would you know? How would you detect the change?

You only have to look at OUR UNIVERSE to know
1. that time has no actuality as Solomon implied.
2. that all visible atomic clocks in billions of galaxies clock a different frequency than local atoms. We never see any distant clocks clocking the same frequencies as local clocks, even when we calibrated them first (as in the case of Ulysses, the 2 Pioneers and Galileo.
3. We observe with sight a biblical cosmic history. Elohim completed the action of spreading out the plural heavens first. Then he continued to spread out each galaxy and cluster as uncountable trillions of star cluster spread out forming the growth spirals we see locally.

We see exactly what the Bible states that the universe is ancient.
We observe that orbits everywhere continue to accelerate just like our ancestors claimed happened here to which the bible acknowledges. In fact, the Bible even describes the geological ages that passed in few days back when the Mediterranean used to dry up repeatedly during one persons lifetime as their faces grew huge thick brows from old age. Read Job 14.

You cannot invent a valid precision empirical system without assuming that atoms are perpetual motion engines. No perpetual motion atoms gleam from any ancient galaxies. This is why visible cosmic history is the best way to test for what is real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 06-02-2012 11:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 06-05-2012 12:01 PM godsriddle has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 204 of 309 (664771)
06-05-2012 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by godsriddle
06-05-2012 12:26 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Parallax is useful for measuring the distance to nearby objects. For example, the distance to Venus during the 2004 transit was much larger than the canonical value measured using atomic clocks.

Well don't keep us in suspense. What were the two values for the distance to Venus?

By the way the last chance in any of our lifetimes to see Venus transit the sun will occur later today. The next transit will be in 2117.

Please don't stare directly into the sun (or through the unprotected eye piece of a telescope) trying to see this once in a lifetime event. And yes, there's a free Android and iOS App for this event. Search for 'Venus Transit'


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 201 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 12:26 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 2:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 209 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 3:33 AM NoNukes has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 205 of 309 (664772)
06-05-2012 2:07 AM


jeers
What is so terrible about message 187??????????????or 131?????
both have six jeers with basically the same people.

I have six jeers on that one post. I must have stepped on some toes.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2012 5:44 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 211 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 7:20 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 06-05-2012 11:15 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 217 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2012 11:21 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 206 of 309 (664773)
06-05-2012 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by NoNukes
06-05-2012 1:55 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Please don't stare directly into the sun (or through the unprotected eye piece of a telescope) trying to see this once in a lifetime event.

Actually, for many of you on here.....please ignore the above comment and go blind yourselves. I know it won't happen, but I can only hope. You guys have me pissed off now. I am going to red dot this thread like a madman. That is what you did to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 1:55 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2012 2:55 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 221 by jar, posted 06-05-2012 12:11 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 207 of 309 (664775)
06-05-2012 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by foreveryoung
06-05-2012 2:11 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Actually, for many of you on here.....please ignore the above comment and go blind yourselves. I know it won't happen, but I can only hope. You guys have me pissed off now. I am going to red dot this thread like a madman. That is what you did to me.

Y'know, someone disagreed with me once. Maybe more than once. It didn't have the same effect on me as it seems to have on you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 2:11 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 3:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 208 of 309 (664776)
06-05-2012 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dr Adequate
06-05-2012 2:55 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
What is happening to me here is much more than mere disagreement.
For you to even suggest such show just how arrogant you are. It isn't Dr Adequate, It's Dr Arrogant.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2012 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Taq, posted 06-05-2012 11:08 AM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2012 11:58 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


Message 209 of 309 (664779)
06-05-2012 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by NoNukes
06-05-2012 1:55 AM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
Well don't keep us in suspense. What were the two values for the distance to Venus

For 3,000 years astronomers have been recording the orbit of Venus differently from what we calculate.

The Venus Tablet of Amizadugga could only have validity if the whole solar system was smaller. Venus spent weeks too long on the far side of the Sun. It spent half the "too long value" too short for both evening and morning phases. It rushed past Earth in sometimes one day - whereas today it disappears for about 8 days.

Venus is the only planet that has a rotational resonance with Earth (although the Moon is tidally locked to us.

The parallax to the Sun has been steadily decreasing for over 2,000 years. Even if you discount the earliest records we still have
Spencer Jones who used close encounters with the asteroid Eros to calculate the solar parallax at 8.790" (using asteroid Eros - 1941)

IAU radar value 8.794143" (1972 - 149.6 million kilometers)

Parker Moreland using optical parallax to Mars at opposition (2003 -151.6 million kilometers)

Average value obtained during 2004 transit of Venus 8.53" (154.08 million kilometers).

What will the parallax be tomorrow. It should be higher, since we
1. observe that the orbits in spiral galaxies never close but always spiral out (accelerate continually).
2. There is a very simple causal reason for the Earth's orbit to expand (along with the orbits of all the planets. We call it gravity. If the speed of "gravity" is finite, and observations with the VLA when a distant radio quasar passed close to Jupiter show that it is
3. Then gravity must accelerate all days and years equally because it would pull more on the trailing side of the Earth. Indeed paraconical pendula runs for one lunar month show that the gravity from the Sun, Moon and probably the planets affects the precession of the pendulum differently depending on the which side of the Earth those bodies are on during each run.

The Bible plainly states that the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than those from the fathers (gen 47:9). Indeed, it even records the geological ages that passed during a single human life back when men grew thick Neanderthal brows from old age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 1:55 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 8:03 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7129
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 210 of 309 (664781)
06-05-2012 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by foreveryoung
06-05-2012 2:07 AM


Re: jeers
foreveryoung writes:

What is so terrible about message 187??????????????or 131?????
both have six jeers with basically the same people.

Fyi, I jeered you because, after making an extremely sensible and rational post about geology - for which I added a cheer - you slipped back into irrational nonsensical mode and made a nonsense post about god which undermined it.

You're conflicted, but perhaps your earlier post shows that there's hope and if you keep using the rational side of your mind you'll come to terms with yourself and cease being so angry at the world.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by foreveryoung, posted 06-05-2012 2:07 AM foreveryoung 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