An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy

Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here. I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim. You people are going to go around and around in circles with creationists because of your false paradigm concerning how important "evidence" is when discussing issues. "Evidence" doesn't stop you guys when you talk about all the matter and energy of the universe just popping into existence. You just assume its true because no one has been able to come up with an alternative explanation that has its own "evidence" and evidence that meets your definition as well.

Well, science is based on evidence and working with the evidence. If a creationist wants to claim to be doing science or to be talking about science, then it is perfectly right and proper to get that creationist to present evidence and be ready to discuss it. For example, if someone were to try to engage you in talking about what the Bible says, wouldn't you expect him to be able to quote from the Bible in order to support his claims? Why expect anything less of a creationist making claims about scientific evidence?

Along with evidence is working with that evidence, figuring out what it means. That is where we build hypotheses and test them and refine them and then eventually we bundle together hypotheses into a model of how something works, which we call a theory. This should be old-hat for you, since I would have expected some of your classes to have covered the scientific method.

Also, when you require a complete explanation, be aware of what will entail. In The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage, then-new PhD Astronomy Cliff Stoll described how, working in the UC Berkeley computer center, he discovered a break-in into their system and how he and the NSA tracked it back to a German hacker spying for the Soviet Union. I recommend the book highly as an enjoyable read -- NOVA did an episode about his adventures which I once found on YouTube. In it, he described his final oral exams for his PhD. The examiner asked him, "Why is the sky blue?" As I recall, it took Stoll four hours to completely answer that question.

Similarly, if you were to ask why 2+2 is 4, then you would need to wait until you have learned number theory, an upper-division or graduate-level class in mathematics. You need to have had advanced training in mathematics to understand how and why addition and the other arithmetic operations work.

Another example, I could take you through how a computer's CPU works, but it would not be practical. Not only would you need to know and understand digital electronics (one of the simplest forms of electronics) and Boolean Algebra, but you would need to be ready and willing to spend many hours with me chasing sparks through several tens of pages of logic diagrams. It can be done, but within the context of this forum it would not be practical.

In the meantime, there is a discipline called "philosophy of science", which examines how science works and should work. Possibly an area to read up on.

quote:

---

Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here.

---

Of course that isn't true.

quote:

---

I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim.

---

Of course, you could simply ask if you want more evidence.

quote:

---

You people are going to go around and around in circles with creationists because of your false paradigm concerning how important "evidence" is when discussing issues.

---

If you really think that's true there's nothing stopping you from proposing a topic.

quote:

---

"Evidence" doesn't stop you guys when you talk about all the matter and energy of the universe just popping into existence. You just assume its true because no one has been able to come up with an alternative explanation that has its own "evidence" and evidence that meets your definition as well.

---

Really ? Perhaps in your new topic you can produce some examples of that, Good luck finding some - you will need it.

Now do you have anything to offer that is on topic ? Or are you just going to go on dishonestly attack people who dare to disagree with your religious beliefs ?

Don't mean I still won't be suspended or even banned soon. But I won't give up until I am.

Well, since that is your goal, I'm sure that you will eventually achieve it. Not because of the quality of moderation on this forum, but because that is your explicitly stated explicit goal: to force the moderators on this forum to suspend and ban you.

And since that is explicitly what you want to have happen, then the fault of said banning will be entirely yours, not the moderators'.

BTW, as opposed to "good Christian" sites, you will really have to work hard to get banned from here.

dwise1 writes: Though when I use it to display a table, for some reason it seems to pad a lot of space before the table that an admin then has to come along to fix.

Use the [table], [row] and [col] codes. They're described in the dBCode help.

You can't use the HTML codes for tables in a message because linefeeds between codes are displayed, but as you noted, at the top of the table. This may be part of the HTML standard because all browsers do it. For example, you can't do this:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      cell 1 info
    <td>
      cell 2 info
  <tr>
    etc...

Because all the lifefeeds you included to keep things neatly organized become linefeeds displayed at the top of the table. But if you instead do this it comes out fine:

[table]
  [row]
    [col]
      cell 1 info
    [col]
      cell 2 info
  [row]
    etc...

The discussion board's message parser takes care of the linefeeds.

TheRestOfUs writes: Hmm.. I guess I won't be here much longer. I'll be suspended or banned for one reason or another. Percy no need to warn me further. I'll save you the trouble. This will be my last post here.

This doesn't accurately reflect what I said. This makes it sound like I'm going to suspend or ban you for arbitrary reasons.

What I actually said was that if after a couple more days you still haven't figured out a way to make clear which words are yours and which words are not (the easiest way is to just use the dBCodes for quoting) then I will temporarily suspend your posting permissions in this forum while you go to the Practice Makes Perfect forum to work out how to do it. I'm sure everyone here will be glad to provide as much assistance as you need.

If you'd like to discuss the nature of evidence or the process of how one establishes what is likely true about reality then please propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics.

The topic of this thread is the evidence for genic energy provided by supernova data. I originally proposed that this thread focus on tired light, but that's not the direction discussion took, so I'm changing the title now.

Way off topic, but if you use an HTML WYSIWYG editor to create an HTML table, then edit the code to remove all line breaks, that displays properly. E.g. in Notepad++ highlight the code and click TextFX | TextFX Edit | Unwrap Text.

cell 1 info

cell 2 info

To the RestOfUs….

Check out the spontaneous flavor change of Neutrinos to account for the total numbers from the sun.

Now…

quote:

---

Subquantum kinetics, a physics methodology that applies general systems theoretic concepts to the field of microphysics…from http://starburstfound.org/downloads/physics/nucleon.html

---

You seem taken by this proposition made in Subquantum kinetics theory. But is this a new theory or simply a Brusselator like approach to describe physics.

There is an underlying symmetry and resonance in nature. However, I believe that there is eloquence to the physical world that a kinetics process will never be able to capture. Where Subquantum kinetics theory grows and is corrected with observation after observation, no conceptual model outside a mathematical construct appears.

Take the following description of Subquantum kinetics for example:

quote:

---

The operation of these ether reactions causes wave-like field gradients (spatial concentration patterns) to emerge and form the observable quantum level structures and physical phenomena (e.g., subatomic particles with mass, charge, spin, and force field effects and electromagnetic waves).

---

Here is a gigantic step backward in that a “``quas-irigid'' luminiferous ether” is now universally invoked. It is not that the previous invocation of that active ether was problematic enough but now it will be larger and universal in Subquantum kinetics.

Yes, Subquantum kinetics works at some level in that it can make physical predictions from its “fine tuning” of the model to observations.

quote:

---

c) it compares the model's simulated results to actual observations. The model's mathematical parameters are then "fine-tuned" so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model a realistic representation of the physical world.

---

Now the big question… How are all the forces unified? (a conceptual model would be helpful)

About postings my friend… for the best examples just use the “PEEK” button at the bottom… can’t miss.

Please hang around because there is much to be learned.

Also, the neutrino problem was explained in 2001 - and the explanation had supporting evidence by 1998, although by my own memory the solution had been proposed before then

I was writing about it in 1988 so, yes, considerably before...

Yes, that will work.

I should have explained a little better what's going on. When you enter this into a message box:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      cell 1 info
    <td>
      cell 2 info
  <tr>
    etc...

Then the message parser replaces every linefeed with <br>, because that's what the message parser is supposed to do with linefeeds in messages, and it ends up looking like this:

<table><br>
  <tr><br>
    <td><br>
      cell 1 info<br>
    <td><br>
      cell 2 info<br>
  <tr><br>
    etc...

All the <br>'s between table codes (rather than within, i.e., after a <td> code) are rendered at the top of the table by all browsers I'm aware of.

I don't keep suggesting you propose a thread to discuss the nature of evidence just because I like tapping my fingers on the keyboard. People really do want to discuss this with you, but you keep bringing it up in threads on other topics. Seriously, propose a topic over at Proposed New Topics to discuss the nature of evidence (or however you want to characterize it, e.g., science is only paying attention to part of reality, etc.) and I will review it as quickly as I can.

Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here. I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim.

This is a valid position to take. But I fail to see the relevance to this thread, particularly after TheRestOfUs has admitted to being wrong based on being shown evidence.

It might be fun to discuss what would happen if there really is "genic energy" but the discussion would have some rather goofy constraints. We'd have to ignore things like the fact that there are no missing solar neutrinos, and that we already expect and observe red super giants to become supernova.

I've been studying the story of how scientists solved the Neutrino Deficit Mystery. I first went to a site called "NobelPrize.org." where one scientist named John N. Bahcall writes the story out: http://www.nobelprize.org/...prizes/physics/articles/bahcall

Subsequentley I googled and found a PDF of a report in 2005 called "Report of the Solar and Atmospheric Neutrino Experiments Working Group of the APS Multidivisional
Neutrino Study." http://www.aps.org/...ospheric_Experiments_Working_Group.pdf In reading as much as I could understand it seems also like a proposal for funding for a bigger detector to conduct deeper more precise research on the Sun to find out a number of crucial things. On page 6 & 7 I found one of those priorities;

I quote:

" Is nuclear fusion the only source of the Sun's energy, and is it a steady state system?
Comparison of the total energy output of the Sun measured in neutrinos must agree
with the total measured in photons, if nuclear fusion is the only energy generation
mechanism at work. In addition, the comparison of neutrino to photon luminosities
will tell us whether the Sun is in an approximately steady state by telling us whether
the rate of energy generation in the core is equal to that radiated through the solar
surface|the heat and light we see today at the solar surface was created in the interior
~ 40,000 years ago, while the neutrinos are just over eight minutes old."

Unquote.

Hmmm. Could it be they are still not sure that nuclear fusion is the sole source of energy powering the Sun? I have asked a friend of mine who has a Masters in Physics to check this report over and help me understand it better.

Also I did some more googling to see if the experiment proposed to count photons and match them up with the total neutrino count has gotten off the ground yet. I found his proposal for a new detector. The paper was published in 2008: http://www.physics.brown.edu/...on/papers/astro_particle.pdf

I don't know if they've conducted the experiment yet and what results they've got. Anybody here know?

I am also studying LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics more closely on "Genic Energy Modeling" and he presents some interesting theories related to the Earth and the Moon's total thermal flux that may provide better evidence of genic energy.

So I just thought I'd let you all know what I'm doing. I will be back soon.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Hmmm. Could it be they are still not sure that nuclear fusion is the sole source of energy powering the Sun?

I tell my kids this all of the time. Beware of questions referring to "they" without any clear antecedent.

I applaud the effort. But consider this. The energy balance of the sun is a very complex thing. Most of the suns energy is generated form a relatively tiny part of the core. Photons can take on the order of thousands to millions of years to leave the core and make it to the solar surface. On the other hand, neutrinos are expected to escape immediately.

Even if all of the energy generated by the sun is from fusion energy, small imbalances are completely consistent with small mismatches between neutrino and photons received at earth because of that millions of years time difference. Small mismatches between the number of neutrinos and the gammas will be very revealing and are worthy of study even if there is no genic energy.

Claiming that redshift and CMBR are any evidence for the expanding big bunk is an exercise in irrelevance. The issue at hand is conceptual. The Universe is not an object therefore it can possibly neither expand nor cool. Only finite relative objects or systems can expand inside greater systems or objects and get cooler in comparison to other objects serving as a point of reference. The Universe is not capable of that by the very nature and definition of the idea. That is final and no trillions of peer-reviewing consenting quackademics can possibly do anything about it. The faith in the Big Bunk hypothesis is but an amusing example of collective delusion on the global scale. Nothing to do with any science.