Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8962 total)
236 online now:
DrJones*, jar, RAZD (3 members, 233 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,347 Year: 1,095/23,288 Month: 1,095/1,851 Week: 219/320 Day: 78/56 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 17 of 309 (662220)
05-13-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
05-11-2012 10:44 PM


foreveryoung writes:

But, what if there is more to reality than the physical world. What is there is another reality that cannot be detected by physical means?


If there was an alternate reality that couldn't be detected, then creationists wouldn't be able to detect it either. The charlatan says, "There are some things that can't be explained... so here's the explanation...."

You can't have it both ways. If it can't be detected, it can't be detected and you can't claim it happened. If there is no explanation, don't try to explain it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 05-11-2012 10:44 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 18 of 309 (662221)
05-13-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
05-11-2012 10:44 PM


Deleted double post.

Edited by ringo, : @#$%ing wonky wifi.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 05-11-2012 10:44 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 157 of 309 (664175)
05-29-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by godsriddle
05-29-2012 4:09 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
godsriddle writes:

The Bible clearly states that time (Hebrew olam) is in our minds (Ecc 3:11).


On the contrary, Ecclesiates 3 clearly states that time is reality-based:
quote:
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by godsriddle, posted 05-29-2012 4:09 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by godsriddle, posted 05-30-2012 2:53 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 168 of 309 (664241)
05-30-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by godsriddle
05-30-2012 2:53 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
godsriddle writes:

The months were not measuring time, they were merely markers for the passing of cyclical events.


That's what measurement is: counting the markers. We measure the age of a tree by counting the rings. We measure the speed of something by counting the number of heartbeats that it takes to move a certain distance.

goddsriddle writes:

Moses could no more have imagined a 24 hour day than he could visualize a cell phone.


Your contempt for the Bible authors is noted.

Of course, Moses did (as the traditional author of Genesis) go to considerable trouble to establish the orderly passage and measurement of time, right in Chapter 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by godsriddle, posted 05-30-2012 2:53 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by godsriddle, posted 05-31-2012 12:15 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 220 of 309 (664810)
06-05-2012 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by godsriddle
06-05-2012 1:04 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
godsriddle writes:

You only have to look at OUR UNIVERSE to know...
2. that all visible atomic clocks in billions of galaxies clock a different frequency than local atoms.


You assert that but you haven't shown that it's true. (Do you even understand what an "atomic clock" is?)

The only way you could show that your claim is true is by some kind of measurement, which you seem to be claiming is impossible. How can you tell that those clocks have different frequencies if you can't use time to measure the frequencies?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by godsriddle, posted 06-05-2012 1:04 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by godsriddle, posted 06-06-2012 9:03 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 297 of 309 (665043)
06-07-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by godsriddle
06-06-2012 9:03 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
godsriddle writes:

You cannot invent a precision empirical system without assuming that atoms are always clocking the same rates.


We had a precision empirical system for measuring time longbefore we knew anythng about atoms.

godsriddle writes:

There is a simple way to test whether clocks really are linear.


As I understand it, there are a number of proposed explanations for the Pioneer anomaly. Why do you reject all of them and jump to the conclusion of non-linear time? Your motivation seems to be "the Bible sez so", which is meaningless in this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by godsriddle, posted 06-06-2012 9:03 PM 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 © 2020