Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
470 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 464 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,254 Year: 4,366/6,534 Month: 580/900 Week: 104/182 Day: 11/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 33 of 171 (676659)
10-24-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Maddenstein
Larn, the consensus-nonsensus claim that the existence as a whole possess the property of duration is not right or wrong by evidence or absence of it, it's just plain impossible by definition.

And its also impossible by definition for light to behave as both a particle and a wave. But it does. Being impossible by definition doesn't constrain reality. Reality, it turns out, is really fucking weird.

And people deal with that in different ways. Your way seems to be to deny that scientists know anything at all and are just wrong about most things. Its a good thing that you believing ridiculous stuff doesn't halt the progress that science continues to make... put a man on the moon n'everything. Gawsh, those scientists are so dumb


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 2:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 171 (676779)
10-25-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Panda
10-25-2012 8:54 AM


Re: Lonely
Re-reading this, I see that you do not actually have any friends or relatives in your life that you could show your posts to.

That explains the cat fascination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 8:54 AM Panda has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 171 (676817)
10-25-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 11:35 AM


The cat may be a brain in a vat or a rat on a mat.

Actually, we all live on a planet that is orbiting the Sun in a corner of the Milky Way galaxy.

None of that is going to save your bigbangist faith from rational scrutiny

I actually do have faith in some things. The Big Bang is not one of them. I've come to accept that explanation through the examination of evidence. Faith is for when I don't have enough evidence.

and make it less idiotic upon examination.

What is it about your beliefs that makes you only want to destroy knowledge and never contribute to it? All you ever do is try to discredit things that we do know, but you never actually add to anything. For example, in Message 36 you wrote:

quote:
It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once. Waves require medium necessarily. Wave is a moving shape of that medium. Therefore, the description is a metaphor and could be well replaced with other more concrete description better reflecting the physical attributes and architecture of the phenomenon of radiation.

You say that the definition is a problem, and that a better definition would be better. Well no shit. But you don't offer anything that would be better. Your content just covincing yourself that there is a problem.

So allow me to speculate here on why you do this: The Big Band and Evolution are incompatible with your religious beliefs so instead of modifying your religious beliefs to fit within the new evidence, you discount the evidence so you can maintain your beliefs. Is that close? How religious are you?

ABE:

It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once.

Oh, yeah: A photon isn't like a tennis ball.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 11:35 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 73 of 171 (676878)
10-25-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 1:49 PM


What evidence is that you examined? The same as for Jesus walking on water? All you've got is authority to parrot, my friend.

Um, except for that one time that I did time travel back to the early universe and see it for myself (totally forgot my camera , I'm afraid that the way presenting evidence here works is basically parroting an authority.

But anyways, regarding the evidence: there's Hubble's Law; where the glaxies that are farther away are more redshifted.

That tells us the universe is expanding. Its not hard to imagine that if you rewinded time, then everything would be much closer together.

On top of that we have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radion:

That the early universe was near universal in temperature pretty much confirmed the Big Bang Theory.

You didn't answer my other quesitons though: Why are you so intent on destroying this knowledge? What drives you to want to deny it? And why do you gotta be a jerk about it?

Anyway try this. He is anti-relativist every relativist needs to read.
www.youstupidrelativist.com

You, sir, have totally delivered. I wasn't sure what to expect, but with your reputation that site is as batshit crazy as I should have expected it to be. Thank you for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:49 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 171 (676893)
10-25-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 3:36 PM


That's not good enough, Vatican.

Good enough for what? Its good enough for my acceptance of the Big Band not being based on faith.

Bill Gaede is as rational as it gets.

Oh, yeah, getting deported for being a spy was totally rational

Read on. Don't be shy. You might learn a thing or two.

Why don't you present some of the best evidence from it rather than just pointing me in its general direction?

And I still don't know what motivates you to want to eliminate scientific knowledge. Please explain that for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 3:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-27-2012 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 116 of 171 (677509)
10-30-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-30-2012 3:01 AM


You're funny. While you're proclaiming all these things to be impossible, scientists are busy studying and measuring those things.

They can measure the energy differneces in the photon and the electron after the scattering:

And yet you simply proclaim that what they are sitting there doing is impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-30-2012 3:01 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-30-2012 8:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 123 of 171 (677589)
10-30-2012 5:03 PM


light waves
Some people seem to think that we might be taking the consideration of light as both a wave and a particle on faith. I actually sat through a physics lecture in college where the professor demonstrated the two-slit experiment with both water* and light. It was really awesome to see and very convincing. Since I was convinced, I would say that I'm not taking it on faith.

*it was actually a really cool aparatus with a water bath that was put on an overhead projector so we could all get a top-down view of the water waves going throught the slits

For those who know nothing about it, here is a really good animated video that explains its very simply in 5 minutes:

For those who won't watch a video, here is the the wiki link.

Here's the jist of it:

When you shoot waves through two side-by-side slits, you get a diffraction pattern because of constructive and destructive interference (if two peaks line up you get a bigger peak but if a peak lines up with a valley they cancel each other out). Here's a gif on that:

You'll get that pattern if you do it in a bath with water and you get that patter if you do it with light. Both water and light travel in waves.


Now, here's the funky part. We also know that light can be quantized as a photon. When a single electron moves from a higher energy shell to a lower one, a single photon of light is emitted. The double-slit experiment is actually done with electons rather than photons, but they both propogate in the same way. They have emitters that can emit a single electron at a time. So even when its gets one electron at a time, you still get that same diffraction pattern that you'd get from a wave. If electrons were like mini tennis balls, then you the patter you'd get would just match the two slits instead of showing the diffraction pattern.


It gets even crazier than that, because when a single electron is approaching the slits, you'd think it have to go through just one of them. But how does it know that there's another slit right next to the one its going through!?


Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 6:12 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message
 Message 130 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-30-2012 9:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 132 of 171 (677646)
10-31-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-30-2012 8:38 PM


You can always measure a positive value when you believe your prayers are answered. All you need is an explanatory framework to demonstrate you are special. And you can make a graph and show that to the skeptics.

Are you saying that scientists are not really measuring those things? Do you really think they're just lying?

That's just not true. They really are measuring something and it really is real.

Whereas Bill Gaede explains while assuming only what is physically possible,

And that's why Bill has failed miserably. He's the one who is taking his position on faith. He doesn't have any evidence to back up his claims, he's just created a fun little story that fits along side some phenomenon and remains internally consistant. He's idea is no more supported than The Matrix. That you and him acually believe it has some veracity is what it is to take something on faith. Its just the opposite of when scientists collect data and build a testable hypothesis and work up a theory. How much data has Bill collected? Any at all? I didn't see it. Its all just based on assumptions and semantics.

Waves are waving in the hypothesis not by magic but through a plausible medium of electromagnetic ropes connecting all bits of matter in existence and of necessity eternally configured to be in tension. That tension of taut ropes is conceptualised as gravity while the speed of light signal travelling along the threads as the rest of the causal interaction.

That's all just made-up bullshit. I've seen the difraction pattern from the double slit experiment with my own eyes. Light behaves as a wave.

Vast difference next to your ridiculous faith. Lots of phenomena are stripped of their weirdness, quantum or otherwise. Any mathematician can translate any of this into lovely measurements and nice graphs.

Reality IS weird. The fact that you and Bill want to change reality to fit within what you consider not-weird is an example of how faith gets in the way of science. The fact that science embraces reality despite it being so weird is what makes real science not based on faith.

Now he offers his rational explanation to you and is met with a heap of abuse, which is a natural reaction on your part. Since rational explanations are the last thing you want needing only the comfort of certainty your stupid bigbangist faith is giving you being currently voted up by the majority.

There's been no heap of abuse. You're just lying. And do you really think you're going to get away with lying to US about what WE want? That's rich. You have it totally wrong. Rational explanations are welcomed and certainty offers no comfort whatsoever. You really have no idea what you're making shit up about.

No wonder he is enraged at you piggish lot and is mercilessly mocking your whole idiotic peer-review set-up and so on.

And this is the epitomy of faith. His idea is wrong so he can't convince anyone that its right. So rather than change his idea he attacks everyone else as being against him. That is only possible when dealing with faith, not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-30-2012 8:38 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-01-2012 12:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 133 of 171 (677648)
10-31-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-30-2012 9:15 PM


Re: light waves
Vatican, that makes space into a waving ocean of light with photons being water molecules. Is that what you are proposing?

No, the opposite. Photons don't have mass like water molecules do.

The cat is aware though that in the theory, light only arrives and departs as photons while travelling all those quadrillions of intergalactic miles strictly as waves. That makes it an ocean stripped of water molecules. Quite a dry affair.

Yes! You do get it!

The reason it works is because EM waves do NOT require a medium to propogate through. I understand that's counter-intuitive, but the trick is to not let your intuition get in the way of understanding reality. You have to seperate your faith from the science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-30-2012 9:15 PM Alfred Maddenstein has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 171 (677649)
10-31-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by nwr
10-30-2012 7:06 PM


Re: light waves
The original belief in the ether was based on faith.

I don't think that's quite right.
It was based on an hypothesis that happened to explain many of the observed phenomena. But I think most physicists of that era were quite aware that the ether was hypothetical.

I'm not sure where I sit on this one...

I agree with you that that propsing the ether as an explanation doesn't require any faith. But as Taq phrased it, believing in the ether; wouldn't it take some faith to get to the position that it actually does exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by nwr, posted 10-30-2012 7:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 10-31-2012 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 171 (677695)
10-31-2012 9:57 PM


Vernacular is the biggest hindrance to physics.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 171 (677735)
11-01-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-01-2012 12:04 AM


Bill's explanation is internally consistent...

Being internally consistant doesn't tell us anything about whether or not its true. The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings are internally consistant.

...and yours second hand one is not.

Bullshit, that's a lie.

So yours fails already before any testing can even begin.

That's because you're employing faith instead of science. You declare it wrong by fiat. You never test anything. That's the epitome of faith and science is the opposite of that.

What is there to test if you have no clue what you are talking about? You just flip and flop and dance around the issues. That what inconsistent means.

I don't know what you're talking about and that's not what internal consistancy has to do with. Do you even know what "internally consistent" means?

That is how you ended up with the Universe popping out of nothing

False. The Big Bang Theory doesn't have the Universe popping out of nothing.

You've got nothing, Vatican. Your case is closed.

But as you've admitted, you decided that before you even began any testing. You're taking a faith based position. Its not really something that science can argue against if all you're going to do is close you eyes, stick your fingers in your ear, and yell "la la la la la". Stop behaving like a child and learn something already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-01-2012 12:04 AM Alfred Maddenstein has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022