Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
70 online now:
nwr, xongsmith (2 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,016 Year: 2,662/14,102 Month: 327/703 Week: 148/158 Day: 1/15 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4558
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 106 of 126 (885881)
04-28-2021 11:53 AM


Regarding Hand-Waving versus Doing the Math
Time to brush the dust off this bit of haggadah (ie, teaching by telling a story):
quote:
The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

(reportedly from an essay by Carl Sagan)


 
An example of the difference between hand-waving and doing the math is arch-creationist Kent Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim:

quote:
All you got to do is step outside and look up. Obviously the Sun is burning. It's losing 5 million tons every second. You can't just keep losing 5 million tons a second, pretty soon you start to lose weight. And so the Sun is losing this mass -- 5 million tons every second -- which means it used to be larger. And it used to be more massive. If you increase the mass of the Sun, going backwards in time for several billion years, you start to create a problem with the gravitational balance between the earth and the Sun. It's going to suck the earth in and destroy everything.

But if you do the math, you get entirely different results than from Mr. Hovind's hand-waving. The total amount of mass lost, while being astronomical (7.88923×1023 tonnes), is only 1/10,000th the total mass of the sun (1.98855×1027 tonnes), which is a few hundredths of one percent. If we were to replace that lost mass to arrive at the mass of the ancient sun 5 billion years ago, the solar gravity then would be so minimally greater that it would have "sucked the earth in" by only about 40,000 miles and would have had no noticeable effect on the sun's size.

BTW, in later videos Kent Hovind is seen admonishing his audience to never do the math nor listen to anyone who has done the math. Three guesses why.

Do the math!


  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5698
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 107 of 126 (885884)
04-28-2021 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Michael MD
04-28-2021 11:06 AM


Re: Entanglement
my ether model would have it that quantum waveforms are primarily generated by etheric processes

What's an "etheric process"?

According to my ether model, what we observe at the quantum level as the peak of a wave represents a cascade of near-quantum ("etheroidal") units, passing into the quantum realm, after being activated, vibrationally, by some outside energy source.

Hmm. "Passing into the quantum realm" -- is that like "Alice through the looking glass"?

As far as I can tell, you are just using meaningless words ("etheric" and "etheroidal" for example). Perhaps they are not meaningless to you, but you have not said anything that would make them meaningful to us.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Michael MD, posted 04-28-2021 11:06 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2478
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 108 of 126 (885886)
04-28-2021 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Michael MD
04-28-2021 11:06 AM


Re: Entanglement
I won't try to go into great detail on it

That's the problem, you have not gone into any detail, at all. I have noticed that the scientists who make great discoveries have never once convinced other scientists without the details.

It sure seems like you are bullshitting us:
ether model
quantum waveforms
etheric processes
quantum level
peak of a wave represents a cascade of near-quantum ("etheroidal") units
the quantum realm
activated, vibrationally, by some outside energy source
nadir of the wave represents local exhaustion of these energy units
etheroidal state into a quantum state
ether in the vicinity of the wave reverts to a quieter vibrational state

Stringing a bunch of sciencey sounding words together just makes it look like you are just stringing together a bunch of sciencey sounding words. There is no indication from context that you have a clue what they mean. Have you done any calculations?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Michael MD, posted 04-28-2021 11:06 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18994
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 109 of 126 (885909)
04-28-2021 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Michael MD
04-28-2021 11:06 AM


Re: Entanglement
Michael MD writes:

I won't try to go into great detail on it


The university that I attended had about 6000 students at the time. One floor of the library was devoted to science. It had aisles and aisles and aisles of large bound volumes of abstracts - i.e. brief summaries of what was in the papers. The papers themselves contained the details.

You can't do science without details.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Michael MD, posted 04-28-2021 11:06 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 04-29-2021 1:27 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5814
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 110 of 126 (885916)
04-28-2021 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Michael MD
04-28-2021 10:12 AM


Death to MMX
All versions of MMX used measurements of light beams …

Yes, yes, Mike, I most certainly do understand that you are not talking about a Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia.

I understand you’re claiming an aether from a much deeper source.

Re-read my Message 11.

quote:
The first thing you guys need to do is show by some Michelson/Morley-type experiments that an aether exists.

Did I use Mickelson against you? Was this language too subtle for you? Did you not see a call for you aether guys to devise your own experiments to show your own brand of aether exists … or not? Why do you get so hung up on MMX?

No one cares. Get off the MMX stuff. Get to the real stuff.

First, you really need to have a stronger tie into Quantum chromodynamics - Wikipedia under the Standard Model - Wikipedia.

Then show us how this aether squares with General relativity - Wikipedia.

All the above should be equations, math. Show us how this aether field conforms to Quantum field theory - Wikipedia, specifically QCD. You’re playing in their sandbox now and you need to bring you own toys and be willing to share nice.

If you get to a level where I can’t handle it, there are others here who can.

The car ("photon") would not be affected by the individual dust particles ("ether units"), and would pass through without interacting with them at all (no inertial interface; the dust is simply brushed aside.)

And in what EV mass range would this dust particle be proposed? Your model needs to define this in the math.

I still claim physics is in error in dismissing the Ether, and in accepting the MMX as evidence.

Fine, Mike. Claim away. MMX = strawman. You are not claiming the same definition of aether. Got it.

You’re claiming an aether arising like a fine dust from ??? that clumps into life by some unknown abiogenic process.

The key is this aether. Is it really there? Other than the earnest pleas of a seemingly confused internet crackpot, why should we look? You can’t tell us what to look for.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Michael MD, posted 04-28-2021 10:12 AM Michael MD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-28-2021 7:48 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 117 by Michael MD, posted 04-29-2021 1:31 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 111 of 126 (885917)
04-28-2021 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by AZPaul3
04-28-2021 6:53 PM


Re: Death to MMX
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I saw an Ether that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish it would go away...

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2021 6:53 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2021 9:26 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5814
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 112 of 126 (885919)
04-28-2021 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
04-28-2021 7:48 PM


Re: Death to MMX
A kiss is not enough.

Excellent, Sir.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-28-2021 7:48 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1169
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 113 of 126 (885926)
04-29-2021 6:15 AM


Wavefunction
Just to say for general interest, the quantum wavefunction is not a physical wave. It's a compact summary of an observer's beliefs/credence. Today we often say the "statistical operator" instead.
It no more needs an etheric model than gambling odds in general.

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1169
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 114 of 126 (885932)
04-29-2021 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Michael MD
04-28-2021 11:06 AM


Re: Entanglement
I do not accept wave theories grounded in quantum theory as evidence against the ether, either

nwr mentioned Maxwell's equations, which are classical not quantum. There are quantum versions of them, though their meaning there is quite different, but still still Maxwell's equations are classical.

my ether model would have it that quantum waveforms are primarily generated by etheric processes

Related to my post above, quantum "waveforms" aren't physical things that need to be generated by physical processes. They're just bets/credences/beliefs expressed in a compact mathematical form.

It's like saying you have a model for how thermal processes can generate bets on the next election.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Michael MD, posted 04-28-2021 11:06 AM Michael MD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Michael MD, posted 04-29-2021 1:20 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Michael MD
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 115 of 126 (885945)
04-29-2021 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Son Goku
04-29-2021 8:44 AM


Re: Entanglement
According to my model, the ether initiates the forces that, when they quantize, manifest to our quantum/atomically structured eyes as waveforms. Your argument that Maxwell had some kind of unique approach to wave theory overlooks the fact that Maxwell, just by referring to "waves," is referring to a quantum effect. I fail to see how that would make his approach to "waves" especially dismissive of an underlying ether's role in initiating waves.

The idea of my model, for how observed waveforms are generated by underlying ether, is that firstly, any outside source of energy would necessarily have to have an etheric component, and the etheric units of the outside energy would exert the energy's linear forces, as it encroaches upon a local area in its path, where the ether is unenergized, and vibrating quietly and randomly. This affects the unenergized "local" ether units, by aligning their vibrations, which causes them to begin entraining, which forms larger and larger ether units, which could be called "etheroidal." Etheroidal units are still within the vibrational dynamic of the ether, but as they entrain further, they become quantum-sized, and at that point, become visible as a wave, which reaches a peak, then, as the local etheroidal units become exhausted, the ether returns to its prior quiet state, represented visually as a nadir in the waveform.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2021 8:44 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-29-2021 2:20 PM Michael MD has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2021 2:28 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4558
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 116 of 126 (885946)
04-29-2021 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
04-28-2021 3:56 PM


Re: Entanglement
The university that I attended had about 6000 students at the time. One floor of the library was devoted to science. It had aisles and aisles and aisles of large bound volumes of abstracts - i.e. brief summaries of what was in the papers. The papers themselves contained the details.

On CompuServe around 1990 I knew the only honest YEC I know of, Merle. Instead of pulling all those dishonest tricks, he would actually try to answer questions. Including doing the research needed to answer those questions honestly. Within a year he was no longer on the YEC side but rather was arguing against YEC claims. Hence my contention that honest creationists do no last long.

In his own account, it was the university library that turned him. While researching a creationist claim that transitional fossils do not exist, he found himself staring at aisle after aisle of scientific journals filled with detailed descriptions of one transitional fossil after another after another, etc. From his Did we evolve?:

quote:
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

. . .

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.


There's lots more to Merle's account, including meeting Jim who tried to lead him into ID. Merle found that ID didn't work either.

 
To quote Jewish wisdom from "Sayings of the Fathers" (Pirke Avoth):

quote:
The more learning, the more life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 04-28-2021 3:56 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Michael MD
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 117 of 126 (885947)
04-29-2021 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by AZPaul3
04-28-2021 6:53 PM


Re: Death to MMX
In asking "where to look" for the ether, my response would be that a fresh new approach to field investigation would be needed. My private research indicates that, in order to elicit physical evidence of an ether, you would need a new kind of approach, eschewing traditional kinds of laboratory investigations, and instead attempt to elicit etheric forces from natural earth sources.

I couldn't go into the details of how I would set up such a field study, over the Internet. The first etheric effect sought for would be levitation. -If a levitation effect was predicted in advance, and then found, it would be strong evidence that it really was due to ether.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2021 6:53 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by anglagard, posted 04-29-2021 5:11 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2478
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


(1)
Message 118 of 126 (885949)
04-29-2021 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Michael MD
04-29-2021 1:20 PM


Re: Entanglement
According to my model, the ether initiates the forces that, when they quantize, manifest to our quantum/atomically structured eyes as waveforms. Your argument that Maxwell had some kind of unique approach to wave theory overlooks the fact that Maxwell, just by referring to "waves," is referring to a quantum effect. I fail to see how that would make his approach to "waves" especially dismissive of an underlying ether's role in initiating waves.

That's pretty funny, you explaining Bullshit to an actual physicist, Son Goku.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Michael MD, posted 04-29-2021 1:20 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1169
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 119 of 126 (885950)
04-29-2021 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Michael MD
04-29-2021 1:20 PM


Re: Entanglement
Your argument that Maxwell had some kind of unique approach to wave theory overlooks the fact that Maxwell, just by referring to "waves," is referring to a quantum effect

Fair play to Maxwell referring to quantum effects, since they're from a theory formulated forty six years after his death. Those etheric particles gave him precognition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Michael MD, posted 04-29-2021 1:20 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1169
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(4)
Message 120 of 126 (885953)
04-29-2021 3:03 PM


Simple Summary of Quantum Theory
Since convincing Michael would be like poor Cnut commanding the tide, I thought a little summary of quantum theory would be nice.

The basic set up of quantum theory involves three components:


  1. A microscopic system
  2. An observer
  3. A macroscopic system selected by the observer. Often called "The Device" or "The measuring apparatus. It doesn't literally have to be our lab equipment though.

Quantum Theory's central concern is predicting the chance of how the microscopic system will affect the macroscopic system. To this it requires two pieces of information:


  1. A summary of the observer's current knowledge of the microscopic system. This is summarised mathematically in an object called the statistical operator*. This knowledge is usually obtained from previous experiments on the system or how it was prepared. It's not objective of course, because it depends to some degree on the observer's pre-existent beliefs about how the preparation procedure works or how the previous experiments worked.
  2. How the macroscopic system works, i.e. in what way it couples to/can be affected by the microscopic system, i.e. does it develop a mark at some point, does it pick up energy or momentum or angular momentum. Most ways of the macroscopic systems react can't be analysed in terms of older classical quantities like Energy etc, it will just be things like "its detection needle moves 5cm".

The theory will then spit out the chances of various effects occurring given (i) and (ii) as inputs. If you plan to look at the system again after the current experiment it also calculates how the observer should update their beliefs based on the outcomes of the most recent experiment. This updating was called "collapse" in older literature, but it is not a physical process.

The typical issues people have with the theory are that:


  1. It doesn't actually describe microsystems beyond how they affect some macrosystems. So if there are no detection devices around it has little to say about microsystems. In short it doesn't actually describe microsystems.
  2. The presence of an observer and their knowledge
  3. The theory supplies no mechanism describing how the observer selects the macrosystem. This is just required as an input

The overwhelming majority opinion among those who study the foundations of quantum theory is that these features are simply here to stay and you have to get used to them.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021