Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 46 of 62 (564858)
06-13-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by anglagard
06-12-2010 1:52 AM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
Teaching and Learning STEM
Without the edge of the universe in the equation you get a negative like this ball analogy in this physics paper.
infinite density with no area sound familiar? The body the universe is expanding in is overlooked. like the vacuum and what it signifies. Do they even calculate the pull of that vacuum on the masses of matter when doing gravitational calculations? if no, and its because its irrelevant, why is it irrelevant?
sure your pretty educated and pretty smart. but your not all educated and all smart. and the ignorance of God is proof of that. So i say, lets understand existence. and most say: you never will, you cannot, etc. I dont believe that. i think its thinking like that; that has kept us from knowing sooner. so i keep looking and my education will come. For now, I'm testing the educated. Because if the educated take the position they will never know, then i will ignore them and do what i must for my degree, yet learn and grow and prove and invent and teach in the end, what IS true.
Only when you understand what IS true, can you begin to work on what "may" be true.
Do we know now? certainly not verified. CAN we know? i say yes. time will tell.
Edited by tesla, : fixed link.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 06-12-2010 1:52 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 06-13-2010 10:01 AM tesla has replied
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2010 10:05 AM tesla has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 47 of 62 (564864)
06-13-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by tesla
06-13-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
Not Found
The requested URL /...r/public/kenny/papers/physicist.html was not found on this server.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 9:08 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:09 PM nwr has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 62 (564865)
06-13-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by tesla
06-13-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
Without the edge of the universe in the equation you get a negative like this ball analogy in this physics paper.
Your link is incomplete. You need to give the entire link, not just an abbreviated form. But it's ok. I found the paper here
You did not read, or did not understand, the paper. It does not say what you suppose. Try again.
Do they even calculate the pull of that vacuum on the masses of matter when doing gravitational calculations? if no, and its because its irrelevant, why is it irrelevant?
It is irrelevant because "vacuum" has no intrinsic force. See Message 190

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 9:08 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 49 of 62 (564908)
06-13-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nwr
06-13-2010 10:01 AM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
Teaching and Learning STEM
sorry; this link.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 06-13-2010 10:01 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 06-13-2010 5:39 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 50 of 62 (564914)
06-13-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by AZPaul3
06-13-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
you found the wrong link. this one :
Teaching and Learning STEM
quote:
It is irrelevant because "vacuum" has no intrinsic force.
i know, that if you take a closed container and empty it, it will have a force attempting to correct the imbalance in pressure. you can measure that.
So if this area of the earth contains a certain amount of pressure due to gravity, it also will have SOME pull against it because space does not have that gravity. yes gravity holds it together, but there must be some pull against it. but its relative.
for instance, if you exist within the gravity of a much larger mass than the earth, elements will then have the potential to exist in a heavier structure than can be mimicked on earth, because without the extra pressure, it would not maintain the density. because the vacuum of the gravity of the earth would rip it apart. because the earths gravity in comparison, is a vacuum. so its relative.
why do you think you have not been able to compose heavy stabilized elements greater than the ones the physicists of the day have made? it cannot remain stable under the earths "conditions".
maybe your right, maybe I'm just uneducated and a moron, but maybe I'm right. just because you learn something does not mean its correct. like a flat earth? remember that? einstein said " a question oft repeated in my mind, are they the crazy ones, or am i?" If I'm wrong time will tell. i will learn. but for what i have observed of the dynamics of a vacuum, i cannot as of yet rationalize the mechanics of it any other way at this time.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 06-13-2010 10:05 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 06-14-2010 1:26 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 51 of 62 (564918)
06-13-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Otto Tellick
06-11-2010 11:38 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
nothing is supernatural and the way you understood it is fine. the point is the things you call supernatural like a God who cares and answers prayer, is natural to the dynamics of existence, but is not understood.
I'm not asking you to accept anything supernatural, I'm asking you to accept nothing is truly supernatural. we have ignorance, and then their is the truth. but the truth although now speculation,. can one day be known.
Too many look at "supernatural things" then ignore it, what hope do you have when you have limited your mind by deciding it cannot be known? perhaps it can. if your mind is open to the possibility.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2010 11:38 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 52 of 62 (564919)
06-13-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Taq
06-11-2010 10:28 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
Ive given the definition. i dont have all the answer's. I'm still looking, I'll let you know if i get better data. I'm still learning and much to learn; much to observe.
Time will tell.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 06-11-2010 10:28 AM Taq has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 53 of 62 (564920)
06-13-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluescat48
06-10-2010 11:10 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
because i know supernatural is a lie. it's just what we call things beyond our comprehension. it does not mean it will always be beyond our comprehension. it just means it still is right now.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 06-10-2010 11:10 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bluescat48, posted 06-13-2010 8:35 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 54 of 62 (564921)
06-13-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
06-10-2010 8:35 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
short answer is yes. but you want that explained and i don';t have the data together yet to "prove" it.
so yes. newtons formula's with the data of the edge and body we exist in show a whole different ball game than a universe returning to an infinite density with no area.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-10-2010 8:35 PM Taz has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 55 of 62 (564923)
06-13-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by tesla
06-13-2010 5:09 PM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
tesla writes:
Teaching and Learning STEM
sorry; this link.
Great.
Now that we have the correct link, perhaps you would care to explain why the linked page is related to your claims. The connection certainly is not obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:09 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 56 of 62 (564933)
06-13-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by tesla
06-13-2010 5:30 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
it's just what we call things beyond our comprehension.
You may call it that, I simply call it things not yet discovered and keep it natural.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:30 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 57 of 62 (564954)
06-14-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by tesla
06-13-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
you found the wrong link.
Ok. But the link I found was germane to the subject. Your link is a math tutorial. It says nothing about vacuum or pressure. It certainly does not justify your continued insistence that the Universe must have an edge. There is some major disconnect here, tesla. Your link does not address the subject you seem to think.
i know, that if you take a closed container and empty it, it will have a force attempting to correct the imbalance in pressure. you can measure that.
This is correct. The atoms/molecules outside the contained vacuum exert pressure on the wall of the chamber. Since there are no, or fewer, atoms inside the container their pressure outward on the walls is less. There is a differential in pressure exerted on the wall between the atoms inside the container and those outside the container. This differential we define as vacuum.
So if this area of the earth contains a certain amount of pressure due to gravity, it also will have SOME pull against it because space does not have that gravity.
This is not correct.
First, the Earth's gravity extends into space, past the moon and well beyond. The gravity of the Sun permeates the space throughout the entire solar system and well onto its stellar neighbors. The space around Earth is chuck FULL of gravity fields criss crossing from every direction from every massive thing in our galaxy and beyond.
Second, What is doing this "pulling" you insist upon? The "vacuum" of space? No, tesla. Vacuum has no "pull."
The gravity of the Sun, Moon, planets, galaxy, etc., does, in fact, exert a "pull" on our atmosphere and us, but, this slight tug is massively overpowered by the gravity of Earth since it is much, much closer. The vacuum of space has no force, has no power.
yes gravity holds it together, but there must be some pull against it.
From where? From what?
Other than more gravity from other celestial objects which is very minor in comparison, WHY "must there be some pull against it."?
Again, tesla, the so called "vacuum" of space has no force.
for instance, if you exist within the gravity of a much larger mass than the earth, elements will then have the potential to exist in a heavier structure than can be mimicked on earth, because without the extra pressure, it would not maintain the density
No. Gravity does not maintain the composition of the elements. EM, strong and weak nuclear forces do that. Except when gravity becomes so strong like in a neutron star or black hole, the structure of the elements, ALL OF THEM, remain stable (give or take an isotope or two). And in the extreme environments of neutron stars and black holes the integrity of the atom is demolished, they are crushed into their constituent parts, they are destroyed.
because the vacuum of the gravity of the earth would rip it apart.
Wrong. Gravity has no vacuum, tesla. Vacuum is not gravity. Gravity is not vacuum. Nor is either a constituent part of the other.
[abe]
Gravity is the force that keeps the atmosphere in place, to be sure, and is responsible for the phenomenon of atmospheric pressure, but this cannot be conflated with the idea that gravity and vacuum are equivalent or that gravity somehow exhibits properties usually associated with vacuum.
[/abe]
And all of the elements, all of them, tesla, here, there, everywhere, exist just fine in the massive gravity of Jupiter as well as in the minor gravity of Earth.
The size of an atom, the number of protons, neutrons it possesses and its stability or radioactivity have nothing to do with the strength of gravity.
EXCEPT within stellar nucleogenesis where gravity plays a major role in causing fusion.
You did know, didn't you, tesla, that, other than hydrogen and some small bits of helium, all the other elements that exist in the Universe, ALL OF THEM, tesla, are made in the fires of Suns and the explosions of stars?
maybe your right
Yes. I am.
maybe I'm just uneducated and a moron
Both of these can be changed by your doing real research, getting a real education, and then engaging educated brain BEFORE sticking foot in mouth.
Edited by AZPaul3, : add edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:18 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 06-19-2010 9:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 58 of 62 (565732)
06-19-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by AZPaul3
06-14-2010 1:26 AM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
You can trust your knoledge too much. in your case, that is what your doing. the vacuum of space does have an effect. it just has not been determined.
There is much to be said i believe, on what a vacuum is and how it interacts with other matter.
All of your posts are a show of arrogance. as educated as you are, you are trying to say definitly what science Say's tentatively. and that means debating with you is pointless because you already trust your knoledge regardless whether it is correct or not.
i will get educated, but i will not trust tentative data accept tentatively. but it is what i can say definitely that i will record and examine to build on. too much is misunderstood, and i will not understand it if i listen to those who do not understand it and are unwilling to examine past what they have been taught.
It isn't the interpretations i want, its the data that led to the interpretation. because ONE missing link will mean a wrong interpretation and years of building false data on top of a lie.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 06-14-2010 1:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AZPaul3, posted 06-20-2010 11:28 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 59 of 62 (565769)
06-20-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by tesla
06-19-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
There is much to be said i believe, on what a vacuum is and how it interacts with other matter.
(snip)
you are trying to say definitly what science Say's tentatively
While the theories developed by science are by necessity tentative, the facts are not. Facts like the CMB and the Supernova data. The theories must account for the facts. The facts will not bow to theories.
Vacuum, being a lesser concentration of matter, has no intrinsic power since it is a description of a state and not a thing on its own volition. This is fact.
Even so, theory, properly constructed and based on fact, is a powerful model of reality and yields answers that hold and can reveal hidden facts like the Universe having no edge whether we like the answers or not.
the vacuum of space does have an effect. it just has not been determined.
Based on your feelings. No facts, no understanding, no model, no math, and with a continued willful misconstruction of what vacuum is.
You can trust your knoledge too much. in your case, that is what your doing.
(snip)
i will not trust tentative data accept tentatively. but it is what i can say definitely that i will record and examine to build on. too much is misunderstood, and i will not understand it if i listen to those who do not understand it and are unwilling to examine past what they have been taught.
First "data" are facts. It is the theory explaining the facts that is tentative.
But to the greater question, a little history for explanation.
We have seen what could arguably be the greatest scientific mind in all humanity devolve to magic and superstition when the facts were too few, the science too young, to give him the answers he sought. Answers that later scientists, building on his work, showed devoid of such nonsense.
We have seen another of the greatest scientific minds alter his equations because he did not like what his fact-based theory was showing him leading to the the greatest blunder of his career.
We saw the world sit in great hope when two young men announced a most startling discovery. A discovery that literally hundreds of scientists tested and soon showed to be false.
We have seen the legions of scientists test and re-test, question and re-test yet again, every facet of every experiment of every science over these past few centuries.
We have seen the methods of science advance the benefit of all humanity in the last 300+ years where the prior 10,000 years of personality and superstition gave us nothing but despair and blood.
I, myself, do not have the intellect to comprehend all the details of the cosmological models. Apparently, neither do you. What I do have that you do not, from history and my own experiences, is confidence in the methods.
I, myself, cannot repeat the double-slit experiments or analyze all the Supernova data. What I have is confidence in the consensus of thousands of life-long experts who, in keeping with the scientific method, have tested and re-tested, scrutinized and re-analyzed all, over the last centuries.
You apparently think so much of this is "misunderstood" because it doesn't fit your "feelings." You have no conception of the power you disparage here.
And when the consensus of the experts improves and changes with new facts and new understanding, as has happened in my lifetime with the CMB and accelerated expansion, then I must change as well. I improve my knowledge based upon the improved and verified knowledge of others.
I have great confidence in the efficacy of science. I have great confidence in the scientific method to evidence reality. I have great confidence in science to correct errors. All this because I have seen it.
I have seen the power of the method. Yes, tesla, with appropriate skepticism, I tow the scientific line.
It isn't the interpretations i want, its the data that led to the interpretation. because ONE missing link will mean a wrong interpretation and years of building false data on top of a lie.
This is good. Go for it.
The evidence is out there for you, tesla. Every experiment, all the raw data, every assumption, all the analysis, all the logic, every re-test, every objection, every open question, all of it is available to you.
The problem is you need the intellectual capacity to understand. You have to comprehend the math, tesla. Without the math you have and can do nothing. Without the math you cannot make a challenge to anything. I do not believe you possess these skills.
But, if you can develop them, when you understand the data behind the model, and the model behind the math, then you will understand why cosmologists say the Universe cannot have any edge. You will understand why physicists say vacuum has no intrinsic power.
You will understand why the facts mean everything, why the theories are so powerful, and why your feelings mean nothing.
All of your posts are a show of arrogance.
You think my posts are arrogant?
Yet you walk in here armed with nothing but your feelings, no training, no education, no comprehension of what came before you, no math, no model, no data, and seek to tell generations, tens of thousands of the worlds most intelligent people, experts in life-long study, that they "misunderstand", that they are wrong?
You want to look upon the face of arrogance, tesla? Look in the mirror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 06-19-2010 9:07 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 60 of 62 (565793)
06-20-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by tesla
06-10-2010 6:48 PM


Re: science and tentativity and trust
Hi, Tesla.
tesla writes:
without objective truths existing; science would have no base to begin tentative analysis.
Sure it would: it would have what we think is objective truth as a base from which to begin tentative analysis.
And, this is pretty much the reality of things.
But, this is not the same as your original statement. You said:
tesla writes:
But i do disagree that all science is tentative. some things are objectively true.
Source
Even when some things are objectively true, all science is still tentative, because, once again, science is not objective truth, but the search for objective truth.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 6:48 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024