|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Limits of Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
simple writes:
quote: No, fiction of a movie, or a claim that the past was physical only doesn't go far without reality and evidence. Your attempts to sillify all but your own baseless assumptions, however are noted.
quote:I do not remove ant real Y's. Only the ones you try to sneak in there cloaked as science, yet as feeble a fable as one could forge. Here is a real simple formula for you. If you claim the past was PO, and that it is science, put your evidence where your mouth is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:My initial reaction was to look to science, but they can not go there save by belief and assumption. Therefore it must remain an unknown until such a time as they can. Meanwhile, I have the advantage of the ancient documentation that records the history of the universe, and it's future, and so I use that rather than your nothing. I welcome all to go ahead, and use nothing if they wish, and leave it unknown. It's up to you what you use where science is left behind. The good news is that it does fit the evidence we do have.
quote:OK, they are not science, so unless one has an interest in the writings, they can't help you there. I accept that the record was there before the written record. That was like a time when God made a copy from the heavenly hard drive, and faxed it down to us. The record represents the only connection man has with that past pre split! quote:It can't, you must remain in darkness, and admit you simply do not know. You are welcome to use any belief you wish to try to explain it, as many use old age beliefs, just don't call it science, please!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:No, the light we have was not generated under identical conditions. We see that the same conditions now apply far away as they do here, like being in a state of decay, as we notice in 1987a. The merged univese state of the past had a different fabric of time/space, and light relationship, and composition. All we see is the present state. Light that was also spiritual in nature could not be limited by mere physical speeds and properties. That is why light from far stars could be seen here almost right away. As the seperation process finished, leaving us in this temporary physical only state, the light coming in was left as is. It was not 'generated' from the far away source as such, but was left that way still coming in on that old highway of light. The assumption it was generated as is comes purely in assuming that it also used to be in a PO state. quote:It has been what it is since it came to be at the split. It used to get here in days, or hours, or some such little time. After the split, it got in the way it now does, as this different light. If we want to get fancy, with supernovae , and how it exploded as expected, showing it operates as we do, I can explain that as well. quote:Think about it, you assume it was the same light. This light was not here, it is what was left after the split. The former light being also spiritual, and different, got here almost right away. It left our light that is what it is and does what it now does, which is move slow as molasses in comparison! quote:No. In the split process, the spiritual was seperated, leaving just the physical, which is what we see, -as expected, as operating as physical objects ought to operate! The fact that we can see it means just that the light with the info in it got here very fast. If the space between the star, and earth was slightly slower in transforming from spiritual to physical only, it means that it was still merged long enough for the light to either get here, or, in some cases, get well on the way here, I would think. As we see in the Cosmic background radiation, it is not perfectly smooth. perhaps this is a trace of something other than the claimed big bang. So, unless it could be shown that the universe from creation was just physical, the past merged universe also explains things. Too bad old agers can't do that eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
The thing that makes it hard to understand is we always looked at things as if we were in the natural created state. Assuming things came to be as a result of the -what we thought were 'natural' processes. Since the PO is only a temporary state, and the coming, and past merged state is the true natural, everything must be looked at again, and the assumptions checked. If we realize it used to be different, then it is no deception.
As for the thread you mentioned, here is a quick take on it. My comments in {} ...................... .................... ----"8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location) {Trees grew in days in the past, this is irelevant} 45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location) {[Hyper growth of bacteria, algea, and other things as well as hyper deposition rates, routine flooding and almost daily drying from subteranean water, and other big differences render the present way it is formed as irelevant also} ... corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life) {Carbon levels in the past not subject to present based assumptions} 110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether) {Present assumptions again not applicable} 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether) With water above the earth, and below, there were many possibilities of mass amounts of this forming. I think chemically, as well as the hyper growth rates applying to the same material produced organically] ... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes) {The daughter materials in the rocks were already there, engaged in a different process that was not a decay process at all. After the seperation, the 'switch flipped' and the process became one of decay. Observers in the present see that the decay process is now in effect, producing the daughter material, and assume it was all produced by the decay process, over great time, since theoretically if the process always were the same, it would take great time. Now, the same question, was the past the same, and the process? How can we know? Certainly not by just assuming the present was always the same as the far past!} Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)" {Same deal, the present simply IS NOT THE KEY TO THE PAST after all, and no proof exists to say it can!} This message has been edited by simple, 04-13-2006 04:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Thanks for admitting that! What the hec kind of starting assumption is that? quote: So, first assume it is old, then treat all evidence as such, I see. The only thing you'd test there is the patience of anyone who actually paid attention to what you were doing, and didn't share your religion, or beliefs.
quote:What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the belief based assumption was faulty for the one, the rest of the ducks following all are heading to the same pond. No doubt convinced they might find the first lifeform there! It isn't how many ducks are heading to the wrong pond that counts. Now let's not duck the evidence here. quote:If the underlying assumption is not solidly supported, it is not science, more like stand up comedy. Evidence is more important than the number or wrong conclusions one can collect. quote:No, not forgetting, just never heard of them. Tell you what, all I ask is the kind of prood we have for gravity, then I will accept your old age past fantasies as fact. I don't need absolute, so called 'proof'. Just real solid reasoning, and hard evidence, not just spinning interpretation on the evidence. Let's see you claim the evidence for your old age side, as exclusively where it must go. As is, there is nothing at all but some unsupportable assumptions you aren't used to having questioned. quote:Let me see here, I guess you actually want us to swallow your claim that the past was physical only, as well as your claims there is no gravity, magnetism, or electricity!!!!!!? Think about it. Does that sound like a solid case to you? quote:Well, we can turn on a light, and see electricity, or observe and test a magnet, ot the magnetic field of the earth, or gravity. No contest, these beat unsupported assumptions the past and future doesn't involve more than the present PO state any time. Your hunches are only of so much value. quote:That is in box evidence, applicible to the present. It's fine in the fishbowl, you can't take it out though! Otherwise you might crash our galaxy in the future, and have our universe in a speck in the past! Sorry, dark dreams need more than just the fact you like them. quote:Yes it is, we can teast things about the recent past. I think they pickled Einstein's brain, we could test that. We can teast all kinds of things from the recent past, that is science! We know that past was just as PO as the present, all our assumption hold water. Beyond that is where you crash and burn. quote:Not unless your present Po fishbowl has 4 dimensions. The past does leave evidence, that is not in question. But show us where this evidence shows the universe was PO, and will be? That is the stuff you lack, the rest is assumptive fluff. quote:So, you agree it was in the soup speck, but don't like to talk about it that way, fine. I'll respect your religion. quote:The spiritual exists, ask almost anyone. As you say, it offers explanations based on what is under it's little nose. That is fine, unless they claim that that is all that also ever was or will be! And do so without support to boot! I don't quaetion what they see under their nose at the moment. quote:No, you can't cram the universe in your box you dream up. All you can do is inform us all you see is the 4 d bit in your fishbowl. Whoopee do. quote:You bet. Remember that one. quote:Since you predict things like our galaxy crashing, and sun burning out, and that the decaying, dying universe is all there ever will be, I vote you ought to pipe down, since you admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about! Give the kids a break. Stick to what you know. Teach them all about the fishbowl. quote:Not only known, WEKK known! The majority of the planet recognize it in one form or another, always have, do you think we are all nuts? quote:Of course not, all they know is the PO present universe, and ASSUME it was all there was or will ever be! They are not capable of detecting where it will change. They speak of the box, only the box, and in the box. I don't mind that, it is a big PO universe we have. Where the rub comes is predicting for no reason it is the same forever before and after. quote:That is old age assumptive spin. You need to show not 'what if it were always the same, then this and this would be like that and that' . But ' We KNOW it had to be PO in the past and must be in the future because...... this and that and the other' Otherwise it is pure circular reasoning, in box beliefs, and self fulfilling prophesy! quote:The rate they grow does not affect the fact tree rings are present does it? So, how in the world can you begin to tell us how fast they grew? Now, since this is science, consider your position in need of evidence. We need to know some test that we can perform that would seperate a tree growing through all the laws as we currently from a tree growing in this spirit realm? Can you do that? No. So don't pretend you can. You can't talk to us of pre split growth rates! The evidence is on my side as well. All you do is repeatedly predict in a plethora of ways, that the past must operate like the present. The science lies in the present, the past and future bit is nothing but speculations it was the same! quote:I have no problem. You do. There was no decay universally pre split, and all assumptions about evidences you make are nothing more that repeated assumptions it used to be the same. Put some meat on the plate here. quote:None. You overvalue your beliefs. Take an example. Tree rings. They grew in days, science has nothing to say about it, except that is not how they now grow. I agree it isn't. Now if science grows an opinion actually about why the rates must have been the same then precisely, I would like to hear it. Meanwhile, the echo of your baseless assumptive opinions on the future and past are all that is bouncing around the room. quote:What evidence is there it didn't? If you claim there is some science to apply here let's get on with it. Assumptions alone, unsupported just don't cut it. [quote] As it stands though, our assumptions have been tested in a variety of creative ways and the results are consistently supportive of the concept that our assumption is valid. ... [quote]
Like what? Name one. Creative indeed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:The space between there and here I would think was still merged long enough to get the light here. The seperation process may have had areas that became PO first. For example, matter may have taken more time than light, or space, etc? The result being that the physical explosion, or reaction, or whatnot, was conveyed to earth in the still merged light! It realluy was a physical reation. quote:A result of either creatiomn or the split. Since as I just pointed out the seperation process was not unifrom perfectly, it seems to make sense the CMB isn't either!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I understand you think you have a point. But I am saying the light was the same since it came to be, after the seperation. So, what you would be seeing was only since the light came to be. If, as I say, it was on the way here, with the info in it at the seperation process we would expect to see the info! Now, this means that the merged light carried the info of the physical only changed matter we see out there to us. Now, all light is simply our light. quote:Of course. What I meant was that the whole universe is physical only now. Whether that star is still there, at the rate light now travels we don't know. What we know is that the star (or supernova) was physical enough to give expected normal reactions, apparently. quote:Of course you are assuming plenty. It didn't change on the trip it IS the change. No one says our light changed. It is the change. Of course we would know if 'light' as we know it had changed. quote:No. The light we see is our light. The light that Adam saw was not. Our light came to be as a result of the split, we were left with it. The reason it carries info from far away, is because it used to get here quick. That is the former light, in the merged universe. The split happens, and it is now not what it was, but just our light coming in still. Since the stars first were affected by the process, the still merged light carried the info of the now physical star on it's way to earth. The light still carried the info as it was left in a PO state. It comes in with that info. It comes in at it's speed that did not cahnage since our light came to be after the split. Using assumptions that the light and universe was always the same, they assume it took a long time. It did not. Again, the present is NOT the key to the past. It is jsut the culmative echo of unsupportable assumptions about the future and past being PO! That all you got?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
OK, so you are beat, and can't provide evidence the past was PO, fine. I understand the foul words, I was frustrated once when my arguements were weaker too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Actually, I was pointing out that is YOUR arguements, since you can't support the claim upon which all old ages ideas are based! You may be a little dictator bully on this forum, that is fine, ta ta. There was no physical only past, you can't show there was, your tooth fairy so called science is a joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:No, circular reasoning. You assume it is old, assume the past was PO, then inyterpret things that way
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
"Sorry, I'm just describing the universe as Einstein saw it, simplified slightly. The universe simply exists as a single entity with 4 dimensional coordinates. Time is one of those coordinates"
He saw it using the same phyiscal present natural only assumptions, so relativity is relative only to the temporary PO universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
"Are you suggesting then, that we cannot test anything to see if it might be true using a different line of evidence? "
No, but if PO tests are all that are run, PO conclusions are what you will get, similar ones, no doubt. If you could first show the future and past had to be the same they would have some bearing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
"That's not how testing works. Testing works by saying 'if our concept is true, then we should see evidence from an independent source indicating the same thing. ' That's how we test our hypothesis that the earth is old. "
True up to a point. True in the box. But in missing the true past, the conclusions rapidly fizzle the further from the present that you base everything on you go! And you can't show the past was the same, you you might as well appeal to magic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
"I've only seen ad hoc explanations. I've not actually seen the evidence explained as a whole. There is no unifying principle to explain the whole sequence of coincidences. All you are saying is 'yeah, but logically it could have happened and we'd never know, all sciences evidences about it would be wrong'. "
...... No, I am not saying any such thing. The unifying principle is the spiritual added past and future. It is greater than an in box unifying principle they seek but cannot find The reason is that it can't be found in the temporary physical only fishbowl!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: You misunderstand, the star originally was merged. That is spiritual and physical together. After the split, it was, like the rest of the universe, physical. Physical only. It is expected to have a physical signature! The reason we see it, is because the still merged light and space between there and here carried the information, the light towards earth. I thought Simp explained that.
quote:As just explained, it had every reason. quote:His theory accounted perfectly for that. Once again, the stars became just physical, and the still merged light brought the light here in the split process. As a rough example, I think it goes something like this. The split process, let's say, as an example took 12 hours. (I have no idea if it took 12 days or 12 seconds, and it sounds like Simp got nixed there). The star wa one of the first things to be left only physical. say, after 12 minutes. The light from that now physical star shone, and was carried along in the still merged highway of light toward earth. Later, the light also was left as the light we know, still coming in, and carrying the information on this physical star.
quote: I think he has the bible, and as it was pointed out, it is you who cannot back your crap claims the past was just physical (and the future) up! And that is a shame. This post rendered invisible by AdminModulous - user was suspended and tried to use a different registration to get around this. If the user is allowed back, the thread will be reopened and the posts made visible again. This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 16-April-2006 10:46 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024