These lawyers who take the side of the government, do not agree with layers who may be hired say, at the moment by democrats, or special interests, who have lawers that say whatever they are paid to defend.

quote:

---

I understand what every word in this means, but how does it really relate to the limits of General Relativity.
You've just quoted a page on LQG thinking it relates to what I said.

---

The limits of science from whatever theory or perspective would be the relation there. Generally GR has to do with the operation of the known universe, so it would only come into question if it approached the unkown, like what is the fate of the universe, or in relation to quantum thinking at the moment. Does GR tell us that the nothing became a hot soup, for the big bang? Or is it just used after the fact to try to be applied? Does it tell us there is just a physical universe, or is it just applicable to most of it? Does it tell us black holes can be used in the production of stars, or can it just be adapted to the concept? Does it tell us what gravity and time are? No, it has it's limits.

quote:

---

Just because a single case example is monotonous doesn't mean the theory hasn't interesting intellectual depth.

---

Of course not, it is amusing, among a host of interesting things we could know about the world, and the universe.

quote:

---

They're all a hundred years old, hardly "de jour".

---

In the big picture, a century is quite a little time.

quote:

---

Besides, that's all fine and well, but what we know is immense.
I don't know how much we know amounts to, compared with all there is to know, however we still know a hell of a lot.

---

Righto, and bully for us, ra ra ra, and all that, chap, darn, we are good. Who would question that?

quote:

---

You can point out that there is something beyond what we know, but so what?
Of course there is something beyond what we know, of course we might not be able to understand it.

---

Thank you. God as well, no doubt. So let's not ommit the unseen as a likely influence on the seen.

quote:

---

However look into what we know and you'll see how much we've accomplished.

---

Yes, a little pat on the back now and then is always in order, don't just sit there gawking in a mirror all day!

quote:

---

General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, tell us things about the world we couldn't have ever made up in our strangest fictions

---

Yes, too bad they don't agree.

quote:

---

to dismiss that knowledge because it is limited makes no sense to me.

---

Why dismiss it? Add them to the list of theories that can't expain everything, and prove we have a long way to go.

Global warming, for example will have some on both sides of the issue! Like lawyers. Doesn't mean all play for pay, but then we get into the mixed bag of pet theories, and each one will have scientists who usually support them, while all the while, some of the theories are at odds with other ones. No doubt most are honest, and, despite the limitations, and not knowing, whichever side turns out to be the wrong one, the sci guys in the other theory will only have been honestly mistaken!

No, it has it's limits too.

quote:

---

Let's not try to carry this analogy too far.
My point was simply that the mathematics is built into the methodology, so it cannot be dismissed as simply as you would like. If you want to criticize the methodology, then you first need to learn a lot of astrophysics, so that you can understand fully what you are wanting to criticize.

---

Hey, you picked up the ball, and tried to run with it there, don't blame me!
As far as criticize something, and learning a lot about astrophysics, I think looking at the core assumptions may be a good start.

quote:

---

interplay between people of different beliefs based on the same data is different from those paid to make data seem to support something other than it does.

---

Right, but it is done. Tobacco companies may have an expert testify and the testimony is different from the other side, and the scientist, or expert they purchased. The Manhattan project was scientists tring to make a weapon to kill as many people as possible. The pure persuit of knowledge there, it would seem to me might be a bit of a lame claim!
By people of different beliefs, I take it you are talking about scientists looking at the same evidence, but coming up with different things as to what it means?

quote:

---

is global warming happening?
is it caused by humans?

​

two different questions with two different answers.

​

can we do anything about it? do we want to? both debatable.

---

Yes, I might ask Bill Wattenburg the question, and get a different answer than if I asked someone say, greenpeace hired. Yet each would lay claim to science.
So, looking at the universe, we might have some who believe it is several different ways than each other.

quote:

---

When did you last chat to Einstein or Feynman about your ideas about their fields?

---

The impression wasn't from chatting, but at least you were able to get you little smug attitude a little airing there.

quote:

---

Funny, it was the other way around this morning at church. But then my church has always been rather heavily creationist.

---

So, the church ( we assume if you meant synagogue you would have been open about it) you went to today always has been creationist, and to a large defree as well! Interesting, so you mingle as one with people who believe in more than a physical universe, likely many with some evidences they feel in their lives. Any church like this must break bread together as well, I can imagine your little grin, as you smirk at those folks. Must be a good feeling? ..The other way around? In other words they believed in the loves, but not the standard cosmo model, I guess you mean. If you believe in both, then you must admit there is more. If you do not, anyone listening to a word out of your mouth ought to hang their head in shame.

quote:

---

But the disagreement would be about the cause not the fact of rising temperatures. This is not arguing about the evidence, but what it means. Part of any skeptic application of scientific data.

---

Bingo. And creation theories use the same evidence generally, or lack of it as the big bang theory, and others.

quote:

---

As to the lawyer prompted specialists: their job is to obfusticate - is nicotine, but is the link to cancer\addiction clear and is it only from the nicotine? (You are pushing this one because now you are back in the courts where they only allow you to anwswer specific prepared questions. You are also using technicians hired specifically to do for tobacco companies what "creation scientists" do for AiG and the like: start with a premise and fill in the facts to fit. This is not science in either case, but pseudo-science.)

---

But for example, in BB, they start with a premise, that something came from nothing, and proceed from there. 'Gee, we got this little universe in a singularity, now lets see if we can run with it'! In the split/merge idea that was brought up in the thread before it split, then merged back in cosmology here, the CMB is explained in creation itself, and the split. Same evidence, not argueing that, but, as you said, 'what it means'.

quote:

---

When it comes to honest disagreement over the evidence it occurs in all sciences. You see this with the physics data too - dark matter vs ekpyrosis vs MONDE\PA acceleration systems etc.

---

Again, in the creation/evolution/old ages debates, usually evidence isn't under question, say like present radioactivity, or light speed.

Then I do apologize! My dumbness entirely there, in making assumptions. God bless you.

quote:

---

What are you talking about? What money? Do you think theoretical physicists are well paid, or funded by industry, or Disney or something???

---

Well, here, I was responding to this
"This is the bread and butter of theoretical physics." Not that those in the field made much or little, but that the making of money itself didn't make something right.

quote:

---

What do you mean? At what level? Time baffles the hell out of me, but that is at a much deeper level than you are thinking. But then it was my job for several years.

---

I might think that I consider time at a deeper level than you. For example, in the bible, there is a little sentence, or phrase that I think says a lot on the matter of time. It says, '...time shall be no more' This to me indicates that when the temporal universe passes away, and the new heavens and new earth are revealed (in their true full beauty, and physical and spiritual eternal state) time will really cease to exist in any limiting, or meaningful way at least. This means that time here and now is 'temporal'. Something that exists, I assume, because it is needed in the temporal physical universe.

I had done some posting back when this thread originated. On the topic of the supernova, I had a response, and after many months, went back, read it again.RAZD- "because then there would be NO time difference between the star light and the ring light: that would have been in the "instantaneous light" period OR the universe since the time instant light ended is still older than 168,000 years." http://EvC Forum: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) -->EvC Forum: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)And "and the fact that you had to extensively overhaul the concept to provide variations means that the original concept was destroyed by the evidence ... just to clarify that little issue." post 257Since then, I have thought more about it. If the merged universe (spiritual and physical) was here in our past, it would mean light was not limited, as ours now is, for any who missed the old stuff.
As I see it, (and it doesn't matter much for this discussion anyhow), the seperation would have been about a century after the flood, or something like about 2300 yrs BC. Around this time then, it would have had light replaced by our present version. Razd's point was if 1987a happened back in the time when the instant light was here, it would not make sense, or be possible, because of the rings on the supernova, I think. They move as they should, not in some instant fashion, of course.
Now I wanted to try a new take on this important point. The seperation came, and we were left with present light, but it seems reasonable that this light carried information from it's point of orgin, info which until the split came instantly. The change of the former into the present light seems to have left a time delay in the light, and the info it carries! Something in the seperation event, and how light was affected by it. The spiritual elements seperated, and the result, is the light we now have, yet with an undetermined delay in the time it takes info to travel along this highway of light.
As an example, we could say, a time delay for information, of 2350 years. So, if supernova 1987a happened 2313 years after the split, which we roughly placed at 2300 BC, (4300 years ago) we would have it showing up on the 'light information superhighway', say in 1987! Just about right!
My question then is,
This would be impossible, because....... ????

Seems like the antichristian axe has fallen again in these parts? Won't see Pauly no more, I suspect. I have seen this topic here, tjough.Error | Christian Forums

Note:The link above goes to a message on another board by one of our members who is currently under a 48 hour suspension for failure to follow the rules and guidlines. DO NOT reply to this post.

​

sciguy, continued spamming our board as a method of getting around the rules and guidlines will result in your posting privileges being suspended.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-18-2005 10:07 PM

quote:

---

I have noted before that gravity is probably the least understood mechanism in science ..

---

Can you think of any solid reasons that we actually know there was gravity in the earth's past? Say, before Egypt. Is there any evidence it existed then?

This post rendered invisible by AdminModulous - The 'simple' saga continues. The irony is, had simple decided to opt for the temporary suspension he'd have been reinstated several times over by now.

​

The curious can click the Peek Button to view the post.This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Thu, 11-May-2006 08:06 AM

quote:

---

(2) the total failure to detect the gravity {force\wave\particle} at the quantum level ... no gravitons in spite of many years of looking and variety of ways to look for it.

---

So, you are claiming here that there is no gravity that we can detect at the quantum level?